I am an old woman and probably couldn't kill a hijacker by myself right now, but I could be a serious annoyance for them and allow someone else the chance to kill them.

In a heart beat I would do whatever I could to stop them and that would mean doing the best I could, depending on my circumstances:

In seat 1B I would kick and scream and demand that my co-passengers come along behind to defend/support me.

If I were in seat 37F, I would revert to my cheerleader skills and loudly encourage everyone on board to rush and kill the hijackers.

USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA................

Oh man, does this mean I'd be more useful in coach????? I don't necessarily mind giving my life for mankind, but it would be nice to be comfy along the way.



[This message has been edited by Punki (edited 09-15-2001).]

I thought about this when driving back up north this past week (flights out east got cancelled) as I figured no pilot would do a suicide mission (at least not 3 in a day) and that the hijackers had to be at the helm and would concur with most that it was a do or die anyway situation.

When I heard it was knives that were used, I thought that grabbing a seat cushion flotation device or two, and then using these as shields, would be a good way to rush the hijackers. The straps can be wrapped around your forearm to hold the seat cushion in place.

Punki - thanks for the laugh.

Just an idea, probably a silly one because I don't know the legal implications ... but can pax legally carry pepper spray on board the plane?

I remember a lawsuit in CA a few years back in which Humboldt police had been sued by logging protesters for rubbing pepper spray directly into the protestors' eyes (ouch). A description of what it felt like:

"It's a lot like bobbing for French fries in a deep fat fryer. That's what it feels like when this chemical weapon is applied to your face."

http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9710/31/pepper.spray.update/

Surely a blast to the face of a hijacker with some pepper spray would buy you some time to further your defense ... maybe allow flight crews to carry this on board? They could use it for air rage as well, or that crazy cheerleader in 37-F.

A rollerboard in the face would be even more effective.

Good comments made but remember, these come at a time when we realize the situation afterwards and have had time to plan and organize. These terrorists are highly disciplined and organized. This is their work. And there is nothing more fearful than someone who does not care to die while we do.

However, it seems that as FTers we think fast on our feet and once someone takes the lead, others would follow. Now of course, we would be more prepared if this incident were to occur again as we march on with our laptops and seat cushions as shields.

I do have to admit that when flying before, I used have a box cutter or scissors with me to cut out Kellogg's boxes if I found them at better deals than at home. I would have certainly taken mine out as a weapon to fight back. But with the new FAA security, I would now be deemed more defenseless.



------------------
"Fly me to the moon and let me earn alot of miles."

I don't think any of these new measures would have stopped those terrorists nor future hijackers. The only difference now would be the passengers won't have anything to use against a hijacker.

In Texas we allow concealed weapons because a few years ago a man with a gun terrorized a Luby cafeteria. There were many innocents killed and the survivors all reported that they wished they had a gun to fight back at the time.

I have been thinking about this topic since there was talk about the passengers on the PA flight fighting back. I think what they did is wonderful, but wondered if I would have had the courage, if there was any doubt that it might be resolved in another manner. I gather they knew how the other planes had been used and that would make a big difference, just as it will in all flights in the future.

Whenever I get on a plane I am one of those 'weird' people who double checks the cards too see if any information has been added. I also look around the cabin (am just learning from this board how to get out of coach) and note any children or older people -- just in case a situation arose that they might need help that I could possibly provide.

Would I start action against hijackers? I would love to answer a resounding "YES" (and my heart says so), but honestly I am not sure. Would I do anything and all I could to assist someone else in such action? This I can give a resounding "YES" to.

just catching up here after days of sadness just outside my window...

i think artboy is right

this question is most likely moot

the terrorists did this and got away with it the first three times because no one expected them to. because that fourth plane was delayed 40 minuetes leaving the airport, the passengers on it who had cell phones became aware of the fact that they had been turned into unwitting missiles and were able to do something about it. now that we're all alert, the terrorists will find some other ways to attempt to damage the nation. i wonder why they're beefing up security at airports but not surrounding nyc's water reservoirs with troops. perhaps a nerve gas attack in grand central may be next. maybe an attempt to take out an intellectual landmark - the library of congress? or, more likely, harvard or stanford or mit?

i'm not kidding and not being dramatic. these people clearly have very big plans. there's lots of them. we can't get them all.

and i'm very, very scared.

My answer before Sept. 11 would have been no; as others have pointed out, hijackers have traditionally (!) relied upon their captives as human currency to be exchanged for the release of political prisoners, etc. The comparatively few deaths that had resulted were either murders to show the terrorists were serious or apparent accidents as where a plane ran out of fuel.

Now, the "rules" appear to have changed. What was unthinkable before has now become our new reality. With that in mind, you bet I would fight. With the kinds of weapons that could realistically be smuggled on board, a concerted attack by passengers should be sufficient to overwhelm the hijackers, though perhaps at the cost of the loss of the aircraft.

For what its worth, the water supply for NYC is currently surrounded by the National Guard.

So yes, one of the big priorities has been to lock down the logical secondary/followup targets.

"May you live in interesting times" - chinese curse

The majority on this thread seem to leaning towards the idea of passengers taking violent action in a hijacking situation after the events of September 11th.

I've checked out a couple of the pilot's boards on this subject.... They have a very different perspective and are concerned that they’ll be faced with a spate of mini-Bruce Willis’s rushing the cockpit door any time anything suspicious occurs.

The majority of hijackings still end without suicide and the last thing pilot’s want is passengers taking independent action when things are actually under (relative) control. In any type of hostage situation (e.g. deranged individual with explosives strapped to the chest in a shopping mall) the police always recommend the hostage acts calms, tries to talk to the hostage-taker and above all else does not "try anything" unless a clear opportunity exists to escape.

Of course every situation is different and there may be times where it is obvious that passengers taking action may be the only thing to do but I can’t help feeling this type of talk is dangerous.

ACORD: Before last Tuesday, I would have agreed with you. But there is a new paradigm in hijacking.

I personally believe that not only should folks take matters into their own hands should this ever happen again, I would love to see the deterrent value of a preflight announcement something to the effect of: "In the unlikely event of a hijacking, all able-bodied men and women should attack the hijackers by any means possible. To be most effective, once one person attacks, everyone should follow."

I'm totally serious. There is a new paradigm here and it calls for new rules. The old ones no longer apply.

An interesting thread, this. The overriding consensus here is falling around two general choices:

1) in instances where the objective of the hijacker is "traditional" in that they do ultimately expect to live, we would go along quietly. However
2) in the new hijacking paradigm as evidenced by 9/11 we would fight to the death.

The question was raised earlier as to how you divine the intent of the hijacker so you can make your choice? My argument is that if you're a "traditional" hijacker, would you find yourself essentially out of business? I mean, besides all the normal impediments to hijacking, the traditional hijacker will now have deal with armed guards, increased airport security, fortified cockpit doors, increased & modified crew training, immediate and probably deadly use of military force, and last but not least PAX that will be looking to quickly bum-rush said hijackers and likely open the entire can of whoop-a** on them. Given that, I'd say the chances of a "traditional" hijacking just fell to around nil, making nearly all future such events of the latter "new" variety.

Therefore, your "choice" will almost certainly have to be the latter.

-- jab

edited for typo

[This message has been edited by jabber (edited 09-17-2001).]

After going downtown today in an ill-fated attempt to get my laptop, work notes, etc. (permission to enter downtown east of Broadway really means Nassua and east, not the east side of Broadway), I will say that there is no question in my mind any more that you fight back. They could turn out to be the "reasoanble" hijackers, but I am no longer willing to bet on it.

Here we are in the "new" normal!
Will the airlines still tell FA and Pilots to do nothing?
Before this I would sit still, now I'm leading the charge1