I've bolded the key word here: Individuals. If someone tries to hijack a plane post-911, they are not going to be facing individuals, they are going to be facing a mob. A very angry mob.



That needs to be updated.





You won't need Aberdeen Casuals, Millwall bushwhackers or Hell's Angels in the event of a hijacking attempt. You'll have a ready-made angry mob.

Never under estimate the power of a good old fashioned dogpile. Sure, someone is going to likely get hurt. That's why the dogpile is effective. Simple disparity of numbers. Active shooters have been taken down by a dogpile. People armed with improvised primitive weapons won't stand a chance.

The only problem is with getting the dogpile to actually happen.

The cult of rugged individualism has made it almost certain you will be acting alone while everybody else watches.
Just look at the number of times you see it in the news. People murdered while a crowd of their fellow humans stand around refusing to get involved and thinking it is not their problem.
Then after it is all over they all complain about how such a thing can happen without anybody trying to stop it.

This is why I say there is no such thing as an innocent bystander.

At least the bikers understand the one on all and all on one principle.

I don't believe the two situations are at all equivalent. I'm moving, so I don't have time to respond fully, but I'll post my thoughts later. Short version: You can't walk away from a plane hijacking. People no longer are going to assume that any hijackers want a free ride and their buddies released from jail, the assumption is going to be "we're all going to die if these men succeed." The dogpile will happen, and has already happened on at least one occasion I know of.

I HIGHLY doubt we will see another plane hijacking in the near future for two reasons: one, its been done, measures have been put in place, and, well, the leaders arent dumb. They know it likely wouldnt work again-they see that they only had a 75% success rate last time-knowing that next time there likely will be a zero percent (think of the shoe bomber-he was quickly subdued), they will choose softer targets. People will generally react one of two ways when faced with a life or death situation-they will attempt to control the situation, or they will die relatively passively. I would like to think that, in a hijacking situation, the majority of people on a plane would assume the former mindset.
The second reason is that they surf these sites-they do their intel work. the 1996 attempted WTC bombing was a est-it didnt work. So, they went to plan B. We didnt learn the first time-hopefully, we did the second. I am SURE they have read a lot of websites, to include this one, as part of their homework. The people running the show are VERY intelligent-most have been educated here or in Britain. When I was in Gitmo, they had some high level folks down there-a lot of professors of physics, and mathemeticians. Some that were language professors...one of the professors who was detained wrote a book on how to resist interrogation an gain sympathy from the west (and, well, it worked, to a degree). These guys know how to research, how to plan, how to get others to act.

I just finished watching the first episode from last week.

Neat thing in the show about the "war cry".

Also, don't forget to ask if anyone has ever flown a flight simulator. Some of those are so realistic that if they have a lot of hours ( I dunno... maybe over 50? ), they might be the best shot. Don't under-estimate the power of console video games! lol

There is a difference between landing prop planes and jet engine planes. Well, and ones with short stubby landing gears and huge towering behemoths too!

I only caught the last few minutes of last night's episode on escaping a burning building. What did you all think of it?

I personally expect the next attack will involve radioactive material in some way. I'm not ruling out actual nuclear devices, but I think a conventional explosive dispersing radioactive material is more likely.

It'll be done in a way that hasn't been addressed much, or a way that simply cannot be identified in advance. An ordinary vehicle at a sporting event or similar large gathering, or a small aircraft flying over a population center, apparently making a normal approach to a small airport until it diverts at the last minute.

And I'm sure that if I can think of it, so can they.

I was looking forward to this second episode about escaping an office fire, but came away kind of unsatisfied. Anyone else feel that way?

This episode seemed to have a number of things that just seemed...not so practical. For one thing, this approach they take in the show where Cade is orchestrating his own little "squad" of fellow workers. I can understand the utility of giving people tasks to do in a crisis, but I have never heard of any real life examples of something like this happening in any fast paced, real fire or situation requiring escape, like an active shooter situation.

What was the deal with having to check why the sprinklers weren't working? To my knowledge, no sprinkler will be on if there is no fire or heat below it to break that capsule that they were trying to jimmy. If a space is cool enough to enter, I wouldn't expect any sprinklers to be on there.

Breaking through the drywall was one technique that I had never really thought of before when escaping a fire or even an active shooter and probably the one new, interesting technique I took away from that episode.

I'm was surprised that there wasn't any mention of any sheltering-in-place techniques. Granted, I suppose the point of the episode was escape, but many high rise office building and hotel fire plans only evacuate select floors immediately impacted by a fire. The occupants on the other floors are to stay where they are, presumably safe long enough for the fire department to get there and knock down the fire. 9/11 may have changed the plans in some buildings, but most tall office buildings can't get around the fact that they were not designed with fire stairs with enough capacity to evacuate all the occupants to the ground in a reasonable amount of time. You can't even open the stairwell doors and have people trying to pass by without a big traffic jam.

And how many of us would be willing to rappel out of a 10th or 11th floor window using ethernet and printer cables? To me, that was definitely one of those Poseidon Adventure moments.

One fact of life which I was hoping the show would address is the problem of locked doors. People have died in smoke-filled stairwells because once they entered the stairwell, the doors automatically locked behind them and they were unable to get back out of the stairwell. Or many office doors or suites are locked, so if you exit the stairwell on a different floor and you're not an employee of that particular business, you could get stuck.

I wish they'd do something to make Cade a bit more likable. He's just really stiff and I don't feel any particular affinity to him. In contrast, Terry Schappert on the History Channel show Warriors can be a bit sappy at times and he mentions his own Special Forces background way too often, but I like the guy. I feel some loyalty to him and that's part of what makes me want to watch that particular show (and it's a well done and informative show IMHO).

I am in general agreement with Arney here. I too never thought of mouseholing, although it is standard practice in MOUT ops. One thing that I TOTALLY disagree with is the wetting yourself down-I understand it cooling you, but, as I have friends on several different FDs, I had asked before why they dont simply wet themselves down. The answer is to avoid steam burns due to the water flash-evaporating. Now, granted, with bunker gear on, it may be different, as you are heading INTO hot rooms, and have an outer layer that pretty much makes you a pressure cooker, but I am still on the fence about this. wetting something to breathe through is fine-wearing clothing that is soaked, and suddenly being exposed to high heat, I would think that could cause 2nd degree burns over most of your body. Any firefighters here please chime in, as the flash steam scenario to me is a little freaky!

Water conducts heat. It is the same reason why you don't want to be wet in cold weather.
(The weight of the water is only a minor problem in comparison)
If you try lifting a hot pot in the kitchen with a dry and then a wet towel you will see why you want to be dry.

You don't want clothing that turns into fuel for a fire or that will melt and stick to your body either, but it is unlikely that people will start wearing Nomex everywhere all the time.
A lot of times people are severely burned because their clothes caught fire.