My kind of pilot...

FedEx Captain's Advice on Hijackers

I am a DC-10 Captain for FedEx. I am also a Police Officer for the Memphis Police Department. My purpose in writing this is to share some of my thoughts regarding actions a pilot might consider when faced with a modern-day hijacker. These thoughts are "outside-the-box" when it comes to the way we've all been trained. Neither the FAA or our companies will suggest any of these techniques or implement them as a part of our normal training cycles.They couldn't for fear of lawsuits. I am distributing this via e-mail to buddies I've flown with. I'm asking them to send it to their circle of friends within the industry, and for you to send it to yours. I know most of us have e-mail, and I hope this reaches the next to face the horror of some religious fanatic onboard.

We have all had "training" in what to do in case of a hijacking; try to keep the hijacker calm, make him think you're doing what he wants, take him where ever he wants to go, etc., etc., etc. Save your passengers, your crew, and your aircraft. In an emergency, you will revert to that training. When our unfortunate peers were faced with the screams of the Flight Attendants and hijacker's demands to open the cockpit door, their training probably made them open the door. When the fanatics made demands, their training told them to comply as best they could. I can only wonder what their thoughts were as they left the cockpit and were tied up in the back of the plane; what they thought as they descended over New York.... I hope the fanatics had to kill them in their seats and drag their dead bodies out of the cockpit. But, I bet they did as they were trained to do....

As you look back over recent hijackings, FedEx, Egypt Air, and now the September 11th hijackings, you see a perpetrator who, for one reason or another wants to take over the airplane and kill himself. Each of these hijackers, except for the FedEx incident, were successful. They took over the airplane and killed everyone onboard.

If you're following the news programs today, you hear a lot about how we could let these hijackers learn to fly. You would think if knowing how to fly would guarantee a successful hijacking, Auburn Calloway (the FedEx hijacker) would have been a hijacker success story. He was a Navy pilot, a martial arts student, a fellow FedEx crewmember, and he took all the weapons he needed: hammers, knives and a spear gun. He didn't have to overcome any Flight Attendants or demand they open the cockpit door. He just went back to his bag, took out his hammer came back into the cockpit and started crushing skulls.

The crewmembers on that flight didn't worry about Flight Attendants, they didn't worry about passengers. All three pilots left the cockpit and fought a hand-to-hand, life-or-death battle.

To survive today's hijacker, you cannot worry about your passengers; you cannot worry about your Flight Attendants. You must develop a mind-set that everyone onboard - including yourself - is already dead. Because, if the hijacker is successful in taking over your airplane, not only you, your crew, your passengers and your aircraft are lost, but thousands on the ground are at risk.

One of the reasons the FedEx crew survived, is the extraordinary actions of the co-pilot. Although he had brain injury, the co-pilot took the DC-10 and immediately executed a half-roll. This maneuver took the hijacker off his feet as the Captain and S/O were struggling with him. During a point in the maneuver, the hijacker, Captain and S/O were thrown back behind the cockpit door. When he righted the airplane, the F/O then left his seat and joined the fight in the galley area of the plane. It was only after the Captain determined the hijacker was subdued, he returned to the cockpit and flew the airplane to landing.

Very few of us have had to confront true evil. Fewer still have seriously considered taking the life of another human being. I believe this is the reason the FedEx crew did not kill their attacker. The crew's heroism that day is beyond belief and any action that leads to a safe landing and recovery cannot be argued with. But, when the Captain left the F/O and S/O, thinking the situation was under control, he was mistaken. The F/O and S/O had sustained serious, life-threatening injuries. The hijacker had not. As the Captain flew the aircraft, the hijacker, who had surrendered, began the fight anew. As the airplane landed, the hijacker was just moments away from overcoming the two crewmembers.

I mention this for your consideration. I would suggest that you make the conscious decision to kill anyone who tries to take your airplane from you. Today we are at war. The hijacker who comes through your cockpit door is going to kill you and everyone onboard. So, how do youI do that? What weapons are available to us as pilots? The intercom. Command that all men come forward and fight with the hijackers. You have many able-bodied men onboard. They are sitting in shock not knowing what to do. Command they come forward and help you kill your attackers. And, they will come.

The airplane itself. Get the hijackers off their feet. Go into an immediate dive to float them to the ceiling. Then execute a 6G positive maneuver and hope they hit their head or break their back as they hit the floor, galley shelf, etc. Dump the cabin - maybe one of the hijackers has a head cold. Pull the fire handles, shut the start levers and turn the fuel valves off. If you lose the battle, at least the airplane won't be used as a guided missile on a kamikaze mission. With luck, maybe these guys didn' t learn how to do an in-flight restart. Then leave the cockpit - all of you, and kill your attackers - don't believe it when they surrender - don't be nice to them - KILL THEM.

Flare Gun If your airplane has one, the Captain might consider making sure it's loaded and secured next to his bag. I can think of nothing more satisfying than watching a ball of burning phosphorous embedded into a fanatic's gut, burning its way through him.

The crash-axe. I would suggest you have your co-pilot take it from it's holder and secure it next to him so he has it immediately available. Makes an excellent skull crusher. Your flashlight. The FAA use to require a 2 cell. A 3 cell Mag-Light makes an excellent weapon. If your maneuvers have the hijackers on the floor writhing in pain, crush their skulls with it.

Your stolen hotel bic pen. Drive it into an attacker's eye, ear, throat, or into the area just under the jaw bone. That's a particular interesting place to drive it, because when he opens his mouth to scream, you can read "Hyatt" sticking there.

Your hand and fingers Drive your fingers into his eyes and try to feel your fingernails scrape the back of his eye sockets. Scoop the eyeballs out. It will confuse the hell out of him when he finds himself looking at his shoes as they dangle there on the ocular nerves.

Your teeth. Remember Hannabal Lecter. Eat a nose, a cheek, or a finger. And keep eating. Attack with all viciousness. A piranha is a small fish, but it's greatly feared. A hijacker is not expecting you to eat him and it might make him forget why he got on your airplane to begin with. It will, at least, impress his buddies.

Now here's my wish-list of things the FAA could do to help, especially in this time of war. Arm the Captain The battle is not going to require any long shots and a small revolver would be a good choice. It would hold off the attackers long enough for you to disable your aircraft. If the attackers claimed the red package they were holding was a bomb, I'd shoot out the door glass and hope the door would be ripped out and the hijacker and his package would be sucked out. And hey, I> if I got sucked out with him, I'd try to fly myself to the hijacker look in his face and laugh at him all the way to the ground.

Invite the local Police to jumpseat Police are always looking for something free. Donut shops use to be a favorite target for robbers - until they started giving donuts to the Police. Robbers don't rob donut shops anymore. I would suggest each Police Department send the FAA a list of the best shots on the department and those guys and their guns would be welcome on my airplane. Fill every vacant seat with armed Police - give them a donut and tell them to shoot anyone who gives your Flight Attendant any ••••.

Stop this silly no-knife rule. Make it public. Tell the public they're welcome to bring their pocket knives onboard. Then everyone will bring them. When you make your intercom call for help, you'll have a dozen or more knife wielding helpers trying to make sure their new Gerber tastes fanatics blood. There are even a few of them who'd want to keep ears as souvenirs.

Law enforcement agencies are all aware there are copy-cat criminals and fanatics. We have a number of loony fanatical hate-groups here in the USA: ALF, PETA, KKK, Army of God, Anti-abortionists, and the list goes on. It doesn't matter the size of your airplane. Right now, as I write this, there is an anti-abortionist escapee here in the Memphis area. He's seen what happened at the World Trade Center. A small commuter plane would do a great job on an abortion clinic, or on an animal research facility, or on a local synagogue, mosque, etc., etc., etc.............

None of us is immune. Take some time and consider your actions if this event should ever happen to you. My prayer is none of you ever have to face this kind of decision. Best of luck to you, and

Yes!!! Stop the silly no knife rules!!! Let everyone carry a knife. I'm all for it.

The guy who wrote that obviously has ZERO experience swinging an axe in a cockpit...
it aint as easy as you might think.

"Donut shops use to be a favorite target for robbers - until they started giving donuts to the Police" if that's true then I say prostitutes should give free head to cops, drastically cutting down on abuse and/or murder at the hands of pimps and psycho's.... and banks should start giving bags of money to cops... soon all the bad guys would want to become cops- problem solved!

Maybe if we changed the word 'hijack' to something like 'butt lick' or 'scrotum chew' zealots would be less inclined to think it is such a cool thing to do. A bunch of hard core militant guys will not plot their next 'scrotum chewing' incident you can count on that! (if a 'rose' was called an 'anus' do you think women would still be crazy about getting a dozen delivered at the office... I think not.)

Think people.

oh for gawd's sakes. I can understand that the hyatt pen is mighter than the jaw and eating your opponent to death is a tasty idea not to mention shining his shoes with his eyeballs but do you really think carrying pen knives is going to make a difference? What we really need is texan chain saws. All passengers should be allowed to carry chain saws, bazookers and grenades, except of course, all potential fanatics?!?!

Think? Sounds good!

If This Be War
A time for choosing.

By Victor Davis Hanson

o American wishes to contemplate the idea of war — the horrific circumstances in which our country could lose many of its most precious citizens in a brutal effort to kill other humans. War is tragic and it is unfair, and we must weigh very heavily any decision that results in our own being killed in efforts [far away] to kill others. Yet sadly, killing is what we have suffered, and war is what has been unleashed upon us — losses incurred on American soil far more grievous than those at Fort Sumter or Pearl Harbor, the powder kegs of our two worst conflagrations.

Indeed, the events of September 11 constitute the most devastating attack on the home soil of the United States in its long history. If the mass killing of thousands of our civilians in a time of peace, the destruction of our most hallowed buildings, the derailment of our economy, and the terror of germs that has nearly paralyzed parts of our government mean we are in a war, then a number of very difficult, but inescapable consequences must naturally follow.

Postwar Governments

Just as we would never have allowed a Goering, Rosenberg, or even Speer to join a postbellum coalition in conquered Germany, or General Tojo and his warlords to help reconcile factions in Japan in September 1945, or the North Korean Communists to share in a unified pan-Korean government, so too the very idea of the murderous Taliban taking part in the reconstruction efforts in Kabul is morally reprehensible and absurd. We cannot ask our young men and women to risk death to eliminate the Taliban, only later to allow them to enjoy the powers of government. If we bury Americans killed in Afghanistan, and then allow the mullahs of the Taliban to forget the past, we will have profaned the sacrifice and memory of our own dead. In this regard, the adamant condemnation of proposed Taliban inclusion by both Russia and India is to be held in higher regard than what has been offered so far from Europe and the United Nations — or some members of our own State Department.

Belligerents

If this were a war, we would not hesitate to end the evil in Iraq, where there is a history of germs brewed, missiles stockpiled, and the use of poison gas. We can insist on U.N. inspections of all suspect facilities in Iraq, and ask Baghdad to surrender its arsenal. When those reasonable proposals are rejected — as they will be — we should prepare to end the reign of terror of Saddam Hussein. Only that way can we correct the blunder of the last day of the Gulf War and turn Iraq from an autocracy to a democracy — a rebirth that might make a greater impression on Saudi Arabia and its ilk than did the prior nightmare.

Such a campaign is fraught with risks — crumbling coalitions, vulnerable flanks, logistical nightmares, depletion and scattering of our stretched-thin forces, the specter of tactical nuclear and germ warfare against our troops, more terrorism at home, domestic dissension, European repugnance, and a complete absence of allies. But if we are at war, if we wish to avenge our dead and ensure the safety of our children, we have no real choice, even as our eventual victory is not in doubt.

True, air power can wreck the Iraq military, but a ground invasion, aided by indigenous resistance movements from the current no-fly zones, is essential. The real lesson of the Gulf War was not merely that coalitions were critical to our success, but equally that by bringing aboard an assortment of dubious allies that were not critical for victory, we failed to go to Baghdad — and made no demands for Kuwait's medieval and cowardly government-in-exile to promise its citizens the eventual hope of consensual government. After the events of September 11, allowing Iraq to continue its dark work as before would be like not invading Italy in our war against Germany, or seeking to ignore Pearl Harbor while trying to marshal our desperately unprepared army against Hitler. There was a logic of sorts to both, but national purpose and common morality made us go after all three, and at once.

War Leaders and Their Language

If we were really at war, our national lexicon would reflect that seriousness of purpose. Americans would be told to brace for setbacks but always be assured of "victory." The candor and resolve of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld would not raise eyebrows — if this were really war. Stability in the Middle East is to be hoped for. We all pray for good relations with the Islamic peoples in dozens of countries — as our past aid to them against Communism, Iraqi fascism, and Serbian genocide attests. Americans wish the war to be short and without civilian casualties. We hope the elimination of terrorism will bring greater understanding of Islam and closer relations with Muslims in general. But right now those considerations — if we be at war — are secondary to victory and the abject defeat of our enemies: bin Laden's terrorists, the Taliban government, Iraq, and enclaves in Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, the Sudan, and the Philippines.

General Sherman — perhaps the most slandered and misunderstood figure in American history — accepted that his marches through Georgia would result in lasting negative public relations. But he also knew he was dismantling the infrastructure of a slave society at its heart, humiliating those who had called for his destruction, and — by his very audacity — killing few and losing less. At the beginning of his march, Sherman was told he would end up like Napoleon in Russia; a week later, those same plantation owners were begging him instead "to go over to the South Carolinians who started it." In war, reasoned and sober men like Halleck, Marshall, Eisenhower, Bradley, and Mark Clark are necessary to craft the organization of war, to marshal the powers of resistance, and occasionally to rein in the more mercurial and dangerous in our midst. But they do not, in themselves, bring us victory.

The defeat of our enemies in the dirt and carnage of war is accomplished by a different kind of men, themselves unsavory and often scary in their bluster and seriousness — the likes of Grant, Sherman, Patton, King, Halsey, LeMay, and a host of others still more uncouth. They speak differently, act differently, and think differently from most of us, but in war they prove to be our salvation, for they understand best its brutal essence — that real humanity in such an inhuman state of affairs is to use massive force to end the killing as quickly as possible. Men such as George S. Patton expect to offend us with their vocabulary, scare us with their assurance, and be relieved or discredited when we no longer need them. Thanks to them, in the luxury of victory and peace we can pretend we never really wanted to be [their] war makers at all. But now we have not yet achieved either victory or peace — and so we need the ghost of Patton more than ever.

Neutrals and Not-So-Neutrals

If we are really to be at war, it might be wise to worry more about bringing battle to our enemies wherever we find them, than fretting about warnings from neutrals, near-hostile governments, and frenzied but organized protest groups in Western countries. Muslim associations in European countries were cheering at the news of 6,000 American dead; posters of bin Laden continue to blanket the streets of the Middle East; funds for his killers are traced to banks in the Gulf — surely, in times of war, such open hostility means something. Our forefathers in World War II did not much worry about what the Spanish, the Turks, or those in Argentina felt about our war with Germany. They assumed that many of their elites were hostile to the Allies, that their governments would intervene to aid the Axis if victory was assured — and that only our annihilation of Nazism would keep them out of the war and in fear of us.

So, too, only resolute action and victory in Afghanistan and against Iraq and other terrorist enclaves will ultimately silence the hateful crowds, and convince the Palestinians, Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to change their ways — both to cease their direct aid to terrorists, and to stop transforming domestic dissent into nationalist fury against us. It is disingenuous to say that those of the Islamic media simply enjoy a free climate of critique like our own, when their governments encourage criticism of us, but not of the real, indigenous causes of their own misery. Promises of largess, coalition building, and assurances of our measured response and moderation are perhaps salutary in the present morass. But only victory will impress upon those who have funded the terrorists the need to stay neutral, get out of our way, and pray that in our systematic campaign against our enemies we do not at last turn our righteous anger against them.

Concern for Our Enemy

If by chance we were really to be at war — when, right now, Americans are parachuting into the dark to stop the killers responsible for the Trade Center attacks — then we would look upon those who seek to restrain U.S. retaliation in its proper wartime context. The director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Los Angeles, for example, wants greater disclosure from the White House about the details of the campaign, hinting that only fears of backlash prevent that organization from calling on America to cease the bombing altogether.

If we forget that the disclosure of such information would endanger the lives of American servicemen; if we pass on their misdirected emphasis away from the slaughter of thousands of Americans, to worry instead about the regime that helped kill them; if we ignore that all of the killers, and nearly all of those in custody by the FBI either for past bombings or for complicity with the present slaughter, are from the Middle East; if we choose not to mention that self-proclaimed Islamic fundamentalists operated freely within the American Muslim community and were sometimes aided through so-called Islamic charities — even then, we are still left with the disturbing fact that in a time of war, the Muslim Public Affairs committee is considering calling for an end to U.S. retaliation in Afghanistan. Indeed, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has already done essentially that by demanding an immediate end to the bombing that is directed at the terrorist bases and Taliban military — and is critical to reducing casualties among American ground forces.

We, of course, are a free and tolerant society, where expression of dissent is crucial to our national fabric. But good sense, and some shred of the old idea of patriotism, might at least caution against such petitions when we are at war against Islamic fundamentalists. Muslim organizations must not emulate the German-American groups of the late 1930s that criticized U.S. policy toward Nazi Germany. Once the firing started — as it has now — it would have been difficult to stomach German-American organizations organizing for a halt to B-17 raids over Berlin, or expressing angst about civilian casualties as Patton crossed the Rhine.

The Abyss

We are at the precipice of a war we did not seek. We can grimly cross over it, confident in our resolve, more concerned about our poor dead than the hatred of enemies or the worries of fickle neutrals, assured that our cause is just, and reliant on the fierce men of our military who seek no quarter and need no allies in their dour task. Or we can fall into the abyss, the well-known darkness of self-loathing, identity politics, fashionable but cheap anti-Americanism, ostentatious guilt, aristocratic pacifism, and a convenient foreign policy that puts a higher premium on material comfort than on the security of our citizens and the advancement of our ideals.

If we really are at war, let us perhaps have pity upon our doomed enemies. But after what we suffered on September 11, if we are not at war, then we should have pity upon ourselves for what we have become.

The most powerful nation on earth, the last superpower, is viciously bombing the weakest most pathetic country on earth. Half these people were already starving.

Like a bully beating a kid in a wheel chair.

Our soldiers must be ashamed to be dropping bombs from 30,000 feet onto food warehouses, bridges, water delivery plants, sewage treatment plants, hospitals and schools. Maybe on some terrorist camps. Hopefully.

Pathetic.

In martial arts when you face an opponent you do it with resolve and you need courage because it is a fair fight. This isn't a fair fight, its a massacre.

People were going to school, planting crops, trying to keep their business alive.

Now they are fleeing by the millions. Fleeing from terrorism.

We are creating a whole new generation of terrorists. What we are doing today makes Sept. 11 look like a picnic. What an insult to the people who were murdered by those terrorists.

We wanted to destroy the Taliban, instead we are destroying people as innocent as the ones murdered in New York. This is murder just as bad, just as horrible, just as tragic. And just as pointless.

This is a War OF Terrorism.

-Jess

Like a bully beating a kid in a wheel chair after
the kid in a wheel chair killed a significatant number of the bully's class mates. I see logic there.

What do propose Jess, harsh language?
Buddy

We are friends. One day you knock on my door and say you walked into a store and shot a group of innocent people. The police are after you. You ask me if you can hide in my house. I let you in. Soon the Police arrive and order my friend to surrender. I tell him he can stay in my house and I will 'protect' him. The police warn that if I harbor the murderer, I will be guilty by association and subject to the same threat of force as my friend. My friend, being a coward, chooses to remain hiding in my house. Forewarned, the police open fire and some of my family members are shot. Who is to blame for the death of my family? The police, or me?

...that kid in the wheelchair?

Jess,

Actually the "Hawks" are pulling their hair out due to the "restraint" thus far displayed by The American Military.

Perhaps you wish to wash some robes in the future?

Michelle Malkin

October 24, 2001

No more jury trials for terrorists

When American pacifists talk about seeking "justice" for terrorists, here is what they mean:

More than $7 million in U.S. taxpayer funds went to lawyers who defended Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-'Owhali, Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, Mohamed Sadeek Odeh and Wadih El-Hage. Translation services alone totaled $1.4 million, according to a New York Times report earlier this summer. The paper found that our money even went to reimburse El-Hage's lawyers for the cost of dry cleaning his "thobe, a traditional Arab garment that their client wore in court, and other clothes. The bill ran to $108."

Who are these people our money defended? They are the four murderous thugs who helped orchestrate and carry out the terrorist attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. They killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. They had been obeying Osama bin Laden's "fatwa" to slaughter American soldiers and civilians around the world.

To the delight of American doves, then-President Clinton didn't respond by declaring war on terrorism. He had other things on his scandal-addled mind. Instead of turning to Delta Force to defeat the enemies, Clinton took bin Laden's bombers to federal court in Manhattan. And that's where they were last week, a stone's throw from the rubble of the Twin Towers toppled by their buddies -- whom they reportedly cheered as they listened to radio news broadcasts of the 9-11 attacks from their jail cells.

All of the terrorists received life sentences. Two had faced the death penalty, but were spared by a minority-dominated jury that swallowed the race-baiting of traitorous defense witness Ramsey Clark (the former U.S. attorney general under Lyndon Johnson). Clark testified that no member of a racial minority -- African-American, Arab or other -- could expect a fair trial in the U.S. He also blamed the Gulf War and U.S. sanctions on Iraq for creating the psychological "suffering" that led to the embassy attacks.

It's sickening to know that these four terrorist killers -- aided in their publicly-funded defense by blame-America-firsters and race-card opportunists -- are alive and well on our soil. It's an outrage to imagine them enjoying three square meals a day. Reading. Relaxing. Praying. Rejoicing for their conspirators around the world. Cursing our country with every unencumbered breath they draw.

This is the kind of "justice" the American apologists for terrorism seek. They believe all will be right with the world when Osama bin Laden is whistling behind bars, growing his beard to the floor, writing his memoirs, and breaking bread with kindred congressional visitors like Barbara Lee, Cynthia McKinney and Jim McDermott.

It doesn't have to be this way. Nearly six decades ago, America discovered terrorist schemers in the nation's midst and swiftly paid them in kind. In June 1942, two teams of Nazi German terrorists (analogous to bin Laden's "cells" hopped aboard submarines and landed on the shores of Amagansett Beach, Long Island, N.Y., and Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla. Like bin Laden and his al Qaeda network, these Germans were highly trained, loaded with cash, and bent on hijacking the American way of life. They planned to inflict mass terror by bombing railroads, hydroelectric plants, factories and department stores across the country.

One of the eight plotters got cold feet and exposed the Nazi plans. President Roosevelt refused to grant civilian jury trials to the belligerent saboteurs. Instead, he immediately appointed a secret military commission to try the cases. All eight were found guilty and sentenced to death. Six were executed on Aug. 8, 1942, in Washington, D.C. (The remaining two, both turncoats, won commutations and received life sentences.)

In dealing with terrorist masterminds, President Bush must follow the Roosevelt precedent -- not the intolerable Clinton cop-out. As the Supreme Court ruled unanimously when it upheld the secret military tribunals for the Nazi terrorists, an enemy "who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property" is an "unlawful combatant" who is not entitled to access our jury system.

The Founding Fathers' constitutional pledge to "provide for the common defense" was meant to protect liberty-loving Americans -- not evil terrorists looking for victims to pay their legal expenses and clean their filthy, blood-stained robes.