• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Tactical Aircraft Security Officer ( TASO )

Baz

Sr. Member
Donor
Reaction score
0
Points
160
SeaKingTacco said:
Don't get me wrong- it is very unhealthy to "bust caps" in a thin walled metal tube at 35,000 feet, doing 500 mph. I just don't buy that the airplane necessarily stops flying with a 9mm sized hole in the fuselage.

When the earth was still,cooling (and I was on Nav Training) we used to do Celestial Navigation. That meant mounting the sextant in an airlock that protruded thru the skin of the aircraft. Reasonably often enough, during act of mounting or dismounting the sextant at altitude, one could bypass the airlock feature and the cabin would begin venting through a hole maybe 2-3cm in diameter. It was a bit noisy, like standing next to a giant vacuum cleaner, and your ears popped a bit, but that was about all that happened.

I'm pretty sure I did Nav training before you... I was the fourth course on the CT-142.

Urban legend has it that the Hercs used to carry a vacuum cleaner hose to plug into the sextant mount and clean up the cockpit when they were bored.  As the legend goes a stop was put to it when they realized they were abrading the leading edge of the tail plane with whatever garbage they were sucking out...

But yes, it seems a lot of people (probably based on Hollywood) equate a little hole in tn the fuselage with a structural failure.

I did a really quick look at the NTSB database at https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx  Searching for decompression I got 72 results; given that we don't here about them all I would assume most of them are not "dramatic."  A random pick of two 737 ones gives no injuries in 131 on board (https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20090714X83900&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA) and 1 minor injury in 122 on board (https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20110401X24330&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=MA).  However, these were structural failures from manufacturing and maintenance errors resulting in holes 18X12" and 60X8"; given that, I would believe that a tiny hole from a bullet wouldn't even result in a rapid decompression, and that the skin wouldn't tear, unless it hit a critical structural piece or system.

For comparison, here is an example of a structural failure which Hollywood wants to make every little hole into: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20001213X25439&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=MA with the full report with pictures at http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports/AAR89-03.pdf.  Google "Aloha Airlines Flight 243" for more and in color.  Again caused by maintenance technique.

</Sarcasm> Lesson is I'd be more afraid of the tech's drinking at the hotel before working on the aircraft then the TASO drinking at the hotel before carrying his gun. </End Sarcasm>
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,159
Points
1,090
Excuse me.  Your detailed technical knowledge and experience is no match for me having watched Goldfinger.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
415
Points
880
Yes, Hollywood likes to go crazy with imagined effects that have no basis in science or fact.

To quote Professor Farnsworth (Futurama  ;) ), when asked how much pressure their starship can take: "Well, it is designed for space travel, so I would say one atmosphere". At lower altitudes than space, the difference is even less than one atmosphere. So, a 9mm hole in the fuselage is not going to decompress the plane so fast everybody gets sucked in the hole. It's going to be slow process, and can probably be blocked by sticking your cell phone over the hole - or anything sufficiently rigid. Similarly, larger holes will cause the decompression to go faster, but at the expense of the "suction" effect, which would then be lower (Hollywood always misses that one: the bigger the hole, the lower the suction - at least from decompression).

The real dangers of decompression are not the "great-vacuum-cleaner-effect" but the lack of oxygen required to sustain human life.

Similarly, the bigger problem with holes large enough and structural failures at altitude are caused in much greater part by the effect of 500-900km/hour + winds created by the movement of the airplane. Those winds will create some suction and given a chance, rip at the structure of the aircraft. In the Aloha flight 253 case, for instance, if you had been stopped somewhere with the same pressure differential and suddenly ripped the whole section that got ripped, you would barely feel any "suction" effect (other than your ears popping up). It's the wind created by such an opening at 650 mph that caused most of the trouble and likely ripped the poor stewardess from the plane. 
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,688
Points
1,140
This thread has gone from a discussion of a military qualification to an episode of Myhtbusters.
 

garb811

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
9
Points
530
Haggis said:
This thread has gone from a discussion of a military qualification to an episode of Myhtbusters.
You've been around here long enough to know that the chances of a thread veering off topic are...well, pretty much guaranteed.  ;D
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
452
Points
980
So now we've veered off topic onto another topic of veering off topic.

Frangible ammunition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frangible_bullet was developed for the air marshal role, but I have no idea if it is still in use.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,860
Points
1,160
It's quite common, I have one sitting on my desk right now (.45acp) . Not sure which groups use for their work.
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
20 years ago, I used to be a dealer in Second Chance Body Armor from the US.  The company was started by Richard Davis, who was in the habit of proving his armor worked by shooting himself with hand guns etc.  One of the videos he had he demonstrated this type of ammunition on a rack of ribs.  It blew a hole in the rack you could put your fist through.  That was something to see. 
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,688
Points
1,140
garb811 said:
You've been around here long enough to know that the chances of a thread veering off topic are...well, pretty much guaranteed.  ;D

True.  But what impressed me was that in just under one page we made a hard turn from specialist training to science.
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
Haggis said:
True.  But what impressed me was that in just under one page we made a hard turn from specialist training to science.

https://youtu.be/V83JR2IoI8k
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,685
Points
1,060
Infidel Body armor.  Buddy is a bit of a odd-cat but pretty interesting video of him shooting himself in the chest with 9mm's then takes a 308 to the back from 10 feet away. Barely flinches.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji5VpHaNySw
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,002
Points
1,060
If I can interrupt for a second with a thought on TASOs...

Just consider, airplanes don't always land where they intended to when they took off.  If you have to put er down quick, that might be somewhere you didn't intend to.  Some of those places are better to land in than the field or whatever but the aircraft, crew, load, mission kit, whatever might need protection.  TASOs can be one of those 'better to have and not need, than need and not have' items.  While we're flying around, you never know when you're going to here "I smell smoke".  It happens, and when it does, you want to get on the deck FAST.  Your preferred alternate might not be where you end up.  It might not even be "fire of unknown origin" or aircraft systems emergency, it might be something like weather.

Sometimes, keeping 'undesirables' away from your aircraft might be done just seeing that someone is close to it that has tools to stop you from approaching.  If not, then there is to option to use non-deadly, deadly force IAW ROEs to protect that asset.  Things like GlobeMasters are hard to replace...
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
Ahem, back on derail... Richard Davis.  :D

https://youtu.be/IwBLL7Z3OvU
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,159
Points
1,090
Eye In The Sky said:
Sometimes, keeping 'undesirables' away from your aircraft might be done just seeing that someone is close to it that has tools to stop you from approaching. 

You try to keep undesirables away, but the AESOPs just keep coming back...
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,002
Points
1,060
dapaterson said:
You try to keep undesirables away, but the AESOPs just keep coming back...

:rofl:

Not if there's no bread and peanut butter in the galley!!  :mad:

 

OceanBonfire

Sr. Member
Reaction score
268
Points
880
The ASO (Aircraft Security Officers) qualification signifies the combination of the TASO and Air Marshal qualification into one, high speed – low drag force protection option for the Royal Canadian Air Force.

ZEeil2k.jpg


 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
5,204
Points
1,110
I take it form the grad photo that Air Marshals in CAF are not a covert presence, then?
 
Top