Guys...I don't want to make a nuisance of myself here as I've made comments on this subject in other parts of this website, but I think some of you are missing the point. Any pilot who is capable of being trained to fly an airliner is capable of being trained in firearm defence. All this "let's leave it to someone else" attitude didn't save the lives of the poor guys in New York last month. No matter how brilliant airport security becomes, we all know that there will be gaps in the system.If we haven't already identified that, then why are we even mentioning about locking and re-enforcing cockpit doors?
The law on section 5 (UK) allows individuals who have been substantially threatened (politicians, police,reporters..whoever) to carry loaded concealed guns for protection.These characters don't necessarily have to be highly professional individuals. As for keeping an unloaded gun on the person (as would be the case with now-extict target shooting legislation) would probably be of little use by the time the individual unlocked the safe and loaded it.
Legislation would have to be changed to allow pilots to become "temporary security officers" or something like that and allow them to carry loaded guns throughout duty.
Anybody who starts making noises about guns accidentally misfiring or being unsuitable in confined spaces obviously knows little of guns or the ballistics involved. It's easy to manufacture ammunition which could flatten a hijacker...and wouldn't pierce the aircraft skin in event of a stray shot.
As for hitting an innocent passenger...this would be extremely unlikely when shooting a terrorist at point blank range trying to get into the flight deck, (pilot seat to cockpit door)but if the situation was so bad that you had to use the gun in the first place, then you really wouldn't have a choice in the matter. Simply locking the door and landing at the nearest airport is a useless idea in the event of a terrorist having smuggled on metal cutting equipment. It only takes a few minutes to cut through thick steel with a small Black & Decker.
As I said in a previous topic, placing a gun in the hands of a generally responsible character (even if he does make a dreadful cup of tea) doesn't make him turn into a psychopath or John wayne. If he gets trained in it's use...not for outdoor bodyguard protection duties in the middle of a crowd, but for point blank range from a maniac trying to get in the cockpit door, there's a massive difference in the likelihood of surviving and dying, and extremely unlikely that the hijacker would get the gun off the pilot unless the hijacker was already so heavily armed and committed to suicide that nothing would save the day anyway. Having a small gun isn't going to cause any damage to a situation like that but might save a few thousand lives.
Guns as the only additioal security measure would not be ideal. But as a combination of things, forcing hijackers to have to smuggle on board..bullet proof vests, gas masks, Black & Deckers, electrical insulated clothing etc..starts to already cause problems at their planning stage. If the airlines get multiple security measures implemented, hopefully anyone carrying a gun would never have to use it. With that in mind, perhaps we can steer crear of all the "gun-slinging John wayne Rambo" accusations that are already being made.
YES..the law would have to be changed.
YES...the pilots would have to be trained.
YES...the type of ammunition would have to be specifically for aircraft use.
YES..guns would only be part of a massive jigsaw puzzle of other pieces of security implementation
YES...there would have to be a ban on pilots removing the guns from their holsters in view of other people unless life threatened.
YES...the threat of hijacking would have to be thoroughly confirmed before use (blatently obvious if someone's cutting the door down)
YES..as pilots we are apparently all under this new threat now and we don't know what the odds are of being hijacked, so can't we all please look towards this new problem with more of an open mind about how we should deal with it. So far people are saying "Closed doors won't work 'cos they could kick or cut them down"
"Skymarshals won't work 'cos they could be overpowered"
"Tasers won't work because you have to get close contact and can't take out several people in one zap"
"Telescopic batons won't work because..etc
"..so let's just leave it all to the unarmed security staff and hope that they are doing their job correctly and can't be threatened into turning a blind eye to something, or distracted in any way.."
We seem to have an "anti-gun" mentality in Uk , yet whenever we fly to almost any airport outside UK (and a few within) it's perfectly normal to see security staff carrying guns at airports. Aren't we, as pilots, expected to be part of airport security?
Even those of you who don't want to possess a gun ( no criticism there)I don't hear anyone complaining about the feeling of being protected by armed security in other airports.
As an airline pilot, it's my responsibility to protect my crew and passengers...and the people asleep in the houses below.
Previously I could fulfil that responsibility by flying safely, but now there's a new threat to all that. New deadly circumstances may force me to take extra precautions to protect these people (and myself)If this involves extra training in defense /anti-terrorist techniques then so be it.
I don't believe that anyone who doesn't want a gun should be forced to carry one, but please don't lecture me that I shouldn't have the right to defend myself when someone's trying to kill me when all other security measures have failed....which they will certainly do when they simply aren't implemented because so many people keep saying "..oh that won't work so let's not even try it.."
If protecting the lives of all on board my aircraft is too much responsibility for me, then I shouldn't be flying airliners.