(fwd)
Dumb.
Less-than-lethal devices, like TASER, Pepperballs, beanbag shotgun loads, stun guns, pepper spray etc. have genuine law-enforcement and security applications; cockpit defense, however, is not one of them. Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge has come out and stated that arming pilots with firearms: "doesn’t make a lot of sense to me." Considering the alternatives to arming pilots, leaving flight crews defenseless or giving them an ineffective non-lethal defensive tool, the only thing that doesn’t make sense is Tom Ridge’s position on this matter.
The TASER naturally appeals to some folks because it’s less-than-lethal and therefore not as fearsome or politically incorrect as a pistol. For these very reasons, it is not nearly as effective as a good handgun either. To use the TASER, a person attaches a cartridge to the front of the device that contains wire coils and two spiked electrical leads that enter the body of the target. The rear of the unit looks a lot like a pistol. Once the trigger is pressed the twin spikes fly out, each attached to a thin, 21-foot long wires, and imbed themselves in the skin of the target and deliver an electric jolt, which will generally incapacitate the average person for several seconds. Additional jolts can be given by pressing the trigger.
Sounds effective, right? Wrong. Unfortunately, this design has several inherent flaws. First, in order to be effective, the leads must enter the skin. Therefore, if the hijacker is wearing an appropriately thick shirt or jacket, the leads will not contact the skin, and the TASER is going to be minimally effective. Second, if two hijackers bust down the cockpit door, the TASER is useless. Theoretically, the pilot could zap one, do a quick cartridge change and zap the second intruder; of course, once the cartridge attached to the first intruder is removed from the unit, he can no longer be zapped. So, by the time the second intruder has been zapped, the first has fully recovered and is therefore free to begin slashing the pilots’ throats while his buddy recovers. With only one TASER against two intruders, the pilot would almost do better to zap the one and then beat the second intruder with the TASER unit itself, not something a pilot should have to deal with in a cramped cockpit. Furthermore, even if only one intruder breaks into a cockpit and is successfully subdued by the TASER, what then? Someone has to jump on him before he recovers and handcuff him. Who’s job is that going to be? Please don’t say the other pilot; he’s flying the plane.
The only viable way to protect the cockpit of a jumbo jet using a TASER would be to have several of the units in each cockpit, each fully charged with at least one spare cartridge per TASER. This is a rather expensive and silly solution to the problem of cockpit security.
A vastly more effective solution is a pistol, preferably one chambered for a no-nonsense cartridge like .45 ACP, .40 S&W or .357 Magnum.
If I were in position to recommend what to equip pilots with, given my background as an NRA-certified personal protection instructor, I’d suggest a .45 ACP Glock model 36 Slimline fitted with a suppresser and accessory rail-mounted tactical laser (with a pressure switch on the grip) with magazines full of Glasser Safety Slugs, Mag-safes or similar fragmenting bullets. Such a pistol is the right tool for the job and as my eighth-grade wood shop teacher insisted on saying: "A tool for every job, a job for every tool." Indeed. Using a TASER to defend a cockpit is akin to using a monkey wrench to drive a nail, sure, it’ll kind of maybe work, but it really isn’t the best tool.
The above-described Glock, however, is the right tool for the job, regardless of what Ridge and other opponents of arming pilots might think. The Glock truly is perfect for this role, it has earned a reputation since its introduction to US markets in the late 80s as a reliable, incredibly durable, simple-to-operate pistol that works well. Glock pistols in a variety of models and calibers are now safely stored in the holsters of many a police officer across the nation. They’re a work-a-day pistol that lacks an external safety toggle, instead relying on a trigger-mounted safety lever that compliments internal inertia safeties, which Glock calls its "Safe Action" system. The only controls on a Glock are the trigger, slide catch, magazine release and ‘takedown’ buttons, very straight forward and easy for a non-gun savvy individual to use in a crisis situation. I’d suggest the Glock 36 Slimline over the standard .45 caliber model 21 because the 36 is the first Glock to get away from double column magazines and features a slim grip that users with a variety of hand sizes will find comfortable. Since these guns will likely go a long time between cleanings, Glock’s reliable design and corrosion-resistant construction will guarantee they work when called on, even if they haven’t seen a drop of G96 Complete Gun Treatment in years.
The .45 ACP cartridge has proven itself in countless shootings, and when topped with fast, frangible bullets, will not puncture the fuselage of an airliner. Upon striking the center-mass of a would-be hijacker, the incapacitating effect of a .45 ACP Glasser will last a lot longer than would that of a TASER, i.e. permanently as opposed to five seconds. Furthermore, the .45 ACP doesn’t care what the hijacker wears, as long as it’s not Kevlar, it’s going in to disrupt a few vital organs.
I would also suggest a suppresser be attached. .45s are loud in general, but in the confines of a cockpit the noise would be deafening. The discharge of a suppressed .45 ACP in a cockpit would still be noisy, but the suppresser will protect the pilots from temporary near-deafness. The laser sight will help the user aim quickly and nothing takes the fight out of someone like seeing that glowing red dot hone in on their heart. With the Glock 36’s 6+1 ammo capacity, seven separate hijackers could be dispatched quickly and if more shooting was necessary, a few spare, loaded magazines can be kept handy. Because of the suppresser, these pistols couldn’t be the issued directly to pilots (without them having to contend with mountains of permits and paperwork anyway, unless F-troop makes an exception for them), but rather to each individual plane. One member of the flight team—copilot, navigator, whoever—could be designated as the person who wears the pistol in a shoulder rig and then returns it to a small gun safe in the cockpit after the passengers have deplaned. Issuing them to the plane instead of the pilot would help ensure that only frangible bullets were kept anywhere near the firearm.
Another very good alternative to the Glock 36 is a Glock 23. It’s a pistol of roughly the same size, and it holds 10+1 rounds (in post-ban magazines, that is) of .40 S&W, a potent cartridge that surpasses the .45 ACP in the Fuller Index (a system that predicts one-shot-stops) when using conventional hollow points.
With frangible bullets in the firearm, the plane’s passengers could be protected by the installation of a thin wooden door a few feet outside the cockpit door, or even a set of heavy curtains made of Kevlar or similarly strong artificial fabric. Frangible bullets break apart upon contact with anything, shedding weight and velocity rapidly. When they hit a solid object like a wall, they shatter harmlessly. Upon striking a soft target like a person’s chest, they penetrate as they fragment, depositing all of their considerable energy into a shallow wound cavity that causes massive tissue damage.
Naturally, the problem with my recommendation is that it makes sense and therefore will not be heeded. Instead, United will sally forth and equip their pilots with TASERS. With Tom Ridge’s endorsement of such silly measures, other airlines will likely follow suit. Now, I’m not suggesting TASERS and other less-than-lethal weapons are useless or have no place in law-enforcement or security. Quite the contrary, I’m actually a fan of some less-than-lethal instruments, especially Jaycor Tactical System’s Pepperball Launcher (essentially a Tippman Pneumatics paintgun that fires balls filled with powdered pepper spray instead of paint). However, the Pepperball Launcher is as inappropriate for use in cockpit security as the TASER, but for different reasons.
The cockpit of commercial airliners needs to be viewed as a castle, a fortress that must be secure. Beefier doors are a good start, but any door, regardless of how sturdy, can be overcome by a determined enough individual or group. Should that door be broken down, the pilots need to be able to permanently defeat the intruder or intruders. Incapacitating (hopefully) them for a few seconds isn’t enough. The simplest, most obvious choice is a pistol, particularly one very like the Glock I described above. Again, we get into the whole political correctness issue; sure, it’s nicer and kinder and gentler to temporarily incapacitate a cockpit intruder than it is to shred his vital organs. Thing is, we’re talking about a cockpit intruder here, not a drunk that got tossed out of a bar and is giving the cops a hard time.
Anyone with the wherewithal to get on a plane today probably hasn’t been living under a mushroom for the last six months and is, therefore, aware that pilots don’t want anyone visiting them in the cockpit. The way I figure it, if someone does break down a cockpit door, they can’t be up to any good and have forfeited their rights and life by doing so. Simply put, today, if you break down a cockpit door, you deserve to be shot in the chest. Twice. By a .45. If that doesn’t make sense to the guy charged with operating the Office of Homeland Security, then he’s as ill suited for his job as the TASERs are for cockpit defense.
Kyle Lohmeier
