ALPA to Ask for Cockpit Guns - CNN [Archive]

Airbubba

25th Sep 2001, 01:32

Union wants armed pilots in cockpits

September 24, 2001 Posted: 5:26 PM EDT (2126 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The world's oldest and largest pilots' union is seeking congressional approval for it members to carry firearms into airline cockpits and be granted arrest authority.

Could a bullet damage the airplane or bystanders?

Certain ammunition, known as prefragmented or frangible bullets, contain many tiny pellets and are designed to break up after hitting a hard surface, potentially minimizing the risk of ricochet or damage to the plane's fuselage.

Officials with the Air Line Pilots Association say pilots have no choice but to arm themselves to maintain security in the sky following the four September 11 hijackings in which the World Trade Center's twin towers were destroyed and the Pentagon was damaged. The fourth flight crashed in rural Pennsylvania, killing everyone on board.

The union has already sought an increase in the number of available federal air marshals who would travel among passengers on commercial flights, but says that is insufficient. There aren't enough marshals to travel on every scheduled flight, the association says.

Pilots should receive extensive classroom and firearms training to become actual law enforcement officials, with training to be done on a voluntary basis, union officials say.

Sen. John McCain, ranking Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, which considers airline security issues, says it is still too early to say how Congress will respond to the proposal.

"We've got to hear from the Justice Department, call in the experts, before we take such a step," he said. "But I would be guided by the experts' view."

The FBI says it is considering the proposal.

The union represents more than 66,000 pilots employed by 47 airlines in the United States and Canada.

hawkeye

25th Sep 2001, 01:39

'Electrozappers', which I saw demonstrated last month, require a considerable amount of skill to discharge accurately; much more than a gun. As for pepper spray in the close confines of the flightdeck; no thanks. I'll take the gun. Unarmed combat requires more than skill against a gun, it requires surprise. Again, I'll take the gun.

Roadtrip

25th Sep 2001, 02:19

American Airlines' pilot union representing over 11,000 is also calling for arming pilots.

Bailed Out

25th Sep 2001, 02:31

Don't all ships have armouries? As for discharge, it wouldn't take much to develop a high impact low velocity weapon, might just about dent the fuselage but would sure take the wind out of any human recipient.

bertieb

25th Sep 2001, 03:00

Sorry I can't belive any sane pilot would want guns on the flight deck.How many crazy terrorists would it take to overpower someone before they got the gun and hey presto who's in charge?Why smuggle guns onto an aircraft when they are already there!!!!!!
Remember guys what we are dealing with here are people who have lost all sense of reality to the extent that they have no regard for any life least of all there own.
We are not cowboys this is not the wild west, Bin laden DEAD OR ALIVE YES PLEASE ,but lets get a grip! :eek: We are after all professional airline pilots ,but you never know we might get to practise shooting people as we execute a SID on one engine in the SIM. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[ 24 September 2001: Message edited by: bertieb ]

Budgie69

25th Sep 2001, 03:03

Two points.
1. Do El Al pilots have guns?
2. During the days of wagon trains about 10 times more emigrants were killed by accidental discharge of firearms than died at the hands of wild Indians, baddies, rattlesnakes etc.

Tandemrotor

25th Sep 2001, 03:29

See, Sky marshalls won't work, these two threads are very similar.

Tripower455

25th Sep 2001, 05:09

Sorry I can't belive any sane pilot would want guns on the flight deck.How many crazy terrorists would it take to overpower someone before they got the gun and hey presto who's in charge?

How many crazy terrorists would it take to overpower the UNARMED pilots, and hey presto, who's in charge?

Why smuggle guns onto an aircraft when they are already there!!!!!!

because the terrorists don't HAVE the guns......

Remember guys what we are dealing with here are people who have lost all sense of reality to the extent that they have no regard for any life least of all there own.

Precisely WHY they should be kept out of the cockpit at all cost! In addition to stronger cockpit doors, and stricter cockpit access, a firearm is a very effective tool.

We are not cowboys this is not the wild west, Bin laden DEAD OR ALIVE YES PLEASE ,but lets get a grip!

You are right, we aren't cowboys, but what does that have to do with anything? This is a discussion about KEEPING control of the airplane in the hands of the guys who are signed into the logbook! The wackos have changed the rules and we have to change as well. Asking Mr. Terrorist to leave us alone will not work.

We are after all professional airline pilots ,but you never know we might get to practise shooting people as we execute a SID on one engine in the SIM.

The idea of arming pilots is not for sport or with the intent of shooting people. It is to prevent the ANIMALS from taking control of the aircraft. If one of those ANIMALS gets shot in the interim, so be it. (that's PERIOD)

This isn't a movie fellows........this has hit us in our backyard.

GlueBall

25th Sep 2001, 05:26

ALPA's 66,000 pilots and Allied Pilots Association 11,000 pistol toting pilots...? How can all those loaded weapons remain safe at airport checkpoints and in cockpits? Would foreign countries allow U.S. airline pilots to possess loaded guns?
Impractical reality. The answer is bulletproof reinforced bulkheads with steel doors and heavy locks...and revised inflight security training. My Leatherman was confiscated, but Now I'm supposed to be OK to carry a loaded pistol? :rolleyes:

Roadtrip

25th Sep 2001, 05:28

Budgie69 -
I dispute your facts about accidental discharges in the early days of the West. Propaganda.

Your analogy is disingenous and dilberatly misleading. We're not talking about handing out pistols to every civilian in the aircraft. We're talking about officals/flightdeck crew familiar and trained in the handling/ROE of firearms. Spend 20 years in the military handling them and never saw an injury from an accidental discharge.

capt waffoo

25th Sep 2001, 07:02

So are we to have teaspoons and safety razors confiscated as we pass through security only to board an aeroplane with guns on board??? If teaspoons are so lethal why not arm the flight deck with a box of those, they're cheaper than guns, and less lkely to punch holes in the fuselage at 40,000 feet...

But then the DTLR (Dept of Tripe, Lunacy and Superannuated Parasites) would never sanction such a dangerous development. Pilots might be able to stir their tea in the event of a hijack. That would never do.

But seriously, guns are'nt the answer. Who would use them? It could not happen in the UK with our bizarre attitudes to guns, simply unthinkabe. And how easily could Johnny Rag-Head get past them? Just as easily as he got past the exixting security. I'm not going to suggest how here, but apply your mind to ways of incapacitating an armed crew without resorting to physical methods. What use is the gun there?

Daft idea.

Roc

25th Sep 2001, 07:50

Military pilots flying transports and all other aircraft are armed if the situation/mission dictates, So its not unheard of, or as ridiculous as some of you may think. How about this scenario, the pilots are in the secure cockpit, when word gets out of a hijacking scenario in the cabin, I would love to have the capability via some type of camera to observe the situation, and possibly act in a decisive way via my GUN!!!

George Semel

25th Sep 2001, 07:59

Look, if a Pilot wants to carry his own gun, fine, I carried one every day I few on the job up in Alaska. Guess what nothing happened. I didn't shoot myself or anybody else. Besides the funny thing its the Law in Alaska, that a proper firearm must be part of the kit.Back in the '70's a lot of the guys carried guns, they stopped when airplane highjacking sort of went out of style. The guys on Airplane number four took it back at the cost of there own lives. My guess is that anybody that says highjack on an Airplane now is going to get the S**t kick out of them. I don't think passingers will sit by like sheep anymore. Besides if the Airlines like American Authorizes and requires that the pilots carry side arms, then as far as US regulations go, they can. My guess it will be like before, are you nuts, and just do it on the QT. It would not surprise me that if there are guns on airliners that are flying already. Besides as a passinger I would not even care if they did, just like I don't care what you ate for lunch either.

aviatter

25th Sep 2001, 08:00

Come on People!!

Fact: The majority of people in the US that are killed by guns in their own homes are in fact killed by their own weapon in the hands of an intruder!!

Anyway, who the heck is going to fly the plane while the pilots are shooting up terrorists? There is usually more than one hijacker, such as was the case with the WTC attacks.

Jeez, I hope this isn't true!! It is a completely assanine idea. Only in America.

aviatter :(

PS. There is a simple solution, eliminate cockpit doors to the passenger area. Simply have access to the cockpit directly from the exterior of the plane. This takes the pilots out of any moral decisions and will prevent anybody from gaining control of the airplane. What's that? You have a bomb? Well, then, you can take the plane down but you can't take a skyscraper with you. As simple as that.

[ 25 September 2001: Message edited by: aviatter ]

Tripower455

25th Sep 2001, 08:09

Fact: The majority of people in the US that are killed by guns in their own homes are in fact killed by their own weapon in the hands of an intruder!!

Fiction!

Check your facts!

There are MANY more folks SAVED by the lawful use of firearms in the States than are killed...........

Besides the discussion is about guns in aircraft cockpits.....

Anyway, who the heck is going to fly the plane while the pilots are shooting up terrorists? There is usually more than one hijacker, such as was the case with the WTC attacks.

Who the heck is going to fly the plane when Abdul slits both pilot's throats?

There is ALWAYS more than one pilot, plus autopilot to take care of things for the few moments it takes to dispatch the cretins....

[ 25 September 2001: Message edited by: Tripower455 ]

aviatter

25th Sep 2001, 08:17

Tripower455,

You are wrong!! Read my statement. People killed by guns in their own homes are more likely to have been killed by their own gun than one that an intruder brought with them. Check your facts!!

And this does have reference to the cockpit. Do you really think that two pilots are going to be able to keep control of that weapon when their are five or more terrorists on the plane. Give me a break.

aviatter :mad:

[ 25 September 2001: Message edited by: aviatter ]

BJBATMAN

25th Sep 2001, 08:23

As I was reading AVIATTER'S comments my mind was racing for a reply, But it looks like TRIPOWER455 pretty much sumed it up perfectly, Thank you!!! It was exactly what I was thinking!!!!!!

TR4A

25th Sep 2001, 08:29

Defend the cockpit at all costs. We, the pilots, are the last line of defense. ARM US NOW!

BOING

25th Sep 2001, 11:02

We are focusing too much on the terrorists that want to take control of our aircraft and use them as a missile. What about the other possibilities?

Are you going to sit behind your nice armoured cockpit door while these people do something which will cause loss of the aircraft and passengers? (Possibilities not mentionable in print). All the armour in the World will not protect you from the 35,000 foot fall. At some point you may have to decide "If I do not do something we are all certainly going to die, so therefore I am going back to try and DO SOMETHING to prevent the otherwise inevitable". To do anything useful you need to possess superior force. If anyone objects to the carriage of firearms or is afraid of their own capability to use a firearm no-one is going to force them to so. Somehow, threatening a terrorist that you will have a policeman meet the aircraft on arrival at the gate just does not seem to cut it.

ARM THE PILOTS

____________________________

It's not the falling that hurts etc. etc.

cribble

25th Sep 2001, 11:15

:confused: If nothing else, a gun on the flight deck will solve any CRM conflicts.

Cook me some eggs Bitch!

25th Sep 2001, 11:27

What about some type of quick acting gas that can be set off in the cockpit which disables all in the cabin.

Reinforce the cockpit door so that it takes time to enter, at the first sign of trouble the pilots don oxygen masks and hit the switch.

I know it would be traumatic for PAX, yet i think they would rather wake up from that then the possible alternatives.

renegator

25th Sep 2001, 12:07

and the next brilliant idea for the "last line of defense" will be that you wear those guns in a belt...

Congratulations, but this is insane folks. Execpt that CRM implication maybe..

EGGW

25th Sep 2001, 13:15

Guns are NOT the answer, if you have them on board you have saved the terrorist/hijacker his most difficult job, getting a weapon on board.
What the US pilot associations need to do is ensure proper security is enforced at US Airports, i keep hearing that even since the events of the 11th September, it is still appalling at most airports. Our US cousins should see what its like over here, very7 tight..

HOMER SIMPSONS LOVECHILD

25th Sep 2001, 16:27

Just because a few lunatics commit an insane act does not mean the world has gone insane.Guns on the flight deck?.It sadly seems to be a groundswell of opinion from the good ole Yoo-ess who are shouting for this.Just as the Americans are incapable or unwilling to examine the reasons why they are so hated by some they are blind to this insane love affair with guns they seem to have.Anyone who has ever picked up a firearm will concede that they have a strange and compelling attraction.They feel good at a instinctive level and we want one.Unfortunately a few people then start dreaming up tenuous arguments for actualy being allowed to carry one.Ditching your float plane in Alaska and being attacked by a bear is probably about the closest thing to a good reason you will get.Wipping out your Glock and whuppin' Abdul's ass is really just insane "yee har!" good ole boy fantasy and is the type of stuff that many outside the US find a bit scary.I dont want to start a Yank bashing thread but I'm afraid the time has come for you guys to do some serious navel gazing and figure out just why some people hate you to the extent that they commit these insane acts.Stop trotting out rhetoric about them hating freedom and democracy etc and wake up to the real and tangible grievacies that many people have.If you remove these reasons you will really have tackled terrorism.

qflte

25th Sep 2001, 17:00

However practical a gun in cockpit sounds it is not the answer. Re-enforced doors, video cameras and the like are the way to go. The amount of initial and ongoing weapons training involved would be huge. Remember you are teaching the trainee how to KILL not just how to shoot and weapons safety.A well constructed Kevlar door, lock and bulkhead sealing off the cockpit will stop even a galley cart rammed at it. Plenty of time to carry out procedures to incapacitate the hijackers and passengers.
I must agree whole-heartly with Homer etc. Yes Americans have been savagely attacked and our simpathy should be with them but there are underlying causes why these people hate and fear Americans, and it has little to do with how free and democratic America is. :D

[ 25 September 2001: Message edited by: Qflte ]

Tripower455

25th Sep 2001, 17:09

Tripower455,
You are wrong!! Read my statement. People killed by guns in their own homes are more likely to have been killed by their own gun than one that an intruder brought with them. Check your facts!![

Give me a relevant source for your facts. You are simply misinformed.

And this does have reference to the cockpit. Do you really think that two pilots are going to be able to keep control of that weapon when their are five or more terrorists on the plane. Give me a break.

So 2 unarmed pilots have a BETTER chance of fighting off 5 terrorists? We might as well just GIVE them the airplane and enjoy the ride........What is WRONG with the logic of you people? This is a no brainer.....

Just because a few lunatics commit an insane act does not mean the world has gone insane.Guns on the flight deck?.

Arguing against effective means of defense is insane, and OBVIOUSLY a product of years of brainwashing by your rulers......

It sadly seems to be a groundswell of opinion from the good ole Yoo-ess who are shouting for this.

Actually, I am GLAD that our unions are using some COMMON sense in this issue!

Just as the Americans are incapable or unwilling to examine the reasons why they are so hated by some they are blind to this insane love affair with guns they seem to have.

Ahh, we are fortunate that we have you to enlighten us! We are hated because of our insane love affair with guns? A gun is a tool, despite what your socialist education might have led you to believe........I can be accused of having a love affair with my car, but not a gun.......

Anyone who has ever picked up a firearm will concede that they have a strange and compelling attraction.

Obviously coming from a person that has never or at the most infrequently handles a gun........More socialist drivel......

They feel good at a instinctive level and we want one.

They also feel good at a practical level.......especially when threatened.....Maybe in the UK, the terrorists respond to reason, but in the rest of the world, they ONLY understand force.....

Unfortunately a few people then start dreaming up tenuous arguments for actualy being allowed to carry one.

Actually, a few people (19) have made these so called "tenuous" arguments VERY viable.....Any credibility in the argument AGAINST arming pilots has gone OUT the window........

Ditching your float plane in Alaska and being attacked by a bear is probably about the closest thing to a good reason you will get.Wipping out your Glock and whuppin' Abdul's ass is really just insane "yee har!" good ole boy fantasy and is the type of stuff that many outside the US find a bit scary.

We in the US find it SCARIER that you would rather just sit and allow your throat to be slit, and your airplane be flown into an office building full of your countrymen than to overcome your hoplophobia! Repeat after me......A GUN IS A TOOL!

I dont want to start a Yank bashing thread but I'm afraid the time has come for you guys to do some serious navel gazing and figure out just why some people hate you to the extent that they commit these insane acts.

Well, you've already started the Yank bashing thread! I will NOT be dragged into a comparison of our respective nations.......If you are happy there, then GREAT! STAY THERE! Do not, however, pass judgement about issues that you are not familiar with........I can guarantee that there are more of YOUR fellow subjects trying to get here than US citizens trying to get to the UK......Gee, I wonder why?

Stop trotting out rhetoric about them hating freedom and democracy etc and wake up to the real and tangible grievacies that many people have.If you remove these reasons you will really have tackled terrorism.

GEEZ, I never realized that my beliefs that firearms are merely tools caused the atrocity 2 weeks ago!

We CAN be accused of being short sighted when we sent arms to the Afghani's........It seems that the Taliban has no problem biting the hand that fed it. Our mistake was that we projected HUMAN emotions and logic on a bunch of animals.

If you are even remotely suggesting that those animals were even SLIGHTLY justified in commandeering 4 civilian airliners and KILLING 5000+ of MY fellow CIVILIAN countymen, then you are, with all DUE respect, AN IDIOT! What "tangible grievances" could a bunch of religious zealots have with 5000 stockbrokers and secretaries.......PLEASE!

bobtoldmetodoit

25th Sep 2001, 19:26

Tripower

You are clearly an ***** - hope you enjoy being dumb or did you take all those quotes out of context on purpose.

Whatever - could you let us know what airline you fly for so that I can ensure that I NEVER end up sitting on a plane you are in the cockpit of ?

[ 25 September 2001: Message edited by: bobtoldmetodoit ]

Scotflight Aviation

25th Sep 2001, 19:35

Guys guys..(and ladies..)
I think some of you are getting too over-focused on some aspects of this issue.
Let's make some attempt to encourage our authorities to work out a plan of action rather than get over-emotional about the opinions about guns and weapons.
First..do we have an international security crisis here...YES
Are we trying to prevent ourselves from being killed by suicide hijackers..YES.
Ok..so..some people want guns, some want marshal, some want zappers, some want the cabin crew to be armed, some want armed doors, and others want pepper spray..others want to do nothing and rely on the ground staff to keep us alive. Each suggestion has very strong opinion both in favour and also against....and for good reason. Now let's stop for a minute and look into the history of aviation. Has it ever been safe? Didn't people protest both for and against virtually every safety measure that's ever been pioneered in flying, including the introduction of Glass cockpits..."Not real instrument flying, " they said. "It'll cause eyesight problems, cataracts etc"
"Fly-by-wire?...must be dangerous...not in full control.."
And the introduction of CRM invited cries of, "It'll never work, it's no use...you won't catch ME doing that..." etc.
Now we have a new debate. And while people are still working to improve every other aspect of aviation that's ever been tried, this is one that will continually be amended, and it's not going to be as simple as merely "arming pilots" or whatever.
Pepper sprays, electronic stun guns are things I have no knowledge of, but there must be ways of activating such defences via devices on the cabin side of the (locked) cockpit door to intruders trying to get in (as seen by pilots via small camera in appropriate cabin location.)
Guns in cockpit? Well, without getting into the "Rambo" and "last resort" aspects of the argument,the fact is that it's possible to regulate ammunition such that it would have man-flattening ability ability without peircing the aircraft skin. (Ok, perhaps windows should be strengthened)
And as for leaving gun as part of flight-deck equipment...personally I believe (as an ex-gun owner prior to the British Ban) a handgun should "fit" it's owner for best results as we all have different sizes and shapes of hand etc. Then each owner would be responsible for making damn sure they never leave it in cockpit. This was part of the responsibility for gun owners when they were legal.
Ok, so not everyone wants to own a gun, and perhaps some characters (even professionals) would be not of "suitable character" to own such things, so nobody should be forced to have them if they don't want.
Also, what security measures would work well in one aircraft probably wouldn't work so well in the confined spaces/layout of another aircraft. And let's not forget our single-crew colleagues who are no less responsible just because they fly small but-hijackable aircraft like crop dusters, training aircraft, survay aircraft etc.operating out of smaller airfields which don't have the security screening capabilities of larger airports.
So what are we going to do?
Well, somehow the authorities and airlines will have to agree on a minimum security level per airline/operation/aircraft type, and allow the airlines and their pilots some sort of flexibility about what sort of defence technique they'd like to employ.
Pilots would be able to carry with them a choice of security measures...perhaps a combination of those already mentioned.
Nobody needs to know what that combination is. So a would-be hijacker doesn't know that on any one flight there may be a Captain with gun, an armoured door, a co-pilot with spray, a steward with a zapper, and probably a marshal (or other airline employee) on board with another device, or a blackbelt in Ramboism. Perhaps a combination of all.
So does the hijacker carry a gas mask, or a bullet proof vest,or a gun, or an electrically insulated space-suit, or metal cutters, or all of the above?
It's really going to be a pain for hijackers to plan an attack with any guarantee of success.
As for the gus debate. Some people are under the impression that only qualified ex-military people are appropriate to carry them. What a load of utter nonsense.!!!!
Have individual applicants properly vetted by police, insist upon proper training, not just in use, but in all aspects of gun safety, regular recurrent training, etc and stop trying to tell me that we aren't responsible people. Remember that the general idea here is not to actually play at "Rambo tough guy" and shoot people, but to creat a deterrent. If a professional hijacker still manages to get into the cockpit and get that gun of me for the purpose of a suicide dive, then I was going to die anyway!
And let's not use the tragedy of the Dunblane be an excuse to say that "one nutter will manage to get a licence like the guy who shot the kids". Let the police learn from that lesson to impose more stringent vetting. It was already known that he was a weirdo but our laws at that time weren't sufficient to stop him. This is different. And this time we're talking about educated responsible individuals.
I have myself been in a situation where I've used my semi-automatic pistol for a life-threatening paction of self-defence. I'm NOT Rambo-tough-guy...never tried to be. And I wasn't all cool and unafraid like the actors in the movies. I was absolutely f***ing terrified and trembling for about 2 hours afterwards, but I had been given military and police training for the situation...one which had a happy ending with nobody getting hurt. It's not just a question of becoming John Wayne...like flying, even these situations have procedures. And in my moment of need, my gun was a huge comfort to me, one which at the time I would have paid any amount of money for.
So please folks, let's treat this debate with an open-mind. I don't want to see aircrews suddenly being given all sorts of equipment without rigorous training. But treated sensibly, and distributed sensibly, this might save a lot of lives.

May all your landings be intentional.

OFBSLF

25th Sep 2001, 19:44

Aviatr:

That's simply incorrect. What you are probably referring to is the article by Arthur Kellerman, claiming that a person was 43 times more likely to be killed by a gun in their home than to use that gun to kill an intruder. In particular, he said that: "for every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides and 37 suicides involving firearms."

That study itself has been greatly criticized in the academic world, and Kellerman himself has admitted it is flawed in that: "Studies such as ours do not include cases in which intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm...." Kellerman has since issued a followup paper, reducing the odds to 4:1, but still hasn't addressed many of his critics.

Regardless of how you feel about the Kellerman study as a whole, it never discussed disarming. In fact, if you check the US FBI Uniform Crime Reports, you will see that the safest way to respond to an attempted armed robbery is to draw your own gun. Persons who did so were less likely to die or be injured than those who complied or tried to fight without a weapon.

I've studied handgun retention and disarming, using a system taught to many US police officers. Disarming is certainly a threat, but it is quite risky (to the person attempting the disarm) and can be countered.

OFBSLF
Massachusetts State Police Certified Firearms Safety Instructor

OFBSLF

25th Sep 2001, 19:57

Regarding OC (pepper) spray and stun guns, sorry but I don't think they're practical. OC spray takes some time to work and a determined individual can fight through it. A small percentage aren't effected by it at all. A bigger concern is that discharging OC spray in the aircraft would effect everyone on board. The pilots had better get their masks on. I have been trained in the use of OC spray and have experienced it myself. OC spray is meant to be used at a distance (5-15 feet or so, depending on the type). It's not much use when grappling with a knife wielding attacker.

Stun guns just aren't very effective. They have to be held onto the person for a number of seconds (hard to do when the terrorist is slicing away at you with box cutter). I've been hit with a stun gun during training and wasn't very impressed.

OFBLSF

Scotflight Aviation

25th Sep 2001, 20:03

OFBLSF
Thanks for comment there..
Like I said, I've never had any experience with sprays or stunners, but it's good to get comments from guys like yourself who actually know a bit about what we're talking about here.

GlueBall

25th Sep 2001, 20:20

Pilots are busy enough flying airplanes. To make pilots an extension of law enforcement is impractical reality.
There are larger implications about gun toting pilots: How and where to store loaded weapons in hotels during layovers; how to carry loaded weapons in transport to and from hotels; pilots with loaded guns in foreign countries, what are the legal implications? For armed pilots to carry loaded guns between airports and hotels in foreign countries will require bilateral Interpol agreements.
I doubt that this cowboy pilot mentality will be accepted by U.S. lawmakers, nor by the international community.
Yes, I am one airline pilot who believes that the answer is: Reinforced cockpit bulkheads with steel doors, heavy locks and revised inflight security training. Closed circuit video camera in front of cockpit door. New passenger awarness would include a taylored preflight security briefing for them as well. Since Sept 11th the mind set of passenger awareness has changed. It's highly unlikely now that passengers would sit idle during any air rage or hijack attempt. :cool:

The Guvnor

25th Sep 2001, 20:21

I spent a large number of years in the real wild, wild west - Africa, and throughout that time I carried my SIG P226 24/7 and depending on what I was doing would have one or other of my weapons - an HK53, MP5K and a Sites Spectre - on or close to me most of the time.

In the mid 80s, Nigeria - where we were nominally based - was effectively lawless. As a Nigerian flagged airline, we could not get credit for fuel, handling, landing etc and that, coupled with our habit of buying our own (usually perishable) cargoes for return flights meant that our crews would be carrying very large sums of money. The local 'rogues' were well aware of this, and as a result our crews along with those of other airlines were targetted.

I was personally involved in a couple of firefights which I can assure anyone who has never had the experience of being under fire is definitely something you want to have on your 'must miss' list. In addition, to know that you have taken someone's life perhaps microseconds ahead of them taking yours is a gutwrenching experience.

In order to remain competent with my firearms, I must have spent thousands of dollars on many tens of thousands of rounds on target practice at least twice a week. Practicing as well being able to draw my SIG in a variety of situations and positions. Stripping and cleaning all of the weapons on a daily basis. Driving around town with my SIG under my thigh, and the MP5 on the seat next to me, covered by a newspaper.

Having a firearm is a whole different way of life. It's not something that you can simply have as a piece of kit; an item on a checklist: "Cabin secure; seatbelts on; S&W 38s loaded and safety on..." - it's a mindset. In order to be fully effective, you need to be carrying 24/7 so that you feel naked without it and of course that's just not practical here in the UK (or most other places) for your average airline pilot.

And think of the paperwork. We had piles and piles of the stuff - consents from the Nigerian CAA; special customs forms, declarations, licences ... Add to that the practice and training time, and your worldload has increased substantially.

For what it's worth, the majority of pilots I know don't have - in my opinion - the capability to deliberately draw down on and kill another human being. (And that's a compliment, by the way).

No. Flight crews need to concentrate on getting the aircraft down safely in a situation from behind the safety of an armoured door (which with Kevlar and other ballistic nylons is not something which would add huge amounts of weight - we're not talking six inch armour plate here!); and let professionals deal with the inflight security.

Scotflight Aviation

25th Sep 2001, 20:57

Glueball...we're not talking about "gun-toting pilots". We're talking about professionals with professional training. And as professionals, we should be capable of accepting the practical and responsibility aspects of professional training. As a professional, I don't want to simply rely on passengers trying to do something about a situation.
And Guvnor...I appreciate the compliment...and I pretty much agree with what you're saying, but I think both of you are trying to tar all pilots with the same brush that we're only good at flying aeroplanes and not capable of doing anything with a gun. Yet, a young boy can leave school tomorrow and join the army to be almost instantly trained to carry a gun..!?!
I agree that this situation is far from ideal, and I absolutely cringe at the idea of pilots )or anyone) being put in charge of a gun as a compulsory measure. But can't you both accept that some of us professional people are actually capable and responsible.
Guvnor,..I also accept you comment about carrying a gun as a different way of life. Absolutely correct!! When I went on shooting competitions, I had my double shoulder-holster with both guns firmly tucked out of sight until I got to the range. If i stayed overnight for a comp, the guns would NEVER be anywhere except tucked firmly under my armpits. And if I had to leave my B&B accom to get a bite to eat somewhere, going into bars and drinking simply wasn't an option, either from a legal point of view or a common sense one.
And guns would be unloaded until I got to the firing point on the range. I know I speak on behalf af all other members of the shooting clubs I went to.
Like I think I said, this is an option worth considering, but lets keep it a bit more open-minded without the "gun-toting" and "let's just leave security to someone else who knows what they're doing" attitudes.

rustbucket732

25th Sep 2001, 22:02

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/25/national/25SECU.html

"You'd have to have a tremendous amount of screening and training before I'd ever want to ride as a passenger on an airplane where the pilot was armed," said a senior crash investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board. The investigator, a former commercial airline pilot, added, "Some of these guys are the type that'd be quick to anger without a good basis for it."

Straight from the horses mouth.

Tuckunder

25th Sep 2001, 22:46

It is sad to see Yank and Brit Bashing in this forum when for once our politicians seem to have got it right and Blair has given Bush our total support in any forthcoming action. I for one am totally behind this and consider our whole way of life depends on a zero tolerance mind set towards known terrorists. Even if, in the short term, further atrocities have to be endured either side of the Atlantic. I have a military background and have carried a pistol in the cockpit. I have also seen an accidental discharge and I know the squadron adj used to keep a supply of rounds in the goodies bag which prevented many a Court Martial for a "lost round". I like to think we were very professional pilots who could fly as well as anyone. However as regards handling weapons, with our 6 monthly 30 rounds practice we were p......ng into wind as regards professional gun handlers. I always used to say the only use for my Browning was to use it on myself before capture and torture. (hopefully I wouldn't have missed!). Guns on civilian airliners will be a total unmitigated disaster. I am aware that the American right to bear arms is extremely emotive but please guys listen to others who have a different viewpoint.

Happy flying

Fly-by-night

25th Sep 2001, 22:49

How about a gun containing a captive bolt, similar to ones approved for the air carriage of live-stock. It'll recoil only a foot at maximum, so as not compromise the aircraft structure, but would certainly be a deterrent to any would-be invaider?

GlueBall

25th Sep 2001, 23:26

Hey Scotty:
I am a professional with a wide body strapped to my a$$ flying international, staying in different hotels in many different countries. Now tell me about foreign laws covering the carriage of concealed weapons; tell me where to check my loaded gun for safety at out stations? With the hotel Front Desk clerk? Or do I keep my gun when I go out to eat at a restaurant, drink at a pub in a foreign country? Just think about the logistics of gun safety, gun accountability 24 hours a day when I'm on trips, living out of my suitcase two or three weeks outside USA. Would people in Scottland mind having armed Bahamian, Canadian, Pakistani, Indian, Egyptian, Dutch, Nigerian, Russian, Sudanese, Brasilian, Indonesian airline pilots walking the streets of Glasgow...? Get a grip on reality. :eek:

Noisy Hooligan

25th Sep 2001, 23:56

The practicalities are for "others" to work out. N' est-ce pas?

The problem is two fold:
1 Is the arming of aircrew a practical deterrant to terrorists...
2 Do the fare paying public (gawd bless 'em) want armed crew or not?

Question number 2 is REALLY what our jobs depend upon! - I would suggest.

Tripower455

26th Sep 2001, 00:41

You are clearly an ***** - hope you enjoy being dumb or did you take all those quotes out of context on purpose.

What did I quote out of context? Am I dumb because I disagree with someone?

Seeing as I sit in these aircraft MANY hours a day, I feel that I am entitled to my opinion, and I'm qualified to speak on the subject.....I fail to understand this irrational fear of inaminate objects.....

You are clearly an (whatever it is you called me....) :rolleyes:

Grow up......

Scotflight Aviation

26th Sep 2001, 00:45

Hey guys...no need to get emotional about this...I didn't for a second suggest that such implementation would be easy. And glueball..I entirely agree about not wanting foreign nationals being let lose in our streets with guns because they're nightstopping here...
And although I might not give the impression, I actually agree with the point of view that guns are a really bad idea.
But perhaps we're being a little bit selfish with the debate. Nutters of the world have suddenly realised that hijacking and crashing is somthing they might like to consider= we're all targets basically. And we have a responsibility not just to ourselves, but to every working citizen doing their jobs 37000 feet beneath us.
Perhaps an over-dramatic statement, but it could be argued that every time we fly we put peoples lives at risk on the ground.
We all have a duty to cause them no harm, and participate in trying to help the authorities and governments to find a solution which we can work with. Whatever problems are associated with any new idea, let's all try to figure out how they can be overcome before ridiculing them.
The world seems to be uniting with Bush, so perhaps the relevant aviation authorities/police/security services can get their act together and be co-ordinated enough to provide the facilities for aircrews to deposit weaponry with police/security on arrival at whatever airport they nighstop at.
It wouldn't happen overnight, and not every airport in every country would be as forthcoming or advisable perhaps.
Also I'm not suggesting that every pilot must be armed.In fact, something makes me really dislike that idea.
But there are so many very strong opinions on both sides of this debate, and all I hope is that all concerned can make some sort of effort to consider the problems on both sides..and at least make an effort to figure out what better solution there is to crashing.
Many comments about this that I've heard or read seem to be basing the idea that there will "likely" be probably 5 or 6 hijackers, therefore too much for one man and one gun to tackle. But, at the risk of being accused of being a scaremonger, I can't help thinking that there must be a few maniacs out there with a grudge against the world who would like to commit suicide and cause some havoc at the same time. (Remember the Dunblane shooter)And recent events in the news have made them look at aviation for their sick death-wish.
I don't want to be on one side or the other of this debate. But it's all to easy to reject new ideas rather than face the challenges of trying to find ways of making them work(especially in the face of strong opinionism).
I have enjoyed shooting targets, and I don't personally have a problem about carrying a gun, as I've done so many times.
I understand and respect why many people hate them.
I will not criticise anyone for wishing to have no involvement with such items, so long as they don't criticise me for wanting to save my life, my passengers, my crew, and a few thousand people beneath when nobody seems to be convinced of any other defense method at a time when all of us know that there are huge gaps in international aviation security.
We have to do something, and cries of "That won't work" and "I don't like that idea" are useless at this stage.

Meantime, happy landings folks.

Scotflight Aviation

26th Sep 2001, 00:55

Yep guys..I have to agree with Tripower's comments ....regardless if we agree or not, the only way to jointly fight terrorists to to listen to other peoples opinions.
Only then can we build a better picture of all the different reasons for and against whateber we talk about.
And if we don't like 'em , we simply agree to disagree.
Keep the comments coming tripower...
Oh guys..just one little piece of scaremongering (sorry)...but if hijackers can smuggle bombsand automatic weapons into an airliners, couldn't they also smuggle an electric angle-grinder to cut through the reinforced bolted double-locked armour-plated cockpit door ?
"Oh shut up Scotty" did I hear you groan?

The Guvnor

26th Sep 2001, 01:57

NG_Kaptain

26th Sep 2001, 02:06

Guv,
Thats the scariest scenario of all, considering there are numerous operators around the world who are real "iffy" including one outfit who wants to donate 747 SP's to Sadam!! Makes you think .

The Guvnor

26th Sep 2001, 02:13

NG_Kaptain - you might think I'm talking about that certain iffy operation which is based in SHJ and has gone through a remarkable collection of flags of convenience in its time (including latterly Sudan which has close ties to one Osama bin Laden) - but I couldn't possibly comment! :D :D :D

NG_Kaptain

26th Sep 2001, 02:21

BTW, what about the military guys? What do they do with their sidearms in foreign ports, I dont think thats ever been an issue?
Like it has been said lately "We live in intersting times".

PFO

26th Sep 2001, 02:44

Surely the answer is respirators for the flightcrew, behind reinforced doors.

Cabin fitted with system to issue incapacitating nerve agent into a/c. Flightcrew (FO or Capt) can then secure the hijackers (handcuffs/anklecuffs) before recycling a/c with clean air and everyone wakes up??

Surely this is a better idea than issuing guns - how many airline pilots would have the capability to shoot 4 or 5 hijackers without damaging the a/c or injuring an innocent passenger??

PFO

Roadtrip

26th Sep 2001, 03:30

Any firearms should remain as aircraft equipment, locked in a quick access/limited access safe at each pilot position, never to be removed except by the armourers or in an emergency.

If one goes missing, you have a BFI (big f*****g investigation), but it's not like it's a nuclear weapon. If one does go missing, you've got a bigger security problem than just a missing firearm.

"Unmitigated disaster?" What do you call the events of 11 Sept, when the crews had NO chance of self defense?

I find arguements against arming flightdeck crews witless, phobic, based on false assumptions, illogical, or disingenous. Without exception, ALL civilians I have talked to in the US strongly support arming aircrews and many were shocked when they found out pilots WEREN'T armed. There is, however, a strong cultural difference between the American psyche of rugged individualism and other cultures. If the UK and Euros don't want to arm their pilots for last ditch defense of the airplane, DON'T!

aviatter

26th Sep 2001, 03:56

Someone tell me this,

What happens when the first edgy pilot shoots someone who exhibited many of the signs air crew use to pinpoint suspected terrorists, etc., but were actually just very nervous of flying?
If anybody thinks it won't happen, they are sadly mistaken.
Guns in the cockpit won't deter someone who is on a suicide mission, especially if there are four or five others to back him or her up.
Tripower455,
You are right in saying that the pilots of these flights had no chance, but do you think they would have enough time to pull the gun if four or five terrorists suddenly burst into the cockpit without warning?
I still think that by removing the doors between the cockpit and the rest of the plane you avoid many problems (although I agree it could be a logistical nightmare). Eventually people will realize that they can't use the plane as a guided missile because they can't kill the pilots. Yes they may blow up the plane, but guys like the hijackers of Sept. 11th were going to do that anyway. At least 6000 innocent people won't die in a single incident.

aviatter

PS Tripower455 is not ignorant or anything else, he is simply stating his opinion, and although I may disagree with him I do respect his arguments and so should everyone else.

aviator

26th Sep 2001, 09:13

For those interested in the FACTS, the arming of qualified and willing pilots is but one of the recommendations from ALPA's Captain Duane Woerth.

His testimony (quite interesting and detailed) is at
http://www.alpa.org/

Look half way down the page - click on his testimony

Bally Heck

26th Sep 2001, 10:26

If there's a gun in the cabin of the aircraft, whether it's held by a pilot, a skymarshall, or Bruce Willis, I personally will be catching the next unarmed flight or taking the train. (And where I live, taking the train is regarded as an "extreme sport")

What a silly idea! Hollywood has much more to answer for than I previously thought.

BOING

26th Sep 2001, 10:48

The basis of many of these posts is that we are attempting to stop anyone using our aircraft as a cruise missile.

WAKE UP YOU DUMMIES! Our job is to look after the safety of our passengers and crew. Despite recent events that responsibility has not been taken from us!!!!

Ths idea of locking the reinforced cockpit door so that the terrorists can slash and burn at will is disgusting. Any solution to the terrorist problem must include our best efforts to defeat ALL types of terrorist acts.

Tuckunder

26th Sep 2001, 11:17

Roadtrip,

I did not wish to downgrade what happened on the 11th of September. If my post gave that impression then I apologise. What happened was probably the most shocking event I have witnessed during my "not so innocent life". However, I want the world to return to normal, I do not want to worry about my daughter visiting London or my son visiting New York. To my simple mind this can be achieved by our politicians using dialogue and military firepower if necessary. Any action will have my total support even if we have to endure hardships in the short term. I respect that you may well be a very able and competent gun handler. Unfortunately (or in my viewpoint fortunately) most of us on this side of the Atlantic are not. I would suspect that very many of your fellow countrymen also lack the skills required to be responsible for a firearm in the cockpit. I am not against the idea of cockpit security but there must be a better way than the Bruce Willis mentality.

I haven't posted a message to this effect but my very sincere condolences to your countrymen and all others who were caught up in this dreadful cowardly act.

Julian

26th Sep 2001, 11:30

Carrying a gun may be OK in the US but what happens when you are the driver of a flight inbound to the UK (or any other country where firearms are illegal)?

You aren't police/military/etc so once you land you are just another person and shouldn't have it. Maybe therefore they will be forced to look at stun guns, etc as an alternative for transtlantic flights anyway.

Julian.

DanJ

26th Sep 2001, 11:41

The best idea here so far is the "knockout" type agent, combined with reinforced door/cctv. I do not however, know of any such agent/gas. Is this even feasible? Quite curious.

Abnormal_Law

26th Sep 2001, 12:01

I wouldn't want to be on a flight with an armed Yank & a Socialist Pommy up in front! :p Come on you guys, these horrific events have changed our Life. So let's be rational - luckily the Politicians are doing just that this time round ! Some kind of gas that can be sprayed in the cabin sounds more reasonable than GUNS in the cockpit !!
And will we get a loo in front of the TITANIUM/KEVLAR/TIG WELDED reinforced super cockpit door ?

GOD HELP US ALL !

Julian

26th Sep 2001, 14:18

If you use a gas there are a couple of problems:

a) it would have to be EXTREMELY quick - or you have a dead flight crew.

b) if someone bursts in and you set off the gas then you have one sleeping flight crew as well, they wouldnt have time to put on their masks (which would presumably be provided), if a) holds true.

Think stun guns are the best idea I have seen put forward on here.

Julian.

Roadtrip

26th Sep 2001, 15:10

Aviator - Lethal defense for the purpose to "deter" terrorist? No, just as last ditch cockpit defense to kill them when they try and break the cockpit door down and commandeer the aircraft. No door is unbreakable, but a hardened door would provide time and prevent the cockpit crew from being surprised. It give them time to draw weapons, form a hasty plan, and defend the cockpit.

Tuckunder - Training is an issue, but a majority of major airline pilots in the US are from military backgrounds and have small arms training already. If a pilot is so incompetent as to be unable be trained to handle a simple handgun with frangible ammunition, I've got serious questions about his ability to command or fly an aircraft as well. We're not trying to defend the prime minister against a varity of threats from any direction, just that 2 foot wide opening to the cockpit. If someone's trying to smash down the cockpit door, I've got a pretty good idea they ain't tryin' to bring us coffee.

Julian - Any weapons should be considered aircraft equipment and locked in a quick access safe at each pilot position. In practicality, they'd never be touched except for an amourer (for routine mx) or the crew in an extreme emergency. There could even be a dead drop through the floor, if for some reason, there needed to be an emergency disposal method.

Abnormal Law - "Pommy"? - I've spent a lot of time in the UK, but haven't heard that one before. Please translate into "American."

But then again, maybe you still think I'm just a Hollywood-brainwashed, kill-crazed, Bruce Willis wannabe gun-nutter. But when YOU'RE in that airplane making a cell phone call to your wife to say a final goodby, like many in our hijacked aircraft did, I'll bet you'd change your mind obout providing the pilots with a last-ditch lethal defense.

I understand most Englishmen's aversion to weapons, but I live out here in "wild west" were almost everyone has some type of firearm. We have a remarkable polite society out here, with no memory of any murders via firearm. We view them as respected tools, and consider self-defense and the defense of others as a personal responsibility, as well as that of the Sheriff and Municipal police. Not using all means available to defend yourself and others when faced with a clear and present threat is immoral, IMHO.

[ 26 September 2001: Message edited by: Roadtrip ]

Tripower455

26th Sep 2001, 17:36

Just to throw some grist to the mill here ...
Given that these terrorist groups are all rather well funded, what's to stop them buying a cheap B747 - ostensibly for some iffy charter operation based in, oh, let's say SHJ - and then fly it with theior own crews into whatever buildings they want without having to go through the whole hijack process in the first place?

Lowers the potential casualty numbers slightly - but you'd have a far higher chance of success!

Guv,

What you've proposed is exactly what went through my mind as I watched what I thought to be a 737 fly into the second WTC tower on the 11th! I really hadn't considered that they were hijacked airliners! With all the oil money floating around the mideast, I figured that some deranged millionaire financed a few 737s, and had them flown into the WTC.......I was OBVIOUSLY wrong!

BTW, are you any relation to Brian May?

PAXboy

26th Sep 2001, 17:58

I repeat a reply (edited down) that I made to an almost identical thread running in Aircrew Notices. Please note I am PAX not crew.
...

You would have to KNOW that there is a problem. DRAW the weapon (from secure container not smooth leather holster). TURN to look over your shoulder. ASSESS the situation, consider who is standing beside/behind/in front of atacker. DECIDE on action.

Ooops, they just bopped you on the head/sprayed MACE/knifed the hostie etc.

Further, we have seen many remarks about the low ebb that crew reach when they are near the end of a long sector. Let's say you have been on duty for ten hours - since briefing.

Although you have not been in the driving seat all the time, you are going to be bright and ready to take the above kind of action when Mr Nasty arrives to disturb your view of the dawn.

Aren't you?

[ 26 September 2001: Message edited by: PAXboy ]

Celtic Emerald

26th Sep 2001, 18:28

I just luv the idea of a gun battle on the flight deck, fits right in with President Bushes wildwest theme, as long as no instruments are hit or there isn't a bullet shot through the windows leaving a gaping hole I suppose we'll be alright :rolleyes: though I hear they've got guns that fire cardboard bullets now? I would have thought the best strategy is preventing hijackers ever reaching the flightdeck in the first place cause once they've gained entry you're in a very dangerous scenario and the crew and the safety of the aircraft are at a serious disadvantage so either a reinforced door with a specialised locking system (dead locking I think they call it, not sure how it works), totally separating the cockpit from the cabin or skymarshals is the answer.

I 'd much rather also that

Proper screening of staff as well as pax needs to be done with staff history researched as well. Looks like staff were in cohoots with the hijackers & some of the weapons were hidden abroad the aircraft before the pax boarded.

The banning of hand luggage in the cabin I feel is also necessary as FR has done & there's no point in confiscating plastic razors etc as they did to one pilot & then hand out complimentary ones on board. Come to think of it I can't think of a better weapon than a bottle of duty free would make a great weapon as well to smash someone over the head with but I forgot forbiding that might affect profit margins. Silly me!

Emerald

bobtoldmetodoit

26th Sep 2001, 19:14

Tripower - yeah you're right - you weren't quoting out of context, you were twisting everything like hell - 5 stars for me - golly thanks.

<<<quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as the Americans are incapable or unwilling to examine the reasons why they are so hated by some they are blind to this insane love affair with guns they seem to have.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ahh, we are fortunate that we have you to enlighten us! We are hated because of our insane love affair with guns? A gun is a tool, despite what your socialist education might have led you to believe........I can be accused of having a love affair with my car, but not a gun.......>>>

The quote does not say you are hated because of your insane love affair with guns - would have thought that basic qualification in written english was a requirement for obtaining a pilot's licence.

Let's not forget that the planes that were hijacked WERE american, a) because of lax security on domestic flights, b) because the US has made itself a targets by its escapades since the end of WW2.

Please note that just because I think that the US has made some terrible decisions on the world stage doesn't mean I support the actions of these fanatics.

In terms of the issue of guns on planes, don't think it is a solution for pilots to carry them - Trained Air Marshalls or similar is another matter - in the world of the two person cockpit would like to think that the pilots are driving.

Following your logic about our right to defend ourselves then we should be working for an industry where EVERYONE on a plane carrys a gun.?

TikkiRo

26th Sep 2001, 20:30

As someone previously said - "You are just amazing you guys/gals".

You presumably opted for a career in aviation for your enjoyment of flying primarily yet few of you seem to be complaining about how your career has been 'hijacked' (pardon the pun) by people intent on changing the goalposts and your lives amongst the rest. I just marvel (as a PPL student) how you can deal with this threat in the way you are. Congratulations on sticking with all of these horrendous issues and not 'bailing out' in a sense - we pax like to know our pilots are more than just 'bus-drivers' in anyone's eyes. Your expertise is taken far too much for granted - to add in firearms training may perhaps make people a little more appreciative of your immense workload etc. Not sure, mind you, as a pax that I like the idea of the pilots being armed, but at the end of the day things are happening now as never before and all situations have to be considered in their light.

TR

Tripower455

26th Sep 2001, 20:53

The quote does not say you are hated because of your insane love affair with guns - would have thought that basic qualification in written english was a requirement for obtaining a pilot's licence.

So what, exactly, did you mean by your post?

What does our reasonable approach to civilian gun ownership have to do with our actions on the world stage? Should we have stopped supporting Israel? Sent MORE aid and weapons to third world countries?

The hoplophobic rhetoric is getting old and has little to do with the topic at hand.....

It sure seemed as if you were, if not condoning the attack, at least trying to justify it, as if somehow American civilians are responsible.

Thanks for the english lesson! :)

Besides, here in the states, it's spelled licenSe........

Ace 1

26th Sep 2001, 21:29

Check McCampbell's Aces Squadron newsletter FLIGHT LINE for the latest opinions on this and other newsworthy topics not found in the mainstream media.

Use the link.

Ace 1 ;) FLIGHT LINE (http://boatcoach.tripod.com)

OFBSLF

26th Sep 2001, 22:56

Celtic said:

" I just luv the idea of a gun battle on the flight deck, fits right in with President Bushes wildwest theme, as long as no instruments are hit or there isn't a bullet shot through the windows leaving a gaping hole I suppose we'll be alright <http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/rolleyes.gif> though I hear they've got guns that fire cardboard bullets now? I would have thought the best strategy is preventing hijackers ever reaching the flightdeck in the first place cause once they've gained entry you're in a very dangerous scenario and the crew and the safety of the aircraft are at a serious disadvantage so either a reinforced door with a specialised locking system (dead locking I think they call it, not sure how it works), totally separating the cockpit from the cabin or skymarshals is the answer."

Personally, I'm among the many SLF who aren't flying at the moment. I'd prefer to have 1) multiple sky marshals on every flight, 2) much better pax screening at airports, and 3) reinforced cockpit doors. The reality is that it will take at least a year plus before we have reinforced cockpit doors. It will take several years before we could have multiple sky marshals on every flight in CONUS, and that's provided we're willing to pay for them. Pax screening is now slightly better but still not up to par. Until security improves, I will do everything I can to avoid air travel.

So what do we do in the meantime? Do I like the idea of gunfight in the cockpit. No. What I like a whole lot less is the idea of being in the situation of my late colleague, Anna Allison, who was on AA flight 11. I'm going to her memorial service this Sunday.

Regarding the bullets, they're not cardboard. They're called frangible bullets, usually made out of powdered metal (typically copper), pressed together under high pressure. Would it be bad if a bullet hit an instrument? Sure would. Would you rather that the hijacker got hold of the plane instead?

Regarding sleeping gas being dispensed into the aircraft, I think some folks have been watching too many Bond movies. First, any such agent takes time to work. How long would it take to kick through the cockpit door? How would you control the dosage so that you quickly knock out the terrorists, but don't kill the infant sitting on her mummies lap in seat 23A? What if you have an accidental discharge of the sleeping agent? How long would it take to come up with such a system and get it installed on aircraft? I strongly suspect that we can get reinforced doors certified long before we can get sleeping gas systems certified.
Aviatr:

If a pilot used the cockpit gun to "shoot a nervous flyer," then he gets charged with at least manslaughter or possibly murder 2. The pilots would be required to stay in the cockpit in the event of a disturbance. Anyone breaking down the cockpit door is unlikely to be a nervous passenger and will be met with lead. Yes, it would be awfully hard for the pilots to stay there while the terrorists are in the cabin, saying they will kill the cabin attendants and passengers one by one until you come out.

Regarding an attack by multiple terrorists, just keep shooting. The cockpit door is a narrow fatal funnel. I'm not saying that the pilots would always be successful. Rather that this way they would have a fighting chance, which they don't have now.

Regarding storage of firearms while overnighting in other countries, there are several solutions to this, including having each airline install an armory in its secure area of the airport.

Are there major issues that would have to be worked out? Sure there are. But I suggest that you don't dismiss it out of hand.

Something has to be done quickly if you want to get folks like me back into airplanes again.

OFBSLF

The Guvnor

27th Sep 2001, 01:12

See: Bush to Announce Aviation Security Measures Thursday (http://www.cnn.com/2001/TRAVEL/NEWS/09/26/rec.bush.aviation/index.html)

Most importantly:

The sources said the administration also will embrace new measures, both short-term and long-term, designed to improve cockpit security. But the White House firmly opposes the idea of letting pilots carry hand guns in the cockpit, according to several sources who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity.

So it's "no" to the cowboys, then! :D :D :D

Dagger Dirk

27th Sep 2001, 01:23

A futuristic alternative to guns, guns, guns and the kneejerking and barn-door closing:

at this link (http://www.iasa-intl.com/RoboLander.htm)

TR4A

27th Sep 2001, 03:37

>>>So it's "no" to the cowboys, then!<<<

We still have a democracy here. There are bills pending in both the Senate and the House.

Roadtrip

27th Sep 2001, 04:24

Looks like the FAA and gub'ment is doing what they do best . . . . . nothing but eyewash.

aviator

27th Sep 2001, 18:36

Well said from http://www.avweb

<<<...ALPA GRABS THE SPOTLIGHT...
All the news media snapped to attention when Air Line Pilots Association President Duane Woerth testified that pilots should be allowed to carry weapons in the cockpit.

Woerth said all pilots should have stun guns,
plus the option to get firearms training and pack the real thing.

If a pilot can get past the sensitivity training, the placards, the trigger-lock and the hijacker-friendly bullets, this one might have a chance.>>>

Julian

27th Sep 2001, 19:34

We have discussed the fact of securing the cockpit in great depth on this forum (some good points from both sides of the argument I think!), but how do you deal with the fact that the hijackers apparently got the crew to open the flight deck door by attacking passengers/cabin crew?

I think this one is a toughie! If the crew comes out (even if armed) and is faced with a hijacker holding a hostage then there isn't a lot they can do. I wouldn't like to sit up front refusing to come out whilst a crazy is in the rear of the aircraft gradually reducing the numbers of crew and pax...

Julian.

groundfine

27th Sep 2001, 23:05

I haven't had time to read all these posts so apologies if repeating others ideas or offending the have-a-go guys, but come on let's not allow our outrage to colour judgement. I believe the USA pilot's union head has requested this - presumably without trawling his members for their thoughts first. Makes a good soundbite but is ridiculous.

Budgie69

28th Sep 2001, 02:31

If you have a gun on the flight deck you presumably need to be checked every six months on your proficiency to use it. It would be logical to do this with a sim check, and would probably best be done before the check in case relations become a little strained whilst in the box.

Would this refresher be a quick ten minutes potting sparrows on the roof of the sim block during a meal break, or would it be something more formal, say a range attached to the canteen using last weeks pies for targets.

Do you get graded on your marksmanship? Could you fail a check for poor shooting? Who pays for the ammo if you have to resit?

BOING

28th Sep 2001, 05:08

The points that most of the anti-gun (mostly european) people are missing are;

No crewmember is going to be forced to carry or use a firearm. If a person wishes to be selected to carry a firearm they should be prepared to initially train and then attend recurrent training at their own time and expense.

The selection and training procedure for personnel wishing to be armed should be the same as for the sky marshals. Since not many people are objecting to sky marshals why should one object to a similarly selected and trained pilot. To ease the legalities such as firearm possession on layovers etc. the person should be sworn in as a deputy sky marshal. A whole host of federally approved personnel are allowed to legally carry their firearm around the country, why not selected pilots.

Issued firearms in this country are no big deal. Nearly every shopping mall car park has its armed security late at night. Many banks have armed security. There are various armed federal employees all over the place, immigration, drug-enforcement, fish and wildlife rangers, not to mention hundreds of different state and local government employees down to the lowest level.

This is a firearm oriented country. Many, many people feel perfectly comfortable with firearms. Millions of people hunt one quarry or another. Many people target shoot every weekend. Many of these fire literally hundreds of rounds every weekend. I know from personal experience that many members of the pistol section of the gun club to which I belong regularly outshoot the normal police officers. (The basic training groups - not the keen pistol shooters who happen to be police officers).

Firearms could not be taken by pilots on international flights but the fact that there are a number of armed pilots would reduce the number of sky marshals required on domestic flights. These sky marshals would then be able to cover more international flights.

I have been aproached by many passengers who have told me they think the pilots should be armed.

BY THE WAY. The US government approved of shooting down commercial aircraft that appear to have been hijacked. Note they did not say "US AIRCRAFT", just aircraft. It is going to be a weird feeling as you drive your aircraft towards New York with the hijacker sitting behind you waiting for the missile to hit. Bet, at that point, you will wish you had been able to do something to stop your imminent death - like fighting back and shooting the hijacker.

[ 28 September 2001: Message edited by: BOING ]

Roadtrip

28th Sep 2001, 06:28

So now we have a situation where nothing material has changed since 11 Sep, pilots will not be allowed to have cockpit defense weapons, hardened cockpit doors will take years to deploy, and now our gub'ment is putting fighters on alert to shoot down aircraft that look threatening.

Tell me this gentlemen, if we had another set of suicide fanatics overpower the flightdeck and crash an airplane into a densely populated area tomorrow, do you think last-ditch lethal cockpit defense would still be a bad idea?

Bizzare.

BOING

28th Sep 2001, 08:17

You got it Roadtrip.

The truth is that when our leaders say they are going to protect our cities from aircraft flown by terrorists they really mean they are going to protect Washington DC from these people. Anything else is a bonus. Which is the only airport in the US that has not reopened? Should it not be safe to re-open National Airport since we have all of these marvellous new security measures in place? Does it not make you think that our leaders do not have quite as much faith in the security measures as they would have us believe? (Does not matter, National should have been closed years ago but it was to convenient for our leaders on Friday night). Which city has continuous fighter patrols overhead, day and night? You can say that our leaders shuld be protected but this is a little bit like Orwell's Animal Farm. "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".

Sixteen days after the disaster and all I have on the aircraft to protect myself is the point of a ball-point pen! Whoops, perhaps I should not have said that. Next thing is they will take away my ball-point pen and make me use a felt-tip marker!!!!

The politicians are fooling themselves. If I wanted to hijack a fully loaded aircraft to ram into the White House I would choose a heavy jet out of Dulles. Full of fuel and the element of surprise. If I chose Friday night it might also contain a few of the politicians who object to pilots being armed. Of course, they would be very relieved when the missile hit that the aircraft never made it to the White House. But, as they say, bang goes another promising political career. Fate plays funny tricks.

As it is, the comment I made earlier still stands. My primary resonsibility and duty is to the passengers and crew members who walked onto my aircraft at the departure station. If I can protect them on my flights then I will have automatically protected those on the ground. As a last ditch tool in a desperate situation give me something better than a felt-tip to use.

[ 28 September 2001: Message edited by: BOING ]

Throtlemonkey

28th Sep 2001, 11:00

If your going put guns on the flight deck they must be signiture guns only operable by the owner, this technolog exists and has done for some time.

Dagger Dirk

28th Sep 2001, 17:33

ask Airbus about stun guns(TAZERS) and their potential impact ON their FBW aircraft.

I've asked (but not yet gotten an answer from) an electrical engineer who first raised with me the question of the dubious practise (for weight-saving) of using the fuselage as an earth return medium in airliner electrics. In my view it's likely a given that the low-amp high-voltage TASER stun gun would be quite disruptive to sensitive electronics if they were to come in contact with the fuselage skin or any other (which means all) bonded component. Given that 100% bonding is always required in airframe metallic structures, it's hard to predict any definite effect on a particular system - but I would guess that a post-TASER FBW Airbus would be a markedly different proposition to a pre-TASERed one - and the variations wouldn't be along the lines that any of the Airbus systems designers had in mind. Prof Elaine Scarry could have a field day postulating with the EMI and EMP of that proposition.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that you would trip flight-control computers and fry CPU's. LED's (light emitting diodes), LCD's (Liquid Crystal Displays) would be lost permanently so that the actual status of systems would be indeterminate. Pilot's VDU's would probably be lost and basically the "glass" of a glass cockpit would become a dark and empty vessel. Solenoids and relays, being not as sensitive to voltage, would likely continue to do their duty. So you might well end up with a perfectly running vehicle, status unknown due to screen and indicator outages - but with no flight control anyway. That's just my best guess and you'd certainly need that opinion verified by someone who knew what they were talking about.
.
click link (http://www.iasa-intl.com/RoboLander.htm)

Roadtrip

28th Sep 2001, 17:48

Why don't you "GET" it??? This new form of terrorist has committed himself to DEATH, regardless of the outcome. He won't be "deterred." Even if he's unsuccessful in the hijack, he still generates fear among the public. The only way to deal with these guys is to KILL THEM before they KILL YOU (and 6,000 other moms, pops, and kids) Get out of your PC mindset thinking that technology will save you. Help yes, save NO.

Bush's plan for "remote controlled" aircraft is laughable. While technologically feasible, the COST of doing so would be so astronomical as to be completely impractical - especially for aircraft not purpose built aircraft. The suicidal terrorist is not just going to sit there and let the airplane land itself, so he can be caught! He's going to physically destroy the airplane by cutting wire bundles, starting a fire, etc. etc.

There's stupendous amounts of non-critical thinking going on right now, egged on by a agenda'd media. All shaded by political correctness, adversion to lethal force, and outright stupidity. The terrorists' cells are probably laughing at our unwilliness to use lethal force to stop a hijacking as well as the rest of our PC mindset.

The gullibility, political correctness, technical stupidity, and naivity of most non-aviation professional people, AND some aviation people (including the FAA) is truely bizarre and could untimately cause an imposion of the whole industry.

Pathetic.

Keg

28th Sep 2001, 18:18

Roadtrip, a couple of years back when a moron hijacked a JAL flight with a knife and ordered the F/O off the flight deck and then offed the skipper I made the decision that I would fight back if I was being ordered away from my post.

The assumption with that was that he wanted to do something which he didn't think I was capable of doing. The only think I'm not capable of doing deliberately is pranging the aeroplane.

Basically, I'm prepared to slug it out to save my ship and ultimately myself. Flight deck door security isn't the issue here, that has been discussed elsewhere, the decision to fight back isn't the decision here. The decision is whether when someone barges through the door, I have enough time to 1. Get to the firearm (I assume it is in a seale box, otherwise a loony can just take me on in the terminal) 2. get it out of the (lockwired?) box, acquire the target and pull the trigger.

Knowing the 767 pretty well, I'd be long gone before I even got to it. Even if it wasn't lockwired, I doubt that I'd be able to acquire my firearm and then aim a shot a centre body mass. I may get it just in time for him to be standing behind me and grappling over my shoulder with me for control of it.

OK, now you say that we have better cockpit security and that they can't get in. In that case, why do I now need a firearm.

With current doors on airliners you wouldn't have time to get bring the firearm to bear before you get overcome. With future and more secure doors, will you ever need to get the firearm out?

This isn't about being anti 'lethal force' although that should be about 'reasonable force' (and it may just be that in a particular situation 'reasonable' and 'lethal' become one and the same), it is about the stupidity of wanting to carry a firearm on the flight deck.

I've carried a gun as part of my former job, I wouldn't want to have one with me on the flight deck with the current ease of access. Just gives some idiot even more incentive to take me on.

I've got batons, a crash axe, a 3.5kg fire extinguisher. If I can't take him out with one of those, chances are a gun isn't going to be much help either!

Julian

28th Sep 2001, 18:38

And what about the fact the crew were lured off the flight deck by offing the crew/pax?

What you going to do?

Julian.

Tripower455

28th Sep 2001, 18:44

Roadtrip,

THANK YOU for so eloquently describing EXACTLY what is happening regarding this issue......You saved me about 1/2 hour of typing....
I owe you a beer if we ever meet! :)

Tan

28th Sep 2001, 18:58

Dagger Dirk

Your request for information on the stun gun subject matter made by you has been forwarded to a high tech forum for some experienced reasoned input.

I have been struck by lightening on many different a/c types with no known ill effects, however I find the stun gun subject matter interesting in light of the September 11 tragic events. Can its use affect the a/c? I don't know..

Hopefully Airbus has an opinion and will provide an answer.

PAXboy

28th Sep 2001, 19:46

Tan, no need to wait for Airbu's opinion, it's always the pilots fault. :confused:

Lightning is outside the airframe and said frame is designed to handle it.

Stun guns are inside the flight deck and may be knocked from the pilot's hand and touch equipment whilst operating or holding latent charge.

[ 28 September 2001: Message edited by: PAXboy ]

Tan

28th Sep 2001, 20:24

Hi PAXboy

If only life was only so simple....And yes, Airbus does have that reputation...

I have had a blue streak down the aircraft aisle during a lightening strike, so I'm not too sure about your assertion that's its only an airframe event.

GlueBall

28th Sep 2001, 20:29

Roadtrip:
Are you a domestic only pilot? Because you haven't addressed the international logistics and legal implications of supposedly armed pilots who fly outside USA.
Exactly how is that supposed to work? I'm just curious because I'm international and I haven't flown domestic USA in 5 years. What would pilots do with their guns in foreign countries? Turn them over to the hotel desk clerk? Park them under the mattresses? Carry them around? Surrender them to foreign station agents at the airport? Surrender them to foreign airport police? Would armed pilots in foreign countries require multiple concealed weapon permits?
And what about bilateral agreements of armed foreign air carrier pilots on USA layovers? For example, would you mind having armed airline pilots from "Third World" countries, stroll about your neighborhood?
Not trying to be clever or funny, just thinking more globally.... :cool:

OFBSLF

28th Sep 2001, 20:52

Throttlemonkey said:

"If your going put guns on the flight deck they must be signiture guns only operable by the owner, this technolog exists and has done for some time."

Nope, it does not. Several US manufacturers have and still are doing R&D towards this goal. But none of them have a workable system yet. Some have demonstrated prototypes, but even in the most benign circumstances (demonstrating them to the press at a conference), they failed miserably.

One entrepreneur who make fingerprint recognition hardware claims he can build it into a gun. But he has not shown a working model. And it would have to recognize either hand, from either pilot. It would have to work when the hands are sweaty, dirty, and bloody. After being dropped or kicked across the cockpit. For those of us that live in cold climates, how would it recognize your fingerprint while you are wearing gloves? Not an easy task.

Given how gun manufacturers in the US are being sued like crazy, they'd love to be able to sell such a gun. None of them due, because no one has made one that works reliably.

The only working system available now is the MagnaTrigger conversion done by Rick Devoid in New Hampshire. http://www.tarnhelm.com/magna-trigger/gun/safety/magna1.html
He can only install it on revolvers. As a one man shop, he certainly couldn't convert enough to arm a lot of pilots quickly. It works by requiring the shooter to wear magnetic rings (on both hands).

The other "technology" available are manual locks built in to the gun, either a combination lock (available from Taurus) or a key lock (available from Hechler & Koch). These types of locking devices cannot be unlocked quickly. In fact, the H&K device can only be unlocked when the magazine is removed from the gun. The Taurus lock has the awful feature that it could easily be bumped into being locked. That would really suck if you were just about to shoot a terrorist...

These types of locks can not be unlocked when a terrorist is breaking down the cockpit door. They could only be used to secure the gun when not on the aircraft. But there are many ways to do that effectively (trigger lock, lock cables, lock boxes, gun safes, etc).

Personally, I unlocked my H&K, put the key back in box, and left it that way. My security for my H&K (and other guns) is a large safe.

OFBSLF
Firearms Instructor Certified by Massachusetts State Police