US bid to enable arming of US pilots on all flights

[ORAC]

The Grauniad: US bids to give guns to pilots on all flights

The federal body charged with protecting air passengers from terrorist attacks is asking governments around the world for permission to place armed pilots on international flights.

The transport section of the Department of Homeland Security wants to extend the system whereby pilots are currently armed on a small number of domestic flights within the US. Pilots are unarmed on international flights originating from America even though they are considered higher risk.

There are about 2,000 armed air marshals who fly on domestic and international US flights as passengers. The US administration wants agreements with the UK and other countries that cover the use of air marshals to apply to armed pilots. Officials say this would allow a much greater reach as pilots are present on all flights.

The request, which has been expected in London and other capitals for several months, is likely to be greeted cautiously by countries that insist US air marshals hand over their guns before entry into foreign territory. The Swedish embassy in Washington told USA Today that it did not want to see more arms on planes.

The British embassy in Washington said it did not comment on security matters.

[llondel]

If the cockpit door is secured, how is an attacker supposed to get in, and if he did rush the door if it was opened for other reasons, how would the pilot manage to get a gun out of his clothing/holster fast enough to do something useful with it? It also lets the hijacker know where the weapons are on the aircraft - if the captain comes out into the main cabin to visit the toilet, does he keep his gun with him or leave it with the copilot?

I don't expect full details of security measures to be given in a public forum, but there seems to be a lot of holes to address before it's even a vaguely sensible idea. I guess it comes down to the concept of whether the pilot's job is to fly the plane or be its security guard.

[1QDG]

Considering the traditional hijack ("take me to cuba!") as it's not all dark beardy types with box cutters,the suspects usually have zero flying hours, and will keep the two up front alive as they simply want asylum. The pilots will now be able to double tap Mr A. Sylumseeker and land at the destination with minimum delay. :cool:

[Bad Robot]

I take it that we will be allowed our nail clippers, Swiss army knives etc back, and all the other toiletries that we are currently not allowed to take on board if over a specific size/weight/dimension?

Depending on which particular airport you are currently/operating /transiting/positioning through of course. :ugh:

BR.

[Huck]

Simply a lower-cost (read "free") alternative to hiring more air marshals.

Armed pilots outnumber air marshals now in the states. Costs the government next to nothing. Provides somewhat of a deterrent. No problems so far.

Yes, it would be tricky to defend against determined hijackers. Only thing worse would be doing it without a weapon....

[Semaphore Sam]

There was an incident, out of Boston around '70, where an armed crew resisted an armed nut with their own weapon...he wanted to press into the Atlantic until fuel ran out. The F/O bled to death, but the crew was able to resist, and return the tube, pax, and surviving crew successfully. Has their ever been another case of an armed crew successfully resisting such an assault?

[Huck]

Hero in the cockpit
Pistol served pilot well in '54
By EVAN MOORE
Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle

FORT WORTH -- Until now it was largely forgotten, a brief, tragic incident
that lay buried in fading newspaper accounts and the memories of only a few,
but the shooting of a hijacker by an airline pilot almost 50 years ago has
taken on a new significance today.

It occurred shortly before noon on July 6, 1954, when a strapping teen-ager
armed with a pistol commandeered an American Airlines DC-6 at the Cleveland
Airport, only to be shot and fatally wounded by the captain.

The shooting ended the life of Raymond Kuchenmeister, 15. It made a
reluctant hero of the late Capt. William "Bill" Bonnell of Fort Worth and
left an indelible mark on Bonnell's psyche that he could never successfully
erase.

Moreover, in light of the recent terrorist attacks and the ensuing debates
over whether pilots should be armed, the 1954 incident illustrates a
forgotten time when pilots not only routinely carried pistols, but were
required to carry them.

On that Tuesday, 47 years ago, Bonnell was carrying his, a small,
.380-caliber Colt semiautomatic, holstered in his flight bag.

Bonnell, a tall, quiet man, was a former Army Air Corps pilot who had served
three stints in the service, two of those flying transport planes over China
and Burma during World War II.

He also was ambidextrous.

"Bill could use either hand equally well," Jean Bonnell, his widow,
recalled. "He used to play jokes on the shooting instructors in the
military. There'd be a line of officers, all in the same stance, shooting at
targets. One time, the instructor would walk down the line and Bill would be
shooting right-handed. The next time, he'd be shooting with his left. He
shot the same score with both hands."

Bill Bonnell joined American Airlines in 1936, and that airline, like
others, transported U.S. mail.

"Back in those days, the pilot or co-pilot had to hand-carry the mail from
the plane to the terminal," recalled George Patten, 85, a retired American
pilot and a friend of Bonnell's. "Postal regulations required that you be
armed. We all had to have guns, and American had us buy little .380s."

Bonnell's pistol remained in his flight bag. His widow recalled that he had
not removed the weapon in years before the day of the hijacking.

On that day, Bonnell had flown from Fort Worth to Cleveland in the morning
and was preparing for the return flight. The plane was carrying almost a
full load, 58 passengers, and all had been seated.

Bonnell stopped and spoke to a young mother with two small children seated
at the front. He then entered the cockpit and had already locked himself,
his co-pilot and the engineer inside when Kuchenmeister approached the
airplane ramp.

Police said Kuchenmeister, the oldest of seven children, was a troubled
youth who had stolen a pistol and persuaded his 12-year-old brother to run
away from home with him. He hatched his plan to hijack a plane earlier in
the day, but once at the airport, the 12-year-old declined to accompany him.

So, alone, clad in dirty denim pants and a leather jacket, Kuchenmeister
left his little brother in the terminal and walked out on the tarmac. There
he pushed past an airline agent and was headed up the stairs to the plane
when the agent demanded his ticket.

"This is my ticket," the burly youth reportedly said, and pointed the pistol
at the agent.

The agent retreated, and at the entrance to the plane, Kuchenmeister told a
stewardess he needed to see the pilot. Thinking he was part of the ground
crew, she opened the cockpit, where Kuchenmeister, unnoticed by the
passengers, stepped into the cramped quarters, closed the door and turned
the gun on Bonnell.

"I want to go to Mexico," Kuchenmeister told Bonnell and his crew. "No
stops."

Bonnell and the co-pilot attempted to explain to Kuchenmeister that the
plane did not have enough fuel to reach Mexico, but the youth would not be
deterred.

Finally, flight engineer Bob Young told Kuchenmeister they would take off
but that it was necessary to throw a switch behind Kuchenmeister before the
plane could taxi.

As the hijacker turned to look for the switch, Bonnell reached into his
flight bag with his left hand, removed the pistol, swung around to his right
and shot Kuchenmeister. The wounded hijacker then attempted to shoot
Bonnell, but his pistol misfired and Bonnell shot him again.

"I shot him in the hip," Bonnell later recalled. "He sagged a bit. I let him
have it again, a little higher.

"I had a maniac on my plane. We had women and children. What the hell could
a guy do?"

Kuchenmeister was taken to a hospital, and Bonnell, the only qualified
American pilot in Cleveland at the time, flew the plane back to Fort Worth.
In midflight, he received word from Cleveland that the hijacker was only 15
and that he had died.

When Bonnell stepped from the plane, reporters described him as ashen and
shaking.

"Bill told me later that the first thing he thought about when he was
reaching for the gun was that woman and her two children at the front of the
plane," Jean Bonnell said. "I said, `Why didn't you shoot him in the head
with the second shot?'

"Bill said, `Because I didn't want to kill him.' "

Bill Bonnell returned to Cleveland the following day. "He wanted to go out
and talk to the boy's family, to pay for the funeral," Jean Bonnell said,
"but the police talked him out of it."

Bonnell received hundreds of letters from the passengers on that flight and
their relatives, commending him for his actions.

"But Bill was never proud of what he'd done," Jean Bonnell said. "He'd been
in the service, and he'd had to fight, but this was different. He told me it
took him a day to convince himself that hijacker was really 15. He told me,
`My God, Jean, we have a 13-year-old son.'

"After the first few weeks, he stopped talking about it and would never talk
about it again. I don't think he ever completely got over it.

"But what if he hadn't had that gun? What if he hadn't shot? What would have
happened to all those passengers?"

The event was front-page news for two days, then faded away, and for 47
years the Bonnell family refused to discuss it publicly. Jean Bonnell said
she agreed to speak about her husband now only because of the recent
terrorist attacks and requests by pilots associations to be armed.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Airline Pilots Association and the Allied
Pilots Association proposed allowing pilots to carry handguns loaded with
lightweight projectiles. The first group modified its proposal to include
only stun guns, but the Allied association has not altered its stance.

President Bush has opposed the idea, as have the Airports Council
International and the Association of Flight Attendants, though a number of
legislators from both parties have supported the pilots' groups. The Senate
passed an aviation security bill Thursday that would allow pilots to carry
handguns. A similar bill is pending in the House.

In the meantime, congressional action on the proposal could be unnecessary,
according to the Code of Federal Regulations governing aviation. That
document, Chapter 11, Part 108, provides that no person can carry a weapon
onto a plane unless that person is "authorized to have the weapon by the
certificate holder (airline) and has completed a course of training in the
use of firearms acceptable to the Administrator (FAA)."

That regulation was adopted in 1981 and has not been changed. Federal
Aviation Administration officials acknowledged that the regulation is "on
the books" and that it provides for armed pilots, but refused to answer more
questions about it.

Bill Bonnell quit carrying his weapon July 7, 1954.

"He never carried it again," Jean Bonnell said. "Bill retired (in 1970). We
moved, and we burned all the letters he'd received and any news clippings.
We didn't want to remember it, but he could never really put it behind him.

"He died in 1991, and I'm afraid his later years were not very happy ones.

"A lot of people thought he was a hero, but Bill never considered himself
one."

[CCLN]

It seems that some pilots may argue for carrying a weapon... until they have to use it. I say leave flying to the pilots and the shooting to the rest.

[Huck]

and the shooting to the rest

You mean the air marshals, then?

[Semaphore Sam]

CCLN: Reasonable response, assuredly...but, on speculation; had one pilot in each of the 4 9/11 cockpits had a weapon, might the odds have evened just a little? Possibly? With 4 unarmed cockpits, though, the outcomes were assured.
Might a spirited, armed resistance of just one cockpit have saved one of the Towers...and its occupants?

[Ultralights]

just a little thing, if hijackers usually want to be taken somewhere other than the aircraft destination, then why would the hijackers just get onto a flight going to where they want?

[Curious Pax]

Might a spirited, armed resistance of just one cockpit have saved one of the Towers...and its occupants?

I thought reinforced cockpit doors were supposed to do that? In an emergency situation wouldn't it be better for the pilots to concentrate on getting the aircraft on the ground for assistance, rather than leaving themselves vulnerable (armed or not) by opening the door?

[FCS Explorer]

to open a locked reinforced cockpit door you would need explosives. carefully dosed not to blow the whole flight deck away. so the best way to get in, is to way until the door is opened by the crew, then make a rush. in this case a gun would be a good choice to defend the deck. but operators would have to change their SOPs, so that everytime the door is opened a barrel is pointed at the one coming in. i don't like the whole idea.
BUT: :) if we finally got guns it would put an end to useless, time-consuming and humiliating security checks in the airports.
yet i can't decide btw a glock and a mp5K.:{

[smith]

There are about 2,000 armed air marshals who fly on domestic and international US flights as passengers.

Always thought that armed sky marshalls should be trained pilot's, lets say the hijackers did make it to the cockpit and eliminated the capt and f/o, the sky marshal then eliminates the hijackers, what do we do now? If he was a pilot it would give the chance of getting the bird down.

I suppose the sky marshall is there to prevent the HJ's getting near the cock-pit.

Still it could be a way for rookies to get at least a type rating out of it and subsequent currency training.

[Globaliser]

... but, on speculation; had one pilot in each of the 4 9/11 cockpits had a weapon, might the odds have evened just a little? Possibly?No, because in 2001 the philosophy remained one of not entering into a confrontation with hijackers until the aircraft was on the ground, but cooperating with them until then. Hijackers were not then assumed to be suicide attackers who had to be kept out of the flight deck and away from the controls at all costs.

IIRC, all of the aircraft concerned on that day were already operating under a locked door policy which was not then universal around the world. If all of the crew on that day had simply refused to unlock the doors, it is possible that the hijackers may not have been able to break in, or to do so in time - and one or more of the aircraft might have been saved. All this is, sadly, only hypothetical speculation, but it illustrates exactly why the hijackers that day found it so easy to take control and then do the unexpected.

[20driver]

9_11 worked because through either skill and good planning or totally dumb luck. The hijackers understood the systems in place and worked to exploit it. I've always thought the brains behind this never spent too much time in a cave in Afganistan.
The real problem is armed pilots is a response to the last attack. The fortified and locked door means rushing the cockpit is out. The passenger response will not be cooperative the next time. The hikackers know they need to neutralize/circumvent a sky marshal and or an armed pilot and control the pax.
So our attackers will be , probably are, looking at a plan B. Looking at the above it seems the obvious target is a freighter.
They may be evil :mad: but they are not entirely stupid.
20driver

[Wellington Bomber]

Can you imagine having a Glock strapped to your side and then told to take your shoes off for examination in case off bombs and also no liquids to be carried through either

The world is doomed I tell you, the beaurocrats have lost the plot

[Ontariotech]

Why not arm them with Tasers? Is that a stupid suggestion with the electronics on the flight deck?

In technical terms, are pilots not considered Peace Officers? And do we not arm Peace officers in some of our countries?

And if we really want those up front armed in some way...why not have the Air Marshall sit up front in the jump seat?? With his MP5 slung over his chest, while he wears his nomex, navy blue flight suit, ski mask, etc etc etc.....I am only kidding about the last bit there. But really, If we really want to arm the flight deck, why not move an Air Marshall up there?

[ChristiaanJ]

I-FORD,US bids to give guns to pilots on all flights
The first intelligent proposal I've seen in the last years.
Now I'm waiting to the eurobureaucrats to follow.
I'n not holding my breath though.If you mean Europe should follow their lead, I'm not sure it's the eurobureaucrats that will be the issue.
Many Americans, and by implication most American pilots, have at least some fire-arm training.
Not many Europeans do, so European pilots may well be very reluctant to adopt the idea.

[Clandestino]

Great idea!

Now we´ll go through at least three-day initial ground school of how to handle your weapon, how to clean it and maintain it ready. Also lot of lessons about gun safety which will make our cockpit security procedures look childlishly simple.

Refreshers with actual shooting practice in cockpit mock-up and at range at least twice a year! Yahooooo!

Now I´ve closed overbord vent, I invite everyone who said it was good idea to admit that (s)he has never, ever discharged a real gun, on range or otherwise. I´ve had my fair share of playing with guns while I was in the army and that made up my mind not to have anything with firearms ever again, unless positivelly forced by my goverment. Folks, I tell ya it ain´t like in the movies at all! Michael Moore is heart-bleeding liberal :mad: but he´s made good point: firearms do make more trouble than they solve.

Untill we solve the problem of everyone-hates-us-and-wants-us-dead, I´ll always vote for more armour, not more firepower.

[ChristiaanJ]

I so love the scenario.

Door bell rings.
F/O clambers out of seat, pulls his gun, takes up famous High Noon crouch.
Door opens.
F/O doesn't recognise the stew standing in the doorway (newbie....).
"Put 'em up and freeze !!!!"
Stew "puts 'em up"... in the process tossing the tray with hot soup and hot lunch in his face.
Gun goes off. Bullet richochets and leaves centre stage, via the ECAM screen.
Stew puts her hands down, surveys the pityful hulk on the floor clutching his scalded nether regions, smiles, then turns round, slamming the door behind her.

[llondel]

From a UK-centric perspective, how would it work with a pilot arriving with a handgun, would he have to check it in with security and leave it at the airport until his outbound flight, given the restrictions on handguns in the UK?

[Capt H Peacock]

I suppose if this was ever proposed in the UK, I would reluctantly agree. If a weapon is to be discharged onboard my aircraft, I want to know what it’s fired at and when. That makes me the firer.

Still, as you all say. How are we going to get a gun on board when Tony Blair won’t even let me take my shampoo?

Air security has descended into farce. I’m more concerned with the security than the threat.

[anotherthing]

Who's going to train all these pilots in what is effectively close quarter battle situations??

Being able to fly an A/C does not qualify someone to safely use a gun in confined spaces!!

[wileydog3]

Let's just say that having to consider the possibility of a gun in the cockpit or even 2 guns in the cockpit compounds your problem of taking over the airplane.

Second, doesn't make any difference if they make it in the cockpit.. if they try, you're going to have a mess on your hands.

Did it when I was flying and have to say the safest I felt was one flight where we had about 28 guns on the airplane between the ones in the cockpit and the ones in the cabin being carried by FBI, Marshals and other Law Enforcement officers.

I thought the poor bastards that rush this cockpit is going to be toast.. and quick.

[wileydog3]

Let's just say you and many of the respondents on this thread know nothing about the training or the qualifications or the protocols for carrying a weapon...

[Huck]

Looking at the above it seems the obvious target is a freighter.

There have been probes. I'm not going to post specifics but this is a hot topic right now.

And if the TSA is so incompetent, why should pilots trust them to guarantee their safety?

Guns are a deterrent, that's all. Down 'round where I live, folks don't lock the doors at night. An armed society is a polite society.

If you don't need 'em, good for you. I'd love to live like that one day. But for now, I'd just as soon have a fighting chance - and I've met the three pilots here at my company that took advantage of their fighting chance. If just one of them had had a pistol, maybe they wouldn't all be on medical leave today....

(And no, their attacker would not have had a gun - he definitely wouldn't have passed the psych screening.)

[Capt H Peacock]

Wiley Dog, many of us do.

[wileydog3]

And thank you for volunteering...

[18-Wheeler]

Without a doubt one of the most daft things ever to be considered in aviation.

[Stoic]

Don’t be so dismissive. It seems to me that we have the germ of a good idea here!

I presume the captain will be given a 9mm, or equivalent. IMHO the FO should be issued with a similar weapon, perhaps a high-velocity 38 if she’s a lady. That would be excellent for CRM and help to solve the problem that FOs have always had with the small minority of boorish captains. Personally, I would favour arming the flight deck with one of those dinky little Uzis like the one that the nice sales assistant in the sporting goods emporium in Enumclaw, WA , tried to sell my eleven year old a few years back.

What better way of pre-empting SLF bad behaviour by also arming the cabin crew? Again 45s for the men and high velocity 38s for the girls (45s if they are man enough to handle them!)? Any SLF acting suspiciously and wham, bang! That would teach them, without the need to bother the flight deck! It might also have the spin-off that SLF would be polite to the cabin attendants – to paraphrase Huck, SLF are polite to armed crew.

How about trying this new scheme out as a pilot at some Lo Co in the States where crew would be able to easily buy their own weapons, thus saving the cost to the operators?

Let’s be creative!

Stoic

[corsair]

Having been trained in the use of handguns. I have no fundamental objection to guns. In a sense it's a good idea. If all pilots in the US are carrying guns. Then any potential hijackers know exactly what to expect. However I cannot see how it could be done on international flights. Some countries might agree, most wouldn't or would put restrictions on it. In a country like Britain where a big deal is made about even the police being armed. I hardly think it's likely that US airline pilots would be allowed to stroll around Heathrow carrying a concealed weapon.:eek: Not to mention going to the hotel and checking it into the safe:suspect:

Besides as has been said many times before, the hijack an airliner and fly it into a building scenario is pretty much of a non runner these days. The terrorists have moved on. I'm sure something equally diabolic is being plotted somewhere. The gun thing is a red herring frankly.

On a separate but related point. Those US pilots carrying guns now. Are all your nailclippers, shampoo, toothpaste and sharpened pencils confiscated at security while your gun is just given a cursory glance? How does that work?

[moosp]

Corsair, you got it in ONE there.

A gun in the right hands is good protection against an enemy. A toe nail clipper in the right hands is prohibited.

I have just received from my union the new regulations on "security" departing LHR. (Before my company, for what it is worth...) I am not allowed all the things that you guys in the States have had prohibited for some weeks now. So like a sheepish passenger, who does not have ICAO security clearance, I have to ensure that all liquids are in 100 ml packages, (NOT for heavens sake, a 200ml container half empty!!) and all the other inane offensive rigmarole with which you are familiar, that these muppets have invented.

Meanwhile, out of the security locker on the aircraft, I take my handgun, L&L, and go about my job as a pilot.

Where were the Airline managers when this was being decided? Where were the Unions? Are our CEO's so impotent that they cannot stand up to the idiots in government and show them how the law has become an ass? Or is that the plan of the CEOs, to denigrate our profession?

[wheelbarrow]

IMHO this is a riduculous scenario to be considering. From the majority of responses, I would guess they come from the other side of the Atlantic, where there is a gun culture and one might even say an exuberant approach to gun ownership.
I for one have no interest in being issued with a firearm, let alone trained in it's use, together with the specialist training required to be able to handle and use it in a responsible way. The police have difficulty finding sufficient officers to join armed units as the repercussions of using a firearm are severe if you get it wrong. The second issue is, are you really prepared to use it? Having lived in a place where there is almost as much gun ownership as the US I was often amazed by peoples response to the question, "Are you really prepared to kill someone?" Most answered that they did not want to kill anybody, just to wave the weapon around to frighten them off! Bottom line, if you are going to show a weapon you must realise that the baddies are going to believe that you intend to use it and take retalitory action.
The upshot of having firearms on the flightdeck will be that any attempted entry / hijack type situation will be carried out in the knowledge that you are armed. This will mean that there will probably be no meaningful dialogue, just shoot or be shot!
The focus should be on making sure that no-one gets on an aircraft with a firearm.

[anotherthing]

wheelbarrow

wileydogs attitude in post number 28 sums it all up for me.

Very condescending and assuming.

Give some people a little knowledge and they think they know everything - just the type of person you do not want holding a gun IMHO

[wileydog3]

I don't know about an exhuberance for owning guns but I do know that there are a lot of guns in the US. It is, as you note, part of the culture. The problem is that a lot of bad people have little inhibition about using them on people who can not defend themselves.

And yes, if someone is trying to enter the cockpit, there will be NO discussion. Once the door is breached, it is time to 'drain 'em and drain 'em as quickly as possible'.

And yes, *one* point of focus should be on keeping the threat off the airplane but that does not exempt putting a second line of defense in place. As you have noted about culture, many Americans are not going to put up with the security exercises to really go after the bad boys.

Having an armed pilot is a redundancy for defense.

One other point. There seems to be an impression that there are a lot of cowboys in the program. Let's just say the program is set up so the cowboys never get to ride the range. Everyone is watched pretty closely before, during and after initial training. It is not a one-shot deal (no pun intended).

[wileydog3]

If it was taken as condescending, my apology. But many of the posts are simply inaccurate and display a lack of knowledge of the program. It is sort of like the party I attended years ago and some of the pilot were talking about the Shuttle. Some were talking about the re-entry and were sure about their information. One fellow I had yet to meet simply said, "That is not correct." When a few argued that they *knew* what they were talking about and what kind of experience did he have to rebut them, he simply said that he had flown the Shuttle a few times. And he had...

I did the program. I am now retired and no longer carry but I was very impressed with the dedication of those teaching and those attending. Everyone understood this was not some a game of airplane cops and robbers. Goofballs, hotdogs, cowboys and rogues intrigued with impressing people were gone by the end of class.

Do you have first hand knowledge of the program?

[Clandestino]

Not quite, so please enlighten me!

Are the guns used in your program of foolproof design, like it-never-shoots-frendlies kind? Are they incapable of breaching the hull or cockpit window pane, yet capable of stopping the hijackers dead? Do their manufacturers guarantee that they´ll never fire by accident, even with bullet in the barrel and safety lock off?

No?

Why discussing the program then?

So guy enters the cockpit wielding axe or knife or uzi or whatever and you are fully confident that you´ll have the time to take the gun from the holster, aim and shoot him dead because you´re well trained? Or youßll keep your gun handy and loaded all time, just in case? C´mon, even movie heros are not that dumb.

Ah, no! You don´t indent to use it all, it´s only detterent!

It´s mighty dangerous detterent, my friends. For the users, that is, not the one that have to be dettered.


And yes, if someone is trying to enter the cockpit, there will be NO discussion.

Nice post about this situation from ChristianJ, earlier on the page.

[anotherthing]

Wileydog 3

Check your messages :)

[wileydog3]

It's not my job to 'enlighten' anyone but as I said, some of the comments about the program show a distinct lack of knowledge about the program. And comments about the weapon or preparation to combat the cockpit breach serves no purpose.
And everyone I know who had been through a rigorous weapons program (military, police, etc) knows you never bring a weapon out of the holster with any other intent except to 'neutralize the threat'. It is not a show of force. It is not meant to intimidate.

[Airbubba]

From a UK-centric perspective, how would it work with a pilot arriving with a handgun, would he have to check it in with security and leave it at the airport until his outbound flight, given the restrictions on handguns in the UK?
The UK has quietly allowed armed sky marshals from some Middle Eastern airlines to operate into LHR for at least a couple of decades now. All of the procedures for what happens to the firearm when you land have been worked out long ago (along with the inevitable paperwork for HM Customs and other agencies).

[WhatsaLizad?]

"Besides as has been said many times before, the hijack an airliner and fly it into a building scenario is pretty much of a non runner these days. The terrorists have moved on. I'm sure something equally diabolic is being plotted somewhere. The gun thing is a red herring frankly.
"

Corsair,

A simple observation would be that the use of truck bombs has not seemed to decline after years of use. Easier to carry off than an air attack, but still popular.

Intel has shown that repeated probes have been made since 9/11. This of course discounts the majority of events where hysterics were involved.

[WhatsaLizad?]

A few links with video on the training:
(one has to sit through some short ads first)


http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=1103530b-51e8-47b2-b86c-7d0deaef4ac4&p=Source_Nightly%20News%20Breakout&t=c24&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/&fg=



http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2824198


http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=646e34f9-8374-49b1-89c8-07866f17940f&f=05&fg=email (http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=646e34f9-8374-49b1-89c8-07866f17940f&f=05&fg=email)

[Max Angle]

An armed society is a polite society.Hmm, 14 guns deaths per year per 100,000 people in the US and .4 per 100,000 in the UK. Are you sure it's worth it, doesn't seem too polite to me.

[ChristiaanJ]

In other words....
US 35 ... UK 1
As "polite" societies go, I rather agree.
But a lot of this is "domestic violence" and "gang warfare" in the US, so not fully relevant.

What's the "score" on killing innocent bystanders ? Both in the US, where somebody mentally disturbed got wiped out, and in the UK, where somebody panicked and got killed for his troubles.... ARE there any statistics ?

And, more relevant, what's the "score" on confirmed terrorists ?
They're probably laughing their heads off.... (100ml in the UK, 90ml in the US...) while working out their next ploy.

The discussion about arming pilots makes some sense.... but mostly it's like fighting the last war, once again.

[Danny]

This thread is bordering on eviction to the Jet Blast forum where anyone with an opinion will soon destroy any remaining fragments of sensible discussion and render the thread just one more interminable 'hamster wheel' of repetitive, opposing views with no content of any nutritional value for open minds. Sigh :rolleyes:

[411A]

A short story.

Several years ago when this idea came up in the USA, I was listening to a senior Uxx Captain venting his views on a local radio station.
His opinion was classic...he needed the gun to keep the bad guys at bay.
OK, fair enough, as far as it goes.
The interviewer then asked...'ah Captain, suppose that you and the First Officer have a serious disagreement, what will you do then?'

The Captain replied....'I would shoot the SOB.'

I do believe he was quite serious, and the interview ended PDQ.

Pistols on the FD?

Bad idea.
The OK Corral needs to be kept firmly on the ground.:ugh:

[Jgossett]

The interviewer then asked...'ah Captain, suppose that you and the First Officer have a serious disagreement, what will you do then?'

The Captain replied....'I would shoot the SOB.'

I'll have to remember not to piss off the captin! :eek:

[West Coast]

The question I would ask those opposed is:

Is despite all the current (current being the key word) layers, should the flight deck be breached will you fight to stop the plane from being taken over? I would hope the answer is yes. I know I would and I'd rather do it with a weapon I'm trained to use, and not the standard "I'll get the ax out and.."

411
What do you think the chances are that of the thousands of possible combinations of pairings that an armed pilot has argued with another crew member? No one has been shot. Your argument is based off of some sensationalist interview and your bias against the FFDO program. No empirical data to support it.

[Huck]

Danny's right. The issue is - FFDO's carrying their weapons to international destinations. The FFDO program is in place and will be around for a while, at least. Maybe it won't be necessary someday. Dig out the old threads from the 2003-2004 timeframe if you want more navel-contemplation.

I can tell you what the answer to the FFDO's will be, in the EU anyway - a big ol' NO....

[Corrona]

I've got it, move the cockpit bulkhead rearwards by 4 feet, cockpit now has room for it's own toilet and microwave oven - no need for the door EVER to be opened whilst passengers aboard. Make the cockpit door air tight. Bit of something kicks off down the back - give them all the gas - they all wake up once on the ground, no harm done!

OK the last bit might not work, but what about the toilet and oven in the cockpit??

[ChristiaanJ]

Corrona,
I'm working on the gadget that will release sarun in the cockpit as soon as you operate the microwave.
Just give me some time.

Of course, the toilet has potential, as well.
Oh, sh!t.....

[stilton]

I hope we can be spared from the fringe that supports this lunacy.

Guns in the cockpit are a bad idea full stop, (period for Americans)

[West Coast]

Give me a salient argument as to why you believe this.

[Bobbsy]

Well, one reason that occurs is that every "legal" gun on board an aircraft is one that could potentially be grabbed by a determined hijacker or "nutcase". Not that I fancy any kind of brawl at altitude, but I fancy my chances more against a boxcutter (or whatever new device they find a way of smuggling) than I do against a gun and, in hand-to-hand combat, guns ARE sometimes fumbled and picked up.

I also agree fully with the idea expressed earlier that all this is fighting the PREVIOUS terrorist attacks. I don't know what the next ones will be...but they'll be something new.

Bobbsy

[West Coast]

The last pilots that had to fight off attackers with box cutters didn't fare well.

The FFDO program is a well structured program that emphasizes weapons handling and for a lack of better terms, hand to hand combat. Pilots don't simply apply and receive a weapon and badge. There is recurrent training as well.
Could a weapon be dropped, of course. Do I still think the advantage lies with the FFDO who is properly trained and equipped, yes. There are few absolutes in the world such as a guarantee of no dropped weapons. You may be killed in your theoretical fight with the box cutter armed hijackers just the way the pilots on 9/11 did. Any other tool you have you might fancy as helpful such as the ax, extinguisher, etc., could be dropped and then used by hijackers. You could simply be overwhelmed by the volume of attackers. You might fancy a fair fight with one hijacker, what about 4 or 5? I want a force multiplier if that happens. I commuted on a RJ not long ago, the two pilots were small females. I don't expect they would fancy a one on one fight with a hijacker armed with a box cutter as the better of the two scenarios against the likes of the attackers we saw 9/11.
At least I know with a FFDO that they have trained extensively for a fight on the flightdeck. This is more than others who have not completed it nor received formal training and have only an armchair idea of what they are going to do once that door comes open.
Yup, I could drop the gun as you say, but I believe the odds are in my favor (and yours if you're in the cabin) should the door be breached with an armed pilot on the other side as opposed to one who hasn't received any training nor has practiced for that exact scenario.

[WhatsaLizad?]

"Well, one reason that occurs is that every "legal" gun on board an aircraft is one that could potentially be grabbed by a determined hijacker or "nutcase"

Okay, true given a failure to secure the weapon.
I would ask you to elaborate in the event the cockpit door is rushed after opening.

1. Aircraft #1. Has at least 1 armed pilot. Pilot responds according to to training.

2. Aircraft #2. Both pilots are unarmed.


I would like to hear some reasoned logical responses why example #2 is a much better way to go. It is also understood that being armed with a handgun has it's own limitations in stopping a determined human (s), but what I find fascinating is the total submission to failure exhibited by many regarding this subject. It is always the armed pilot who will drop the gun, shoot out windows, control lines and other crewmembers rather than attempted hijackers. If there is failure of door security, how is it that being unarmed is a better way to go? There is the repeated thought of wanting the pilots to fly the airplane instead of shooting, but who here could concentrate on piloting with unwelcome intruders in the cockpit?

I would add a request to keep on subject per DP's post. I would also note that a weapon is redundant in the event a isolated, armored bulkhead is available for lav and galley needs of the pilots. Until that day comes, I welcome rational thoughts on why this last layer of defense isn't needed.

Thank you.

[18-Wheeler]

Bit of something kicks off down the back - give them all the gas - they all wake up once on the ground, no harm done!


Gas that can safely put people to sleep then allow them to wake up, just like in the movies is exactly that - Hollywood fiction.
No such gas exists. This is why it takes a small team of professionals to keep you in that intermediate area between life and death when having an operation.

[20driver]

A surprising percentage of the policemen killed every year are killed with their own weapons. This is consistent from year to year so having your weapon turned against you is a definite possibility. Same issues with homeowners, a large number of homeowners killed each year by intruders are killed with their own weapons.

Any weapons expert will tell you of the 12 foot rule. This basically says man with a knife has the advantage of the man with a gun if he is within 12 feet.

Personally I think it makes a lot more sense to train the cabin crew to resist and better yet organize the passengers in the event of an attack.

Anyone remember Thunderball? Wouldn’t take that much to sub a freighter crew at an outstation.

20driver

[GlueBall]

WhatsaLizad? . . .There is the repeated thought of wanting the pilots to fly the airplane instead of shooting, but who here could concentrate on piloting with unwelcome intruders in the cockpit?
I could concentrate on piloting, sir. . . Assuming you could get through my armored cockpit door [monitored by CCTV], . . . the first thing that you would feel is weightlessness as you'd bounce off the ceiling after a negative G maneuver; immediately thereafter your head would crash into the floor, if not into the center pedestal, after a successive positive G maneuver. . . . In fact, I am waiting for a nut case just like you to make it into my cockpit. :ooh:

[WhatsaLizad?]

". . In fact, I am waiting for a nut case just like you to make it into my cockpit. :ooh:"

Friend, I fly airplanes with people in them. A few scummy bastards cut the throats of my coworkers a few years back. Let me know when you discover a sense of humor or airmanship.


20driver,

Those items are in my thoughts also. A cockpit door shouldn't be open with a standing passenger under that distance. There are enough internet videos of "benign" people attacking a police officer for his weapon within a close distance.
Agreed that cabin crew training should be addressed on the subject.

[West Coast]

I agree that a well trained cabin crew is a good thing. It however should be but one part of a layered defense. That said, and not meaning to sound sexist, a majority of the cabin crew are females. Many selected (at least when hired) because they were below certain physical thresholds.

Glueball
My goal is to do my best to ensure a safe landing. Trading the possibility of an in-flight breakup for a hijacking isn't my idea of winning. I don't know all the technical details (nor am I making judgment) of the AA Airbus crash in New York, but a maneuver from an encounter a lot more common than a hijacking (again whether executed properly or not or if manufacturer negligence) contributed to the crash.
What makes you think your going to have anymore time to do your maneuvering than I would to pull my weapon? A 150-200 pound object flying through the cockpit, alive or not is has its own dangers.

[Huck]

the first thing that you would feel is weightlessness as you'd bounce off the ceiling after a negative G maneuver;

I just came down after cruising at FL390 in an MD11. Initially we had 25 knots between the clacker and the shaker. I'd take a bullet rather than do what you're talking about.....

This is not a good debate. No one is going to change their minds. It's something you feel in your gut or you don't. Either you want some totally self-directed method of defending yourself in a life-or-death situation, or you don't - you are content to leave defense of self to others. I can't manufacture that instinct in others. They can't take it out of me.

This debate goes to the very differences in our nations. Hamster wheel, here we come.

[RatherBeFlying]

There have been a few deranged individuals who have attempted to access the cockpit since 9/11. The one who got farthest stuck his head through a blowout panel only to get it whacked with the ax:ok:

I believe more than one has suffocated from the weight of the several SLF who piled on top of him.

The more fortunate were plasticuffed to a seat after being all subdued by the SLF.

Instead of guns, my preference would be for a double door where the interlock allows only one door to open at any time to prevent a rushing attack as opposed to today's food cart tactic.

My big problem with guns in the cockpit is that today the SLF are quick to pile on top of anybody attempting anything untoward. They will be much less so inclined if the cockpit door flies open and one of the crew happens to shoot an SLF who has come to assistance:(

In the case of freighters where there's a potential of a hijacker hidden in a container, I can see a need for guns.

[West Coast]

All these ideas about separate entrances (including separate lav/galley) double doors, etc are in the future. Perhaps they are viable options, but for today's flight they don't exist. Armed pilots do. I'm not content to fly on waiting for these modifications when I fly again in 3 days.
While I view deranged, mentally challenged individuals trying to get on the flight deck as a threat I don't see them in the same light as a determined group of hijackers. The SLF might deal with one guy who has a mental episode and tries to make it up front. My faith that they will successfully deal with a group of determined, practiced, and armed individuals who goal is to die is considerably less.

"My big problem with guns in the cockpit is that today the SLF are quick to pile on top of anybody attempting anything untoward. They will be much less so inclined if the cockpit door flies open and one of the crew happens to shoot an SLF who has come to assistance"

And you're not going to try and stick the ax in the SLF's head when the door flies open and someone you don't know rushes the door, no matter how well intentioned? Just because you occupy a seat up front doesn't make you an expert in identifying a bad guy from a good one instantaneously. You must assume anyone breaching the door as a hijacker.


Huck has it right. no one going to change anyones mind. Perhaps the next set of hijackers might however.

[Ye Olde Pilot]

If we all go down the George W Bush scheme of things then forget flying anywhere!

Would arming American teachers stop the regular bloodshed we see on tv in yet another USA school seige? I don't think so. The USA has social problems in their society that do not belong in the rest of the world.

Gun and aircraft do not go together.

I have avoided US airlines since Lockerbie.

[wheelbarrow]

What I would like to know is whether as a professional Pilot I will have the option to be armed or not. If I choose not to be armed will I also have the right to choose to fly with a co-pilot or F/E who are also not armed?
Basically I think that this idea seems to indicate a movement where we have to be armed. If that is where this is going to take us I don't think I want to be involved in it any more!

[20driver]

A recent flight I was on had a rather clever and effective defence step. Whenever the flight deck door was to open they pulled a beverage cart across the single aisle with the FA on the cockpit side.
Simple steps like this make a lot of sense to me. If is ever gets to a gunfight in the cockpit odds are all is lost.
I'm not so much against the armed crew idea as I'm against the false sense assurance it will provide in certain quarters. This is all too typical of the head in the sand approach to security that most countries have adopted. Lots of show, little substance. This is a complex and dynamic problem. Armed crew are an emotional and cheap way out.
20driver

[20driver]

I take it you are avoiding French (UTA) and Indian ones (Air India) ?
20driver

[West Coast]

20
That's pretty much the standard as far as blocking the door with the cart when it comes open.

[WhatsaLizad?]

][/COLOR]A recent flight I was on had a rather clever and effective defence step. Whenever the flight deck door was to open they pulled a beverage cart across the single aisle with the FA on the cockpit side.
Simple steps like this make a lot of sense to me. If is ever gets to a gunfight in the cockpit odds are all is lost.
I'm not so much against the armed crew idea as I'm against the false sense assurance it will provide in certain quarters. [/QUOTE]

Agreed that it is a false sense of security. Even though I support a trained, armed pilot, it should be noted that this defense layer comes with faults and isn't perfect. It is well known public knowledge of the limitations handguns have in stopping a motivated human. I have two relatives working in a couple of the worst areas in the US for gang shootings. One a paramedic, the other a police officer. The numbers of walking/talking individuals carrying several new handgun bullet holes are surprising. Some may drop dead in the ER, but many are capable of fighting long enough for a inflight situation.
It's just another layer of security. Imperfect? Yes, but until aircraft have seperate, secure galley/lav facilities, I will support it.

[QUOTE]"I have avoided US airlines since Lockerbie."

In addition to US airlines, UTA and Air India, one might guess you could add Aeroflot, Korean Air, Avianca, Cubana and on. :bored:



Thanks

[pakeha-boy]

....I have argued this point on previous posts.....I would agree with the sentiments from both sides,and are of the opinion that guns dont have a place in the cockpit.The other so-called "weapons"...crash axe,flare gun are all weapons but they have an obvious purpose,a defined purpose .....

For those of us who are part of the FFDO programme,will tell you it is one of the best training phases you will go through,the roles are defined ,the rules of engagement are defined.I do not argue that things can and will go wrong,but with training and understanding,just like our normal cockpit duties,we can hopefully avoid catasrophic situations.

We all have a choice,I have a choice,I dont knock anyone who is against this policy of arming pilots or having armed individuals on board,it has been going on for many years on many airlines,and the statistics speak for themselves.

I flew the morning of 911(just like many of you)KLAS-KJFK....diverted into KDTW....these things you never forget.I,m not sure arming pilots is the best solution,but it is "one" of the best we have currently,hopefully that will change.Just trying to put my best foot forward and be part of a better solution.

And for those of you who knock the FFDO(armed pilots) programme,....unless youve been through the programme,your bias is unfounded.....PB

[RatherBeFlying]

My big problem with guns in the cockpit is that today the SLF are quick to pile on top of anybody attempting anything untoward. They will be much less so inclined if the cockpit door flies open and one of the crew happens to shoot an SLF who has come to assistanceWestCoast, the scenario I have in mind is a commotion in the back and the flight crew opening the door to shoot who:confused:

Certainly if anybody forcibly comes through the door in the other direction, I'm quite in favor of whatever weapon that can neutralise the threat without endangering the a/c.

Lets not forget that the SLF overwhelmed a well organised team of box-cutter armed hijackers aboard UA 93 and did at least prevent use of the a/c against a target in Washington.

With the current doors, the hijackers face great difficulty gaining control of the cockpit before the SLF get to them.

In the land of Quarter Pounders and Super Sized Portions, the human wave attack can be highly effective:E

[West Coast]

"WestCoast, the scenario I have in mind is a commotion in the back and the flight crew opening the door to shoot who"
Let me assure you, that will not happen. We don't open the door in the situation you speak of, this is rule number one. The tenant of anti hijacking security post 9/11 is that the door remains closed if there are any problems. This being true if the crew is armed or not.
The area of responsibility for FFDO's is the flight deck and nothing else. One of the briefing items during the crew brief many add is that the F/A's are on their own should something happen, something they already know. The FFDO's job if there is a disturbance to protect the pilot flying. Keeping the door closed is the primary way of doing so, should the door be breached, then the weapon takes over.

[West Coast]

"Lets not forget that the SLF overwhelmed a well organised team of box-cutter armed hijackers aboard UA 93"
Yes, and the passengers and crew died. Certainly they stopped the aircraft from being used as a weapon, my goal is to never let them in the cockpit to begin with and try and save the lives of those onboard. Sorry, UA 93 was inspirational, but it wasn't any type of success for those onboard.
"With the current doors, the hijackers face great difficulty gaining control of the cockpit before the SLF get to them"
I don't mean to be demeaning, but what is your experience with the door? Its my experience as an airline pilot who deals with the re-enforced door that you are putting much stock in something that is but one part of a layered defense. It is not the end all.
Heard of the maginot line?
"before the SLF get to them"
What if the SLF are being mowed down by a weapon? The doors are bullet proof for a reason, that being the possibility that weapons can make it on board. You want to be the third SLF that runs forward when the previous two are gutted by the attackers? Perhaps you will, or worse perhaps you won't. I'm not prepared to rely on the sketchy, unpredictable human responses as a viable deterrent or solution.

[FlyingConsultant]

SLF here with a question on the procedures before and after the flight. I do not have a problem with guns on the flight deck per se - but can somebody enlighten me how they get there/are removed? Without disclosing anything dangerous of course.

I keep on wondering whether the real danger in a program like this could be in the terminal, not on the plane. At the moment, there are essentially no guns after security. In airports where I have seen armed patrols of folks in police uniform (Frankfurt had this as long as I can remember, with pretty hefty firepower, not just a sidearm), I think they are not allowed back there. And if they are, they are in teams of at least 2 (if I remember correctly).

How does this work with the armed Pilot? I assume s/he is not just happily walking out of the cockpit packing a gun in the pilot case. But could s/he be overpowered at the gate by an angry passenger who just snapped because a flight is 3 hours late? This scenario is much more likely than a planned hijack IMHO - stuff like this seems to happen a lot these days (or we hear about it a lot thanks to the media)

Thanks for the enlightement.

[RatherBeFlying]

UA 93 crashed because the hijackers were allowed to gain entry to the cockpit.

As the SLF beat their way in, the hijackers choose crashing the plane over imminent defeat.

Agreed that no barrier is impregnable, but post 9/11 the chances of this happening have gone waaaay down as the bad guys have to get past the food cart and beat down the door with whatever thay have managed to smuggle aboard before the SLF get to them.

Your average SLF with his wife and kids aboard will not be sitting on his hands.

And I don't see concentrations of ME-ancestry young men sitting together in business class any more.

[West Coast]

I keep re-reading my posts to make sure I'm not saying things I shouldn't.

I'd rather not say much except to say your worries are covered by FFDO policy and training.

[p7lot]

As a 'limey'. I do not understand the concept of arming people to deter violence.
I have enjoyed 20 years in commercial aviation without an incident more serious than bad coffee except in simulation.
Having said that, we now have armed response as a regular occurence in the uk and I despair at the escalation of global terror.
My door is now reinforced and a new button on the console locks it and I feel sure "check for suspect slf" will come onto the aftertakeoff checklist possibly between positive climb and gear up so that we at least get a chance to pass the beacon.
On a more serious note...I do not need a gun to protect my flightdeck, but you definately need one to convince me to release control and the bullet would have to enter my scull to make me.

[West Coast]

"but post 9/11 the chances of this happening have gone waaaay down"
How do you as SLF know this? Why are thousands airline pilots who intimately know the security procedures post 9/11 still worried about it? I promise you carrying a weapon is a pain in the butt, I get no thrill from it. Its done because of a previously manifested threat to security of the aircraft and the belief that it will at least be tried again.
"And I don't see concentrations of ME-ancestry young men sitting together in business class any more"
There is nothing to stop them from doing so if that's how they arrange to buy the tickets. Don't be profiling now, not allowed.
It comes down to your belief that you think the SLF will in mass rush an attacker with a gun or other weapon. I don't have the same degree of trust in human nature, especially when faced with extreme threat that they will do as you have predicted. I've seen people under stress in tenious situations while in the military, they don't always act as predicted.
"Your average SLF with his wife and kids aboard will not be sitting on his hands"
Again, can you absolutely predict you will be the third guy to rush the hijacker with the gun after he has killed the two ahead of you who tried? What if God forbid he has your wife or one of your children and has a gun to their head screaming for everyone to sit back or else. You may then be the one who tries to stop any do gooders as it may harm a loved one. A million different scenarios and as many differing human reactions.

[saffron]

Concerning cockpit doors,the main problem with them is that they are opened for food,beverage & toilet breaks,putting a catering trolley across the door with a couple of flight attendants standing guard (which only a few airlines do anyway) will not stop determined hijackers.The only secure but uneconomic solution is to copy El Al,who have an airlock twin door system,perhaps this should be insisted on for new build a/c.In the meantime if properly trained & carefully screened pilots wish to arm themselves,I for one am. happy with that

[wileydog3]

As I noted in an earlier post, one of the safest flights I ever flew had about 28 weapons on board. FBI, FFDO, law enforcement officers.

As for the increasing violence and the possibility of a cockpit breach, 1) it is what it is and 2) because it is what it is, the probability, albeit it remote, has increased. With a weapon, you may defeat the threat. Without it, you are toast. The guys coming in the door are probably going to be well trained, possibly jazzed on chemicals and the first one or two are willing to take a bullet to gain control. Can you take on 3-5 guys with your physical skills? Mr. x caliber may be a good friend to help in a bad situation.

[RatherBeFlying]

Can you absolutely predict you will be the third guy to rush the hijacker with the gun after he has killed the two ahead of you who tried? What if God forbid he has your wife or one of your children and has a gun to their head screaming for everyone to sit back or else. You may then be the one who tries to stop any do gooders as it may harm a loved one.Post 9/11 the original hijacker bargain that at least the vast majority of SLF would survive if everybody complied with their demands came to an ugly end.

The new reality is that if the hijackers gain control, everybody aboard dies; so, we now see that the SLF do jump anybody with disruptive behavior and have also triggered offloading of SLF who raise suspicions.

The previous sheep-like behavior is no longer with us; so, yes any hijack attempt may require serious weaponry and a well drilled team to overcome the SLF. And how will they all get enough of that past the security checks?

Guns in the cockpit can serve as a last line of defence and deterrent, but even without the guns, the current measures make other avenues more easily achievable than trying to take over an a/c with SLF aboard.

As has been mentioned so many times, El Al does it right. Between the double doors and air marshals, there's been no serious attempts. Of course there's always the odd disturbed individual, but they don't get very far and provide a bit of practice:}

[OldBillXV]

What good is a loaded gun in the cockpit when the suicidal terrorist is putting his bomb together in the aft toilet..... :confused: so he can martyr himself? Even if he told the cabin crew what he was doing, would a captain leave the flight deck with his firearm? Kind of defeats the whole purpose of locked cockpit doors.... and security screening for weapons!:=

In principal it seems like a good idea.... in practice I think you'll find it will be unworkable! Bear in mind, the vast majorities of hijackings... yes even post 9/11, have been resolved peacefully. I think governments and boeing/airbus would be better served placing CCTV throughout the entire aircraft and not just outside the cockpit door. How many hijackings recently have occured where the hijacker has blagged his way into the cockpit with the threat of blowing up the plane or his mates killing passengers, only to find that once in the cockpit, he's alone and unarmed and wants to go to a 3rd country. I think full CCTV coverage and locked doors would prevent that without the need of a mexican standoff on the flight deck.

XV

[West Coast]

"El Al does it right"
That's all good and well. I support developing technology to the point that armed pilots can be a thing of the past. I fly in about 40 something hours from now.
We will agree to disagree. With what you have posted here you are that simply posturing for the argument or harbor an unrealistic opinion of human nature and cohesiveness operating under a level of stress likely never approached before. I can tell you as SLF twice a week (to and from work, I don't live where domiciled) I don't have many plans of being the first, second or third guy running forward. I don't know if there's law enforcement, air marshals or FFDO's getting ready to act.
What if your traveling on a small regional aircraft with only a handful of able bodied passengers? The 9/11 flight were picked for their light loads, the same could happen again. All of the superheroes you rely on are dead from the 16 round 9MM one of the baddies is carrying.
I can't help but notice quite a change in the opinion:
"WestCoast, the scenario I have in mind is a commotion in the back and the flight crew opening the door to shoot who"
After that scenario is ruled out, then:
Certainly if anybody forcibly comes through the door in the other direction, I'm quite in favor of whatever weapon that can neutralize the threat without endangering the a/c.
"Whatever weapon" would include an armed pilot.
Its only later on, and after contradicting yourself through your posts, you appear to spoil for an argument.
I'm not here for that so carry on.

[Flying Guy]

I fly internationally for a cargo airplane. I would like to be able to carry a gun in my flight bag, after receiving specific training of course, but it will never be allowed during the time I have left to fly. I rarely fly in and out of the US and my other deistinations certainly won't allow guns in the aircraft (China, UAE, etc) but I do want to say the following to the people in this forum that think it is a bad idea.

If any of you ever actually find yourself in a situation where terrorists are bashing away at your cockpit door, trying to knock it down, I bet you will wish you had a gun in your flight bag.

[A and C]

For years I have been total opposed to any gun being let on to an aircraft but five years of stupidity from the DfT and airport security (all unable to set a common standard even within the same group of companys) has convinced me that the only way this profession will get respect and not have to undergo a bunch of stupid pointless and ever changing "security checks" is to be armed.

This is a big turn around for me as for years I have apposed guns and gun culture and would seek to see all guns banned (except sporting guns) and stiff penaltys for owning non licenced firearms.

It says a lot when the people who are responsable for keeping guns off aircraft have driven me to want to have a gun just to avoid these so called security checks.

[dartagnan]

swapContent('firstHeader','applyHeader');By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY
For the first time, the U.S. government is asking foreign countries to allow pilots to carry guns in the cockpit when they fly overseas.
The Homeland Security Department, working with the State Department, is trying to expand a 4-year-old program that allows thousands of pilots to carry guns on domestic flights.
"It's obvious that there's a threat internationally," said Conan Bruce, spokesman for the Federal Air Marshals Service, which runs the armed-pilots program. "We want to work toward having (armed pilots) be able to perform their duties on international flights."
Some countries may block U.S. efforts because they don't want guns on airplanes, even if they're carried by trained pilots who have been sworn as law officers.
"Sweden would rather not see any weapons aboard airplanes," said Michael Mohr, homeland security liaison at the Swedish Embassy in Washington. "There's a concern about arms and very sensitive equipment inside airplanes."
Nations can prohibit armed air marshals on U.S. flights to their countries. Some, including Sweden, have resisted U.S. efforts to have them put their own armed officers on U.S.-bound flights. Thousands of U.S. air marshals fly as passengers on domestic and international flights.
Armed pilots, known as flight deck officers, carry guns only in the cockpit. No pilot has fired a gun in a plane, Bruce said. The Transportation Security Administration allows handguns of varied calibers, including .357, .40 and .45, and 9mm.
The effort to expand the armed-pilots program comes amid criticism that it is falling short of its potential. A Homeland Security report released last month said the program needs improvement, and some policies "may have dissuaded pilots from participating."
"More needs to be accomplished to maximize the use of" armed pilots, the report concludes.
Congress cut $11.5 million from the last two budget requests for armed pilots because the program didn't spend all its money. Bruce said costs have fluctuated depending on pilot availability for one week of training.
Federal Flight Deck Officers Association Chairman Jim Krauss said the U.S. push for guns on international flights will help enlist more pilots in the program. "We certainly would see a lot more participation," he said.
About 8% of flights originating in the USA are to international destinations.
Members of Congress have proposed numerous bills since 2004 that would require the administration to work with countries to allow armed pilots, and to take other steps to improve the program.
David Mackett, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance, which advocates for armed pilots, said his group wants to see lifted a policy requiring them to keep guns in a lockbox except when they're in a cockpit. "We have thousands of pilots who are routinely riding in the cabin (as passengers) and could serve as the last line of defense," Mackett said. He said other law enforcement officers carry guns on board planes.
Bruce said improvements are planned in response to pilot concerns. Armed pilots will get badges this year to replace ID cards. Regional training sites will open to make pilot recertification more convenient.
Aviation security consultant Rich Roth said some pilots "feel better" carrying guns, but he doubts they could thwart a hijacker. "If you're sitting in the flight deck and they get through, you have no time to do anything with a weapon," Roth said.
Posted 2/7/2007 10:33 PM ET

[misd-agin]

p7lotOn a more serious note...I do not need a gun to protect my flightdeck, but you definately need one to convince me to release control and the bullet would have to enter my scull to make me.


How many of the pilots in previous hijackings have willingly given up the a/c? How many did on 9/11? How many will in the future? Probably none.

Trust me, terrorists will willingly trade a bullet in your head for control of the a/c. You might not even be given the chance to protest so there will be no need to worry about being convinced.

[Globaliser]

How many of the pilots in previous hijackings have willingly given up the a/c? How many did on 9/11? How many will in the future? Probably none.Before September 2001, it was SOP to comply with hijackers' demands. That's now changed. Every discussion about whether pilots should be armed must take that into account, as well as the hypothetical question about what would have happened in September 2001 if the current SOP (do not allow anyone onto the flight deck; do not give up control to hijackers) had already been in force.

[Tarq57]

Please forgive if this has been suggested, haven't read the entire thread, how about tasers rather than guns? (Or as well as.)
Although as an occasional SLF I'm more than happy if the flight crew are armed.

[GlueBall]

Guns not required ...as the last attempted hijacking was thwarted when the Air Mauritius pilot had slammed the brakes, accelerated and slammed the brakes again; the hijacker with two pistols lost his balance and his pistols and was promptly jumped and held down by 20 passengers. :ooh:
It had been mentioned before also that certain maneuvers in flight, a negative G pitch followed by a positive G pitch, would get any hijacker off his feet and an opportunity for concerned passengers to immobilize the hijacker. :suspect:

[Huck]

Let's all do a little experiment, shall we?

Next time we're in the sim, ask for 5 minutes from the instructor. Put the plane in normal cruise, at a normal cruise speed, weight and flight level.

Disconnect the autopilot and execute the type of maneuvers you think would result in fighting off a cockpit attack. See how quick you get into either buffet or the shaker. I predict that at about 1.5 G you're going to buffet the wings....

The FFDO's have received many hours of intense training to do what they would do in this situation. What you're talking about Glueball is more of a John Wayne response.....

[Anotherflapoperator]

John Wayne response?

Try this. At normal cruise. Straight and level. Disconnect the autopilot, pull the speed brakes and push forward at the same time. it's a hard push for zero G, and you'll want to close the thrust levers too. anyway, no need for a light push on the pedals but if you can slow as well as fall, then a light touch will produce enough yaw to get your flying friend over your shoulder to start a slow tumble. Alternatively in a smaller craft a quick pull on his legs will be ideal.

Only needs a second of this then a smart but not too firm pull back to lift the nose. Don't be frightened of buffet, it's there for a purpose and you can feel it and just keep it lighter rather than heavier.

Once the nose is up, look over your shoulder and see how the vertical pile driving has helped your visitor with his comfort.

It isn't hard, not too stress inducing on any certified airframe and by keeping the G small you can achieve quite a destabilising effect for non-strapped down folk.

I'd do it if I had to, no question. Once he's down, I'll use the fire axe on him too, again, without any hesitation.

[GlueBall]

Huck ...Amerijet at FLL used to give weightlessness rides in a 727 to interested persons for a fee. The negative G maneuver doesn't need to be aprupt for you to be off your feet and weightless, neither does a positive G maneuver need to be violent in order for your feet to buckle at the knees and sink to the floor.

The simulator does not provide true maneuvering fidelity.

There have been many inflight reports where occupants have been thrown about the cabin during only moderate turbulance encounters.

You don't need to be a test pilot to induce structurally safe ocillations about the pitch axis in order to get people off their feet. :eek:

[GlueBall]

I-FORD . . . ocillation about the pitch axis does not involve the use of rudder. Rudder should never be used in flight, except for crosswind landings, or when you have an engine failure.

Conceivably, a captain of a transport category jet has a fair amount of handling experience, enough to effect a measued pitch change without ripping the elevators off.

The captain also has emergency authority to take whatever actions necessary in the interests of survival and safety. . . .because no training, no checklist and no SOP can address all emergency situations. That's when experience, judgement and survival instinct have to kick in.

[Ye Olde Pilot]

If the USA was so great at sorting out situations that the rest of us non Yanks were not I guess we would not have North Korea Vietnam and Iraq.

Guns and the USA spell disaster. Where else in the world do you get shopping mall and school masacres? El Al is a tiny airline. I suspect if we all had to fly like that no one would go anywhere.

Let us get this in to context. It is easier and generates more publicity (with more people dead) to explode a bomb on the London or New York subway than on an aircraft.
So do we arm all metro staff?

[aileron]

I'll take a phased laser rifle in a 40 watt range.

Only what ya see buddy, what'll ya have.

All.

If I get a gun, can Arnold pick it for me?

Get some.

[Huck]

Guns and the USA spell disaster.

Something similar to this was posted yesterday and promptly deleted. You wouldn't be the same person, would you? Just curious.

At least be a gentleman and add "since 1945" to your statement, above. Otherwise you shall feel the sharp end of my keyboard.....

[STo66er]

One more argument in favor of armed pilots. We all know that some states already have in force legislation allowing to shut down hijacked civil aircraft in certain circumstances. Generally if they might be a threat to populated areas or objects of high importance. Which means you have a good chance to get a missile into the engine if guys on the ground are not convinced that crew still have control over the flight path (or if your destination is no in the middle of Sakhara desert).
So the only chance for people on board to survive is to keep cockpit clean, and gun in skilled hands can help this a lot.
Aerobatics could help, of course, but some of your passengers may not survive it either.
For some reason I never could get a list of those states. I know about India, Czech Republic, Estonia and US and, probably, Russia. Anyone know about the others?

[411A]

<<So the only chance for people on board to survive is to keep cockpit clean, and gun in skilled hands can help this a lot.>>

I would respectfully suggest that that the ex-marine/air force/navy trained pilot is no more qualified to handle a firearm on the FD than the average joe passenger, full stop.

Do 'they' think so?
Of course these types do.
Otherwise, they would be advocating a more reasonable approach.
Cowboys never are deterred, just careless.
Same for ex-marine/navy/airforce...misinformed all, with regards to firearms on the FD.:rolleyes:

[WhatsaLizad?]

411A,

Many here for any period of time would notice your complete contempt for US Major airline pilots. Although I would agree that an ex-USAF pilot's claims to have firearm experience would be lacking if all it consisted of was a ribbon issued after 50 rounds fired through a .38, I would also wonder what your firearms training and experience consists of, and what are your observations on the training FFDO's receive?

I've yet to run into one US armed pilot who feels the weapon makes the cockpit invulnerable or carries any "cowboy" tendencies.

It makes good press for our former colonial "managers" with predisposed political opinions of firearms, but fails the "smell test" badly.

[WhatsaLizad?]

Glueball,

Are we discussing the 727, or the rest of the worlds airline fleets?

From my own experience, including the left seat of the 727, one could ping-pong a passenger silly from floor to ceiling all day long with little fear other than popping an exterior lav service door. Most of todays larger transports with pylon engines and tighter design tolerances would quickly start shedding external panels or worse, especially in the hands of those less skilled and under a high level of stress.

One might also wonder the result if a group of hijackers designate one of the own to remain strapped in an aft facing jumpseat in order to counteract any defensive manuevers.

Your also very dependent on your passenger make up. I've seen more than a few flights where the demographics wouldn't help much in organizing a physical response.

Your thoughts would work well with single, addled individuals with creative immigration plans. Success may be more rare against those types who work in groups and have plans for bigger things.

[wildweeble]

Ye Old Pilot:
Where else in the world do you get shopping mall and school masacres?

Hungerford, Dunblane.

[cheetoh737]

Ye Olde Pilot. Yes you are quite right. Particularly around the years 1776,1812,1917,1941. You are an arrogant SOB.

[West Coast]

Glueball
Do you plan to do those manuevers all the way to the runway?


411
I don't really expect a reply as you're simply trolling and have no knowledge of the FFDO system. However, do you honestly (and that's the key word) think this program is simply a former military thing. Many civilian only FFDO pilots I know would disagree with you.

[bubbers44]

I hope the public thinks all cockpits are armed with FFDO's. I do not think they will ever be effective in any in flight situation because of the restrictions but it makes the passenger feel safer. Bullet proof doors with no way to enter cockpit without pilot authorization makes guns unnecessary. If it sells more tickets let them carry guns.

[Final 3 Greens]

If it sells more tickets let them carry guns.

I speak as a frequent traveler in premium cabins, e.g. one F last Thursday, one J the day after tomorrow and about 100 sectors per year.

If I think that guns may be carried on a flight, then I will avoid it.

I am not criticizing anyone in this thread, you are all entitled to your opinions, but ultimately I have the right to choose my airline, as do others, some of whom may positively choose to travel under such circumstances.

As a former competition shooter (.45ACP), I do have some insight into handguns and am not a knee jerk "anti gun" lobby member, but I don't feel that carrying in the flight deck enhances safety and would prefer them somewhere else, in the same way that guns are kept out of prisons.

[Jonty]

Why it that the US answer to everything is more guns? We should be trying to avoid guns on aircraft not arming flight crew!

[Max Angle]

Why it that the US answer to everything is more guns? It's because the US is addicted to firearms and like most addicts it either can't see there is a problem or sees the problem and refuses to admit it to itself.

[Clandestino]

You'll be amazed at how many airlines have sky marshalls on board even in Europe, plus many countries allow law enforcement officers and other selected people to fly carrying their weapons with them.


I am not and I don´t have problems with accepting armed sky marshalls aboard the aircraft. Problem starts when someone tries to arm the flight deck officers. Being proficient in close range gun combat is a full time job and not something you can squeezee into twice-a-year-four-hours-refresher. And that´s my objection to whole thing: 1) unless you´re properly trained and you keep yourself in shape, you´ll be more dangerous to yourself and your colleagues than potential hijacker 2)you can´t train and practice enough for close range combat if you at the same time want to be proficient in airplane operating.

So let´s leave whole things to professionals. After all, sky marshalls are not required to know how to fly an aeroplane.

From my own experience, including the left seat of the 727, one could ping-pong a passenger silly from floor to ceiling all day long with little fear other than popping an exterior lav service door.

At cruise level?!?!?!:eek: Ever heard of bufffet margins? Or you plan for emerdesc to FL 100 and then doing your ping-pong routine?

[Huck]

As a former competition shooter (.45ACP), I do have some insight into handguns

Then what exactly are you afraid of?

The FFDO's jurisdiction extends aft to the cockpit door only. He only draws his weapon if someone has penetrated the hardened cockpit door, and he believes that the lives of his passengers are in danger.

If an FFDO draws his weapon you are already having an incredibly bad day - the worst day of your life, and maybe the end of your life. Why, if you are familiar with weapons, would you not want one in the hands of your flight crew at that point? What are you afeared of? Stray bullets?

May I suggest that stray bullets will not be your biggest problem at that precise moment.

(And by the way, if you fly in the states, you already have guns on board: FBI, local police, POSTAL inspectors, AGRICULTURAL inspectors, Treasury... I used to fly into a city in Georgia near the FBI "Club Fed," and it was not uncommon for a majority of the passengers to be armed....)

[Final 3 Greens]

I-Ford

I am sure that I have been on an aircraft with guns around me, but that was not the point I was making, as I was responding specifically to the point raised by the previous poster about the potential impact on ticket sales.

Huck

Please read my post, I acknowledged other opinions and didn't criticise them.

Neither will I justify my own.

[Jonty]

I think the way round this, and it will probably appeal to the nutters (sorry, I mean US), is to arm every passenger with at least a semi-automatic of some description. Maybe something with a calibre of about a 38 or better. And the Ammo must be armour piercing, we wouldn't want any galley carts being used to hide behind.

People could pick up the weapon of their choice when they present their boarding cards at the gate. You could have shooting ranges air side so people can practice popping one off over a beer while waiting for the flight.

I can just hear the cabin crew now "I'm sorry sir, you not old enough for a beer, but would you like another magazine for your M16?"

Prats!!!

[cheetoh737]

Who needs guns? When faced with a homicide/suicide type individual we can just "Pull a Neville" negotiate "Peace in our time"! Worked for
the Brits. Jolly good.:ugh:

[Jonty]

Last time I looked an aircraft was not the best place for a war. Lets stick to France and keep every one happy! :ok:

[cheetoh737]

I was fairly sure I was responding to a Frenchman.

[p7lot]

It makes me smile to think of neg or pos g manouveres at 350 or any rudder at those alts......if we are going to be that silly, why not open the clams and depressurise or have nerve gas in the packs?
I prefer to stick to discussing the approach briefing or ask for an altimeter check rather than worry about the door coming in.......about as much chance as a lottery win methinks......keep the nose up guys...its what we do

[Stoic]

Quite. I have always reassured nervous SLF, or potential SLF, that airline pilots are trained cowards.

Still, there is certainly something alluring about the rumour that the FFDO training involves a hand-flown, engine out ILS, whilst putting a neat group into a target in the notional flight deck door between 1000 ft and decision height.

Can any one confirm that this rumour is correct?

Regards

S

[West Coast]

I can confirm its false. Do a little studying about the program, its available on the net.

[Stoic]

Hi West Coast. That was a joke.

I shall decline your instruction to study, but I will also exercise my choice to avoid airlines which carry guns in the cockpit.

Regards

S

[West Coast]

Hope you know which ones do and which ones don't. There's only one way to find out for sure, trying breaking through the door.

[paull]

I'm a statistician, and whenever teaching conditional probability I just love that one about always carrying a bomb with you on a plane because the chances of there being two bombs on the same plane is so statistically small....... . Hell yeh, the more guns we can get on a plane the better!

Still now I know how to get a gun on there- I just need a flight crew uniform and some fake id and the gun goes through security no problem.
Or, next time I am sitting down the back next to the captain flying out to meet his plane, do I have a quick rifle through his flight bag for the pistol?:)

As SLF, I reckon that on about 30% of flights I would have a good chance of strolling into the cockpit without any fuss, quite apart from the published info on how to get them to unlock.

Lets focus on not letting terrorists on planes rather than than just hassling everybody. My favourite was the explosive sniffing machines at LHR, that would stop them - oh, unless they were travelling Club in which case the FastTrack went straight round it, but then, rough types don't travel Club! All we are doing with airport security is wasting time and money for the sole purpose of making people feel more confident so as not to hurt the business, but it is the security delays that are hurting the business! Anyone who seriously thinks about it will find a way around any established security procedure.

[dougcs]

"I do not need a gun to protect my flightdeck, but you definately need one to convince me to release control and the bullet would have to enter my scull to make me."

P7lot, you could find yourself faced with the latter thereby disproving the former.

If you are aware of the holes in airport security you should then acknowledge that you cannot keep determined, organized, and armed terrorists off the plane. A cockpit secured with a hardened door and protected by an armed pilot offers an increased ability to proactively deny the use of the aircraft as a WMD.

After 9/11 the temptation is too great for terrorism to resist trying to repeat that global attention getting feat again. Control of the cockpit is the focus and after all the airport security fails it is the secure and armed cockpit that keeps the plane from being used in this way again.

[boofhead]

The ease with which guns were smuggled aboarda flight from Florida to PR shows how useless and stupid the efforts to control the passengers and crew have become. Stop the nonsense now and disband the TSA and the other equivalents around the world. They do not work, cannot work, and have never in the history of aviation stopped any terrorist. Normal pre-911 security is all that is required.
[URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/08/national/main2546410.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2546410"]

[barit1]

The best security is to recognize that ground-based security is more-or-less ineffective and often a joke.

Therefore airborne security (armed crew and/or sky marshals) is required.

:8

[fox niner]

Aaaaaahhhh yes.

The difference between the USA and Europe.

Suppose an armed US cockpit crew lands in the EU, and the doors are then opened after landing, they will instantly be committing a criminal act.

Namely, carrying a firearm while not entitled to do so.

No guns on planes. Are they completely nuts?

I guess Hollywood can make a cool movie out of this. "Guns on a Plane" the sequel to "Snakes on a Plane"

[AirRabbit]

Who needs guns? When faced with a homicide/suicide type individual we can just "Pull a Neville" negotiate "Peace in our time"! Worked for the Brits.
With all due respect, I don't think my British colleagues have a corner on THAT particular market. We here in the US seem to have a whole Congress full of those who believe that it is the "politically correct" thing to do to sit down with your enemy, enter into a gentlemanly discourse, and find out why he is our enemy. From there it is thought to be rather easy to find a way to make that issue "go away" and, thereby, make your enemy your bosom buddy. Life is good. Everyone has his price - and the US can afford to pay any price to ensure that life is good for everyone everywhere. Of course, to buy into this logic, we have to forget that such actions have yet to work in the real world, but, what-the-hey ... what is there to loose? I call it the "Polly-Anna-Funeral" syndrome. The only thing that is more tragically funny is the “I’ll-fix-you” syndrome. That is where an argumentative person loads and cocks a firearm, aims it at his own head, with his finger gingerly pulling on the trigger, and says, “If you don’t do what I want, I’ll fix you!” And the only reason that this IS more funny is that you and I would be around after the fact to actually laugh.

[warwicks]

Onboard security is NOT the way forward. Giving somebody on an aircraft a weapon is a sure way to cause problems.

Crew will constantly be on edge not knowing if there is a gun on their flight. There is no failsafe recruitment programme that can guarantee that everyone employed as a sky marshall will be in sound mind and body all of the time! Therefore making sure that they cannot be overpowered and lose their weapon or use the weapon for a reason where it is not required.
Was there not recently an episode where somebody was shot at a US airport (and this person was found to be completely law abiding) and in the UK the S.American gentleman shot in a tube station (again completely law abiding). These things happened due to hightened sensitivity and therefore people being a little "trigger happy". These were supposed to be highly trained people and look what happend- is there anyone willing to guarantee this wont happen on aircraft?

I certainly do not want to work on board an aircraft where somebody has so much power and is allowed to remain anonymous and I do not wish to be a passenger.

What are other people's thoughts? :)

[Tarq57]

What are other people's thoughts?

As an occasional SLF who normally works in a nice safe tower, where not many of my colleagues are truly nuts, and in a country where hijackings/acts of terrorism are/have been fairly unlikely (touch wood), I'm all for armed sky marshals. And armed flight crew, too. If they want that.

[AirRabbit]

Onboard security is NOT the way forward. Giving somebody on an aircraft a weapon is a sure way to cause problems.
Crew will constantly be on edge not knowing if there is a gun on their flight. There is no failsafe recruitment programme that can guarantee that everyone employed as a sky marshall will be in sound mind and body all of the time! Therefore making sure that they cannot be overpowered and lose their weapon or use the weapon for a reason where it is not required.
Was there not recently an episode where somebody was shot at a US airport (and this person was found to be completely law abiding) and in the UK the S.American gentleman shot in a tube station (again completely law abiding). These things happened due to hightened sensitivity and therefore people being a little "trigger happy". These were supposed to be highly trained people and look what happend- is there anyone willing to guarantee this wont happen on aircraft?
I certainly do not want to work on board an aircraft where somebody has so much power and is allowed to remain anonymous and I do not wish to be a passenger.
Well, actually, at least in the US, there is never anyone on board the aircraft with a weapon were the flight crew do not only know about who it is, the flight crew usually meets and talks with the person, and they always know the seat in which that passenger is seated. Additionally, to the best of their ability, the crew advises all other armed passengers aboard, where everyone with a weapon is seated. For some time now, the US has had a Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program, where a flight crewmember, on his own time and at his own expense, receives training from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in New Mexico under contract with the US Transportation Security Administration on how to defend his/her aircraft in the event of an attempted hijacking. There is a lot of information available, but I won’t go into any of it here, for obvious reasons – however, suffice it to say that believing “on board” security won’t work, is like talking about the inadvisability of sending a man to the moon. As the current saying goes, “been there – done that;” past tense, DONE that.

Oh, and about that “law abiding gentleman” who was shot at a US airport … that person was acting more than a little suspicious throughout the boarding process. He got quite belligerent. He wouldn’t take his seat. He was extremely vocal, bordering on violent. After many attempts to calm him down (unsuccessfully, by the way) he grabbed his carry on bag, placed his hand inside the bag, got out of his seat and began running forward toward the cockpit, yelling something in a language other than English. A Federal Air Marshal on board identified himself, ordered the man to stop, but he kept running toward the front with his hand inside his carry-on bag. According to witnesses, when the man stopped at the front of the aircraft, turned, and made motions like he was hurriedly trying to either pull something from inside the bag or pull something inside the bag, the Marshal shot him. Unfortunately, later it was determined that this passenger had been on medication and had refused to take it that day. Apparently he was panicked about flying and changed his mind, wanting off the airplane. No one knows what he was reaching for inside his bag. It was an unfortunate circumstance – and I’m sure the Marshal felt terrible about the whole thing. But, had that been an attempted bombing, and the Marshal took no action and a bomb had been detonated at the front entry door, that Marshal would have been crucified for NOT shooting him – and everyone acknowledges that fact. Law enforcement officers are hired, they are paid, and they are trained to fire their weapons when necessary. I do not understand when an officer does use his weapon and someone dies, some people find it necessary to call that officer “trigger happy.” Most officers are not trained for, nor would they necessarily be interested in, shooting the gun out of the bad guys hand. The real world does not operate like television or the movies. They don’t refer to it as deadly force for grins.