Pardon the Loud Noise, Captain... [Archive] - Page 2

Avionero

30th Mar 2008, 14:03

Toprotectandserve

30th Mar 2008, 15:07

This being my first message on the board, greetings to everyone!

My two cents, with all due respect towards different opinions:

The possibility of an accidental discharge of a loaded firearm is always there, even for highly trained firearms users. This problem shoudn`t be addressed from that point of view. The only way to keep it from happening on a flight deck is, IMHO, simply to keep firearms out of it.

(And, yes, most modern handguns will not go off even if you throw them on the floor! On the other hand, if you start fiddling with it…)

Pilots are not police officers or sky marshals. No matter how you try to train them in using a gun, the fact is they will never be neither. Their job is to run the flight and fly the aircraft safely and I would think that would enough of a workload by itself.

Besides, flight decks are probably the worst places on an aircraft to start discharging a firearm, whatever the circumstances. And pilots, once aboard, are far too valuable people to risk getting involved in a firefight, for obvious reasons.

And if the idea is to have them storm out of the flight deck, guns blazing, in the middle of a crisis, then I must have got something wrong, somewhere along the line: I thought that the idea of armouring cockpit doors, in the first place, was that no access to the cockpit could be possible in case of a crisis onboard…that was why they kept it shut!

Oh…one other thing: now I know where to get a gun on an aircraft. No bother to try and spot the sky marshal…

More FFDOs than sky marshals?…A bit worrying, isn`t it?:rolleyes:

Cheers!:ok:

Jaxon

30th Mar 2008, 15:30

I can´t think of any place more inappropriate for them than the flight deck of an aircraft.

I can.

A bar, an elementary school, a wedding...

If you want to consider what's inappropriate then consider that a REALLY inappropriate place to accomodate a few suicidal terrorists is on an airliner. Then, perhaps a secure cockpit door shielding an armed pilot may be a reasonable proposition to such an extreme threat.

(Of course, you remember that we are talking about the threat of thousands of deaths from just one hijacked airliner.)

Is 9/11 the most successful terrorist attack by far in the minds of the modern terrorist and as such, their inspiration? Of course.

Regarding the understood threat, is maintaining control of the cockpit the undebatable goal of the civilized world? Obviously.

Is it still possible to circumvent security screening? Of course.

Between the points where (fallible) security screening attempts to keep the threat off of the aircraft and an order is given to shoot the aircraft down, there is nothing (without a gun). Knowing that screening can be beaten I prefer an intermediate option to a missile up my pipe.

Jaxon

30th Mar 2008, 15:35

And if the idea is to have them storm out of the flight deck, guns blazing, in the middle of a crisis, then I must have got something wrong,

That's correct, you got it as wrong as could be.

misd-agin

30th Mar 2008, 15:39

Though I spend a lot of time with my US-american colleagues who I highly respect, I never understood that passion for guns among other things.
As I never got the idea of a "pre-" and "post-911-world".
It usually doesn´t make sense to discuss these issues, as its just a difference in culture there is perhaps no definite right or wrong.
I certainly don´t want to fuel any anti-american clichés, but there is certainly another perception of some things in the rest of the world.

posted by :
Today 10:03Avionero

However, I sincerely dont believe that armed pilots make flying any safer but the opposite.
Talking of armed societies, how many people safed their lifes because of being armed, and how many got killed for no reason?

Call me a scared European butthead, but a Cpt to my left, waving his gun around in the preflight would make me feel VERY uncomfortable for the rest of the flight.

I was trained on handling weapons in my military service (my country still seems to enjoy obliging its boys to play war for some reason), but I´m glad I got rid of them and I can´t think of any place more inappropriate for them than the flight deck of an aircraft.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. No one's 'waving' gun around. The round exited one of the safest places in the cockpit. Yes, there was a ND, but the gun was pointing in the safest direction, which is a pillar of good gun control. I've flown with dozens of FFDO's, and have never had to correct them on their gun control(ie safe pointing of gun while 'safeing').

2. Glad you got rid of your gun? Cultural difference. 25% of U.S. supposedly own firearms(hunters, ex military, police, included). Many of us saw no need either, until we went to friends memorial services in September 2001. No funerals because there were no bodies. First person killed, all <100 lbs of her, was a friend. When you get a bullseye drawn on your back you might have a change of opinion.

3. More inappropriate place than a cockpit? Between the cultural differences, and the targets drawn on our backs, I'm not sure we'll ever agree on this.

4. U.S. citizens have to be briefed about security in foreign countries, including European countries. They're often shocked to see police/soldiers walking around the airport or terminal with submachine guns. Same with seeing police in cities, or at border crossings, 'armed to the teeth' in their opinion.

So we have folks from a 'gun crazy' nation that have to be briefed on what's 'normal' in 'safe'(limited gun ownership) countries???

GlueBall

30th Mar 2008, 15:58

Jaxon . . . Are you living in the past, or what?

...As if in the post 9/11 world it were still probable for any wannabe hijacker to successfully storm the armored cockpit door, attempt to breach it and attempt to enter the cockpit . . . without concerned passengers and cabin crew bouncing on the hijacker(s)?

Trying to be an aerial cop and a pilot simultaneously makes you a mediocre cop and a mediocre pilot! :{

airfoilmod

30th Mar 2008, 16:06

Gun owners are citizens. The Gunless are Subjects. Yank.

A deranged and terminated Flight Attendant walked by security onto a commuter flight in California some time ago (pre 9/11). Halfway through the Flight, he entered the Cockpit, shot both pilots in the head, then himself. The Aircraft nosed into the Ground from 10000 feet. Neither pilot was armed.

Jaxon

30th Mar 2008, 16:09

Glueball, are you living in a world of denial or just one with no imagination?

Can you not contemplate the possibility of a passenger cabin being somehow controlled yet again - even if the post 9/11 passenger isn't as likely to just sit still?

Do you consider the reinforced door to be impenetrable?

Am I living in the past? That question makes no sense. I've make a clear trail of logic for you to follow based specifically on the here and now, how about trying to challenge my assertion that security screening is flawed and a missile shootdown needs a firm proactive measure in front of it?

misd-agin

30th Mar 2008, 16:10

Glueball -

This is where we just disagree. You're assuming that there is zero chance of gaining cockpit access prior to passenger intervention. What happens if you're wrong? Jason wouldn't have the option of being a pilot in the scenario then. He'd have the choice of defending himself with his pen, paper flight plan, or styrofoam cup against folks that have entered the cockpit with criminal or perhaps murderous intentions. Piloting is out the window.

There was a risk analysis undertaken prior to starting the FFDO program. Any program has pros and cons. The folks in favor of the FFDO program understand people disagree with the program. Oh well.

Pugilistic Animus

30th Mar 2008, 16:36

I believe that one pistol aboard the FD will prevent the rare double failure,i.e a cabin breech and a door breech--- provided that the unwanted discharge of a sidearm is unlikely---in order to be unlikely---the arm is best stored in a quick release cache near to the pilot---

but in light of this recent incident, I'm now of the belief that a thorough review of firearms procedure be undertaken---and I'm eagerly reading the opinions of the others here on this matter---so I don't yet have a firm opinion the more poster who respond the more confused I am

I do however have an opinion regarding firearms choice

Obviously the only acceptable weapon choice would be--- especially for an inexperienced shooter is a DAO [double action only] semi-automatic--or better yet a DA revolver---because semi's require greater care and maintenance as well as the greater difficulty in inspecting for chambered rounds--a revolver in almost unjammable as you can simply fire though a bad round---whereas the ejection and chambering mechanism relies on gas pressure for breech blowback---in a revolver it's a mechanical process---not so sensitive to inconsistencies between round lots---

a revolver can chamber extremely powerful rounds---without extreme wear to the mechanism---and unjacketed rounds reduce probability of of ricochet and aircraft penetration--and of course aim for the head and neck if you feel the intruder is protected by armor

due to the main disadvantage--of lesser firepower---perhaps the 'non-shooting pilot' should be on standby with the crash axe in absolute defense on the FD!

if my great grandmother knew how to not have an accidental discharge wither per colt police revolver then neither should anyone trained in some fancy school:hmm:

Toprotectandserve

30th Mar 2008, 20:51

Quote:
And if the idea is to have them storm out of the flight deck, guns blazing, in the middle of a crisis, then I must have got something wrong,

That's correct, you got it as wrong as could be.

Oh, sorry, then...so the concept is that the pilots should start firing from inside the flight deck, is it?

prez

30th Mar 2008, 21:23

SOME PILOTS BLAME TSA FOR COCKPIT GUNFIRE

The Airline Pilot Security Alliance (APSA) Thursday released a statement saying that TSA weapons handling rules are to blame for the accidental discharge of a pilot's firearm while in the cockpit of a flying US Airways jet last weekend. The APSA pointed specifically to the TSA's requirement for pilots to remove the guns from their person, lock them and carry them "off-body" when off the flight deck. The group quotes an unidentified federal flight deck officer who said the pilot involved was preparing for landing and was trying to remove his gun and secure it when "the padlock depressed the trigger." Personal responsibility aside, the rules may force some pilots to handle their guns ten times each day and that much gun play is "a recipe for disaster," according to David Mackett, president of the APSA. APSA's press release concluded with one pilot's opinion that Congress take a look at how the program is operated, and the suggestion that pilots should follow the same procedures applied to federal air marshals.

misd-agin

30th Mar 2008, 21:41

Toprotectandserve (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=207514)
Probationary PPRuNer

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SW tip of Europe
Posts: 2

Oh, sorry, then...so the concept is that the pilots should start firing from inside the flight deck, is it?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's keep this between you and me since we're not supposed to talk abou tit publically -

The plan is for the pilots to leave the cockpit, allow the terrorists to enter the cockpit, and then for the pilots to try and shot their way back into the cockpit.

On a more serious note -

scenario #1 - terrorists in cockpit - do you support the pilots firing from inside the cockpit?

scenario #2 - terrorists attempting to access cockpit while cockpit door is open - do you support pilots shooting from cockpit or do you insist that pilots what for terrorists to actually enter the cockpit prior to their firing?

scenario #2A - if you advocate only firing once terrorists are in the cockpit have you ever done any defensive training? How far is cockpit door from your seat? If there are 4, 6, 8 or more terrorists, with volunteer 'bullet catchers', how many shots do you think you could fire if your personal standard was 'no shots until the first guy enters the cockpit'?

"Toprotectandserve"? How about filling us in on the genesis of your screen name?

airfoilmod

30th Mar 2008, 21:54

The Bartender

30th Mar 2008, 22:20

We cannot allow our last defense of the Aircraft to be at the Gate. We cannot. Neither can we allow the Line to be at the Cockpit door. Any ruthless and suicidal jerk will at least think of his demise in logistical terms were he to believe firepower of this sort is his destiny. Denial of reality begs disaster.

What a load of bull... Keep up that paranoid obsession, and you'll end up just as bad as the ones you want to keep out...:=

Guns on the flightdeck have not, and will not solve anything...:hmm:

Toprotectandserve

30th Mar 2008, 22:52

I`m sorry misd-agin...you seem to have got it wrong. So let me put it a bit more clearly:

I AM NOT in favour of pilots firing from within the flight deck...

I AM NOT in favour of pilots firing outside the flight deck...

Actually I AM NOT in favour of pilots firing guns anywhere on board an airliner AT ALL. And that`s because I AM NOT in favour of having armed pilots on board a commercial aircraft.

Come to it, I AM NOT in favour of having firearms on board a commercial aircraft except, perhaps, in very specific high-threat situations. And even then, always in the hands of rigourously selected and specifically trained personnel. No rent-a-cops, no walk-the-beat plod, not even SWAT trained
officers...

And YES, I do have firearms training...

And YES, I do carry a firearm on every working day...

And YES, my nick will give you a good clue why...

Cheers!:ok:

Jaxon

30th Mar 2008, 23:05

What a load of bull... Keep up that paranoid obsession, and you'll end up just as bad as the ones you want to keep out...

Guns on the flightdeck have not, and will not solve anything...

I read only wishful denial and your own paranoia in your post.

Why is it that the more proactive group on this issue presents a logical rationale for responding to a known threat and all the nay sayers can do is come up with either of full on case of "head in the sand" denial of the continuing threat or an ignorant stereotyping to use to try to discredit a nationality?

Security screening
Hardened door
Armed officers in the cabin
Armed and deputized pilots in the cockpit

Each of these solutions are completely reasonable responses to the threat. It seems to me to only to be a matter of debate as to the effectiveness and necessity of each.

Denying the existance of the threat is just plain stupid and insulting the proponents of one obvious response is just plain unhelpful.

misd-agin

31st Mar 2008, 00:59

Toprotectandserve -

Hey, I think every FFDO in the U.S. is in agreement with you about no gunfire onboard aircraft. They do like having that option should the foolproof :yuk: protective layovers ever fail. When needed I think they'll overcome any desire to preserve their hearing and willing trade potential hearing damage in favor of maintaining control of the aircraft in a desperate situation.

You mention 'specfic threat'. Since civil aviation, especially involving U.S. carriers, is targeted that's enough of a specific threat for the authorities in the U.S. to authorize the FFDO program.

The attempt at maintaining aircraft security is multi-faceted. Obviously there's disagree about what is, or isn't, reasonable policy. In the U.S., and several other countries, the side in favor of more armed individuals has the upper hand after debate was heard from both sides of the arguement.

Tordan

31st Mar 2008, 06:21

Interesting debate this, based more on emotions and cultural background than on looking at facts, IMHO of course :)

1. If someone began trying to penetrate the cockpit door, would I do my damndest (sp?) to "rattle" his cage even if this risked injuries to pax and FA? Of course. This may or may not work well enough to stop the penetration.
2. If someone still penetrated the door to the cockpit, would I like to have something to defend myself with? Sure, I´m only human with a will to avoid injury and stay alive! It will perhaps make me feel better during my everyday life, but I am not safer having such an option. Having a weapon in the cockpit will not stop a determined attack.
3. If/when entry has been made by determined terrorists I doubt they´d be dumb enough to only send a few people in there. Anyone thinking that a brutal fight in such a small area allows the precision shooting required to instantly kill or incapacitate ONE assailant is simply living in a world made up from Hollywood films. := People when shot, depending on what they´re hit with, don´t just fall over and die. If in doubt, check with the soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan or your local piloce officer. Being pumped up with adrenaline and drugs means that you´re very, very hard to stop.
3. Hey, there are lot´s of cases of Cubans and such hijacking planes! Yes, there has always been and will always be people that for various reasons try to hijack airplanes but AFAIK no similar program has been started in the US prior to 9/11. See below for my take on why.
4. Out of bullets or, more likely, having the gun, whatever type, wrangled from my hands and we´re back to the same situation as never having had a gun there in the first place.

Conclusion: Having a weapon almost only serves as a morale booster for the individual carrying and for some PAX (most don´t know about it, some of those that do think it´s good and others don´t). It simply does no change for the outcome of determined terrorists. Can it make a difference when it comes to one or two "nutcases"? Yes maybe, but again the reason for this programme is not to combat that very old problem. I´m not saying that the reason for the programme is to trick people into feeling safe but that´s the end result.
In the end, the only way to prevent someone from taking control of the airplane is to make entry to the cockpit impossible.

cwatters

31st Mar 2008, 09:47

I fear we are in danger of being reactionary. Terrorists crashing planes into buildings is last years idea. They will be looking at easier targets now.

thelummox

31st Mar 2008, 11:38

Greetings all,
without entering into the pros and cons it is very apparent this topic generates significant interest from all involved.

There has been much argument about the hows and whys of how the weapon came to discharge. Like others here I too am familiar with the H&K and Glock range of products and each have multiple safeties as redundancy. The accepted position is that something had to make the weapon discharge.Be it a finger, or manipulation of the weapon during storage procedures, the discharge of the round is the last action in a series of events that allowed it to happen.

Whilst it is easy to apportion blame on the actions of the individual handling the weapon (and he may have to accept some liability), it is the final event in a chain of errors or faulty systems that allowed it to occur.

Most, if not all of you, are familiar with the human factors approach used in accident investigation. This is no different. An examination of the agency policies adopted, training and refresher systems, the procedures for carrying and rendering the weapon safe, the method of securing the weapon in a holster by way of a trigger lock (that may have inherant risks in installation), safe weapon storage on the aircraft, other human factors issues, the list goes on for ever.

Be it bending 400 tonnes of metal, or letting a stray round go, the outcome is usually the result of a series of risks, many that probably weren't properly assessed or treated, lining up to allow the incident. Or in the simple explanation, the holes in the Swiss cheese lined up.

Don't let the value of a potentially effective security programme be lost because of one incident. This incident should stand alone as an incident. We don't cancel other aviation activities based on a single incident or accident, we modify systems as required to improve safe work practices. One Unintentional discharge should not having any relevance to a debate on the benefits/risks of FFDO's.

Ppruners are the first to scream our collective heads off when the industry is maligned by the media over perceived poor or biased reporting. This is no different. Be reasonable in how you interpret the facts as we know them, and remember that safety cultures are rarely improved by lynching people publicly. Examine the entire issue and move on. I suspect a full and thorough investigation would reveal a systemic failure of training, equipment selection and operation policy, rather than one individual being left to carry the can.

Returns space to pro gun/anti gun lobby to continue to slug out!

GlueBall

31st Mar 2008, 11:49

Your probability of getting hit by lightning is greater than getting hit by a terrorist. Imagine that. But doomsday believers always outnumber the skeptics.

Meanwhile, the hyper terrorist paranoia fed by the Bush administration has taken on a life of its own. It's a destructive absurdity. Just last week a team of buffons at the TSA had insisted that a woman must remove her jewelry on her nipples [with a pair of pliers] if she wanted to get through the screening process and make her flight. Other outrageousness included a woman having to taste her own bottled milk for her baby; denied boarding for another couple because their baby's name was on the TSA's "no fly" list. One shoe bomber: But millions of travellers are still having to take off their shoes, including 12 year olds, all across the USA. Anybody with a "one-way" ticket in USA is automatically suspect and herded into "secondary inspection." Plastic cutlery on all flights into USA . . . Pax data and flight itinerary, including credit card info of purchased tickets is all having to be forked over to the "Dept of Homeland Security" for all pax arriving in USA. Foreign visitors will soon have prints of all ten of their fingers [instead of only 2] cached in Big Brother's computer forever, including mug shots. :ooh:

Huck

31st Mar 2008, 11:57

We know how bad the TSA is.

We deal with them every day.

The FFDO program, however, is something different - it is in our hands. It was lobbied for by pilots, it is volunteered for by pilots, and (this is the biggie) if all the other stupid, inane TSA procedures fail - the last line of defense will fall to the pilots.

If you bet your life every workday on the skills and procedures of the apes we have over here, you'd want to be armed too. And don't talk about lightning strikes. We get ten of those a month at my airline. And we get quite a few security incidents too, including the aforementioned hammer attack - but others you didn't hear about as well....

Sallyann1234

31st Mar 2008, 12:23

Mr Bin Laden, good day to you Sir.

I hope you don't mind me addressing you directly, but since we know that you have internet access over there in Pakistan it is almost certain that you and/or your assistants will be checking sites like this from time to time to gain information and ideas.

I trust that you have found this lengthy discussion of security procedures and pilots' likely reactions to hostile attack very useful. Doubtless it will inform and assist your next move.

Yes, I know it sounds crazy that we should all help you in this way but apparently that's the way we western people behave.

Also you must be very pleased to have it explained to you just how much concern, expense and inconvenience you continue to cause us just by sitting there and watching your beard grow. You may be sure that we will continue to encourage you for many years to come.

Thank you for your attention :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Jaxon

31st Mar 2008, 12:34

Your probability of getting hit by lightning is greater than getting hit by a terrorist. Imagine that. But doomsday believers always outnumber the skeptics.

Meanwhile, the hyper terrorist paranoia fed by the Bush administration has taken on a life of its own. It's a destructive absurdity.

GlueBall, I notice you wiggled out of my attempt to draw you in to a rational debate using facts.

Airliners have been used (successfully) as a weapon of mass destruction. Repeated efforts to continue along the same vein have been detected.
Only half a brain is required to determine that if we let our guard down, cowardly terrorists will find a way to repeat their past successful efforts. (Is there anything here you wish to contradict?)

If we were to actually USE your brilliant thinking, we'd immediately stop screening passengers altogether, because we are more likely to be struck by lightning than to discover a weapon on a passenger at a security screening.

Jaxon

31st Mar 2008, 12:48

Sally, I'm not sure exactly how much to agree or to disagree with you. For one, this thread has revealed that armed pilots probably should be anticipated to be tasked with maintaining control of the cockpit. Although this is a secret to some of the pilots not in the program, its not likely to be such a confusion to the plotters out there. While the bad guys know what they have to plan for down to the model of firearm, that knowledge may be part of the reason they give up on trying to commandeer airliners into large groups of people and buildings.

Airmotive

31st Mar 2008, 13:09

"Your probability of getting hit by lightning is greater than getting hit by a terrorist. Imagine that. But doomsday believers always outnumber the skeptics.

Meanwhile, the hyper terrorist paranoia fed by the Bush administration has taken on a life of its own. It's a destructive absurdity."

Nice of you to use the old lightning strike analogy.
My airline recorded 7 lightning strikes last week.
The aircraft are designed from the outset to deal with lightning strikes.
Flight crews are trained to deal with lightning strikes.
There are tools and procedures in place in the event of lightning strikes.

My airline has not lost an aircraft due to lightning.
It has lost aircraft due to terrorists.
Never again.

Sallyann1234

31st Mar 2008, 13:32

Jaxon,
Absolutely true of course, that's one way of looking at this complex subject. But the bad guys (and I include here not just the 'professional' terrorists but those misguided individuals and small cliques who might be less well informed but seem to outnumber them and therefore have more opportunities) have learned not just the weapon type but when and how the weapon is carried by the pilot, when and how it is removed from the person, and how non-gun-carrying pilots react to its presence.
We are told that there is a 'war on terror'. In a war you do not tell your enemy what weapons you have and how you deploy them.

Jaxon

31st Mar 2008, 13:41

Tordan, your conclusions are grossly misguided. Are you a pilot? You seem to not understand that only one person at a time could possibly enter the cockpit, that putting holes in anything that comes through that doorway is a quite doable feat, that even a handful of bleeding out terrorists will have a difficult time completing their goal even if they manage to overcome the pilots. Of course, you also fail to recognise the potent deterent offered by a hardened door with an armed pilot waiting behind it. It seems that the aviator's comfort with exactness and certitude doesn't mix well with the uncertainties and inexactness of preparing a defense against certain unknown elements.

GlueBall

31st Mar 2008, 13:50

Airmotive: . . . "struck by lightning" meant for a person to be struck, as when on a Florida golf course, for example, not the airplane.

Jaxon: . . . you may be surprised to learn that the pilots of the world's most security conscious airline are unarmed.

Huck

31st Mar 2008, 13:58

They do, however, have weapons in the cockpit - on the ground at least....

Stoic

31st Mar 2008, 14:22

Jaxon

You refer in one of your posts to "cowardly terrorists". I can understand why 99.999999% of us might abhor terrorism and describe people who terrorise the innocent in their different ways in unflattering terms. But why do you describe people who are prepared to kill themselves for the sake of their beliefs as "cowardly"?

It puzzled me when George Bush described the 9/11 killers as cowards. Ghastly and murderous, yes. But cowardly?

Regards

Stoic

Jaxon

31st Mar 2008, 15:22

Stoic,

A surprise attack upon unarmed and unsuspecting civilians is always a cowardly act. Is there another rational way to see it?

Do you really suggest "a heroic self sacrifice of courageous conviction" describes a suicidal terrorist attack?

You assume that religious beliefs are the motivation of each cowardly terrorist act and that facing a painless and instantaneous death requires strength or courage.

While religious belief may drive a few of these people, it is more accurately described as delusional fanatacism.

For the others, I suggest misguided anger and hate, the manipulation of weak minds and spirits, and the disillusioned, lost and ready to die make up the rest. (As well as some who do it to buy money for family and obviously don't hold much value for their own life or those nameless and faceless innocents they target.)

It took a certain level of "guts" for the terrorist animals who did 9/11, but don't confuse that with the fact that attacking an unarmed, unsuspecting, and innocent plane load of passengers and crew was anything less than cowardly. Don't even suggest that the orchestration of their own painless deaths while trying to kill as many innocent people as they could was anything less than cowardly.

Jaxon

31st Mar 2008, 15:40

Sally,
Besides knowing that an armed pilot is ready and waiting for them behind a hardened door, I can't think of anything else I want to share with them.
I do feel that the uninformed here who give false ideas and impressions out of sheer ignorance can actually encourage the terrorists and that this should be neutralized as much as possible, obviously without divulging what secrets there are.

Stoic

31st Mar 2008, 15:45

Jaxon

A surprise attack upon unarmed and unsuspecting civilians is always a cowardly act.But military bomber pilots seem to do that all the time (all-be-it the unsuspecting civilians are third world civilians), so by your definition are therefore cowardly. Discuss.

Regards

S

Jaxon

31st Mar 2008, 15:54

Stoic,

If you are referring to unintended collateral damage then you are wasting our time with such baiting.:=

Tordan

31st Mar 2008, 17:28

@ Jaxon

"Tordan, your conclusions are grossly misguided. Are you a pilot? You seem to not understand that only one person at a time could possibly enter the cockpit, that putting holes in anything that comes through that doorway is a quite doable feat, that even a handful of bleeding out terrorists will have a difficult time completing their goal even if they manage to overcome the pilots. Of course, you also fail to recognise the potent deterent offered by a hardened door with an armed pilot waiting behind it. It seems that the aviator's comfort with exactness and certitude doesn't mix well with the uncertainties and inexactness of preparing a defense against certain unknown elements."

Dear Jaxon, I´ll send you a PM instead of open discussions here, cheers mate!

Sportbiker

31st Mar 2008, 22:55

Well my friend,

If your arguement is we need to be more philanthropic around the world, I disagree. We give billions in cash and food to the rest of the world, to what effect?

If we are lucky it actually gets to the folks who need it. On the other extreme, it can fund those who wish us harm. All I ever see is bags of grain going to those in need, who never know where it came from.

I'm sure I missed your point, but you can't blame me. Its hard to even see my computer screen past the stacks of guns, grenades and bazookas stacked in my living room. Hardly my fault. Can you make it plain?

galaxy flyer

31st Mar 2008, 23:27

Correct, Stoic,

Socialism was not invented until long after our Revolution--we soundly rejected it during the post-WWI era. FDR couldn't revive it during the Depression, his more extreme ideas (WPA, NRA) were rejected by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Any number of socialists have stated that the US Constitution precludes socialism, but it has and will be tried again, I'm sure. Americans are people who believe the "rich" should have tax cuts because they all believe they will, one day, be one of them. And our social mobility proves it.

As to George Kennan's quote: he was speaking in the immediate post-WWII period when America had 50% of the world's product. Those Asian countries did envy us, so much so they took after us. Japan became the world's second largest economy (a status they still hold despite the lost '90s and shrinking population, might not last though). Korea, after a devastating war, rebuilt into a rich, educated society (11th largest). Singapore became, well, Singapore, as did Hong Kong. We buy clothes here from Laos, Vietnam, Phillipines, enriching those people the old-fashioned way-creating work. China and India are regaining their historic position in the world's economy. But it will take decades for either to reach anything like parity with the US. After all, we have grown at 3.5% for decades and it will continue. We currently have the third largest population and about 28% of the world's product, a percentage that has actually grown over the last 25 years, despite Asian growth. In other words, the pie keeps getting bigger.

Guns are merely an American symbol, like the car and the Wild West, of American individualism and liberty. Your posts show envy and short-sightedness It is Europe that is doomed, the rising population of ill-integrated Muslims, representing the future, aging native populations living in retirement or as expats. In fact, something like 10% of British are expat now; whole businesses in Europe are devoted to aiding expats find new lives overseas.

Sixty years later, we have certainly declined--we are down to 28% and everyone on this planet are wonderfully better off than in 1948. You have misread that quote, Americans have been very pragmatic about our own interests and the world's We guarantee the freedom of the seas, a role lost by the British in two conflicts. We are the one's called during any emergency or conflict, think the Balkans. It costs us dearly, in blood and treasure, but we do it out of self-interest and by doing so enrich the world. Adam Smith as a diplomat.

Doomed, I think not. GF

Orographic

31st Mar 2008, 23:31

misd-agin

1st Apr 2008, 03:01

GlueBall (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=33992)

Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: HKG
Posts: 1,645

Jaxon: . . . you may be surprised to learn that the pilots of the world's most security conscious airline are unarmed.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/forums/report.php?p=4015135)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe there are several reasons why they are unarmed -

1. armed guards on all flights(?).

2. excellent counter-intelligence.

3. legal right to 'profile'.

4. double door system to the cockpit so no one can enter without permission.

If the U.S. operated the way this carrier does, with just a fraction of the daily flights that the U.S. operates, I think the FFDO program might have been stillborn. The reality is their system isn't feasible in the U.S. We'd require over 100,000 armed guards.

Supersport

1st Apr 2008, 12:10

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that this thread was a discussion regarding the carriage of guns on the flight deck, not a discussion about different nations cultural, political and ethical differences?

I find some of the comments made on here a f:mad:g disgrace. America doomed? Europe Doomed? In my opinion judging by the rubbish I have read in the latter half of this thread, I would say we are all doomed.

The basics of the thread were pretty simple, guns on the flight deck... good idea?.. Bad idea?... Simple... really isn't it?

Avionero

1st Apr 2008, 12:53

As lots of posts imlply, it really seem to be a cultural thing.
Lots of Europeans (myself included) believe its a bad idea and contributes more to endangering aviation than making it safer.
Lots of US-Americans believe its a good idea and feel comfortable with it.

I personally find the idea absurd, but I have to accept that people in the US grow up in another mindset towards guns in general.
To share a flightdeck with an armed pilot would make me feel uncomfortable.
So what? The chances that I will ever fly on a N-registered airliner aren´t very high, so I don´t really worry about it.

I still don´t get the concept. A group of terrorists try to pull off the 911-thing again. They are well trained, prepared to die and have the moment of surprise on their side. They could use one of the cabin crew members as a human shield upon entering the FD. If you kill the first to enter, there may be five of them left.
I believe that the downsides of bringing a hazardous equipment onto the FD outweigh by far the small advantage you might or might not have in another terrorist attack.

Huck

1st Apr 2008, 13:29

I still don´t get the concept. A group of terrorists try to pull off the 911-thing again. They are well trained, prepared to die and have the moment of surprise on their side. They could use one of the cabin crew members as a human shield upon entering the FD. If you kill the first to enter, there may be five of them left.

See... right there ... that's the difference culturally.

I look at the above-quoted scenario and think - why on EARTH would you not want a pistol in such a predicament?

P.J. O'Rourke had a great quote about this - something to this effect: a person who is against gun ownership has never held one in his hand when he is afraid for his life.....

Supersport

1st Apr 2008, 14:32

See... right there ... that's the difference culturally.

I look at the above-quoted scenario and think - why on EARTH would you not want a pistol in such a predicament?

P.J. O'Rourke had a great quote about this - something to this effect: a person who is against gun ownership has never held one in his hand when he is afraid for his life.....

I don't see any cultural differences... at all

I have been in the 'him or me' situation... and more than once I hasten to add. BUT I still would not under any circumstance feel it appropriate to have any type of firearm onboard a civil flight, it is just asking for it really. The sheer thought that people feel it is even necessary disturbs me severely.

If the 'considered terror threat' in the US is really as bad as it is being made out to be by many posters on here... and with US having the manpower and resources it has... why in the hell isn't more being done to prevent aircraft from being subjected to these expected terror attacks? Completeley self contained Flight Decks... BETTER on ground security...? Why hasn't this or similar been done... money, sorry but its been a while now since 9/11? Or is the general feeling "Sod all that, too expensive, we'll just arm pilots, they're a skillful bunch, we can get them to shoot the terrorists instead, job done"?

Hey as a last line of defense why not just put a big red self destruct button right in the middle of the panel for when the sh*t really does it the fan!? Talk about letting the terrorist win...

You tell me what would be better?

1> Waiting with your single pistol... on the FD as a bunch of terrorists are throwing themselves at the door... trying to bust there way in?

2> Having no internal door to the FD for the terrorists to throw themselves at?

jet_noseover

1st Apr 2008, 14:52

In today's Newspaper:

WASHINGTON — More than one in 10 of the nation's airline pilots are cleared to carry a handgun while flying, and the number will continue to grow, according to a Transportation Security Administration projection.
The TSA, which has declined to disclose the number of armed pilots, revealed in a recent budget document that 10.8% of airline crewmembers were authorized to carry guns.

The Federal Air Marshal Service, a TSA agency that runs the armed-pilots program, reports that 85,000 to 90,000 pilots and crewmembers flying domestic passenger and cargo planes are eligible to carry a gun. That puts the number of armed pilots at about 9,500 — a figure Air Marshal spokesman Nelson Minerly did not dispute. The marshal service keeps the exact number confidential.

The TSA projects the program to grow to 16.5% of eligible pilots by the year 2011.

Aviation experts were surprised and alarmed that so many pilots are toting guns in the sky.

"That's a big number compared to what I thought it would be," said aviation-security consultant Rich Roth, who said he had predicted there would be fewer than 1,000 armed pilots. The 5-year-old program trains pilots for one week and arms them with .40-caliber semiautomatic pistols.

"That's a scary number," said Joseph Gutheinz, a former Transportation Department special agent and aviation attorney in Houston. "By allowing so many pilots the opportunity to fly armed, we're giving terrorists opportunity to identify somebody who has a gun and overpower him."

Capt. Bob Hesselbein, head of security for the Air Line Pilots Association, said the number of armed pilots is "a tremendous deterrent" to hijackings. "An organized terrorist team, their challenge is to take control of the cabin, then the flight deck."

Armed pilots have come under scrutiny since March 22 when the gun of a US Airways pilot fired in the cockpit of Flight 1536 as it approached Charlotte from Denver. No one was hurt, and the plane landed safely after the bullet pierced the fuselage.

A report by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department said the gun fired while the pilot was stowing it.

The marshal service is investigating. The firing was the first such incident, which indicates that "this isn't a problem with the program," Air Marshal spokesman Greg Alter said.

Hesselbein, whose union lobbied Congress for the program, said armed pilots are on about 15% of domestic flights.

Marcus Flagg, president of the Federal Flight Deck Officers Association, which represents armed pilots, said their numbers could grow more if training facilities expanded.

Pilots train at a federal center in New Mexico. Classes hold 48 people and have been filled or nearly filled for five years, Minerly said.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-03-31-armed-pilots_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

WhatsaLizad?

1st Apr 2008, 15:53

Marcus Flagg, president of the Federal Flight Deck Officers Association, which represents armed pilots, said their numbers could grow more if training facilities expanded.

Marcus Flagg, United States Naval Academy Graduate, current US airline pilot, son of Navy Rear Adm. Wilson F. "Bud" Flagg (and retired American Airlines Captain).

Bud Flagg and his wife Dee were murdered on 9/11 when their American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

AirScrew

1st Apr 2008, 16:35

Interesting thought...

Does Kevlar (in a Flak Jacket) show-up on X-Ray machines???

If not, then a determined terrorist has an obvious way to get onto the flight-deck, and get his hands on a weapon.

OK Lets say it does.
Then a member of the aircrew would make a pretty good shield.

For me its clear.
Keep the guns out of the cockpit. Whilst they are known to be there, they just become one of the 'considerations' for the would be terrorists. Do any of us think these extremists might be afraid of an armed and semi-trained adversary. Not for one second.

If you need guns on the flight, keep them with the Marshalls. If you need 10,000 Marshalls in the USA (not my figure, its in a prior post), then thats the cost of flying more safely which the Airlines (and therfore the passengers) might have to pay.

WhatsaLizad?

1st Apr 2008, 17:04

Does Kevlar (in a Flak Jacket) show-up on X-Ray machines???

Not positive, but from watching TV, Kevlar seems to have some mass to be effective. TSA requires coats be removed while screening, and they go through Xray. I doubt it would be invisible.

I guess the question could also be, if suspects are caught at screening with defensive protective items, then arms onboard are increasing the hurdles for a successful attack?

AirScrew

1st Apr 2008, 17:27

Reach,

I think its a fair assumption that a well resourced and determined terrorist group will have far more wit than most of us on this forum.

Although.....
I have always wondered about the impact that Tom Clancy's 'Executive Orders' might have had.

If anyone didnt yet read it, it starts with a terrorists crashing a 747 into the Capitol building, killing the President.....

Carbon Bootprint

1st Apr 2008, 17:52

If anyone didnt yet read it, it starts with a terrorists crashing a 747 into the Capitol building, killing the President.....If I'm not mistaken, I believe that actually occurred at the ending of Debt of Honor, serving as a prelude to Executive Orders.

Dangers of a ND notwithstanding, it appears the FFDO program may be designed as a last resort before the fast jets take over with their own weaponry. Gruesome though it may be, is that not the likely fate of any commercial aircraft in the West that doesn't comply with ATC etc.? Whether it reached that point by someone overcoming an air marshall, a reinforced door or armed pilot seems a bit academic once it has occurred. :uhoh:

AirScrew

1st Apr 2008, 18:05

CB - I guess you are right about the title, it was along time ago when I read it. The point is that is was in print before 911.

Re your 2nd para.
The main question on the thread is guns on the flight deck or not??

What happens after the terrorists have control is another matter entirely.

And I hope to hell that an a/c is not shot down in the European part of the West for not 'complying with ATC'.

There could be many genuine reasons for that.

lomapaseo

1st Apr 2008, 18:21

Interesting thought...

Does Kevlar (in a Flak Jacket) show-up on X-Ray machines???

Interesting question. For many years I carried arround a square foot of ballistic kevlar in one of my carry-on side compartments that had been well used in ballistic testing against all sorts of arms. Most of the bullets were still embedded in the kevlar. I finally decided that in this day and age that the simple discovery of it by some security inspector would raise more questions than I had time to answer trying to catch a flight, So I took it out of my carry on.

In the interests that this thread has gotten so broad in content I respectably decline to answer further questions about this in this thread.:O

mickjoebill

1st Apr 2008, 18:54

Quote:
Most of the pro gun posters can't see past pulling the trigger!
Given that a (handgun) bullet proof vest can easily be disguised and concealed in hand baggage, the first shot would have to be to the head.
I'm told this is not easy, even at close quarters.
or maybe the bomb sniffing machines can be tuned to detect Kevlar?
Well then, lets run with your thought and see what makes sense:

If your cockpit door gets attacked from the cabin and gives way to reveal a terrorist wearing a bullet proof vest, are you going to prefer (at THAT moment) to be armed or unarmed?

A bullet proof vest is not visible if worn under a shirt.
You won't know if the bad guy is wearing one or not so you have to go for a head shot. It doesn't have to be worn to get past security, 'nough said.

Reliance and or over confidence that the bad guy can be defeated with a single shot (because thats all you may get) is a mistake because rather than grappling with the guy in the cockpit you'll be doing a quick draw Mc Graw, most likely with a unsuccessful outcome unless you get him/her in the head.

I'm not against inflicting deadly force on the bad guys but their (must be) other strategies and devices that require less pilot currency, technical training and self control to reliably implement.

Mickjoebill

Supersport

1st Apr 2008, 20:03

I'm not against inflicting deadly force on the bad guys but their (must be) other strategies and devices that require less pilot currency, technical training and self control to reliably implement.

Nicely put, I couldn't agree more.

AirScrew

1st Apr 2008, 22:04

MJB - 100% agree with your last piece.
I'm not against inflicting deadly force on the bad guys but their (must be) other strategies and devices that require less pilot currency, technical training and self control to reliably implement.

But I cant believe that US pilots would be trained to go for a head shot on a moving target, even at close range. No way.

misd-agin

2nd Apr 2008, 01:26

AirScrew (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=20721)

Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: EGHP
Posts: 17
http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/misc/im_yahoo.gif (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=319466&page=16#) http://mystatus.skype.com/smallicon/jonathan.airey (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=319466&page=16#)

MJB - 100% agree with your last piece.
Quote:
I'm not against inflicting deadly force on the bad guys but their (must be) other strategies and devices that require less pilot currency, technical training and self control to reliably implement.
But I cant believe that US pilots would be trained to go for a head shot on a moving target, even at close range. No way.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully no one every details to you what is, or isn't, included in the training.

The nice thing about any self defense training at this level is that it's not on the 1000 yd, 500 yd, or 1000 inch ranges. Shoot, even practicing on a 100 inch range would be unrealistic. This isn't urban, or open terrain, combat with a sidearm. It's spitting distance, or closer, depending upon the aircraft cockpit.

P.S. CA Bud Flagg was EXTREMELY well liked at AA.

Melax

3rd Apr 2008, 03:42

I just couldn't help it I had to post (Specialy when people with no knowledge or intelligence at all go on an US bashing spree..). How about this, TSA misses gun (Human error or stupidity), or gun is introduced by accomplices working in the secure area of the airport or a "special" composite gun is assembled in the plane (after being carried by several different passengers). Hijacker (s) takes control of the passenger cabin and then shoots the lock to the cockpit to gain access. so for all the fools out there, maybe you should go and live in some hippie community with peace forever.... this is a very real and dangerous world. So the last line of defence is the crew inside the cockpit an the gun they carry give them a better chance. this is reality.

FakePilot

3rd Apr 2008, 05:09

I see a lot of problems with "shooting the locks out."
Have you ever tried shooting a lock? Are you sure this procedure works?

Sorry pro-gun guys, but some of the arguments here for armed pilots are really really reaching. I think it reflects poorly on the pro-gun crowd.

And please, no "cars kill people too". I don't think pilots want to park their cars in the cockpit either. :}

Dream Land

3rd Apr 2008, 15:49

TSA procedures bad?

See link (http://www.crimefilenews.com/2008/03/video-of-dangerous-firearm-policy-of.html). :ugh:

Toprotectandserve

3rd Apr 2008, 20:45

(...)Hijacker (s) takes control of the passenger cabin and then shoots the lock to the cockpit to gain access(...)

Erm...no offence meant, Melax, but do you mean discharging a firearm in order to shoot the lock off...an armoured door???

PBL

4th Apr 2008, 06:44

I just couldn't help it I had to post (Specialy when people with no knowledge or intelligence at all go on an US bashing spree..). How about this

How about this. I am said to have some intelligence (my day job is, after all, as university professor) and I did live in California for 18 years, so maybe I am qualified to answer?

for all the fools out there, maybe you should go and live in some hippie community with peace forever.... this is a very real and dangerous world.

The particular hippy community I live in is called Western Europe, way away from the "very real and dangerous world" that Philadelphia may be. Indeed, I am citizen of a country in which all forms of private ownership of firearms, except for shotguns, is illegal. And nobody here in Western Europe has felt the need to arm pilots. That seems to be a situation which you are far away from being able to comprehend. So be it.

Let me suggest that, when entering an international discussion, one try to comprehend and engage the arguments, rather than spit on them. It leaves a much better impression.

PBL

stilton

5th Apr 2008, 06:13

As much as I despise the TSA I agree wholeheartdly with them on their reluctance to arm pilots.

Unfortunately politics stepped in..

whoseroundisit

14th Apr 2008, 17:26

Check out the video on www.liveleak.com. Its titled TSA Forces Armed Pilots To Use Booby-Trap Holster. If you go to Media Map (new) and scroll down the right side to find TSA Forces Armed Pilots To Use Booby-Trap Holster.

pumaknight

15th Apr 2008, 14:15

"Like saying "sulphuric acid isn't dangerous - scientists with slippery hands are dangerous"

Love that quote...but of course only a fool would gie a beaker of sulfuric acid to a scientist who is know to have slippery hands.

The same can be said of humans - they are dangerous, some even psychotic - so why keep giving them obvious means with which to kill????

I certainly don't have a solution, but I have enjoyed the debate all the same.

VortexGen300

15th Apr 2008, 15:45

"EISH"

This is the word one will get used to when you get any error in anything down here in South Africa.

So many opinions - but if I may add mine, for what it is worth, if any?

- It sounds as if our pilot friends in the US have something that was imposed on them. No matter what we argue it has to be dealt with in the most professional way they can.

- My appreciation of the situation: What ever they have to do with these .40 cal hand guns they have to do as safe as possible.

- Yes there are multiple very sensitive pieces of equipment etc... in the cockpit but from my little knowledge of the layout of a cockpit and the pictures we were shown in this thread that is now trying to become "a threat to national security" :D it is clear that:

1. If the pilot was indeed handling the said fire arm for whatever reason he was supposed to according to reports we were given - he was pointing it in the direction of the part of the cockpit (from his assumed position in the aircraft) where it would affect no harm to any systems or equipment and definitely people in case of an accidental discharge. So what is the fuss? (Murphy: "If something can go wrong - it will". Me: "If something does go wrong - make sure the least amount of harm can result") Maybe the pilot listened to me???:D

- Before you want to crucify me - I am only stating and interpreting the facts as they were presented and I am not taking the responsibility for their factual correctness.

- I don't think I will appreciate being a Captain or First Officer at this time in the USA as I am not particular comfortable with guns in the cabin or cockpit - but I appreciate the differences in situations accross the world.

- I do however appreciate the facts and try to stay away from the emotions? (Very hard to not get emotional in Africa)

- But then again who cares about them if we can rant on and on about safe and unsafe guns?

- As for airport security and scrutiny of apron staff - maybe Europe is different but I understand the apprehension of pilots to accept that nothing can go through - although it is again just my opinion. There are too many examples of security missing small detail or not paying attention. There is no guarantee - no fail safe system anywhere in the world.

VG300

AMF

16th Apr 2008, 14:35

Do our Euro friends realize that hundreds of armed passengers fly on U.S. airlines every day in the form of traveling Federal agents and assorted law enforcement personnel? They aren't directly connected in any way to protecting the aircraft (i.e. Sky Marshalls and FFDO's) their flying on?. Their weapon is a job-required tool they have to carry with them, even though most of them never have cause to use them in the performance of their duties, and qualifying with their weapons certainly doesn't involve tactics particular to an aircraft cabin.

The fear of armed pilots despite screening and training borders on the Irrational, no matter the atempt to drape that fear with a facade of rational debate. I'm convinced it's a cultural thing, and never the two opinions shall meet.

Euro pilots should certainly refrain from applying for airline jobs in the U.S., given that their fellow crewmember or some passengers in the cabin may be armed. I would think the fear would create in them a mental situation where they couldn't perform their duties.

samusi01

18th Apr 2008, 00:04

CNN is now reporting that the pilot involved is to be fired.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/17/pilot.gun/index.html

galaxy flyer

18th Apr 2008, 03:35

For this Captain, the gun was, indeed, terminal.

pakeha-boy

18th Apr 2008, 04:20

..first people he called was ALPA......not USAPA....for obvious reasons!!!

Avionero

18th Apr 2008, 06:42

@AMF

I really wasn´t aware that fare paying passengers are allowed to board the flights with guns on them.
Having sky marshalls or trained pilots armed on the aircraft is one thing, but just passengers is another.

It makes the whole security stuff utterly ridiculous.
I really would be pissed off if they´d take away my nail cutter, my shampoo and what not, only to find out that the guy next to me is sitting there with a Revolver under his jacket.

You are absolutely right. It´s a cultural thing. I will never understand the American love and passion for firearms as a solution to everything. I just accept it as what it is - a different culture - and get on with it and enjoy the flights with my nice American colleagues, without trying to convince each other :}

Holodek7

18th Apr 2008, 14:24

Avionero-
You most definitely misunderstood the meaning of AMF's post. The Sky Marshals are dressed in civvies posing as pax.

Huck

18th Apr 2008, 16:45

No he didn't.

ANY government employee who carries a concealed weapon as part of their duties can carry it aboard a US airliner.

Back in my pax days I carried agricultural inspectors, postal inspectors, fish and game officers, federal and state law enforcement, and IRS officials with concealed weapons.

It's not usually this prevalent... I flew many times to a small town in south Georgia that has a federal firearms training facility - known colloqially as "Club Fed."

con-pilot

18th Apr 2008, 18:27

I for one have carried firearms on airliners in the U.S. when I was with the United States Marshal Service. As AMF posted it happens every day numerous times on probably all U.S. airlines.

Now please understand that one cannot just show up, flash a badge and jump on board with your weapon. There is an established procedure that must be followed, which I will not relate here, and the final authority is the Captain.

Personally the only problem I ever had was that when armed you could not consume adult beverages, so usually I tried to get some other guy to carry my weapon, never worked. :(

(To be honest I was happy when they decided to take the pilot's guns away, but then they would turn around and make us start carrying them again. Pain in the butt it was.)

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

19th Apr 2008, 08:15

Back in my pax days I carried agricultural inspectors, postal inspectors, fish and game officers, federal and state law enforcement, and IRS officials with concealed weapons.

"agricultural inspectors, postal inspectors"! Bloody hell. Do these blokes work together to stamp out pests? An old school pal became a Post Office equivalent to a postal inspector: I wouldn't trust him with a spud gun. Now armed school truancy officers I could understand.

Jet_A_Knight

21st Apr 2008, 00:03

From the Aero-News Network

FFDOA Plans To Fight Captain's Termination
The US Airways captain who accidentally discharged his gun in the cockpit of an airliner inflight is being fired by the airline.

As ANN reported, Capt. James Langenhahn was suspended from the airline three days after the March 22 incident, which occurred as the Airbus A319 he was piloting descended through 8,000 feet to land in Charlotte, NC.

No one in the cockpit was injured, but the bullet did leave a hole in the inner and outer fuselage skins, the outer hole visible under the port-side cockpit window.

Langenhahn is a member of the Transportation Security Administration's Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program, which allows pilots to carry loaded firearms onboard commercial aircraft as a protective measure against terrorism. The pilot told authorities he was stowing the firearm, a .40 caliber semiautomatic H&K USP, when it fired.

A spokesman for the Federal Flight Deck Officers Association told CNN US Airways has begun the process to terminate Langenhahn's contract with the carrier... which the group plans to fight. "This was accidental not intentional," said Mike Karn. "This is not the way to treat a long-term pilot."

A spokesperson for US Airways declined to comment on the matter, which was the first such public incident of its kind since the FFDO program was created in 2002. Thousands of commercial pilots have been trained to carry firearms onboard their planes,

The TSA is now investigating the matter... which will no doubt include the question of why Langenhahn had the gun out of its holster in the first place.

AMF

21st Apr 2008, 15:59

Avionero @AMF

I really wasn´t aware that fare paying passengers are allowed to board the flights with guns on them.
Having sky marshalls or trained pilots armed on the aircraft is one thing, but just passengers is another.

It makes the whole security stuff utterly ridiculous.
I really would be pissed off if they´d take away my nail cutter, my shampoo and what not, only to find out that the guy next to me is sitting there with a Revolver under his jacket.

Ridiculous would be taking away weapons from law enforcement-type passengers who could help thin out the landscape if 5, 10, or more unarmed, suicidal fanatics were trying to gain access to the cockpit in order to make a kamikazi attack at a ground target. They could put 19 hijackers on one aircraft, rather than divide them among 4 aircraft as they did on 9-11. The reality is, if the cockpit gets breached the airplane dies, either at the hands of the hijackers or a tactical aircraft. The aircraft and everyone in it is now considered expendable in the face of skyscrapers coming down or stadiums being lit up.

Armed federal agents and local law-enforcement officers traveling as passengers have never been a problem. They haven't taken over and killed airplanes. Unknown passengers, especially working as a team and carrying and/or improvising weapons have been. Now that the flight deck is considered to be a castle keep...protected at all costs with active resistance... and understanding that you can't always keep determined baddies from getting inside the outside curtain wall, the more potential for someone to help prevent them gaining access to the cockpit-keep before the pilots have to defend it from the inside, the better.

Why would anyone want to remove the advantage gained by having armed defenders...inside and outside the cockpit...when you have done everything you can to strip the attackers of weapons or their ability to improvise them? Cite collateral damage if bullets fly all you want, but the entire aircraft and more is at stake. The only security you're going to increase is the security in the terrorist whack-job mind that they will succeed.

If you were on an aircraft ane 15 hijackers were trying to keep unarmed pax like you bottled up in the aisle and away from the cockpit in order to give 4 more behind them time to break in, wouldn't you prefer that DEA agent or Postal Inspector or Dept of Agriculture guy have something useful in his holster, rather than having him/her be just another unarmed passenger like you trying to figure out what in the he11 to do?

Likewise, if I were a suicidal terrorist-hijacker bent on homicide, I would LOVE to know that my my fanatical, trained, and physically fit comrades-in-martyrdom team would be facing fat, young, old, untrained, and disarmed adversaries in an aircraft cabin scrap. Even one armed passenger that suddenly popped-up, however, would reduce my team's chances for success to odds too low to bother worrying about an armed pilot when the door finally breaks.

At best, deterrence with regards to suicidal-homicidal fanatics means forcing doubts into their so-called "minds" about succeeding with a particular target, not suicide itself. They can and will kill themselves in different ways...dynamite belt in a shopping mall, for instance..like we see in the news every day. They know Sky Marshalls are armed. Now they know they may face gunfire from the pilot if they manage to get the cockpit door open. Like it or not, through negligence, the US Air pilot certainly proved in a very public way that weapons really are in cockpits now, and loaded (and before any pilot here says "yes but now the terrorists know there might be a weapon up there to use against the pilots" I'll say to you that when you tied your tie before you went to work you were literally tying your own noose if you wear it in the cockpit when you fly).

So why would you take away the wild-card doubt that there may be also be armed law enforcement passengers merely traveling on board by publicly stripping them of their weapons? That NOW...unlike before when the "experts" pretended hijackers wanted to live and merely fly to Cuba....will USE their weapons against them in the cabin while as they attempt to take over the aircraft? That collateral damage is now deemed acceptable by the good guys in order to foil them in the act?

Sure, after 9-11, to them merely killing the airplane's passengers is like being 2nd place to bringing down entire buildings with it, but doing so would still make them a household name in terrorist households. But what they DON'T want is to blow their whole martyrdom-wad merely killing a few pax in the cabin during an unsuccessful attempt at either, dying in the aisle from gunshot wounds in unspectacular fashion, even if it is up in 1st Class.

The existence of the armed law enforcement wild-card creates another level of deterrence against them picking the airliner-as-kamakazi method when they're deciding the manner in which they're going to try and kill a lot of innocent people.

flown-it

21st Apr 2008, 18:17

Once had a pax problem...don't recall exactly why the pax and I ended up having a jetway discussion.....but it turned out this postal inspector, coming home from a Florida vacation with wife and 2 school age children, was packing heat. Once I'd sorted the problem I asked him why he deemed it necessary to pack on holiday. Again, I don't recall his precise words but I remember walking back to the flight deck livid that
(1) I had no authority to refuse a pax just cos he had a gun. :ugh:
(2) That anyone would want to take a gun on a family holiday.:ugh:
:mad:
Only in America!

FireLight

22nd Apr 2008, 02:47

Just a thought, would it be better to have a taser in the cockpit so that you have some option of escalating based on the threat level, rather than having the limited option of a gun, with it's potential for collateral damage? Or perhaps have a taser for the FA's in a hidden location and a gun for the pilot in dire circumstances?

Say as in this scenario:

LIMA, Peru - A Peruvian airline passenger tried to force his way into the cockpit of a domestic flight to read a manifesto over the plane's sound system, according to the state news agency Andina. More here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24238951/

Jaxon

22nd Apr 2008, 07:50

If you are in denial or disconnected to the modern threat of airlines as suicidal terrorist weapons for mass murder and destruction - or you are flying in a place either obviously out of range of such a target or otherwise confident that the part of the world you are in possesses no such threat, then I suppose you can feel free to decide how concerned you are about somebody trying to break into your cockpit.

In the U.S., Europe, and other target rich environments where terrorist scum hide in the cracks like cockroaches we assume the worst (that ANY attempted breach is a threat to much more than just the aircraft and its occupants) and react accordingly. Breaking into my cockpit will be met with swift deadly force, no questions asked. The taser would just make it a messy two step process instead of one: 1) shoot taser 2) swing crash axe.

airfoilmod

22nd Apr 2008, 14:01

Not enough room. If Mr. Intruder flops on the Captain, both are incapacitated. Or all three. Look, either the threat is, or it isn't. If it's maybe, I'm packin. If it isn't, prove it, until then, I'm... Packin.

AMF

22nd Apr 2008, 14:28

FireLight Just a thought, would it be better to have a taser in the cockpit so that you have some option of escalating based on the threat level, rather than having the limited option of a gun, with it's potential for collateral damage? Or perhaps have a taser for the FA's in a hidden location and a gun for the pilot in dire circumstances?

Say as in this scenario:

Quote:
LIMA, Peru - A Peruvian airline passenger tried to force his way into the cockpit of a domestic flight to read a manifesto over the plane's sound system, according to the state news agency Andina. More here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24238951/

No matter where I am, if someone tries to subject me to hearing a Manifesto, I reach for my gun. I hate Manifestos!

windytoo

22nd Apr 2008, 17:50

I guess you are more at home with hollywood movie scripts.

Jaxon

22nd Apr 2008, 19:56

I guess you are more at home with hollywood movie scripts.

Does that mean that if you found yourself sitting in a cockpit with a gun in your hand while chaos erupted in your cabin and an effort to break through your door began... that you would decide to then lock the gun up in a lock box?

con-pilot

22nd Apr 2008, 20:14

(1) I had no authority to refuse a pax just cos he had a gun.
(2) That anyone would want to take a gun on a family holiday.

Unless the law has changed you are wrong on number 1. The captain in the United States has the final authority on weapons; one option is to carry the weapon in the cockpit.

Number 2. Just your opinion.

No, not only in 'America', please read the post above re Italy by I-FORD.

Pugilistic Animus

23rd Apr 2008, 13:09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_GJkKMPHxw&feature=related:}

CityofFlight

23rd Apr 2008, 20:13

What remains to be seen is how the gun discharged while on approach. Did he remove it to show F/O? Can't imagine, if stowed properly, how the darn thing went off.

Perhaps he's the Barney Fife of US Air's Mayberry.

stepwilk

25th Apr 2008, 14:09

Conde Nast Traveler magazine continues its exegesis on the USAirways inadvertent-pistol-discharge incident here...

http://www.concierge.com/cntraveler/blogs/80days/2008/04/the-shootist.html#more

...if anybody wants to post comments. By Guy Martin, the magazine's security expert.

blueloo

25th Apr 2008, 14:18

Whilst an interesting article, its as if the author is acting as the judge and condemning the the pilot before a fair hearing.

stepwilk

25th Apr 2008, 16:09

I'm a contributing editor at Traveler (and a pilot), and that's what I've been trying to tell him since he first started writing about this, right after the incident. He won't listen when I tell him that suppositions on the part of somebody with no actual flight-deck experience are a bad idea.

thezoltar

25th Apr 2008, 16:59

Ergo: Captain Langenhahn was carrying his pistol with an extra, thirteenth, chambered round. He had to do a lot to put 13 rounds in his .40 caliber Compact. First he had to fill the magazine with 12 rounds and insert it into its bay in the pistol's grip. Then he had to pull back the slide, or top of the pistol, in order to chamber the first round in the magazine. This reduced the contents of the magazine to 11 rounds. Finally, he had to remove the magazine from the gun, fill it with a new "12th" round, and re-insert the magazine into the grip

The author that wrote the above passage should be fired from his job. That does not even come close to what occurs in an aircraft cockpit when an FFDO is arming himself. To pass on incorrect information (most likely obtained from someone wishing to sensationalize) is a disservice to the reading public and completely crushes the credibility of the author and the publication. I know that when you can't get facts many like to make them up but this is rediculous.