Arming Flight Crew -UK

[ShotOne]

I appreciate there has been a long thread devoted to this subject but most contributors wrote from a US perspective.

I feel there is a strong case for some flight crew (not necessarily just pilots) to be armed. This would not mean that every flight would carry armed crew but it would be a major disincentive to anyone planning to rush the flight deck that they might have to face either a firearm or taser on the other side.

I appreciate this will need some change of mindset in the UK as opposed to the USA where people are more gun minded -but sadly the days of "Do as we say and nobody gets hurt" are in the past.

[Halfwit]

As one of the few people who still has a FAC for a handgun in the UK and a permit to carry it concealled or not.I find the idea of arming the flight deck to be one of the most rediculous i have ever heard.

For starters with many years of both military and civilian practical pistol experience, i feel that my ability to use a firearm in the confines of a A/C hull is relativly limited, without the danger of injuring an innocent passenger or endangering the aircraft.

In addition to this if an inexperienced person is in posession of a firearm and fails to use it when needed in the appropriate manner then the likleyhood is that he has just handed a functional weapon to a terrorist is exceedingly high. Who can say they would deffinatly shoot in a hostage situation unless they have been in one before!

To counter this some of you may say that if the A/C is going to be used as they were on sept 11 then anything is better than nothing, my answer is yes just lock the door instead.

Are we really addressing the problems ?

Surely to prevent the crimes the criminal should not even be able to board the A/C, therefor rather than arm the flight deck or provide marshals, make sure the airports have their house in order. In the long term this is the answer, whether it is a terrorist or disruptive/drunk passeger.

Good luck to you all and may you never have to face the situation :mad:

[Stu M.]

What a terrifying idea! Once they're on board a firearm will do you no good at all. At least some of the Sept 11th guys were intent on suicide. I don't know if you have any experince of weapons but you can be rushed very easily even when armed. If the gun is safely stored and unloaded as it would have to be you would not have time to react. Locking the door and heading for the closest runway is the answer if the unthinkable happens but stopping them at source is the only sure way.

[johnnie piles]

i wouldn't like to have to bring a gun to work anyway... :eek:

[HalesAndPace]

Current UK firearms legislation would not allow it, so I'm intrigued to work out how Halfwit has a licence to carry a concealed handgun. That said, I have to agree that the problems of allowing any crew members to carry a gun are likely to be insurmountable, although small calibre/low velocity pistols are already carried by some sky marshalls. The debate about having the cockpit door locked/unlocked will, I'm sure, continue for quite a while......

[BOEINGBOY1]

sorry but isn't the idea to actually keep guns off the aircraft !!

[Roadtrip]

From past discussions, Brits don't even want to close cockpit doors and love to have visitors in the cockpit. Why would they need lethal defense?

Halfwit obviously doesn't know much about firearms, frangible ammunition, quick reaction arms safes, aircraft cockpit doors (hardened or otherwise), or the concept of last-ditch cockpit defense. It seems with most people on this board, opinions abound with little or no knowledge or practical experience. I get a big kick when these guys with PPLs think they know alot about commercial flying and airline operations. A very BIG lack of critical thinking going on on PPRUNE.

[ 11 October 2001: Message edited by: Roadtrip ]

[BOING]

Does not really prove anything of course but some week-ends I probably shoot more rounds of pistol ammo than halfwit does in a year.

I am a historical firearms collector but that does not make me a "nut". I believe that it is my historical responsibility to ensure any firearm I collect is restored to fully functional condition. So I use them often, it is legal over here and great fun. In fact, I happen to have a one hundred yard range in my back field.

With the amount of shooting I do I inevitable feel comfortable with a firearm and I reckon a terrorist six feet away is going to meet those virgins he has been promised.

Webley 450, that's the ticket to stop the fuzzy-woozies!

[Julian]

The only was I coule ever envisage firearms on a UK aircraft (I myself dont particulary like the idea!), would be for a firearms officer to be the carrier - not a pilot. Currently in the UK there are only a limited number of officers with firearms training, maybe it could involve setting up a 'Skymarshalls' branch of the Met.

Yeah we have a different view to firearms over here as regards personal possession, but I would just like to say to all the US guys who go UK bashing over this issue that just because you have the bit of paper that says you can carry one and the weapon itself - it doesn't mean you are neccessarily any good with it. Now thats a frightening thought!....I would rather leave them in the hands of people who are constantly trained, assessed and have them locked away at the end of the shift and if deemed not competent, have it taken off them as well!

Julian.

[ 11 October 2001: Message edited by: Julian ]

[A and C]

Halesandpace the UK firearms legislstion has provision to issue a handgun FAC to an indivdual but the aplication has to go to the very top of the home office and so is very hard to get and only issued to people who are under a direct thret or in goverment related buisiness.

If the it was the goverment will to arm aircrew then they would just make the crews temporary police officers when on duty and solve the problem of issuing a FAC to each pilot.

As for myself i dont need a gun as now the rules have changed and i no longer have to apease hijackers i have all the weapons that i need in a standard aircraft and befor you ask im not going to say what i would do on an open forum like this.

[HalesAndPace]

A & C, yep, thanks for reminder (although I was aware of the general ruling - but as for Section 5 stuff, like rocking horse sh*t to get!!). With some crew who can't even make a cup of tea without scalding themselves, my view is that pistols should be left to skymarshals. Think we're treating the symptom, not the cause here - for example, wish all pax could be screened like El Al do it.

[Scotflight Aviation]

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

[mach78]

Halfwit, you're not well named are you.........?
I think you are getting confused here-UK and US legislation-the former unlike the latter does not concern itself directly with concealment-there are no such things as permits for hidden weapons -there don't have to be as the Firearms Acts here are around the strictest in the world.

The law here refers to "possession" of the firearm.

No, no licence to thrill..

[MaximumPete]

The thought of some of our guys/girls having firearms frightens me to death. They will either leave them at home, lose them or end up shooting themselves or each other!

[Julian]

I think piloting a plane and possessing a firearm require two completly different mind sets. The police don't even let all their officers carry them so why should pilots?

A question I asked on another forum which never got answered when people were talking about strengthening flight deck doors and arming crew is that the crew were lured off the flight deck by the terrorists attacking cabin crew and passengers. Having a firearm is not going to help in this situtation, especially if they are holding one of your crew with a knife to their throat!

Julian.

[SunSeaSandfly]

I keep hearing that arming pilots is like letting kids play with grenades.
Some say that weapons users need a "special mindset."
What is so magic about a firearm?
It is just a tool, like any other tool. Unless you know how to use it,it is useless and probably quite dangerous. But does that not apply to many other items we use daily?

At age 9 or 10 I was trained to look after and use firearms AT SCHOOL. After a while I became proficient and went to many shooting competitions. I can recall that at a big meet like Bisley there were hundreds of youngsters shooting away, and it was all done in excellent safety.

My point is the issue should not be clouded by the awe in which firearms are held in some quarters, but on whether this is an effective last ditch line of defence.

El Al has the best airline security in the world, and there have been one or two incidents where someone has passed all the earlier barriers, only to be stopped in the air.

Clearly the way they do it is highly effective. Can we learn from that?

[The Guvnor]

SeaSunSandFly - yes, there may well have been breaches on El Al where someone got weapons past ground security (where/when?) but the important factor is that they were then taken out by the skymarshals - whose job it is to do such things.

Pilots, on the other hand, are employed to fly aircraft.