U.S. pilots allowed to carry guns.

[Raas767]

As part of the new security bill, one of the attachments will let individual airlines decide weather to allow their pilots to carry guns. This being the case, you can bet that all the airlines will allow it. I can just see the marketing slogans now; Our pilots carry guns, fly with us.
This business will never be the same.

[Flying Guy]

First, let me say that I enthuastically support pilots being able to carry a (real) gun in my flight bag. I hope my airline doesn't wimp out on this issue.

There has been some discussion on this in a previous thread "United pilots to carry taser guns."

I am sure thee will be lots of (non-crewmembers) who will bemoan this possibility. But I think it is a great idea. I just hope they don't make it prohibitively difficult to be individually authorized. The head of ALPA said on TV he thought a pilot shoud take a TWO WEEK training course at a MILITARY FACILITY to become qualified.

Nonsense.

That's my story and I'm stickin to it.

:)

[T_richard]

Hi , I have a question about guns on an airplane, what is the effect on the airframe if it is punctured by a .45 cal Black Talon ( a very mean round to be shot with).

[richmond45]

There is no reason for Pilots not to carry guns. Pilots have the lives of many passengers in their hands anyway. A gun plus a lead loaded wooden baseball bat or High Tech Baton and a Gun. Soft Point 9mm bullets with a 15 shot mag suggested. Also support Video Camera viewing Cabins with Cockpit monitors. And give free first class upgrades to other Pilots and concealed weapon Permits if they pass a extened Background Check similar to a military EBI.

[richmond45]

Doubt a .45 cal could bring down an airliner from within - just can not happen - even a depressure from a puncture - not serious - because a hole like that can be plugged - but then again the gun goes off passes thru the skin - the pilot would probably land at the nearest airport safely.

[T_richard]

well if a round won't cause big problems to the skin and if it won't shatter a porthole, the I say let everyone who can meet the background check and training required for a CW permit bring a pistol on board. Even if one of those is a nut/ terrorist is he really going to be brave enough to try and take over the plane when every third passenger is armed?

[I. M. Esperto]

Hollow Point ammo is the way to go. Minimum damage to structure.

At the range we are dealing with, missing is all but impossible.

A Dum Dum in his hody causes devestating effects.

There is precedent for this. Back when we first started carrying US Mail, pilots were REQUIRED to carry a sidearm.

[GlueBall]

There are legal obstacles most air carrier managements will shy away from: Additional company time for recurrent weapons training and law enforcement qualification; Passenger liability issues if an innocent passenger is shot; Airframe insurance issue if a bullet damages expensive on board equipment or flight controls/hydraulics; Concealed weapons permits in foreign countries; Air carrier liability for death or injury of a person in a foreign country by one of its armed pilots; Multiple complex bilateral agreements vis-a-vis firearms protocols and regulations. Additionally, unless the firearms remain in the cockpit, as United's "stun guns" will, pistol toting pilots in foreign countries will be individually responsible for weapon security whether at hotel, at sightseeing or at restaurants.

Overall, professional law enforcement and the carrying of a loaded weapon in public across state lines and across international borders is in itself a full time job. And the professional pilot who wants to take on those additional duties will neither be a professional cop nor a professional pilot.

Besides, given the events of Sept 11th, there is a new mind-set; It's about crew and passenger survival instinct! And given the new inflight security training, reinforced cockpit doors and bulkheads, the probability of another hijack in the USA is practically zero. To be sure, passengers fearing for their own survival will no longer sit idle during any air rage incident, nor will passengers allow any terrorist or other mentally challenged person to attempt to storm into the cockpit. The curtains in the aisles will remain open. :cool:

[Philcott]

Guns in the cockpit? Sounds like an interesting idea, but it certainly adds a new dimension to cockpit resource management. :D

[TowerDog]

Hmm, intresting topic raasman.

Wonder what the ideal size firearm would be?
A small Derringer to take out a terrorist rag-head at a very short range?
Or something more powerful to make sure one bullet is enough?

Used to carry weapons while flying bush in Alaska, but not to protect a/c and self against the pax.
Stange times ahead.

[LevelFive]

In the wake of 9-11 the flying public in the USA wants the highest security possible. Arming pilots adds a level of security. About two-thirds of Americans are in favor of arming airline pilots (68%) according to a recent Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr011031.asp).

If you can trust a properly trained pilot with a B-747, you should also be able to trust a properly trained pilot with handgun.

I like a .380 for cockpit defense.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

At the risk of upsetting some of our American cousins (and I am a big fan of America), I feel the need to urge caution. I realise that 'the right to bear arms' etc is a big deal over in the States, but it can only lead to disaster if people start carrying guns on aircraft. The sad fact is that the hijackers of Sep 11 were only lightly armed and relied on a combination of surprise plus creating an atmosphere of terror disproportianate to their actual capabilities. Perhaps more crucially, the conventional wisdom of the airline industry also advised flight crews to aquiesce in the face of terrorism in order to save all lives on board, and get the aircraft on the ground to let the authorities sort the problem out. That doctrinal error played directly into the hands of the hijackers, because the pilots ultimately (and totally understandably) handed control of their aircraft to these guys believing that they were saving lives. The chances of a successful hijack in the USA now are virtually non-existent because all passengers will rise up and fight to the death - a situation that was inconceivable before Sep 11.

Where does this lead? Simply that there is now no need to have guns on board because you are potentially providing hijackers (who as we now know are happy to die in achieving their aim) with real guns to fight with after they have overpowered the crew.

I know this is a very sensitive subject in the States, but I have to say that the evidence is simply overwhelming that 'good people' with guns for self protection end up killing far more people than they save. There will be accidents, as can be seen from the statistics in the USA. Here in the UK we are simply not allowed guns, and that is almost universally accepted as being the 'right thing' to do. We have about 100 firearm-related deaths each year. In the USA, where guns are freely available you have about 40,000 deaths (can't remember the exact figure but it is about that) each year. The vast majority of those are silly arguments or accidents. I suggest that if the FAA are foolish enough to permit guns on aircraft, there will be far more tragedies than rescues. It would be a highly retrograde step to contemplate carrying guns on flight decks. Maybe you should rather be fighting to remove guns from your society as the evidence is overwhelming that it will save thousands of lives.

[Willit Run]

With all due respect, Sir,
(Norman Stanley)The media prints out what they want you to know about guns and how many are killed as a result of crime. When was the last time the media printed a story about a crime being thwarted by the responsible use of a gun by a citizen? It plainly never gets printed in a national newspaper. Does it happen? yes, all the time!
Getting qualified to carry and use a gun is not that difficult. Just look at some of the pilots we have fying around!!!! Some are good and some are , well, not so good.You'll have good and bad in any field! But the majority of the pilots we have flying around are very capable. Why would we, as fairly intelligent folks, not be able to use a gun with skill? we are just as capable as anyone else, and we understand what makes planes tick. We have to use judgement more than most folks do. We would not be the ones that would be too ichy to fire one off.

I think if we have an actual federal air marshal on board, they would be designated as the primary gun toteing individual, and everyone else would be a secondary tool.we all should know who is carrying, so we all know who's who!
Had there been one or two armed folks on board those planes, I would be willing to bet, that at least two would have survived.
Just my humble opinion from an avid believer in firearms. ( for those individuals who didn't figure out what side i'm on)

[GlueBall]

Electric "stun-guns" as part of the cockpit equipment, as at United, is as far as it may go at some carriers. The logistics and safety of loaded weapons in the cockpit are impractical reality in a civil aviation environment. Ex military and other wannabe aerial Rambos are a loud reactionary minority inside ALPA and APA that has stirred a disproportinate amount of media hyped fear and desperation among the shocked traveling public; ...as if more suicidal terrorists armed with pocket knives and boxcutters might be on the next flight....

[Flying Guy]

I have recently read the repeated conventional wisdom that there will never be another attempted (or successful) hijacking of a US transport aircraft.

That is sensible.

The trouble is - not everyone is sensible.

Respectfully - Flying Guy :(

[ 20 November 2001: Message edited by: Flying Guy ]

[AA SLF]

Interesting to note that up until a couple of years ago it was legal for pilots to carry a handgun in the cockpit. The new law is just a re-institution of the expired one.

New security door; fire axe; Taser and handgun. Pax ready to use pillows; blankets; books/magazines; briefcases, etc. FAs ready with hot coffee metal pots; wine bottles; carts, etc.

Explosive devices are all that worry this SLF today! PanAm is still a memory.

dAAvid -

[filmaker2000]

I've tried to get this message out to a few news organizations but maybe they're influenced by the NRA and didn't print it. If we are going to arm Pilots (and I think we should) why not use the technology developed a few years ago in making sure that the only person that can fire a particular weapon is the registered owner of that weapon. If I recall there were more than a few systems that detected the hand print/pressure, thumb print etc of a registered owner of a weapon and only allowed that person to fire that weapon. If the weapon was taken away or the owner disabled, the weapon would not fire. this seems to be a simple solution. Develop the technology further so it works well, arm all cabin personel (in case one airline employee whacko decides to take over the plane as someone did on a commuter carrier a few years ago here in Ca. others are still armed) and let it be known to one and all, that all cabin personel are armed with weapons that only each individual can fire. Anyone want to commment on this, or help spread the word to the powers that be about using these types of weapons for airline saftey?

[wallabie]

This is total and utter bullock !!!
I've seen a lot of pilots in my life time I sure would hate to see with a gun in their bags !!!
Listening to you, you'd think we are some kind of super dudes able to do just about anything on top of our flying duties.
Law enforcement is a full time job, not a hobby !! And as stated above, it will certainly make CRM a lot more..........interesting !
This is really the rash kind of measure only designed to please the public. I find nothing reassuring in that and I'm glad I won't have to put up with this kind of nonsense.
And don't forget, aim high, as good Clint would say !

[Raas767]

I feel the need to add a quote here. This is from an Aviation Week article that was published before this bill was signed in to law. The article is titled; Airline Pilots: Arm us and they will come. In it they published the remarks of a Northwest captain that I found both humorous and telling. Quote: " When an 18 year old National Guardsman can stand around an airport with an M16 and a semiautomatic pistol with a 15 round clip" the Northwest pilot said. "I'm 43 years old, have years of military service, been around nuclear weapons, had higher than top secret clearences, am an expert with a pistol, M16 rifle and a grenade launcher, have 26 years of flying experience and am an airline captain. Now, let me get this straight. you'll trust an 18 year old with a Berretta, but not me with a gun? I think that's an insult."
Ladies and Gents. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, and I have yet to make up my mind, that's a tough point to argue against.

[go with the flow]

Hi all
The issue is not truly about who is more trustworthy: it should instead be in minimising the requirement for placing sole trust in any one individual.
A single individual with a hand gun can 'control' an aeroplane more easily than any one individual without. This is a big problem with the sky-marshal concept as well. The first sky-marshal to get bent or escape background checks will kill the other onboard, then have free access to the crew. Even with better cockpit door procedures a sky-marshal on the lose would have a better idea of how to bluff or con his/er way through it than an outsider.
Face it, repetition of Sept. 11's exact method has been impossible even by the finish of that day, and quite possibly by the finish of the fourth crash. Without much better cockpit doors, an armed pilot caught by surprise just makes it possible again: not at all the desired option. A second problem is that it makes the single pilot suiciding the plane that much easier. A third person on a secured flight deck would be a safer 'change', IMO.
Off to do some work now.

[Roadtrip]

go with the flow -
I've got news for ya. A pilot determined to commit murder/suicide can do it just about anytime, and certainly doesn't need a firearm to do it, 3rd crewmember or not.

Remember the murder/suicide by the Egyptair copilot?

It's obvious that you're not an pilot, or you would know that.

[Loc-out]

A gun could be very handy indeed. Especially on a night stop to help get one’s way with a stubborn stewardess, or steward if you are that way inclined. :D :D :D

[Julian]

This subject is always an emotive one and gets some good debate points going.

I have to agree with Norman Stanley in his comment that we have done pretty well in the UK with firearms related incidents by keeping firearms out of peoples hands. Yes we do get shootings on the streets of the UK but thankfully they are minimal. Our police force have, for the whole, determined they can get about without loading themselves upto the eyeballs with firearms and I respectfully suggest that they are put in a number of potentially more dangerous situations than your average airline pilot.

If they did arm pilots I am not sure what would happen when they came into land at the UK. I can't imagine the authourities being very happy about someone bringing firearms into the country, presumably they would have to be locked up on the flight deck with a nominated person responsible (ie, the Captain).

A comprehensive training course would have to be provided, yes even two weeks under a licenced centre with expert knowledge, ie. military of police, as stated before. I think the idea of a short course by a non-military outfit, as seems to have been hinted earlier, is downright daft. You may hold a firearms cert but does not mean you are necessarily any good with it.

Currency would also have to be looked at, if you were expecting an aircraft Captain to be responsible for a firearm then you would have to expect him to be practising regulary and any lapse in this currency resulting in the removal of his right to carry the weapon. Assessments would also be required to ensure that he/she can still use the weapon in the manner in which they were instructed.

Finally there would have to be some sort of failsafe method to ensure that if the owner did lose possession of his firearm that it was rendered inoperable. You do not really want to go giving a terrorist another method of controlling the aircraft.

Maybe at the end of the day, pilots are pilots not lethal enforcers and therefore the best way to deal with this issue would be to keep it out of the pilots hands and in the hands of a skymarshall who is specifically trained in these duties. It also has the added advantage of the fact that the terrorist will not know who he is until its too late!

Maybe someone on here who with a UK police firearms unit can offer a view on what their reaction would be to civvy pilots carrying firearms onboard?

Julian.

[stator vane]

will put my two cents, euros, pence, punts, prestos and nachos as well into this discussion,

this subject about guns for pilots is just the tip of the iceberg of a huge deep subject, i think.

i personally think that we should be able to if we think it best; in the cockpit and at home as well.

cold hard fact of life is that everyone is going to die one way or the other.

in the countries that have taken guns away from the common people, those same common people seem to make up for it in automobile accidents, knifing, drugs and drinking.

in the countries that i have been in, when only the government is allowed to have firearms, the government seems to take as much other control as possible. i really think that the countries' leaders would think differently if they knew in the back of their mind, that if they make taxes and other legislation bad enough for the common person, some commoner is bound to come and use one of their last remaining powers. perhaps one reason why america's taxes are one of the least is because even the president is aware that the common person can have some real power when push comes to shove. puts a little meat to the words, government by the people and for the people.

the present nations only came to pass because of the sword and later the gun. it wasn't a taking away of guns that stabilized civilization. it was when they figured out there were better things to do. (good to have the sword or gun to use when the other person wants to take something by force) keeping that right in the hands of the common person will keep governments' feet on the ground, and give second thoughts to everyone else.

from the statistics i have read, all the security people and policeman who are allowed to use guns appear to be no more stable than the average flight crewmember who is indeed allowed to control a long slow bullet with lots of people on board.

the individuals who choose to carry a gun can pay for the training themselves and use their holiday time. that will stop the airlines' whinging about that expense.

i personally don't have one at this time. have in the past and think the ability to get one in the future is my right just as much as any government officials'.

the saying goes, he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. but having one to use in emergencies is not the same as living by it.

(i'm waiting for the incoming)

;)

[fokker]

It's interesting that, by and large, this discussion splits (unsurprisingly) on national lines; Americans for - Europe against. The argument about private use of firearms will never be settled, it's just too emotive. However, there are at least a couple of facts:

1. The rate of gun crime is far lower in the UK than in the USA. Fifty crimes prevented are not worth even one person wrongfully killed.

2. The first American pilot to fly into LHR or LGW with a pistol in his bag or on his person is going to have a very nasty surprise along with a sudden introduction to a diet of porridge!


:eek:

[really not]

Here's an alternative:

Sleeping/ knockout Gas. Easy to fit and control, all flight decks have oxygen systems, no need to worry about training or legislation, no need to liase with countries you overfly with bans on weaponry so that you can divert safely. OK you may lose the odd grannie if you have to use it, but it's a damn sight safer than some wannabe rambo trying to fly a plane, turn 180 degrees in his seat and shoot one of the Bin's boys through the forehead. Tie this with reinforced doors, and the fact that it's a bit harder to get a gas mask onto an aircraft than a knife it seems the best option :D

[Tuba Mirum]

raas767, the difference between the 18-year old National Guardsman and the Northwest captain is that the former is under military discipline, the latter is not. Surprised the Northwest captain can't see this.

[swashplate]

IMHO the only reason the Capt would need a firearm is to restore order among us SLFs after we'd knocked the ***** out of the hijackers..... :eek:

BTW...I'm not being brave, I just want to live.... :D :D

Also, I think you'd have a problem convincing people that a firearm being discarged would NOT lead to an explosive decompression :eek: after 30 years of crappy action movies......

[Tripower455]

raas767, the difference between the 18-year old National Guardsman and the Northwest captain is that the former is under military discipline, the latter is not. Surprised the Northwest captain can't see this.

Military discipline?????????? So, if the Captain had a Lt. to supervise him, it would be OK to carry a gun? :rolleyes:

Standing by a security checkpoint (when was the last checkpoint hijacking?) with an unloaded machine gun/pistol, looking bored, ocasionally stopping to eat requires a lot more discipline than commanding an airliner?

This whole topic is Deja Vu all over again.

FWIW, I don't think we will see any airlines arming their pilots any time soon....... Too much of a political football.

Besides.......

We pilots are much too busy flying the aircraft to fight off hijackers with a firearm (but not too busy to fight them by hand, I guess).

We have the paper mache vault (improved cockpit door)

The security screeners will now be Federal employees. :rolleyes:

We are not cops!

There MIGHT be a sky marshall or 2 on the airplane.

Some of us have to fly to hoplophobic areas of the world.

Some talking head on the news said that it won't happen again.

Even if it does, I can rest assured that one of my future co-pilots are up there on a CAP mission waiting to shoot me down. Very comforting!

I am glad that the powers that be are there to protect me and my pax :rolleyes:.........

[Wino]

Fokker.

I have already brought US skymarshals into and out of London. Armed skymarshals. Where do you suppose their guns went?

If we are deputized then we have the same reciprical rights as other lawenforcement.

So 50 crimes against one innocent life? So 50 september 11ths equals 250,000 dead people against one accident? Then howcome the UK is steadily arming their police force? After all there could be an accident with all those guns now in cops hands. But we could just let the 50 crimes go on and on.

In all the years that US pilots were required to carry guns there was never an accident with a gun that is documented, there was however one clearly documented foiling of an attempted skyjacking where the hijacker was shot dead in the cockpit! And this was in the days before the Palistinian nutcases...

Cheers
Wino

[Willit Run]

Well Written Stator vane!!!!!!

[Tuba Mirum]

TP455, the issue for me is who is responsible for the use of a weapon. The Guardsman is responsible to his military superiors for any use of his weapon; the pilot, as far as I can see, to nobody.

As a pax, I can tolerate being in the vicinity of weapons wielded by a properly constituted and trained (and, of course, friendly to me ;-)) military or police force: I am not comfortable being in the vicinity of weapons wielded by those who, in the last analysis, are answerable only to themselves.

[Raas767]

I find it infuriating that we as pilots even have to think about this, but as we all know we live in a world with suicide bombers.
I have always said that if you introduce a weapon into any situation it becomes inflamed beyond what it might have been had there not been a gun. I would be against having weapons in the cockpit if I had ABSOLUTE confidence in Pax. profiling, screaning, skymarshals and any other security measure, but I don't. Hence the dilema. We are charged with the safety of our jet our crew and our passengers and when all ellse fails we have to have a reliable meathod of defending the aircraft. Thats a fact.
Another aspect of all of this that I havn't heard much talk about is checked bag screening. In the U.S. they don't Xray every bag that gets on the jet so it is consievable that a would be terrorist could simply detonate a bomb in his suitcase from his seat whenever he wants. All the fire power in the world can't prevent that. I suppose the bottom line is, that no matter what we do we will never be able to say that we have 100% security.

[Tripower455]

TP455, the issue for me is who is responsible for the use of a weapon. The Guardsman is responsible to his military superiors for any use of his weapon; the pilot, as far as I can see, to nobody.
As a pax, I can tolerate being in the vicinity of weapons wielded by a properly constituted and trained (and, of course, friendly to me ;-)) military or police force: I am not comfortable being in the vicinity of weapons wielded by those who, in the last analysis, are answerable only to themselves.

I am missing the logic here..........You trust my judgement to fly you and your family in the back of my airplane in weather that you wouldn't drive a car in, but somehow my judgement would be impaired in the presence of a firearm because I am not answerable to some higher authority??? As soon as the cabin door is closed, I (as PIC) am responsible for all that happens in my aircraft (until Mr. Terrorist decides to take it from me, at which point I will be dead, so then HE is responsible).

Since it has been proven that the airplane itself can effectively be used as a weapon, why is it OK for me to fly one since I am answerable to only myself (!)?

BTW, I am not comfortable knowing that the only recourse available to me in the case of a hijacking (however remote the possibility) is the aforementioned future new hire in the F-15!

[T_richard]

I have read many well thought out comments in this forum. It seems that they all address the bigger issues that surround "Gun Control". I still think that if any hijacker knew that upon boarding a plane he would be in the company of not one, two, three or even four armed personal but maybe 200 well trained and armed civilians, he might pause before he stood up an yelled "Hijack" I guess its too simplistic for the deep thinkers among us, but the law of large numbers applies here I think.

[Buddha]

IF A CREWMEMBER HAD A POSITIVE BACKGROUND CHECK THAT ALLOWED THEM TO FLY ARMED, WITH A GUN, WOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO BE CREWED WITH A PILOT THAT HAD FAILED THE BACKGROUND CHECK ?
COULD BE A NIGHTMARE FOR THE ROSTERING DEPARTMENT !!!

[Julian]

Raas, think you made a good point in the screening of bags. Its a case of prevention is better than cure!! If the ground staff isnt doing what they should be then they need their @rse kicked.

TP455, You are a pilot not a firearms officer. Yes you are more than likely a 1st class pilot but that does not mean you should therefore be allowed to use that as an argument to justify asking for our complete confidence engaging in another activity. I wouldnt let you conduct open heart surgery :rolleyes:

Wino, I dont know where you get the idea tha the UK is steadily arming its police officers from? Or are you confusing firearms with their newly acquired pepper spray...?

Julian.

[Buddha]

IF A CREWMEMBER HAD A POSITIVE BACKGROUND CHECK THAT ALLOWED THEM TO FLY ARMED, WITH A GUN, WOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO BE CREWED WITH A PILOT THAT HAD FAILED THE BACKGROUND CHECK ?
COULD BE A NIGHTMARE FOR THE ROSTERING DEPARTMENT !!!

[Tripower455]

TP455, You are a pilot not a firearms officer. Yes you are more than likely a 1st class pilot but that does not mean you should therefore be allowed to use that as an argument to justify asking for our complete confidence engaging in another activity. I wouldnt let you conduct open heart surgery

I am a pilot, but what exactly IS a firearms officer? I am a cerified pistol instructor, does that count?


I have been lawfully handling firearms my entire life (much longer than I've been flying, now that I think about it), and I can assure you that it it is not brain (or should I say open heart) surgery! Any pilot that makes it to the level of proficiency to be qualified for an airline job is perfectly capable of handling a firearm responsibly. They are very simple tools. I would question any airline pilot's judgement who feels that he or she isn't capable of handling a firearm in the context of cockpit security. Whether they choose to or not is a personal matter.

The bottom line is that even with all of the awesome :rolleyes:and necessary "security" (cough......eyewash....cough) measures enacted since 9/11, the fact is that if someone wants an airplane bad enough, he can have it.

No matter how many Nat. Guardsmen you have watching the Mc Donalds rejects paw through pilot's dirty underwear. No matter how many sky marshalls you put on other planes. No matter how many 80 year olds in wheelchairs and flight crew are "randomly selected" for patdown (at the gate, by airline ground ops types that are not subject to security screening because they are "trusted" employees) and more dirty laundry airing. No matter how many nail clippers are confiscated at the checkpoint. No matter how many warning signs and Rube Goldberg devices you tape to the cockpit door, all of the "Greatest Security Show on Earth" measures are for naught once Mohammed makes it into the cockpit. At this point, it is up to the twice mentioned, future new hire in the F-15. If he makes it in time.

There are some pilots who can't cope with a radio under pressure, let alone have to make a decision that could (mistakenly?) take a human life.......

Doug, I have news for you.......Pilots make these types of decisions every day.......

[ 20 November 2001: Message edited by: Tripower455 ]

[Gladiator]

The proposed type of guns to be carried by pilots are .40 Magnum with ceramic ammunition. FBI currently uses them. They say it will not go through the aircraft skin but deadly. Not sure how that works.

[Tripower455]

I would imagine that Glaser safety slugs in a larger caliber would be the ammunition of choice. These are frangible bullet casings filled with lead powder or shot, designed to shatter on impact with solid objects, but still reliably stop an agressor.

[Tripower455]

Tripower455, I'm perfectly aware of the day to day decisions made by pilots (please check my profile), sometimes in difficult circumstances. Those circumstances are drastically different from the split-second judgement needed to "lawfully" shoot someone, even if prior warning of a possible cockpit intruder is given by cabin crew.

So you are saying that the average cop posesses better judgement than the average airline pilot?

I have had a concealed carry permit my entire adult life. I have been faced with the decision whether or not to take my weapon out twice. Both times I was able to remove myself from harms way prior to actually drawing it. I can say with authority, that the go/no go decision when losing an engine just prior to V-1 requires very similar split second judgement.

[AA SLF]

I am appalled at the position being taken by most of the "European" respondents to this thread. You lot appear to be more than willing to let a terrorist come into the cockpit and take over the plane and kill everyone on it!! :mad: :mad: What do you intend to do - tell Mr. Ben Linen that you "want to talk this situation over"?? The "talking" will be your very imminent death and subsequently the death of all others on the plane when it crashes.

Don't you understand - when a person comes onto the flight deck uninvited it only means somebody other than the pilot is wanting to fly that plane for their purposes. As an SLF I am unwilling to let that happen although it appears you lot are MORE THAN WILLING to let it happen.

On american Frequent Flyer bbs it is more or less agreed now that SLFs will rise up to take on the cockpit invader anyway we can. Bare hands; with blankets or pillows, whatever. At least we pax are going to defend our lives because we clearly understand that you do [/b]NOT[/b] "discuss" things with cockpit invaders regardless. If some of us die, we are willing to take that risk if it means that the rest of the plane lands safely later. Didn't UA-93 have any meaning for you??

Decompression - bah humbug! A single 40 caliber hole is NOT going to result in a blowout. I don't care what caliber of handgun the flightdeck has, just that they have one or more. As I said earlier, I worry a lot more about explosive devices ala PanAm.

I fly first class almost all the time. If I see anyone trying to get into the flightdeck I am leaving my seat as fast as possible to "discuss" the situation MY WAY with that person!!!!

'nuf said ? ? ?

Tripower455 - more power to you. I will fly with you anytime. :)

dAAvid -

ps - I have re-read this twice and I do not want to make any changes to it. What it says is what I feel from reading the posts on this thread.

[727boy]

In fact the new legislation for Enhanced Security Measures does not allow handguns in the cockpit. The media has been quick to say that pilots will be allowed to arm themselves, but the FAA has been directed to "develop procedures and authorize equipment for pilots and other members of the flight crew to use to defend an aircraft against acts of criminal violence or aircraft piracy." The FAA will not allow pilots to carry guns, but they will allow a Tazer or mace to be required equipment in the cockpit. You will never see the FAA allow pilots to carry guns. Period.

[Julian]

Surely if the terrorist cannot make it onto the flight deck in the first placethen there is no need for the firearm anyway?

If the supposed steel doors get installed and are locked form the flight deck side without the flight attendants having the ability to open them then if a hijack did take place the plane could be landed safely.

This obviously relies on the crew keeping the door locked and not divng up the lfight deck no-matter what is going on 'up back'. If any pilots feels there are circumstances that the door would be opened then there should not be a firearm on deck as Uncle Binny has now just acquired it for his own use!!!!

AA SLF - we are not prepared to let it happen, but why people seem to see firearms as the be-all-and-end-all of the debate beats me!

Someone mentioned earlier about allowing all passengers to carry firearms on board and that way make anyone who has any inclination of taking the plane over think twice about it first. How long will it take a group to realise that all they have to do is check in a reasonable sized group to be to overpower the pax anyway - after all they have just legitimately checked in a large amount of firepower as cabin luggage!!

Get the flight deck physically secured from forced entry and this whole argument dies in the water!!!!

Julian.

[swashplate]

AA SLF:

The point that I was making is that non-technically minded pax are going to think that guns will cause explosive decompressions because thats what Hollywood has been telling them for 30 years!! I am sure that wouldn't happen, but you try telling that to 'em.....

Suppose a pax gets hit in the crossfire and sues..... :eek:

I do agree with you that anyone shouting "Hi! Jack!" :D is gonna get the crap knocked out of them!!

But, again, how is the Capt going to restore order when 200+ people's survival instincts have just clicked in....? :eek:

.....Bags 1st punch/kick!!! :D :D

[AA SLF]

727boy - WELCOME to Pprune

I simply do not agree with your feeling that the FAA will never allow a handgun in the cockpit in the future. Too much precedence for this from the past.

Julian - there is an old saying about "where there is a will, there is a way". If you can not think of ways to take down a steel door between the cabin and the cockpit then I can. It is not that difficult of a thing to do at all. Certain types of Special Forces have training, and the materials, in just that sort of thing. Think about it.

A handgun is a very "final" solution to forced entry. I just want flight crew to have every opportunity to stop cockpit invasion as a last resort. Why y'all don't want to give flight deck that weapon of last resort baffles me no end. Fire axe and Taser are fine, but only the axe can be considered "final" and it involves a very close-up range.

Passengers with firearms? NO - I do not agree with that at all. There should only be a handgun on the Air Marshall and then however many in the cockpit. No need at all for any other handguns on a plane ever.

In the end, there is no such thing as a "for sure" physically secure flight deck (see above). That is why I would allow cockpit handguns.

swashplate - Let them sue! Most American pax would probably testify against that person in court! If we (slf) are ready to give our all to stop a takeover, then if we get hurt in the process - too bad. We have acccepted this may occur already. The pax that sues would be one that has not accepted the responsibility to "defend" the plane and thus will be no friend of the other pax who did rise to the occasion.

The cabin will quiet down all by itself AFTER the pax get done with the culprit!!

dAAvid -

[Julian]

AA We are talking about a specifically designed door here, dont forget combined with the bulkhead as well. I think if you are talking about them blowing the door off, bearing in mind there would be nothing PAX side as it would have to be designed for opening from flight deck side only, then the explosion would prob kill all the flight deck crew anyway! I think if special forces take the door down you wont know anything about it anyway to be honest as you will be flat on your back (Sorry but cruel truth!)

I think you just have the mindset that you want a gun and you arent going to take no for an answer despite any alternatives that are offered. No matter what security and precautions are given...

Julian.

[GlueBall]

Deadly weapons in the cockpit is a dead issue. Remember: Not even El Al pilots carry guns! :D

[OFBSLF]

Filmaker said:

"If we are going to arm Pilots (and I think we should) why not use the technology developed a few years ago in making sure that the only person that can fire a particular weapon is the registered owner of that weapon. If I recall there were more than a few systems that detected the hand print/pressure, thumb print etc of a registered owner of a weapon and only allowed that person to fire that weapon. If the weapon was taken away or the owner disabled, the weapon would not fire. this seems to be a simple solution."

Sorry, but that technology simply doesn't exist. Several companies have tried various concepts. None have gone past the fatally flawed prototype stage. Colt tried to develop a firearm that had receiver in it. The officer would have to wear a small transmitter on his belt. The gun would not fire if it was pointed towards the officer or more than X feet away from the officer. Colt executives tried to demonstrate it at a trade show. Even under perfect conditions, the prototype failed. Since it relied on a radio signal, I imagine it would be possible to jam electronically. Two points of failure, two sets of batteries to go bad. No thanks.

Another idea has been the fingerprint recognition system. Such a system is rather more complex than you might expect at first. The system must be able to be used with either hand. And it has to work even though you might not grip the gun exactly the same way each time -- that is, your thumb might not be in the exact same spot. It has to work even if your hands are sweaty or bloody. A couple companies did some research on this. Nothing ever came of it.

The one and only device on the market that works is rather low-tech (surprise, surprise). It works with magnetic rings that the officer must wear. It's called the MagnaTrigger and it can only be installed on revolvers. Rick Devoid is a gunsmith, and sole proprietor of Tarnhelm supply company. You can see information about it on his web site:
http://www.tarnhelm.com/magna-trigger/gun/safety/magna1.html

If such devices really worked, I'm sure that the many police agencies in the US would jump on the bandwagon. They haven't because outside of the Magnatrigger, no such device exists. It's not an easy problem. Handguns are a rather challenging environment for such devices. They are small, get exposed to lots of shocks, get flooded with oil and solvents, and often are poorly maintained and abused. And they have to work everytime.

Regarding the ammunition used, it's called frangible ammunition. This isn't anything top-secret -- any web search on frangible ammunition will bring up lots of information about it. It was originally developed to reduce airborne lead at training ranges, but is also used to reduce the risk of damage to delicate structures. Most of the large manufacturers in the USA offer a line of frangible ammunition, for example:
http://www.remington.com/2001/am_dislff.htm
http://www.janes.com/security/law_enforcement/market_review/jah_2000_2001/ammunition_handbook_2000-2001_02.shtml
http://www.triton-ammo.com/press/CQFrangible.html
http://www.winchester.com/law/catalog/cfhlist.eye?cartlist=bm9uZQ%3D%3D&typelist=F&image=on&summary=on&velocity=on&energy=on&traj=on
OFBSLF
Firearms Instructor certified by MA State Police

[BOEINGBOY1]

isn't the whole idea to keep guns off the aircraft! i understand the need for personnel protection and cockpit security - but pilots are pilots first and foremost. If a deterent/force is required to maintain this, then sky marshalls are the only way. but keep weapons under the strict control of ONLY the marshalls who would in my view have to under go heavy duty retraining including simulations and psycometric training every 60 days.

[caulfield]

This was always going to be the most emotive issue in the nations response to 911.And I say nation because it is primarily an American predicament.The Europeans negative response is understandable if you consider that it wasnt their pilots who were summarily ejected from the cockpit,had their hands tied and forced to watch the demise of their ship,crew and pax.If they had,perhaps their response would be somewhat different.
The possible dangers in arming pilots(and there are some I agree) are simply outweighed by the need to ensure that the fate of the pilots dependents are never again relinquished from his/her control in such an atrocious fashion.
The concerns seem to be threefold:
i)That the firearms will be commandeered by would-be hijackers
ii)That the pilot will misuse the firearm
iii)That the use of firearms in flight will cause other scenarios of equal gravity to that of a hijack.
I think that (i) can be addressed by good training and the acceptance of sky marshalls as the first line of defence and buffer to the flight deck.
The dangers of (ii) are equally valid but less transparent in that you can train a pilot to shoot straight in 2 weeks but you cant teach good judgement in that time.However,this too can be addressed successfully if we accept that pilots already possess good judgement and that the use of the firearm is a last ditch option and its use subject to the ship being in
dire peril.
(iii)is very subjective and depends on your POV.I cannot imagine any scenario worse than 9/11.

[packsonflite]

Ok, So assuming US airlines go with the idea of permitting their pilots to carry handguns, can someone explain to me just how they expect to use them.

If you are faced with the kind of nutcases who carried out the hijackings on Sept 11th, they will be so psyched up as the burst through the flightdeck door, knives in hand, ready to cut the throats of both pilots as swiftly as possible, that I don't believe even the fittest pilot will be able to react rapidly enough to get his gun out, let alone discharge it.

What is needed instead, is a complete and radical overall of airport serurity, particularly in the US, to ensure that no one, and I mean no one, is able to get anywhere near an aircraft with any kind of offensive weapon.

The most effective defense is that provided by a layered stategy. Passenger screening at check-in, effective passenger search procedures before getting to the lounge plus further random checks as passengers board the aircraft. In addiition, armed sky marshalls on all flights and a really secure cockpit door and closed circuit TV to see what's going down in the cabin.

In my view, speaking as an airline pilot who has been in this business for 35 years, armed pilots are not now, or ever will be, the answer to this problem, effective layered of security however is.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Julian]

Packs At last!! Someone who is seeing sense! Get the fligtdeck security sorted and you have no need for firearms. If it all kicks off then the crew are secure on the flightdeck and acn get the aircraft down.

Caulfield You may want to rethink your comments about the fact we dont care over here! It may not have been our pilots flying the aircraft but BOTH lost loved ones in the act.

Julian.

[fionan]

The Europeans negative response is understandable if you consider that it wasnt their pilots who were summarily ejected from the cockpit,had their hands tied and forced to watch the demise of their ship,crew and pax.If they had,perhaps their response would be somewhat different.


Caulfield your above reply is at best unhelpful. You refer to 911 as a national (not international ) problem. The U.S. is the most inter-national ( and international ) country in the world and as such the effects were felt everywhere even over here in Europe.

As to our negative response to the arming issue I see two reasons for our different points of view:

1 Gun in particular are an emotive issue over there and not really on this side of the Atlantic. That does not concern us.

2 I think the basic operating ethos of crews is slightly different. In dealing with responsibility we have moved away from the solo DIY approach to a delegate 'let him/her do it' style.( This may be down to your more military schoolled crews ).

In essence we would rather everyone pulled their weight from check-in to boarding. We wear enough hats as it is in this job without adding Policeman and Executioner to them! ;) ;)

[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: westman ]

[Dick Moser]

Guns in the cockpit? Pilots carrying guns? Nonsense! Any professional pilot who subscribes to this notion has forgotten the first rule of being an aviator ... FLY THE AIRPLANE. Pilots have no business leaving their post to quell an uprising in the cabin. Better to make the cockpit impregnable so the pilots can carry out their primary responsibility ... FLY THE AIRPLANE.

Here is a better plan. Let's train the flight attendents to carry out a sky marshal's job. Let the flight attendents carry guns. Train flight attendents to use firearms.

[Wino]

Dick,

The guns are not for going into the cabin, its to keep people from the cabin out of the cockpit.

Guns in the cabin would be a bad idea, because those could be commondeered and fired into the cockpit. However, guns in the cockpit could be pulled out in response to an assault on the cockpit door and anyone that comes through the locked door could be reliably dispatched with minimal training.

As to security keeping knives off of airplanes, they can't keep knives out of prisons where the prisoners have no rights are searched (strip, cavity search etc) on a regular basis. If you can't keep knives out of prisons where you have total control over the inmates, you are kidding yourself if you think you are ever gonna be able to keep them off of aircraft. Furthermore, entire prisons have been commondeered by the prisoners (attica for example) which is much harder to do than commandeer a plane.

The LAST line of defense will always be the cockpit. Does anyone really think that things would have been worse on 9/11 had the pilots been armed?

Cheers
Wino

[5 APU's captain]

Guys!
AEROFLOT has had at least 20 years experience of carring two handguns in the cockpit, and some hijackers are shot down -if somebody is interesting.....

[SupremeSpod]

If US pilots are permitted to carry firearms, then I sincerely hope that they are all required to attend training courses on CQBT or Close Quarters Battle Training.

Also, it seems to be IMHO the easist way to get a weapon on board an airliner!

Just my 2.5p worth(That and another quid or so will get you a coffee and a sticky bun!)

[Chimbu chuckles]

In a former life I spent years, over 13, carrying a concealed firearm for self protection, and occasionally had reason to ‘unconceal it’. I had good reason as I was shot at, even while airborne, 6 or 8 times! I have seen friends axed to the ground by natives, believe me I have no troubling dreams about having used it!

I relate this only so you will realise that I am not some lefty tree hugging anti gun type!

I personally feel that Americans have no other way of reacting to such a threat other than to recreate a John Wayne movie, it’s just not in their national psyche. God knows how many decades of every American hero solving all the woes of the world with a handgun has seen to that. America has a gun culture that is essentially unique, and as someone said they get pretty emotional about it! It started with Hollywood rewriting the history of the ‘wild west’ and is propagated with this myth that their constitution guarantees them the ‘right’ to ‘bear arms’, it does not!

Nothing will stop a dedicated nut from boarding an airliner.

All this BS bravado and stupid, politically motivated, bizarre ‘extra security’ is doing is scaring the SLF away in droves!

The war on terrorism is ensuring that there will be plenty of people to attack the US again in the future, although you could bet next years wages that it will not be the same as 911! This is NOT to say that the perpetrators of this obscenity should not be hunted down and punished, just that doing it quietly would have been a better idea. Once again completely impossible given the American psyche.

Gentlemen you are fighting the last war!

And anybody who believes the American line that this was not an attack on the US but rather an attack on the free world is kidding themselves! Yes it has affected us all but make no mistake, it was an attack on America and we are just collateral damage!

Yes there needs to be extra security at airports, yes there is an argument for armed sky marshalls (although I would be uncomfortable with anyone other than highly trained currently serving Special Forces). There is no good argument for arming all pilots. There is definitely no good argument for arming Cabin crew. Allowing armed pax just defeated your extra security measures in one fell swoop!

What really concerns me is that US leadership has divided the world into two camps, “either for us or agin us” !

The Americans DON’T wear the white hat in the world, they are guilty of PLENTY of nasty terrorist actions world wide. When they stop trying to reorganise the world into their idea of how it should be and start behaving like good helpful neighbours, instead of thugs, then maybe no-one will want to attack them anymore!

I'm anything but anti American, but if you don't fix the root problem you are damning your children to a helluva existence!

Chuck

Backyard Terrorism
The US Has Been Training Terrorists At a Camp in Georgia for Years - And It's Still At It

by George Monbiot

"If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents," George Bush announced on the day he began bombing Afghanistan, "they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril." I'm glad he said "any government", as there's one which, though it has yet to be identified as a sponsor of terrorism, requires his urgent attention.
For the past 55 years it has been running a terrorist training camp, whose victims massively outnumber the people killed by the attack on New York, the embassy bombings and the other atrocities laid, rightly or wrongly, at al-Qaida's door. The camp is called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or Whisc. It is based in Fort Benning, Georgia, and it is funded by Mr Bush's government.
Until January this year, Whisc was called the "School of the Americas", or SOA. Since 1946, SOA has trained more than 60,000 Latin American soldiers and policemen. Among its graduates are many of the continent's most notorious torturers, mass murderers, dictators and state terrorists. As hundreds of pages of documentation compiled by the pressure group SOA Watch show, Latin America has been ripped apart by its alumni.
In June this year, Colonel Byron Lima Estrada, once a student at the school, was convicted in Guatemala City of murdering Bishop Juan Gerardi in 1998. Gerardi was killed because he had helped to write a report on the atrocities committed by Guatemala's D-2, the military intelligence agency run by Lima Estrada with the help of two other SOA graduates. D-2 coordinated the "anti-insurgency" campaign which obliterated 448 Mayan Indian villages, and murdered tens of thousands of their people. Forty per cent of the cabinet ministers who served the genocidal regimes of Lucas Garcia, Rios Montt and Mejia Victores studied at the School of the Americas.
In 1993, the United Nations truth commission on El Salvador named the army officers who had committed the worst atrocities of the civil war. Two-thirds of them had been trained at the School of the Americas. Among them were Roberto D'Aubuisson, the leader of El Salvador's death squads; the men who killed Archbishop Oscar Romero; and 19 of the 26 soldiers who murdered the Jesuit priests in 1989. In Chile, the school's graduates ran both Augusto Pinochet's secret police and his three principal concentration camps. One of them helped to murder Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffit in Washington DC in 1976.
Argentina's dictators Roberto Viola and Leopoldo Galtieri, Panama's Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos, Peru's Juan Velasco Alvarado and Ecuador's Guillermo Rodriguez all benefited from the school's instruction. So did the leader of the Grupo Colina death squad in Fujimori's Peru; four of the five officers who ran the infamous Battalion 3-16 in Honduras (which controlled the death squads there in the 1980s) and the commander responsible for the 1994 Ocosingo massacre in Mexico.
All this, the school's defenders insist, is ancient history. But SOA graduates are also involved in the dirty war now being waged, with US support, in Colombia. In 1999 the US State Department's report on human rights named two SOA graduates as the murderers of the peace commissioner, Alex Lopera. Last year, Human Rights Watch revealed that seven former pupils are running paramilitary groups there and have commissioned kidnappings, disappearances, murders and massacres. In February this year an SOA graduate in Colombia was convicted of complicity in the torture and killing of 30 peasants by paramilitaries. The school is now drawing more of its students from Colombia than from any other country.
The FBI defines terrorism as "violent acts... intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a government", which is a precise description of the activities of SOA's graduates. But how can we be sure that their alma mater has had any part in this? Well, in 1996, the US government was forced to release seven of the school's training manuals. Among other top tips for terrorists, they recommended blackmail, torture, execution and the arrest of witnesses' relatives.
Last year, partly as a result of the campaign run by SOA Watch, several US congressmen tried to shut the school down. They were defeated by 10 votes. Instead, the House of Representatives voted to close it and then immediately reopen it under a different name. So, just as Windscale turned into Sellafield in the hope of parrying public memory, the School of the Americas washed its hands of the past by renaming itself Whisc. As the school's Colonel Mark Morgan informed the Department of Defense just before the vote in Congress: "Some of your bosses have told us that they can't support anything with the name 'School of the Americas' on it. Our proposal addresses this concern. It changes the name." Paul Coverdell, the Georgia senator who had fought to save the school, told the papers that the changes were "basically cosmetic".
But visit Whisc's website and you'll see that the School of the Americas has been all but excised from the record. Even the page marked "History" fails to mention it. Whisc's courses, it tells us, "cover a broad spectrum of relevant areas, such as operational planning for peace operations; disaster relief; civil-military operations; tactical planning and execution of counter drug operations".
Several pages describe its human rights initiatives. But, though they account for almost the entire training program, combat and commando techniques, counter-insurgency and interrogation aren't mentioned. Nor is the fact that Whisc's "peace" and "human rights" options were also offered by SOA in the hope of appeasing Congress and preserving its budget: but hardly any of the students chose to take them.
We can't expect this terrorist training camp to reform itself: after all, it refuses even to acknowledge that it has a past, let alone to learn from it. So, given that the evidence linking the school to continuing atrocities in Latin America is rather stronger than the evidence linking the al-Qaida training camps to the attack on New York, what should we do about the "evil-doers" in Fort Benning, Georgia?
Well, we could urge our governments to apply full diplomatic pressure, and to seek the extradition of the school's commanders for trial on charges of complicity in crimes against humanity. Alternatively, we could demand that our governments attack the United States, bombing its military installations, cities and airports in the hope of overthrowing its unelected government and replacing it with a new administration overseen by the UN. In case this proposal proves unpopular with the American people, we could win their hearts and minds by dropping naan bread and dried curry in plastic bags stamped with the Afghan flag.
You object that this prescription is ridiculous, and I agree. But try as I might, I cannot see the moral difference between this course of action and the war now being waged in Afghanistan.
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001
###

[englishal]

Giving a pilot a gun is not the answer. Guns in the hands on amateurs just cause more problems.

There's no way anyone is going to keep a suicidal nutter of an aeroplane, and allowing pilots to carry hand guns will just add to the problems...more innocent people will die as a result.... I'd rather have a couple of special forces, trained in use of firearms, sat at the front of each cabin, in uniform and body armour protecting the cockpit door if need be. But allowing a pilot to have a gun is a big mistake. His / her job is to fly the aeroplane, not act like Rambo. Leave that job to someone who's trained how to do it, and I don't mean some $30000 per year, straight off the street guy whos had 1 weeks training in the use of firearms.

The visible deterent of a couple of jugheads in body armour should be enough to deter a many of these nutters from trying anything, and if not then these guys are trained to deal with the situation.

[GlueBall]

Chuckles: Good Info. Your point is well made and easily understood. There is no doubt that America is a rogue superpower. But every other country, big and small, has its own little "dirty business" department. Politics is a global phenomena, and politicians, like dogs, can smell each other a mile apart. There's power, greed, corruption and influence in all governments. But for now "Pax Americana" has replaced "Pax Romana" as the World's dominant power. Even though I don't own a gun, I'm thankful to be a citizen of the World's most powerful country. :cool:

[Tripower455]

Quote from Dick Moser:
Guns in the cockpit? Pilots carrying guns? Nonsense! Any professional pilot who subscribes to this notion has forgotten the first rule of being an aviator ... FLY THE AIRPLANE. Pilots have no business leaving their post to quell an uprising in the cabin. Better to make the cockpit impregnable so the pilots can carry out their primary responsibility ... FLY THE AIRPLANE.
Here is a better plan. Let's train the flight attendents to carry out a sky marshal's job. Let the flight attendents carry guns. Train flight attendents to use firearms.

Dick,

The first rule of aviation is FLY THE AIRPLANE! The whole idea of arming pilots is to insure that the pilots are able to continue to FLY THE AIRPLANE! The only flaw in your "FLY THE AIRPLANE" logic is that once Abdul gets in the cockpit, it will be HIM that flys the plane. Unless there is a reliable way of preventing him from taking it, the airplane is his. There is no such thing as an impregnable cockpit in any current airliner. As far as quelling disturbances in the cabin, that's not the job of the pilots. You are kidding about arming flight attendants, aren't you?


Chuck,

You SURE you're not "anti American"?

[Raas767]

Chuck.

Your post was well written and thought out. I know of the camps you are talking about, and I also know of plenty of operations where CIA has engaged in terrorism to further it's aims. Toppling Alliende of Chile comes to mind, The Bay of Pigs as well, but all of this has to be taken in the context of the times. The U.S government was profoundly afraid of Soviet expansion within the hemesphere and took, in retrospect, very questionable steps to thwart that. We all know about this. It is well documented.

I would, however, be careful using the word "rogue superpower". For all it's faults I think everyone here knows, in particular the Europeans, what the U.S. has done for the world in the last century. I shudder to think what the world would be like if Hitler had prevailed, or if the Soviet model had come out victorious at the end of the cold war. If we had to "choose" a superpower I doubt we could do better.

As for Guns. I am a pilot in the U.S. I fly domestic. I have flown over the smoldering hole in Manhattan doing the Hudson visual into LGA. I am deeply concerned about security, but I don't think guns in the cockpit is the answer. I have read posts from both sides of the fence and agree with most of them, but I just can't get used to the idea. one thing is for sure, this will be debated for a long time to come.

[Flying Guy]

Tripower 455 - You are right, in everything you said.

For those who don't feel they have the skill, experience, training, judgement required YOU WILL NOT BE OBLIGATED TO CARRY A FIREARM!

If this is actually enacted (I doub't it unfortunately) it will be an option to carry or not to carry. The bad guys then know they run the risk of running into Tripower 455 or Flying Guy when they bash in the cockpit door. Bashers will be greeted with a face full of pistol. I WILL immediately pull the trigger. Not too tough a snap decision for me.

[DownIn3Green]

Aren't FAR 135 pilots (any pilots for that matter) required to carry firearms in Alaska?

[Chimbu chuckles]

Tripower455,
Yes I'm absolutely certain. Dont mistake healthy debate for anti American! You're probably a parent, ever heard the expression 'tough love'.

Raas767,
Twas not I how used the expression 'Rogue Superpower', and believe it is rather stonger than I would have chosen.

Yes the world owes the US a debt of gratitude for it's help during the period 1941-1945. Yes things like the Berlin Airlift would not have been as successful without the help of the US. Yes reconstruction of Europe and Japan would not have been as successful without the US. Yes SOME of what the US did in the 50s, 60s and 70s needs to be judged in the context of the times, to suggest that by the 80s the American Govt didn't know the USSR was a castle of cards is to insult their security and Intelligence organisations.
Yes Saddam is a C**T and needed to be stopped.

However I fear the US is now reaping what it has sowed in the Middle East and other parts of the world. You just can't remain the school bully for ever without someone coming up and giving you a bloody nose sooner or later.

If the US and UN can't see that, rightly or wrongly, there are issues that caused 911 then we are in for a torrid 21st century. Despite what MANY American Citizens seem to believe 911 was NOT a strike out of the blue, merely a terrible escalation of an on-going war against people who will use religion to give some credibility to their horrific actions.

Like I said you're fighting the last war, which ended on 911, there are myriad ways of achieving the aims of the Bin Ladens of this world, perhaps removing some of their 'cause celeb' will do more in the medium term than a re run of 'The Green Berrets'.

On the other hand, if his 'cause' is the conversion of the entire world to his version of Islam then find me something that flies and carries $hitloads of things that go 'BANG'!!

Chuck.

[Julian]

I still dont think Tripower and Flyinguy will need a firearm as if someone manages to get in flightdeck by taking a specially constucted steel door out then the methods they use are either going to:

a) Take the crew out with it anyway!
b) Knock them so senseless from the blast that Uncle Binnys men are going to have no problem overpowering them anyway.

As was said earlier, FLY THE PLANE and dont try and turn yourself into some sort of aviation Rambo - leave it to the professionls! And yes I know some of you pilots are ex-military but a lot are not, they have come through the usual degree/flight school route. Also you aren't military now, you are a civvy - if you want to play with guns in confined spaces join up again.

I thought Chucks article was very well written as well, the website and the associated Anti-WHISC sites make interesting reading, as do the couple of manuals they have declassified. As he said, just because you have a pop at the USs policies DOES NOT make you anti-American, Christ if that was the case we could assume that Bush is anti-rest-of-the-world which such atitudes as he has had to the Kyoto Agreement!!!!

Julian.

[Willit Run]

Tri-Power 455 is right on with his postings,

I'm not sure what experience the anti gun folks have with handguns, but if you were to get together with Sir Tri-power(please let it be a 1011)or any of the other folks who have some experience with handguns,or me, I think we could convince you through the few hours of popping off several hundred rounds of ammunition, that shooting a hand gun and being proficient with it , is not all that difficult! So, to then be put through some official training program, you would be more than capable of being proficient at using a hand gun! How many hours, or how many V-1 cuts did it take you to be proficient at making that decision? Times up dude! what was it? What was the decision?
The decisions we have to make every day,(IMHO) are far more difficult than being able to know when we must use our weapon

This has been a most enjoyable discussion, albeit,split from both sides of the ocean!

Tri-Power, I would love to go shooting with you sometime! Are you ever in Idaho?

[zerrin]

This connversation worries me. In Britain it is illegal to own handguns and the Plt's weapon would be an extra one to be used by a hijacker. Discharging a weapon is likely to cause a breach and depressurisation so who would be stupid enough to take that risk unless they have a death wish? If I was a terrorist I would just start killing passengers until said gun was handed over. I would be very reluctant to get on a passenger aircraft where I new the crew carried guns!

[Roadtrip]

I see by his profile that Zoe claims he is an RAF Officer. He must run the sewage plant then, given his knowledge of aircraft pressurization. I'll bet Tornados, Jags, or Nimrods don't crash or explode if the aircraft skin gets a 1/2" hole it it.

[pvdmeij]

Not a good idea. If they know that there are guns in the cockpit than those in the cockpit are most probably the first to die..And what about the aircraft and passengers than?
Security should start 1 mile outside the airport, like in Israel and the change that you will ever get a hijacker in the cockpit should be reduced to zero or at least bare the same risk as a triple engine failure on a 747.
I talked to a guy who trains anti-terroris teams. He said : do you really think that you have any change with weapons or pepper spray with a guy who has been training for the last two years in any dirty trick in the book? That guy doesn't need his eyes to kill you...
Lets learn the lessons from El Al. Apart from that: I was hired to be a pilot and not a soldier. ;)

[Roadtrip]

The point is to retain command of the aircraft so you CAN fly it, instead of a suicidal islamic militant bent on killing the maximum amount of infidels as possible. Lethal cockpit defense is for last ditch defense after a breach of the cockpit door. If you can't maintain command of the aircraft, then you've probably enabled the killing of thousands.

At least you can take comfort in those last few seconds of your life that you didn't have any of those evil guns on board.

[AA SLF]

Chimbu chuckles -

You said in your first post . . . .

with this myth that their constitution guarantees them the ‘right’ to ‘bear arms’, it does not!

Beg to differ with you! Plenty of US Supreme Court case law on the "right to bear arms". I have a couple right now and will continue to have them as long as our Constitution isn't changed. Also licensed for "concealed carry" in the State of Texas.

Interesting Chimbu that you and I can agree on at least one thing - that little "school" in Georgia is a BAD THING, was in the past and still is today.

Now back to disagreeing with you: That Georgia school does NOT, IMHO, mean that the USA is a terrorist state.

I see that our learned debater Julian still hasn't figured out how to "control" an explosive device. He has never heard of "shaped" charges, etc. He postulates that the crew would take great damage from any explosion strong enough to take out the door. But it doesn't necessarily have to be the door that gets taken out to gain access to the cockpit on most Boeing configured a/c. I'm not going to say more than that. Those who do fly can "look and think" for themselves.

Some posts ago one someone said that this debate has gone into an "us/them" kind of thing. "us" being mostly American and "them" being mostly European with the exception of stator vane and maybe swashplate. Yep - it is the American "gun culture" thing.

Several American poster make the point that the cabin is the "last line of defense", and I agree. That is why I, and other American posters, want the cockpit to at least have the option to arm themselves. As an SLF, I would feel safer if I knew there was the possibility that the cockpit had a pistol in it. NO - I do not believe that this would scare Mom/Pop AMERICAN Tourist (shellsuit) away from flying.

I, for one, hope that the cockpit never has to use a gun since I believe/hope that the pax would have taken on the bad guys before it got to that stage. I usually fly in seat-4B and I am now watching each person that heads to the fwd bathroom (loo) very closely.

But I do not think it would take a bad guy more than 7-10 seconds to access the cockpit and I am not always that alert. Plan for the worst and hope for the best.

Chimbu - this is not the "last war" merely it is ANOTHER war. And you are also right - "you are either for us or agin us". That is what my thread of last Oct was titled.

Safe flying forever -

dAAvid -

[ortotrotel]

Hasn't anyone mentioned that in Aeroflot, the captain has to carry a pistol with his licence, medical cetificate, maps,...etc?

You get a blood pressure check and an equipment check every time you go on duty. :eek:

[Julian]

AA, yes I do about shaped charges thanks for your concern - also the shaped charged would direct the blast inwards. If you re-read my post I also said it that they would knock senseless, i.e. it could incapacitate not just kill the crew, giving the terrorist time to move in and take over - much the same effect as a 'Flashbang' would.

Further more I also stated, if you go back and look, that you would have to do something about the bulkhead wall as well - not just the door.

Yep, at least we agree on the school. Maybe they need to relook at it again, rather than just change its name - make syou wonder if any of the guys we are up against now are grads???? :rolleyes:

Over to you my learned gun debater... :D

[irondriver]

Chimbu,
I am sick and tired of hearing that the USA is the reason for all evil in the world. We have done more for this planet than all other nations combined. Yes, we have our faults and we are not always right, but at least we try to get people to get along. We may stumble across the globe, fat dumb and happy, but we are making an effort. Perhaps this article from our neighbor to the North will shed a little light on the subject. a little dated, but still relevant.

America: The Good Neighbor

Widespread but only partial news coverage was given recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordan Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:

"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.

Germany, Japan, and to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the depris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debt. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.

The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now the newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans.

I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country it the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the DouglasDC10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes?

Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German techncracy and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times and safely home again.

You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everyone to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are pursued and hounded. They are on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American Dollars from Ma and Pa at home to spend here.

When the railways of France, Germany, and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those."

Stand Proud, America!

[fionan]

AA SLF you denounced Julian's arguement that pilots would be taken out by a blast at the cockpit door.
While this may be true, there is little doubt that trained committed terrorists armed with the element of surprise would have little difficulty in overpowering a crew after such a blast. By the time any pilot had recovered their wits, identified the situation, located the gun, turned found and disabled the targets it would be long over.
In this scenario the terrorists would now also have a gun.

I think preventive medicine is the best route here:

1 We should look at all possible ways of preventing weapons/explosive devices getting on board.
2 International intelligence organisations should be co-operating with the airlines in monitoring the movement of all known or suspected terrorists. ( E.G. any flight showing 2 or more such characters should be grounded pending investigation )
3 All crews and groundstaff ( including security ) should recieved improved training to ensure increased vigilance.
4 All airports should have security hotlines where any staff or pax can report a percieved breach of security or suggest possible improvements.

I'm sure every single ppruner can add to the above list.

Incidently AA SLF why do you think it would take over 7 seconds to open any cockpit door. I could do it in 1! :eek:

[Chimbu chuckles]

AA SLF I think you will find if you read the relevant ammendment(2nd?) to your constitution you will find that it guarantees the right to bear arms within a well ordered Militia. The NRA, and others, find it helps their cause to leave the last bit off any reference to that ammendment.

The framers of the constitution wrote it that way because they didn't want any formal armed forces that a future Govt could use against the people, so they preferred a large reserve of 'trained' armed citizens they could call up at times of crisis.

Hardly needed now when you have the Army, Marines, Navy, Airforce and National gaurd to protect you! Like I said your Constitution does not guarantee your right to bear arms, as a blanket statement, it has qualifications that many seem to ignore!

Irondriver,

Yes the US has done many wonderful things for a great many people of the world, as I stated in my pevious post, BUT, don't try and confuse the issue! The aircraft on the 911 wern't flown by Japanese, French, Germans or Indians....they were flown, mostly, by Saudia Arabians and some other Middle Eastern ethnic groups.

The US Govt crapped all over South America, Africa, South East Asia and the Middle East for most of the last half of the 20th Century, do you really think they give a toss about how nice the US was to Europe or Japan, after they nuked it anyway? And before you start to squeel, yes nuking Japan was easily then justifiable!

IF THE US AND UN DON'T CONFRONT THE REASONS/JUSTIFICATION FOR A LOT OF THE TERRORISM THEN IT WILL NOT BE STOPPED IN OUR LIFE TIME, OR THAT OF OUR CHILDREN PROBABLY!

Chuck.

[ 26 November 2001: Message edited by: Chimbu chuckles ]

[upgrade]

The arming of pilots is in addition to skymarshalls..pilots will remain pilots but they will have the means to defend themselves,their crew and passengers.No one is saying that they would leave the cockpit and do battle.Skymarshalls will be the front line of defense.
Julian,
Your comments are typical of someone who is totally detached from the problem,and quite frankly naive.When it rains more than just H2O in Berkshire,then you might be in the correct mindset to suggest something that makes sense.The only solution is to do what it takes to stop this thing happening again,however draconian.

[gear-up]

Hi all, You can tell the British mentality in some of the posts in this thread,[ I'm British]and the silly attitude to guns.As I'm sure every one knows,we are not trusted with guns, tooooooo dangerous old boy,they can kill you know, the gov' even give our armed services a crap rifle, that falls to bits if you run with it!Lucky special forces, they can have the same type of rifle as the regular blokes, but made by someone else[Colt]and it does not fall to bits when you run with it.
I must agree strongly with the idea of a pistol on the flightdeck,cos if someone gets in,then we are probably about to get our throats cut, now that we know what the plan is.
As it is, if someone bursts onto my flightdeck,they will get the crash axe between the eyes,if we have time that is!
A handgun would be perfect,to defend the flightdeck in the last resort.The attitude that we depend on airport security is frightening,knowing what we all know!
Pilots would not need much training,the security issues could easily be overcome, with a bit of lateral thinking,and we would not need a cannon,a light 45 glasser,a standard 38 or even a 22.
It is a bit unfortunate,that most peoples perception of guns,especially the British,comes from Hollywood,it is just not like that.However, British pilots will never have guns,our attitude is,call the police on 999 and they will send a bobby round as soon as they can.And do not even think about taking the law into your own hand, that's unforgivable,and the courts will take a very dim view of that, whilst compensating the villain.And heaven help you when the plod eventually arrive, they will probably shoot the wrong person, U.K. cops and guns don't seem to mix very well.
I am a great fan of the U.S.A. but can't help being a little miffed sometimes,esp' the post a little bit back,where the poster thinks that no one ever helps the Americans, I don't think you would have got to the moon with out the Euro-know-how,and the last time I tried to get into the U.S.A. I was treated to a Rag-head giving my family and I the good ol' US welcome,while every other desk was letting even more Rag-heads through, with hardly a glance at there fake passports! Peace be apon them.And as for immigration,we are simply not wanted.When you look at the "folks" that are wanted, it makes you wonder.

[AA SLF]

Chimbu chuckles -

Supreme Court has held that a "militia" is constituted by the "citizens" of the USA. The Court has consistently held that the citizens have a right to "keep and bear arms" as the Constitution so eloquently puts it. They have NOT specified training, or trained citizens - merely "armed" citizens.

Julian - if you do know about shaped charges then you know you can "blow" either in, OR OUT. If out , then would not necessarily grossly impact cockpit crew. There is also the small matter about HOW MUCH "matter" is used. Have you ever seen det cord that was 50 mils thick diameter? I have. But even that size could be too much "matter" for the job at hand.

Interesting you talk about bulkhead walls. Think about it some more!

westman - I agree that preentive medicine is the best medicine. My point is that you can't make any guarantees about that sunject in today's world, although El Al has gone along way down that road.

While you talk about a "blast" that would seriously efffect the crew I want you to think smaller, much smaller. Say "big firecracker" size. The object is NOT to blow inward toward the cockpit, it is only to creat an opening that can be used. I think your four (4) points are well taken.
However - there ain't no way in hell you can do the "correct" job of creating an opening - and NOT blowing crap all over the cockpit at the same time - in one (1) second. Ain't possible cause you haven't left any time to get out of the way of the "big bang". Blasting is a three step process: load, arm and run like hell (avoid being the blastee).
:D

upgrade - liked your comments! ;) :D ;)

Thanks gear-up for the support.

dAAvid -

[Julian]

AA You are going on about explosives like you have read too many 'Guns n Ammo' & 'Soldier Of Fortune' magazines! I am still trying to work how your reckon this 'Special Forces' team is going to get all these explosives on board? If you remember 911 was a bunch of guys with box cutters pretending they had a bomb. If the opertaors do something about the area between the the cabin and the flightdeck then it is not a problem - I think you are thinking 'Oh just stick a new door on', I am not!

Upgrade Whoaa boy, you completely missed the mark there, niave? out of touch?
Even if it did rain more than just H2O on Berkshire I still do not support the idea. Leave it to someone who makes it their full time job and not something they do on a whim. If you are labelling me then I could quite easily judge you as a wannabe gun toting rambo... :rolleyes:

Julian.

[T_richard]

I wrote an eloquent(if I say so myself)piece chastising the bleeding heart, American bashing, liberals in this forum but then I realized that this forum is supposed to be limited to issues and rumours related to comercial aviation. Is anyone else aware of this caveat?

[Julian]

T_richard We are not bleeding heart, American bashing, liberals just because we dont agree on a particular subject. The subject of this discussion is should pilots be armed.

If you want to start up a thread about are Europeans generally American bashing liberals then please feel free...although you may first want to check which countries are over there fighting the war with you :rolleyes:

[AA SLF]

Julian -

Getting explosives on board an a/c is very easy. Think about how dope smugglers get their dope on the commercial airlines planes from South America to the USA. But our "serious" bad boys don't care about getting the explosives back off the a/c when it lands cause they don't intend a normal landing!!

Have glanced through, not read, at most two copies of "Guns & Ammo" at the barbershop. Not my cup of tea. Am not a serious shooter, just a moderately good one. "Soldier of Fortune" is a joke!!

Now back to the first paragraph: a block of C4 type material on board is really no threat. It needs something to get it going. That something I alluded to in the earlier post. Am going to leave it at that.

I any case, my scenario doesn't need anything more than what I could bring on board on my person.

But I think this whole scenario would never actually occur because I hope the pax would rise up fast enough to stop the bad guy(s). Don't care if there were a lot more than just one baddie, lots of pax on the USA planes. More than enough to handle a small mob. UA-93 has set the tone on the responsibilities of the pax on the plane, sadly enough.

I think this thread has run its course. It is just you and me and a couple of other Yank gun nuts left.

Just give the Capt. a choice is all I ask.

dAAvid -

[Raas767]

I Guess the bottom line is kind of like religion. It doesn't matter what you believe in, things are the way they are. Guns may very well be here to stay in our cockpits regardless of our respective attitude about it. No matter what, we will all adapt to it.

[Julian]

AA- Yep, I think you are right! We have got to the going round in circles bit so I guess we will agree to disagree as they say.

Always an emotional debate I guess but I would have a beer with you in an airport lounge.

All the best,
Julian.

[gear-up]

We don't need guns in every pilots case or on every flightdeck,I think security is best served if it is impossible to tell,by anyone,
what security will be applied to a particular flight. So when the next time Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble decide to go flying, they will have no way of beating the security- because they wont know what it will be, perhaps skymarshals or armed pilots or non pre selectable seats or whatever and in what combination.
If we have predictable security, then it can be beat!
Regards to all , and AA your welcome

[englishal]

What the hell, don't give them side arms, post a .50 cal machine gun inside the cockpit door, dress the flight crew in body armour from head to toe, and lets see if any terrorists manage to get in ! Could also have a couple of snipers fore and aft in the main cabin, and what the hell, anti personnel mines on the floor should do the trick. :p

[AA SLF]

Julian -

Thank You for the reply. Yes, I too, would enjoy a beer with you. Lively debate; we both stand strong in our positions, and agree to the beer at the end. This I like.

From not-so-sunny San Jose, Calif a "Good Night" to you, although I think it is the AM in the UK. Keep the tail fin up!

dAAvid -

[Capt PPRuNe]

This article from The National Post (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?f=/stories/20011129/810373.html) about security and El Al's philosophy shows why you shouldn't need to arm the pilots. There is enough to do flying the a/c safely without having to perform the duties of an armed guard also.

U.S. air safety measures have nothing on El Al
World's toughest airline: Israeli agents focus on the person, not the weapon

Martin Himel
National Post

TEL AVIV - The men responsible for El Al's reputation as the world's toughest airline are not impressed with the anti-terrorism measures Western carriers have put in place since Sept. 11.

"The feeling you have now in the United States is they are not professional, that they really don't know what they are doing," says Shlomo Dror, a spokesman for Israel's Defence Ministry.

"Today, I could [hijack] an airplane in the United States without any problem."

Israeli security officials dismiss the sudden obsession with searching passengers for potential weapons, from nail clippers to box cutters to pen knives. Nor do they worry about steel cutlery.

There are already numerous weapons on board an aircraft, they say. Take a bottle of duty-free liquor. Smash it and you have a weapon. Sharpen your credit card and you can slit a throat.

These tactics were not dreamed up by terrorists, but by El Al security personnel.

To beat terrorism, you must think like a terrorist. "Then you can have some answers," explains Mr. Dror, a former senior El Al security official.

The Israeli airline uses four lines of defence, concentrating on psychology more than weaponry.

First is the reservation system. It is linked directly to Israel's intelligence computer network, which scans all names and reviews credit card numbers. It red flags passengers who pay cash and notes any suspected links to terrorists.

Thanks to this pre-flight checking, Israeli security officials often know whom to look for before passengers show up at the airport.

At the check-in desk, a security official asks the kind of questions used by other airlines. "Did you pack your bags? What is the purpose of your trip? Are you bringing any presents or parcels for someone?"

The difference is the El Al official has been trained to note the passengers' body language, how they answer the questions, any inconsistencies or nervousness. Most of those questioned pass through in less than a minute. Five percent get a more thorough review.

That was the experience of Jonas Grandburg, who took an El Al flight to Paris recently.

The smartly dressed Swedish businessman found himself being interrogated by a petite young Israeli woman.

Taking him aside and putting his bag on a table, she asked for documents to prove he was on business in Israel. She wanted contact names, hotel receipts and the address of his Paris office. After 10 minutes, she checked the details with her superiors while Mr. Grandburg waited anxiously.

Five minutes later, she returned and handed back his passport and business documents. She did not inspect his luggage.

If Mr. Grandburg's story did not check out, or if there was a concern he might be unknowingly carrying a bomb or a weapon, he would have been thoroughly searched, though this rarely happens. Any problems are usually detected by the questioning.

In the past three decades there have been several attempts to blow up El Al aircraft. The explosives have always been discovered and, in the past 30 years, no El Al plane has been hijacked.

As for Mr. Grandburg, the experience was unsettling but he agrees it was necessary.

"It feels a bit insulting. Your integrity is a bit violated having to answer all these questions and showing this documentation," he says. "On the other hand, it is only a small price to pay, considering the consequences it could have."

Behind the scenes, Israeli security constantly tries to pierce the airline's defences, devising ever more ingenious methods to slip a "bomb" or a weapon on board an aircraft.

If they succeed, the security official who missed the weapon is dismissed. There are no second chances.

As the final and most obvious line of defence, there are air marshals on all El Al flights.

But, says Mr. Dror, if a marshal has to intervene to stop a hijacking, the system has failed.

Israeli air marshals are not simply airborne policemen. They must have served three or four years in a combat unit and be in excellent physical condition. They must be able to fire three bullets and hit a target 15 metres away in one second.

"That is very quick," says Mr. Dror. "If someone should get up with something in his hand and say, 'I'm [hijacking] the airplane,' he should know a minute later, a second later, he is dead."

U.S. airline security experts contend the Israeli system might work for a small carrier like El Al, but would be too complex and expensive to be applied across the entire North American continent.

Israeli experts argue that if the security procedures are done properly, a jumbo jet with 350 passengers can be cleared and boarded within an hour and a half, less than the current wait at Chicago's O'Hare airport.


I believe it was exactly the same argument after the Gore Commission on airline security that was waived because it would be "too much" as that mentioned above in the last paragraph. What price security and remember September 11th!

[LevelFive]

Guards. We have guards. We have the National Guard. They couldn’t even stop that bozo in Atlanta.

[gear-up]

Capt PPrune,
It would be nice to think like El Al, but somehow I can't see it. Can you? At most airports that I visit,work amd play,I can see the kind of security that just pisses every one off for no good reason, as an example- taking things from the pilot that might bring an aircraft into danger, like a small pair of plyers,nail scissors etc,It is laughable, and we all know how to beat the system anyhow.
Security is a luxury that we don't really have in the Euro- field, sounds like it is the same in the U.S.
The point we are making, re- flightdeck guns,is that it is a last resort,and would I believe,increase pax confidence,and safety.And help our industry recover quicker.