U.S. pilots will not be armed... (merged)

[Wizard]

HOMELAND INSECURITY
Armed pilots banned
2 months before 9-11
FAA rescinded rule allowing guns in cockpits just before terror attacks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 16, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Jon Dougherty

A 40-year-old Federal Aviation Administration rule that allowed commercial airline pilots to be armed was inexplicably rescinded two months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, leading aviation security experts to lay at least some of the blame for the tragedy at the feet of airlines, none of which took advantage of the privilege while it was in effect.

The FAA adopted the armed pilot rule shortly after the Cuban missile crisis of 1961 to help prevent hijackings of American airliners. It remained in effect for four decades.

But in July 2001 – just two months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks – the rule was rescinded.

According to FAA officials, the rule required airlines to apply to the agency for their pilots to carry guns in cockpits and for the airlines to put pilots through an agency-approved firearms training course.

The aviation agency said, however, that throughout the life of the rule not a single U.S. air carrier took advantage of it, effectively rendering it "moot," according to one agency official.

"In the past, FAA regulations permitted pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit provided they completed an FAA-approved training program and were trained properly by the airlines," FAA spokesman Paul Takemoto told WND in a voice-mail message. "That was never put into effect because no requests for those training programs were ever made. …"

Takemoto said the newly created Transportation Security Administration is now responsible for deciding whether pilots can be armed. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act signed into law by President Bush Nov. 19, 2001, has a provision allowing pilots to be armed, but the law does not mandate that the right be granted.

The FAA failed to return numerous follow-up phone calls requesting to know why the rule was rescinded, who was responsible for the decision, whether a particular incident spurred the decision and whether the aviation agency believes the airlines share some culpability for never taking advantage of it in the first place.

Some security experts speculate that had airlines taken advantage of the rule, it likely would not have been rescinded by the FAA. And if it had been implemented by the airlines, they say, the Sept. 11 hijackings – which led to the deaths of nearly 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. – may never have occurred.

"It's hard to say," said Capt. Robert Lambert, a commercial airline pilot and founding board member of the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance. But in lieu of the attacks, he said he can't understand why airlines still refuse to support arming their pilots.

"We're convinced there was a myriad of reasons why the airlines refused to allow pilots to be armed" before the attacks, said Lambert. He said the airlines were likely concerned about liability issues, but "of course, they have a lot of liabilities after Sept. 11, too," he added.

"For airlines not to trust us [with a gun in the cockpit] is totally ludicrous," he said.

Other pilot advocacy groups have said arming pilots as a "last line of defense" against terrorist hijackings is a better option – even if some innocent passengers are inadvertently harmed – than having Air Force fighters blow entire airliners out of the sky, assuredly killing all aboard.

Nico Melendez, a spokesman for the TSA, said his agency wasn't aware of the FAA's former rule. But when asked if it could have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks, he refused to speculate, saying, "I won't go there."

Melendez also refused to say when or whether the agency would sanction arming pilots. "That will be announced in due time," he told WND.

Airlines mum

None of the airlines WND attempted to contact for this story returned inquiries asking whether they believed they shared some culpability for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Bill Mellon, a spokesman for Northwest Airlines, initially responded but, after repeatedly declining to answer pointed questions as to why his company never applied for the FAA program, referred further inquiries to an airline industry group.

"Those are industry questions," he told WorldNetDaily in an e-mail response, "not Northwest Airline questions," referring the newssite to the Air Transport Association, or ATA, the industry's primary trade group.

But the ATA, along with America West, American Airlines and United Airlines, also failed to respond to numerous requests for comment.

APSA's Lambert said the ATA, which purports to speak for the entire airline industry, has "historically been against arming pilots," a position he said was "hard to understand."

According to published statements, the ATA said it has traditionally supported "more federal air marshals" instead.

Congressional help?

Some lawmakers are working to implement new legislation that would require federal officials to "deputize" airline pilots and allow them to be armed.

The House Transportation Committee is considering H.R. 4635, called the "Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act," which would make volunteer pilots Federal Flight Deck Officers, according to a published summary.

The bill would mandate – not simply ask – the "Under Secretary of Transportation for Security to … deputize qualified volunteer pilots as federal law enforcement officers to defend the cockpits of commercial aircraft in flight against acts of criminal violence or air piracy."

The program would go into effect 90 days after it is signed into law, and would be implemented in conjunction with the federal air marshal program.

The head of the Center for the Study of Crime, Randall N. Herrst – an attorney by trade who said his arguments have been used successfully in anti-gun control cases – disagrees with the government's intention of placing sky marshals on each flight. He says arming pilots would be a better, more cost-effective and faster plan to implement.

"At 35,000 flights a day, even if some marshals can cover two round trips per day on short routes, we will still need 90,000 sky marshals if we want at least two on each flight," taking into account days off, vacations and sick days, he said.

He agreed that "there are no guarantees" armed pilots would have prevented the Sept. 11 hijackings. But he added: "That is the only course of action that could have stopped the attacks."

Herrst said arming pilots would amount to a military principle known as "defense in depth."

"If you have a choice," he says, "you never depend on a single line of defense – you always have a second, third and fourth line as well."

He is also suspicious that despite Sept. 11, lawmakers, bureaucrats and the White House are still dragging their feet over arming pilots.

"The reasons must be purely political," he told WND. "[But] if there is another major round of hijackings, it will probably bankrupt the entire U.S. airline industry."

"People are so obsessed with banning guns that they are willing to sacrifice human lives and a huge portion of our economy to political correctness," he added.

[ironbutt57]

C'mon guys and gals....only criminals are allowed to have guns on airplanes...not law-abiding citizens.....let's get real...If I shoot a burglar in my home, I have less rights than if he breaks in and shoots me....but hey...at least I CAN have a gun......:rolleyes: :D

[captchunder]

CLICK-CLICK

I SAID TWO SUGARS IN MY COFFEE, BITCH!

BANG

[ORAC]

Ruling Lets Pilots Act All Crazy

Washington, D.C. (SatireWire.com) ? In a long-awaited decision, the Transportation Security Administration today denied a request that would have allowed airline pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit, but said it would allow them to "do that wacko crazy-person thing where you make lots of erratic movements and scream at yourself and swear and bark and ****" in order to fend off possible hijackers.

While refusing the pilots' petition, the TSA approved a controversial request by the flight attendants' union that would allow cabin stewards, in the event of an emergency, to "run like hell" straight into a bulkhead and knock themselves out.

http://www.satirewire.com/briefs/pilots.shtml

[Capt. Crosswind]

I was walking past a small suburban bank recently when a security company was making a delivery of cash.
By the size of the cash box I'd guess a total of a a few hundred thousand bucks.
The driver & two guards were all armed with heavy calibre revolvers.
The politicians & bureaucrats don't seem to have any problem with this scenario but can't come to grips with the protection
of an airliner that could be flown into a nuclear plant by suicide terrorists. All to appease the anti gun lobby no doubt.

[Orca strait]

U.S. pilots won't be armed. (http://globeandmail.com/servlet/RTGAMArticleHTMLTemplate/C/20020521/wguns0521?hub=homeBN&tf=tgam%252Frealtime%252Ffullstory.html&cf=tgam/realtime/config-neutral&vg=BigAdVariableGenerator&slug=wguns0521&date=20020521&archive=RTGAM&site=Front&ad_page_name=breakingnews)

It all seems so simple to the good senator, South Carolina Democrat Ernest Hollings, chairman of the commerce committee, said guns will not be needed as long as pilots keep cockpit doors locked while in flight.

I don't know about the rest of you, but no one has installed a galley or lavatory in my flightdeck yet.

What say we all just stay home for a while and let the "experts" really put some thought into developing effective security.:rolleyes:

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

[Send Clowns]

Orca, if they arm the pilots I want to know which airlines. I wouldn't want to acidentally book with one. Maybe I'll stick to B.A. or Virgin.

[AA717driver]

Yeah, let the "Honorable" Sen. Hollings sit in an -80 cockpit 4 1/2 hours from STL to SEA not including taxi time. Better yet, make him do it in August.TC

[West Coast]

Clown
All other aspects aside, as a last resort, don't you wish the crews on Sept11 were armed? I wish they had that option. At worst they would still have crashed, perhaps though one or more of the aircraft might not.

[Orca strait]

Clowns. Its not about arming / dis-arming the pilot's that concerns me as much as the inane concept of a sealed and secured flight deck.

The good senator's advice on keeping the flight deck door locked is purely for public perception and nothing to do with real security.

It's time for real discussion and real solutions (however this may have to include pilots and cabin crew), and by the look of the pol'tics that have been involved thus far, we will continue to be left out of the process.:(

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

[Wino]

Yeah, Now our "Last line of defense" is the f16 waiting to shoot us down. Makes you think twice about reporting being hijacked, doncha think?

I am not sure I would squawk hijack intodays atmosphere...

Cheers
Wino

[Orca strait]

Let me re-phrase the above statement.

It’s not about arming or dis-arming the pilot’s that concerns me, it’s the neutering…
----------------------------------------------

[Pegasus77]

I think we already discussed the pros and contras of guns in the cockpit extensively here... Seems more a side-of-the-ocean conflict than anything else, therefore I was surprised to hear this (in my ears) good news coming from the US!

P77

[Skol]

I have read the Globe and Mail article posted by Orca and support guns in cockpit as a last line of defence. Hollings and his mates worry about a passenger being injured or electrical system malfunction before we all get shot down by an F-16 and die anyway. If terrorists want to get in they're going to. Next time they will probably pick a softer target. Europe? The reinforced doors theory is nonsense, they still have to be opened for food anyway and I saw a 'locked' door fall open during descent.

[TDK mk2]

reminds me of a story years ago when an inbound aircraft asked ATC to order seven and a half tonnes of fuel for them from the airfields fuel suppliers. Some bright spark in the tower decided it was some kind of code and asked them to repeat the figure using numerals only and then ordered a full scale security alert for the planes arrival - ooops! Soz, completely irrelevant...

[CloggyUK]

Sorry to the people that read my reply on an other thread, but my opinion:

Guns on flightdeck: NO WAY!

Before you know it the capt and FO having a contest who can clean the gun fastest. You need to do something after six hours flying from LAX to LHR.
"XXX123, Mayday, mayday, my capt just shot himself cleaning his gun!!"
ATC: "Say again:confused: ??

[Tinstaafl]

Cloggy:

And this would be before or after their 'who can do the better barrell roll in this Boeing/Airbus' competition?


Jeez.... :rolleyes:

[Glonass]

Here's the response from the ALPA on this issue:

http://www.alpa.org/internet/news/2002news/nr02044.html

Cheers,

[Wino]

Pilots carried guns for longer than they have been banned. They were REQUIRED to untill into the 50s, and were actively encouraged to do so during the hijackings of the 70s.

I know of no cases where anything bad happened as a result of pilots carrying guns. I can point to one hijacking that was stopped when the hijacker was shot dead by the Captain (American Airlines DC-6 in the fifties)...

It certainly couldn't have made things worse on Sept 11.

Cheers
Wino

[Rice Whine]

.... and before the 50's how many "Columbine" incidents did we have. How many "he was just a normal, well balanced guy before this..." incidents of mass murder and gun rage did we have?
Guns in the cockpit...NO WAY.http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/shot1.gif
There are plenty of non lethal alternatives.

[Dale Harris]

I'm not for or against the principle of arming, but Rice you say there are plenty of non lethal alternatives........and they would be?????

[Skol]

I'm not sure Rice is a pilot. According to his profile he does not have an ATPL, so it's not his problem, it's ours.

[18-Wheeler]

No guns!!
Cool! - common sense prevails.

[Skol]

I've been observing the posts re. arming pilots and several who profess to be anti-arming don't have pilots licences, at least on their profiles, which makes me think the anti-gun lobby are having their say, like 18, above. "Cool-no guns". No reasons either.
By the way 18-wheeler, did you know all 747's (400's anyway) have the same door key?

[B Sousa]

Air Security is still in the BandAid stage. Folks really dont know what the hell to do and who to allow to do it. Things of yesterday are gone forever. The US Army never had locks on Aircraft until some idiot stole a helicopter and drove it to the White House. Within a week, all in the inventory had keyed ignition and locked doors that a teenager could open....
So it is with Guns. As for me, if I were in heavy Iron, I would probably settle for a nice sawed off shotgun. Something with a good load to kick Al Quiada's ass back through first class.
In reality though, I think a compromise as to let those who want to be, and can qualify, carry a weapon.... Let the terrorists try to figure out who is not armed....
As to non lethal stuff someone mentioned MACE. Now that will certainly do the trick. Everyone goes blind.. Where are these folks coming from...
As one who flys as a passenger when not doing part 135, I can agree with someone elses comment. Should one of our Al Quiada brethern even appear to head for the cockpit, Im going to drop him like a bad habit. Hopefully with help and guarnteed, We will be the only ones to give a statement after all is said and done....

[GlueBall]

And for special effects, you can use the Halon or CO2 Fire Extinguisher on the face of the cockpit intruder.

But the bottom line is that pax no longer will sit idle during any inflight confrontation. Fearing for their own safety and survival, passengers would quickly tackle any would be hijacker. This fact already has been demonstrated with the "shoe bomber" and the Urugayan "banker" nut-case who attempted to break into the UA 777 cockpit.

ALPA's aerial cowboy mentality is reactionary. Juvenile. Impractical reality.:eek:

[mutt]

B.Sousa…..

Don’t you remember the days when flying used to be fun????



Mutt.

[Send Clowns]

West Coast the fatal logical flaw that September the 11th was last year. Any armed flight is a solution to a problem that has already occured. September 11th was a dramatic enough event to change all future cases of airborne violence such that a respose to that attack in that form becomes obsolete.

Completely agree Orca. Pilots must be in the debate. No-one outside aviation seems to realise quite how much this affected us. At least outside the USA there was from teh start even more shock amongst our community than in the wider society. Mutt perfectly expresses my initial feeling as I saw the sight I can still not watch when it is repeated on television.

[GrandPrix]

The ability to carry a firearm would be completely voluntary. Those of you that are against armed cockpits would not be required to carry.
Those that are against scare me because you do not have any viable solutions. Keep locking your selves into the paper mache vault and wear those pink sunglasses.
The US government is great at diverting attention from the real need of its people. Security is a joke and will continue to be as long as the Keystone cops are in charge.
To those that think that this coming from some gun happy "cowboy", you are wrong. I do not own a gun, but would be willing to go to any training program that would make me competent to safely use a tool of self defense. As it stands today, all the bad guys have guns and know that we do not. Still feel safe?

[Turnup]

Grandprix said-

"To those that think that this coming from some gun happy "cowboy", you are wrong. I do not own a gun, but would be willing to go to any training program that would make me competent to safely use a tool of self defense. As it stands today, all the bad guys have guns and know that we do not. Still feel safe?"

So, why have you not taken the training? As a non-pilot you stand a much higher chance of meeting an armed BG (bad guy) in your everyday life - and yet you have not taken the opportunity to protect yourself. And were you to take proper training, you would have a much better idea of the limitations of a firearm in resolving aggressive confrontations.

[GrandPrix]

Turnup,
Good ?
I belive that in any other situation I can get away from the BG.
In a cockpit I have no place to go. In the real world, I get to make the choice as to where I go. I avoid dangerous areas and sitiuations at all reasonable cost. That opportunity does not exist on the aircraft because I do not have the final authority as to who is allowed to board. The government made sure of that when they decided that profiling was wrong.

[Fallows]

As an intrested and sympathetic ATC person, I wonder if we are not getting sidelined whether pilots should or should not be armed, and whether the flight deck door is locked or not.
The important thing is to make all efforts with the regulatory and airport authorities to make sure that these hijackers do not get on the aeroplane in the first place by the use of increased security, surely if these hijackers are on board the aeroplane then the battle is effectively lost.

[Orca strait]

Well said GrandPrix!

The most emotional responses to gun issues on this board appear to overwhelmingly come from non flight deck personnel.

A gun in every flight deck makes about as much logistical and economic sense as hiring 90,000 air marshals.

A gun on some flight decks? Why not, there are some very qualified people in flight decks already that come from anti-terrorist and gun handling backgrounds. The idea is to add one more layer to a multi-layered security blanket.

Observed in a retail shop:These premises protected by Smith & Wesson every third day; you guess which day is the third.

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

[mriya225]

Ideas like arming pilots are there to remind us of how much we still need our sense of smell and test our professed dedication to honesty...

Permission to speak with 100% candor, please.

In the consideration of suicidal terrorism onboard:
Without respect to your toughness, bravery, or commitment to maintaing command of your aircraft, the moment that an aggressive intruder breaches that cockpit, flightcrew life expectancy careens to infinitesimal.

I estimate the space between pilot seating and the cockpit door, runs @ three feet deep, generally speaking. The time it takes somebody to cross that span is exactly how long you have to:

1) Notice the entry
2) Determine the threat
3) Get a hand on that weapon
4) Aim
5) Make your shot without doing catastrophic damage to your aircraft or passengers who mean you no harm.

Assuming that you can manage to overcome astronomical odds here and survive... The argument could easily be made that if you had time to make that shot, you were not warranted in the use of deadly force because the threat to your command of that aircraft was not as great as you perceived it to be. Here's the bitch of the thing; even if you are justified--you're still going to get stuck with the liability and pay through the nose for it.

You may have been right, and I may believe you--but it will not matter.

Now, considering that fact that the potential for civil liabilities, aircraft damage, and bad public relations are enormous... And considering that no insurer, anywhere, is going to touch this--period... This is a formula for the demise of your carrier (that's already struggling in a brutal economic environment) your career, and the livelihood of tens of thousands of people. So, who's going to pay for these liabilities when this bright idea goes south--and it will--ALPA? Carrier? Passengers? Tax Payers? Who gets to have the dubious distinction of bending over and taking it in the rear for this utterly volitile but completely illusory sense of security?

This is nothing more that a dangerous security blanket. You will not have the time to use it properly--and if you do, then we'll be made to pay for it as though you shouldn't have.

We need to stop clapping each other on the back with these feel good "We'll give you a fighting chance" lies. This measure will not push the odds in your favor one iota---nada.

We need to be about the business of making sure that you have the capabilty of throwing over command of your aircraft to a ground unit that will guide you onto a militarized airfield, where you'll be met by a well equipped and highly trained anti-terrorist team, and providing you with security onboard.

What we're trying to do here is reduce the incentive to dispose of the flightcrew and provide you with an unmistakable 'heads up' that you've got trouble just outside that door. Now, you've got the time you need to prepare for your own defense and the defense of your aircraft. You can switch over command, pull that axe off the wall and steady your nerve for whatever may come through that cockpit door. Now, you've got a fighting chance--we really have pushed the odds in your favor.

[Orca strait]

mriya225

With all due respect to opinion and argument, I have to refer to my previous statement regarding emotional responses from non flight-deck personnel. The general response from non flight-deck ppruner's is to let some other expert sort out the problems, that’s not the pilot's job, i.e.:We need to be about the business of making sure that you have the capability of throwing over command of your aircraft to a ground unit that will guide you onto a militarized airfield, where you'll be met by a well equipped and highly trained anti-terrorist team, and providing you with security onboard.

I'll assume from this cozy statement that:
1) These facilities will be available world wide over land, water and ice?
2) There is zero possibility of anyone other than the appointed authority on the ground that can gain control of the aircraft remotely.

The second point of remote aircraft interference is the most absurd. Consider that:
1) The system on the ground would have the ability to override the pilot completely (think about that).
2) Keeping this electronic leash on the aircraft from being intercepted, corrupted etc. is not 100% guaranteed.

When your aircraft pushes back from the gate, the general public truly does not grasp the behind the scenes planning that has brought the aircraft to that point. Planning, dispatching, ground crews, maintenance, over flights, atc and so on. It always amazes me that the system works at all. But fewer yet understand that when that aircraft gets airborne, you better hope that the commander and crew are fully aware that they are now it. Looking for that big cozy hand in the sky to gently set you back on the ground is not going to happen. Just ask two highly motivated flight attendants that disarmed the shoe bomber.
--------------------------------------

[AA SLF]

Orca strait -

There were a couple of the pax who helped out in the Richard Reid case from a physical standpoint. BUT - a medal to the two AA Cabin Crew that initially went after the bas**rd!!

I am commenting on your post solely to point out the pax involvement. As a "professional" pax, I - and my fellow pros - normally sit in first class. The flight deck, at least in America, can rest assured that the pax are going after any, repeat, anybody that looks suspicious coming up the aisle towards the cockpit door. And, Yes, I do profile those getting on as well as those walking up the aisle!!

GlueBall has it right in his earlier post on this thread.

But, I still support the idea of the Flight Deck crew having the choice to arm themselves, or not. At the end of the day, it is the Pointy End that has the ultimate resxponsibility.

Lots of talk about Air Marshalls on the USA TV recently, but ATPLs know that there are very few of them in existance today, and real secure doors are one-two years away. So, the security gaps are still there and will be into the near future.

Even if we get the plane physically secure we still aren't doing the right thing about the people on the ground with access to the planes!! :mad: :mad:

[steamchicken]

Profiling would only help if all terrorists in the world happened to be in the racial group you happened to pick. They're not. Sorry wino, there are white terrorists as well, I grew up with IRA bombs and scares on the menu.

For the historically minded: One of the Palestinian star hijackers of the 1970s was a blonde, blue-eyed German woman...oops. (Gabrielle Kruger of the PFLP) Even if you are convinced that Islam and terrorism are the same thing, I would remind you that you that it's a religion not a race - you can convert. Think John Lindh.

[Orca strait]

AA SLF-

The professional pax’s are certainly a part of the team, and I have been assisted by them on various occasions (medical emergency, rowdy passenger to name a few). Glad to have you on board.

There is no doubt that since 9/11, collectively, our response to any kind of hi-jack threat would be treated much differently than prior to 9/11.

We have recently learned that there was considerable intelligence gathered prior to 9/11, that the probability of hi-jacking civilian airliners was high. As a pilot, prior to flight I receive briefings on weather, airspace changes, delays; equipment malfunctions etc., but nothing on security. Most of us have held security clearances at one time or another in our careers. Why not issue a discreet security bulletin to the flight crew, something like -an increased threat in air piracy or hi-jacking has been identified, possible perpetrators (terrorist group of the day). Forewarned is forearmed. As it was, prior to 9/11 we were still using hi-jack prevention and control tactics from the 1960's! Instead, we were all led to believe that the hi-jack threat died in the 1970's!

If the crews on that fateful day had known that the possibility of domestic hi-jacking was there and that tactics and demands of the hi-jacker may have changed (this was known in security circles), then those crews may have had a better more effective response that may have saved the day. As it was, the crews used the tools that they had been given and these tools were woefully out of date and ineffective.

The part that really makes my blood boil, since 9/11, crews have been further distanced from the security apparatus and treated as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. We are reminded of this every time we are made to surrender our shoes and nail clippers.

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

[Orca strait]

steamchicken-

There is a huge difference betwen "profiling" and "racial profiling".

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

[mriya225]

I wish you wouldn't bother with the "all due respect" disclaimer--it just makes you look bad when you're unable to follow through.

This is a little no-p.c. nit-picky of me, but I just need to get it off my chest:
A "flight deck" is found on a naval carrier--pilots work in a cockpit.

Nothing about the argument, against arming pilots, that I've put forward here is "absurd"--so spare me your histrionics. That whole *tsk, tsk* routine is the bad substitute for logic, from hell, as far as I'm concerned.

As a former load master and mechanic, I've shared the burden of responsibility for aircraft, crew and passenger safety with pilots--so it's not as if I don't "get it". Now, I may not have to die with you, but that doesn't mean that I'm incapable of gleaning, from that experience, some insight into the pressure that you're under.

Nobody's discussed the procedure for assuming control of your aircraft with me--so I don't know exactly how they intend to safeguard against terrorists using that same system to their advantage. I do know that it wouldn't be tactically difficult to protect you from that possibility--but entrusting one source, especially a lumbering bureaucratic source, to handle it would be extraordinarily unwise.

As far as airfield availabilty goes, pardon my candor, but you're as good as dead anyway. Now, if I can get you onto a friendly military airfield--fabulous--you had better believe I'm going to do that (even if we have to wait a few hours for the anti-terrorist team and equipment to arrive). But if you're only wet enough to put you out over the Atlantic or any other unpopulated area, where your aircraft can't be used as a weapon to kill more people than are already going to perish onboard anyway--that, unfortunately, is precisely where you're headed. I'm terribly sorry; it isn't fair. Please forgive me--but that is exactly what's going to happen.

Nearly every commercial jet in production today is capable of completing a cycles without a flight crew. I sure as hell wouldn't trust it--unless I absolutely had to. But then, that's what we're talking about here, isn't it? A situation so dire has arisen, onboard this aircraft, that you absolutely must rely on it.

No guarantees? When have you, in any facet of your existence, been guaranteed anything? Ever? The probablities may have been high--but you have never been guaranteed anything--not ever; I promise you.

You want to work with a gun on your hip? I don't blame you. I wouldn't mind slinging an OICW over my shoulder too, for deterrence and safety--but that doesn't make it a good idea.
I know it sucks to face this rationally. But if you will throw your energy into productive means of addressing these threats--then this public will back your play and pressure this government and carriers into putting their money where your posteriors are.

[rehkram]

SLF point of view: I'm personally in favour of... something. While you can't force flight crew to carry guns for those that want to and are certified I say let them.

Don't tell anyone, the traveling public do not, IMO, need to know the details. On the other hand the thought that any given crew might be 'packing heat' (as they say) may deter and would certainly complicate hijack planning.

I can imagine the first carrier to differentiate themselves by coming up with a marketable security package / concept may very well set the tone and in so doing win market share. The customers will then decide whether they buy into it or not.

This is a very tricky debate, I respect and share all concerns raised, and wish you all the very best in finding a workable solution. If I come up with anything real good I'll let you know. :)

[AKAAB]

I penned this several months ago:

To Whom It May Concern:

News reports are indicating that the Airline Pilots’ Association is proposing an initiative that would arm our nation’s airline pilots with pistols, stun guns, and other weapons. If such a plan is enacted, the basic nature of my entire career will not only be changed, but essentially will be completely transformed into something I am terrified to contemplate.

We are not marshals or security guards. We are professionals that are charged with the responsibility of safely transporting the public. Arming the pilots adds another level of responsibility that will be an incredible distraction to carrying out our jobs. If additional security arrangements are required, then let us use professionals specifically trained for the job, not pilots trying to learn the critical decision making skills needed to use deadly force from a short training course. Law enforcement officers constantly train to hone their skills with firearms and when to use them. How many accidental discharges occur each year in your local police precinct? Will a once-a-year training course give us the tools we need to properly carry out the additional responsibility associated with arming the pilots? I think not.

I’ve often heard it said that if you choose to have a gun at home you are more likely to shoot a family member than you are likely to shoot an intruder. Also, you are more likely to have that weapon turned against you. Do we want this aboard our nation’s airliners? ?

We must consider the exponential increase in risk that will come with arming pilots. The secured area of our airports will now be filled with pilots sporting guns. To prevent this we will need completely separate security checkpoints for armed crewmembers, and separate entrances to the airsides and jetways to keep us away from the public. We will need separate and secure flightcrew bathroom facilities to prevent opportunistic thefts of our weapons. We will also need to more closely monitor each pilot’s mental health in an attempt to prevent inappropriate actions with these weapons. I can only imagine how oppressive it will get.

Last week (Note: Oct 2001) my tweezers were confiscated at the security checkpoint in Oakland – while a passenger’s corkscrew was allowed through. Now, we’re considering allowing guns? Absolutely not! The members of the National Rifle Association must be slapping each other on the back as they listen to these rash proposals.

Please mark me down as completely against guns in the cockpit. If they are allowed, please mark me down for a desk job. I am not a cop, I am a pilot. I don’t allow guns in my home and I certainly will not live with one in my cockpit. Even if such a program is voluntary, I absolutely will not have a gun in the cockpit with me – period.

Respectfully,

<name removed for pprune post>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
That's all I have to say!
AKAAB

:mad:

[Skol]

AKAAB,
Sounds to me like you are in the anti-gun lobby. You are still much more likely to be killed on the road than by a gun. You do not suggest that maybe some may be comfortable carrying them, you want to ban them altogether from the cockpit, just like your house. At the moment I don't get danger money and want the chance to defend myself if anyone gets in.

[underboost]

"Nothing about the argument, against arming pilots, that I've put forward here is "absurd"--so spare me your histrionics. That whole *tsk, tsk* routine is the bad substitute for logic, from hell, as far as I'm concerned. "

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

You don't have a clue about the subject you're so "expertly" addressing. Your concepts and misunderstandings are illogical and ridiculous. You would be well-advised to stick to subjects of which you have knowledge.

[mriya225]

Quote: "You don't have a clue about the subject you're so "expertly" addressing. Your concepts and misunderstandings are illogical and ridiculous. You would be well-advised to stick to subjects of which you have knowledge."

Care to elaborate? Or are you just whistling Dixie, my aptly named friend?

[Orca strait]

mriya225- The lady doth protest too much.

You bring up some very good points in your post. It's the throwing over control idea that sets me off.

Guns on the flight deck; (cockpit, box office, pick your flavour).
My beef with the gun argument is either way you vote for it, the issue is detracting from the real issue - security. As you stated, we need to know what’s coming, forewarned is forearmed. If someone where to ask me "can a pilot be qualified to carry a sidearm?" I would state absolutely. "Should a pilot carry a sidearm", I would state, under most circumstances no. I would love to see a society that settled its differences with words and wisdom; however, we're not quite there yet.

An unarmed Bobby walking the streets of London is a beautiful thing to see, but make no mistake, not far away is a Bobby that is fully armed and ready to react. It’s up to you to guess how far away.

Cheers,
---------------------------------------------------------------

[GrandPrix]

To all the naysayers about guns being allowed in the cockpit as a FINAL defense mechanism:
What do you propose in it's stead?
Here in the States, the final solution is a sidewinder up the tailpipe and we ALL lose.
With a gun at least we have a fighting chance. Let me re-iterate I do not own a gun at this time.
Don't say profiling, because it is not allowed.
Stun guns don't work through leather jackets and cannot be administered numerous times to multiple unfriendlies.
Yes, there are potential negatives to having firearms on the flight deck, but if one life is saved than it was worth it.
What does the following list of events have in common?
1. 1972 Munich Olympic murders
2. Iran hostage situation
3. Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking
4. Pan Am 103
5. TWA hijackings/inflight bombings mid 1980's
6. Numerous airport shootups in Rome, Vienna & Frankfurt
7. Assassination attempt on the Pope
8. Iraq invades Kuwait
9. too numerous to list attacks on Israel
10. Berlin disco bombing
11. Marine barracks and Embassies blown up
12. USS Cole attacked
13. Sept. 11th
Answer: All perpetrated by extremist Arab/Muslim groups or regimes intent on destroying western civilization.
Any of the above events are considered acts of war, but God forbid that we profile all Arabs and/or defend ourselves.
We are being warned that the next attack is inevitable and could be far worse considering that they might use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. But the naysayers, including those in our own freaking govt. are telling us to NOT defend ourselves.
Please explain to us why we should sit back, be spectators in our own lives and do nothing.

[Dale Harris]

Mryia 225, I was interested to read your earlier post that mentions the fact that "3 feet between door and crew" and reaction time and your view that noone can react that quickly so therefore guns have no place. Your last paragraph appears to shoot your theory in the foot, so to speak. You are correct that noone will react that fast, however, you go on to say that given your idea for security, re a heads up etc, then grabbing the crash axe etc, what's wrong with having the firearm instead of the axe? Why is the axe suitable in your example but not the firearm? As I stated earlier, I have no view either way, as I don't fly a transport aircraft. But given the choice, I would consider it ok to carry whatever is necessary. I am trained extensively in firearms and If i'm extremely fortunate may make a career in transport a/c. I think the question of choice and proper alternatives is more important than just one example of the "let's not have that here" idea. As has been pointed out, the naysayers are very quick to say NO, but have no credible alternatives to serve up as yet.

[mriya225]

Orca Strait,
"Box office"... I hadn't heard that one yet--I like it though, it's pithy.

Re: Switching command
I'm not very familiar with the particulars of that myself--hell, even if I were, I'd be loathe to discuss it publicly. But I completely understand your misgivings about relinquishing control of your aircraft; it assumes a lot about the flightworthiness of the aircraft and the soundness of the technology we're using to bring you into a secured area... I respect where you're coming from on that. You're right, it won't be as trustworthy as an experienced pilot--but, it's still better than the most likely alternatives.

Aside from the other reasons I've mentioned for not arming yourselves, there's also the the situation for the A-T unit, to think of. Once we get you all back on the ground--you can imagine how the presence of firearm(s)in the aircraft will both prolong and complicate matters for the team that's charged with the responsibility of securing your a/c, and getting everybody out of there alive.

When it comes to circumventing terrorism, intel and firepower may be sexy but tedium is the truly effective weapon. Success is rooted in making the logistical pain-in-the-butt factor exceed whatever benefit these ******s are hoping to get out of it. And I honestly believe that it has the best potential of saving your life, the lives of your crew and your passengers.

Not for nothing, but you don't need to sell me on the British being able to fend for themselves (with or without firearms). Your SAS is probably the most elite special forces unit on the planet--so, you're preaching to the choir here.

Grand Prix,
The problem isn't that people don't want you to protect yourself. The problem with firearms in that environment is strictly a liability vs. benefit issue.

Dale Harris,
see the explanation given to Orca Strait above.

[GrandPrix]

Pray tell: What would the logical and viable alternatives to having an armed cockpit as a LAST line of defense be?
I guess that many of you are comfortable with the aircraft being blown out from underneath you.
Interesting to note that no-one has commented on the history re-cap.
Please enlighten me as to how my logic is flawed.

[mriya225]

Grand Prix,
I can see that you're getting a little wigged-out about this; allow me to recommend taking your mind off it with a lighthearted reminder to your mechanics about the need to clean up after themselves, when they're finished working in your cockpit. You know what dirty little monkeys we can be.
Now, me, I'm pretty good about ensuring that I have all my equipment with me when I'm finished--'cause that stuff's expensive--but some mechanics are just downright careless...

[Wino]

The views divide depending on which side of the ocean you are from. By and large the Europeans are more willing to accept civilian casualties and react after the fact, and the Americans want something done proactively before it happens.

Its a different way of looking at life but it seams to sum up position on this, gun control, and the middle east.

Cheers
Wino

[Nostradamus]

WINO

This time you have got to be kidding, It was the USs inability at organising any sort of security at check in, or any part of a US airport, that started this SH"T

THE AMERICANS WANT SOMETHING DONE PROACTIVELY, BEFORE IT HAPPENS.

Rearange this GATE, HORSE, BOLTED,:mad:

[Wino]

Okeydokey,
Lets rephrase that to say that Americans don't like to make the same mistakes twice, and won't continue with the same pattern that got them where they are today, and would be intollerant of an ongoing drawn out thing like say the IRA dispute...

And Nostradamus, EVERYSINGLE WEAPON USED ON SEPT 11 was completely legal to carry on any EU aircraft as well. Infact you could have BOUGHT them inside security at switzerland at the duty free shop or in London Heathrow at the Duty free shop.

What was exploited was not American security as no contraband was used in Sept 11. What was exploited was the same things things that you are argueing in favor of now! Complacency. "We don't need any extra measures." it worked up till now... It happend there but no, it couldn't happen here...

Cheers
Wino

[Caslance]

Yeah, Wino.

Well you could have said that without the gratuitous remarks about Europeans, couldn't you?

If no contraband was used on the ill-fated internal flights on Sept 11, then the items must have been legal on US airlines as well, mustn't they?

Europeans place the same value on human life that Americans do, and are no more willing to accept civilian casualties.

We (generally) don't think that bigger and better guns are necessarily always the answer to every situation.

This is not America, but all that makes us is different.

[Nostradamus]

WINO

Nailclippers, or THE USS NIMITZ I could of got them both airside pre 9/11 .

And as for the USA not making mistakes twice??
How many examples do you want:D and I am not yank bashing, but you do leave yourself wideopen.:p

[Wino]

Nostradamus,

Plenty of guns and swords were stopped by security before 9/11.
The point is that the weapons used were completely legal, EVERYWHERE.

What has been proven is that a small group of lightly armed reasonably well trained people can overcome another untrained and unprotected group.

By burying your heads in the sand and refusing to lock the cockpit doors (Plenty of European pilots on the forum here saying that its unsafe to do so) you are just setting up for a repeat.

And remember, it isn't just the lives in the aircraft anymore. This is a whole new ballgame and anything that an airplane flies over is at risk, an I am constantly astounded at the lack of recognition of that fact.

Counting on the pax to stop it, that's funny. The only thing that does is increase the number of bad guys required (and not by a whole lot for that matter) The pax would be a help, but if 10 guys stand up who know what they are doing, the only the pax will be is cannon fodder. Yes I am grateful for PAX assistance, yes it is necesary. No by itself it is not enough to return to the way things were. I have flown plenty of empty aircraft since 9/11 where you could put 10 guys on it and outnumber the good guys. Happens all the time in the morning and evening.

And CASLANCE, YES YES YES YES YES! I have been saying all along that there was NO failure of security on 9/11 as no contraband was used. Security performed as was intended. What failed was a lack of imagination. Security was set up around keeping guns and bombs off of aircraft, as everyone only thought in terms of destroying or hijacking aircraft, not using them as weapons. Its easy, can be done again, and most likely will be done again. No one had the imagination before.

Cheers
Wino

[Dale Harris]

Don't come from either side of the Atlantic, but maybe you could get the USS NIMITZ airside before 9/11, but security airside in Europe could stand improving too you know. As the guys who got away with millions from Heathrow, before AND after 9/11. Security is Security, and NOONE has a monopoly on it.

[Clarence Oveur]

There is a lot more to security than just screening handbags.
If that is the intended level of security, then ofcourse security has failed.

Gathering and reacting to intelligence are by far the most effective means to ensure safe airtravel.
In 1995 plans to hijack airliners and fly them into US landmarks was uncovered by the Philippines intelligence.

Was there any reaction to this information?. You be the judge.

[Alchemy]

http://www.geocities.com/erichmassey/lastweek.jpg

[Skol]

palgia,
Which planet are you on pal. There's been plenty of threats in Europe including a serious one in the last few days according to news reports. Your arrogance is beyond belief and according to your profile you're not a pilot anyway. There seems to be plenty of mahogany bomber pilots on this thread with lots of advice for those of us that may have to fight off these towelheads. Your post may come back to haunt you.

[Nostradamus]

SKOL

I choose not to write pilot in my profile..............but:D :D and what difference does it make he can still have an oponion, driver or not.

AND TOWELHEAD IS OFFENSIVE:mad: he could be a sihk for all you know:mad:

[I. M. Esperto]

http://www.secure-skies.org/
Airline Pilots Security Alliance.

A wealth of information and topics here.

[Wino]

I hope it wont be considered crass when I say "I told you so" to palgia.

So Islamic terrorists only target the US and ISrael, huh?

Exactly whose aircraft was hijacked to Antebbee?

And Where exactly is the Eiffel tower located which was also targeted with an aircraft?

That's it bury your head in the sand. The shame of it is that you aren't playing only with your life.

Cheers
Wino

[steamchicken]

Wino: repeat after me, "not all terrorists are Arabs, not all Arabs are terrorists" - it must begin to get through in the end.....
Oh yes, Europeans never take proactive measures....maybe you ought to ask the 2 SAS men who led the German GSG9 storming of the hijacked LH plane in Mogadishu - the German government wanted to give them the Bundesverdienstkreuz, but they couldn't accept 'cos it would reveal the fact they were there. They both got UK civil decorations the next year, no reason given! And which sort of terrorists hijacked the plane? GERMAN communists!

[D 129]

It's already been said that most Europeans put highest priority in getting the ground security right rather than taking firearms on the flight deck ... I tend to agree ...

But if the terrorists are on board, then how do PPRuNe members rate their chances ?. Presumably pilot training counsels co-operation and let the security forces do their work. (Obviously no help for September 11th).

Sky marshals are occasionally discussed - but if people start exchanging fire on board, how robust is the aircraft ... (let alone PAX in the cross fire ...) Stun guns presumably lack range ...

My question is - are there any other viable ways to prevent an aircraft being taken over once the terrorists are on board ?.

Cockpit doors may not be much use if the cabin crew are going to be murdered any second unless you open up ...

What about rapidly decompressing the aircraft ?. Could it be done quickly enough to be of use ?. ("Knock out" gas in the Oxygen system is presumably only in Hollywood ...).

Some of this may seem a bit naive to more seasoned crew ... but all I'm suggesting is that more options for flight crew would be good ...

D 129

[Tripower455]

Nailclippers, or THE USS NIMITZ I could of got them both airside pre 9/11 .

You still can........ as long as you aren't a pilot or flight attendant......just get a job as a "trusted" employee (any employee save the pilots and flight attendants).

[Tripower455]

There are plenty of non lethal alternatives.

Name ONE.

[Tripower455]

We need to be about the business of making sure that you have the capability of throwing over command of your aircraft to a ground unit that will guide you onto a militarized airfield, where you'll be met by a well equipped and highly trained anti-terrorist team, and providing you with security onboard.

Why do that when it's easier and cheaper to just shoot us down.

Everyone on board will be dead long before the atc guy is able to land the aircraft anyway.

If the bad guys get in the cockpit, it is all over no matter what cockamamy stuff is installed.

[mriya225]

You know as well as I do, that if it comes to that--we will shoot you down.
I want to live in a society that has enough backbone to make tough decisions that prevent greater tragedies. But I don't ever want to live among people who'd casually order it, without first addressing every possibility for a more optimistic outcome.
The goal is for you to survive; the tragedy is that you may not.

I don't want us to become the moster--I want us to outwit him. If this idea is no better than the rest, in producing that effect--fine--we go back to the drawing board. I'm not married to any idea will not ultimtely contribute to your success.

[A310driver]

ALPA lost the battle 30 years ago when it did not object to aircrew security searches/security checks along with...and having the same status as...... the pax. Where is the Capatain's authority? There isn't any now: pilots are treated the same as the guys in the back of the bus and must take part of the blame for this situation.

However, now is the time to regain control of the ship. Captains should refuse to fly if there is not an armed crewmember IN the cockpit to protect it and its crew from the crazies.

CARPE DIEM!

[Wino]

Steamchicken,

My reply was to Paglia who in his post said that Europe has nothing to fear from Islamic terrorists other than walking near a US embassy when it explodes.

It was that silly statement that I was poking at. Yes I am quite aware that there are other terrorists other than Islamics terrorists.

Cheers
Wino

[Capt Claret]

Congratulations to MRIYA225 & AKAAB for particularly well presented and sane ideas.

skol & B Sousa

Your comments re r@gheads, Mohammeds & towel heads are offensive. They also show you to be as racist and lacking in understanding of different people's views or cultures as the fanatics who perpetrate events such as Sept 11. :mad:

[Intruder]

...and now we have to worry about unqualified "air marshals", too!

from Friday's USA Today front page


Air marshals' skills doubted
New hires allowed to fly without passing advanced firearms test

By Blake Morrison
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- The government has cut training for federal air marshal applicants and put new hires on flights without requiring the advanced marksmanship skills the program used to demand, USA TODAY has learned.

During a Senate hearing Tuesday, Transportation Security Administration head John Magaw cited the expertise of marshals in explaining his opposition to allowing pilots to carry guns. ''The use of firearms aboard a U.S. aircraft must be limited to those thoroughly trained members of law enforcement,'' he said.

But TSA officials acknowledged Thursday that they no longer require applicants to pass the more difficult shooting test that some argue was the program's critical requirement. The government considers the marshals, who
fly incognito, a critical deterrent to hijackings.

Current and former marshals say the advanced training helped prepare them to fire accurately in the close confines of passenger jets. They and others within the TSA say agency officials, under pressure to meet congressional deadlines for hiring, are lowering standards to get marshals aboard more flights quickly.

''Before Sept. 11, if you couldn't pass that test, you couldn't be an air marshal,'' a source with knowledge of the top-secret program said. ''That's how important it was.''

A senior TSA official disputed the characterizations and said that the agency has actually raised standards and enhanced training. Applicants still must pass a firearms proficiency test and will have to requalify more often than marshals did before Sept. 11. They'll also get ongoing training in intelligence, surveillance and the advanced marksmanship that used to be required to qualify.

Many come with skills their predecessors lacked, the official said. The entire training regimen ''goes far beyond what has ever been envisioned for this program,'' he said.

Supporters of the program have argued that any armed officer aboard a flight is better than none. But a source who works in the program calls the decision to no longer require the advanced marksmanship training a threat to passengers.

''It's pathetic,'' the source said. ''It's insecure and unsafe.''

The source estimated that as many as three-quarters of marshals deployed today were not required to pass the advanced marksmanship test. The source said that many of the proficient marshals are reluctant to team with marshals who haven't passed.

That test is timed and requires shooters to fire quickly at targets about 7 yards away. ''If you miss it by a tenth of a second, you flunk,'' a former marshal said. ''And if you miss the target by a quarter of an inch, you flunk.''

Before Sept. 11, fewer than 50 marshals provided protection on flights. Most flew overseas routes considered possible targets. While the program has grown, precisely how many marshals work aboard flights is classified. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta promised the Senate committee Tuesday that the agency ''will remain exactly on track with the targets'' for marshal staffing that it gave Congress in a closed meeting.

[Mooney]

I really can't believe the idea of arming pilots was ever a idea considered.

This isn't some kind of movie where the pilot leaps to his/her feet and saves the day by shooting some one dead.

It's the cabin crew who need BETTER training in security related areas.

Guns would PERHAPS protect aircraft from the "september 11th" style hi-jack. On the other hand gun's could aid hijackers who seek to detain passengers over numerous days. They are not the answer most of us would want.

We all have different ideas of preventing hi-jacking. But surely this crazy idea has to be left for the hollywood actors.

"Stun" guns of nature and restraint have to be the future.
The cabin crew MUST be the BEST line of defence, NOT the pilots.

Sadly pictures and statements like this don't help aviation security.
Swiss Airlines (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/239461/L/)

[West Coast]

Hollywood actors...

That is the last thing I am thinking about. I have no personal
desire to carry a weapon, its not a glamour thing. It is the last chance to stop terrorists before one of two things happens, they turn it into a cruise missle, or we get shot down. Cabin training is a great idea, as are LEO's. They add a layered defence against hijackers. You hope that they will never make it through the door, but you plan for the worst, and that they will. Sept11 was exceedingly effective, who is to say it won't be tried again.
Some here have said that they will be pulverized by the pax, look at the UA flight where they fought back against the bad guys, they crashed. While better to put it into an open field than a building, its not the desired outcome. Imagine being on a plane with a number of hijackers taking it over, bent on destruction. Sitting, watching as they break into the cockpit. You know your best chance is a flight deck that can fight back rather than giving up the plane once the door is breeched. As the hijackers go through the door, you now know your fate rests with the hijackers and/or some politician who is about to order the trailing fighter to shoot. That scenario may still come true with an armed pilot, but at least one more link in the chain to possibly stop it.
Every time you get on an air carrier aircraft, you are putting your life in our hands. You trust in our abilities to get you from A to B. Arming pilots is just an extends our ability to do so. As hazards to aviation are recognized, pilots adapt to new procedures, and welcome new equipment to overcome them. Be it CFIT, runway incursions or hijackings, give us the training and equipment to try to overcome.

[mriya225]

You know what annoys me about the Sky Marshall plan? Trust them to turn the program into this wierd FBI structured ordeal... Hell, we've got scads of time and money--let's just reinvent the friggin wheel while we're at it...

We have battle trained, equipped servicemen and women (both active duty and guard) that are sitting on base out of rotation (as in, not currently deployed) that are already being paid--stick them on a flight! We'll suit them up in formal dress (might as well take advantage of the good pr) and a knife big enough to hack through a steer's neck and let 'em ride...

The worst that can happen is that they'll be called up, in which case--they'd just end up moving through the system until they can rendezvous with their unit. What is so complicated about this? Do these people need a schematic, or what?!

[Skol]

Capt. Claret,
There's nothing like a debate like this that brings out the PC brigade quite as well. The terrorists, or murderers if you want to call them that, are muslims and see themselves doing God's work . While you might not agree with me that's the way I feel about them.
I've got my doubts about those on this site who call themselves CAPT, don't specify a licence and call themselves a "pillot" on their profile. Maybe it should be "pillock".
Are you sure you are not a mahogany bomber pilot?

[Capt. Crosswind]

I've said before- this serious thread has been hijacked by
non- aviators & the politically correct who will watch the horror unfold on CNN.
Those who are practicing aviators & peddling the anti-gun PC
line I say just this- I respect your right to be a conscientious objector in the war against terrorism-but in doing so you have abdicated your command responsibility towards your passengers & crew & I dispute your right to hold a command.

The very fact that the flight deck is fortified & armed will go a long way towards making a suicide hijack too difficult to attempt.
One terrorist organisation has stated " Why attack the tiger when there are plenty of sheep."
The fortified & armed flight deck makes it a tiger.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Captain Claret

skol & B Sousa

Your comments re r@gheads, Mohammeds & towel heads are offensive. They also show you to be as racist and lacking in understanding of different people's views or cultures as the fanatics who perpetrate events such as Sept 11.

Absolutely !! And appropriate measures taken ;)

[PPRuNe Radar]

Many thanks to B Sousa for accepting that his words could be misconstrued or seen as unacceptable. The user account has now been reopened.

It is also fully accepted by PPRuNe that his intention was not to be racist but only that his choice of words was perhaps not the best in the circumstances. Any inference that the user is or was acting in this manner has now been resolved and I am personally glad that this has been found to be the case.

[B Sousa]

Capt Claret

Sorry to offend you. Its been resolved I believe. I shall not say bad words about the folks We are at war with anymore...

[mriya225]

Our war and your bigotries are two separate things Bert.

[Roadtrip]

Despite the naivities of some posters on this board, I dare say there is a vast majority of arab muslims that either openly support, or tacitly condone the terrorists actions against the west. Even in the UK, Europe, and the US, there are many hotbeds of sympathizers like the Englishman who tried to murder all aboard the American flight out of Paris and the Frenchman who allegedly conspired with the 11 Sep gangs.

Don't kid yourself. This war isn't over and won't even start to be over until we in the west get out of our PC denial.

[mriya225]

B Sousa,
My last came off sounding a bit more harsh than I'd intended. I hate to see people using this war to advance their hateful agenda--but I don't know enough about you to know if that's an appropriate criticism, or if you're just too ticked to phrase yourself more logically... It happens.

Roadtrip,
I agree to some extent--there's no shortage of people who despise and revile America in the Mid-East (or Europe, Asia, Africa and South America for that matter). And believe me, I have no sympathy for a willingly propadandized mind. But, I think those nations that have free press should be taken to task for an unnecessarily critical bias long before we start slurring people who live in terribly oppressive environments--the kinds of places where expressing dissenting opinions has nasty consequences to your health.
In any case, I maintain that we can conduct a war without becoming the same brand of zealously hateful monsters that we're trying to contain.

[mriya225]

neutral99,
I'm afraid I'm going to need some clarification on some elements of your post, if you'd be so inclined:

Quote: "But do you ever pause to consider why some people might "support, or tacitly condone" SOME terrorists actions against the US?"

My answer to this one is an unqualified "No". I sympathize with people who're not at liberty to express their revulsion--but that's as far as my feeble understanding will carry me.
Maybe it would be helpful if you provided me with some examples of what you consider to be "acceptable" reasons to approve of, or condone, illigitimate warfare that intentionally targets defensless civilians.

Quote: "This WoT won't be over until the US reconsiders its policy in the Middle East, stops funding Israel's military and terrorist actions against the Arabs and takes a more even-handed approach to its crucial super-power role."

This is perplexing to me on a number of different levels...

You fail to mention the extensive U.S. funding throughout the region ( MidEast Foreign Assistance--pdf (http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/9190.pdf) ) principly to Egypt, Jordan and West Bank/Gaza; why is that? Is this information being factored into a comprehensive understanding of our fiscal obligations in the MidEast, or are you satisfied to focus exclusively on Israel?

And this issue, which has always confounded me...
I have yet to see one critic of our foreign policy where Israel's concerned acknowledge the ideological soundness of our continued support--given that they are the only democracy in the region. So, here we are--doing the very thing that people insist our foreign policy should be about, and yet it not only displeases you, but it is far and away the most contentious feature of our foreign policy. Would you care to address that glaring contradiction? And, furthermore, can you shed some light on why this criticism is supposed to compel us to betray an ally, given that virtually every other nation in the MidEast spends an inordinate amount of time spewing hatred not only towards Israel, but also towards the United States (including those that we assist financially)?

Unreal...

[B Sousa]

Mriya

ITs funny how fast We get off the topic. I think this originally had to do with Arming Pilots in the Cockpit.... Probably about time to kill this thread and take it all to Jet Blast....

I take it your a Pilot?? Your position on being armed in the Cockpit??

[Wino]

Neutral99

Can we have ONE thread without your anti Israel bigotry rearing its head. We all know you are anti Isreal... Nothing like lies and veiled threats of Israeli terrorism in the US to prove that. Start another thread in Jetblast if you want to tell lies about Israel, I will be happy to respond there.

And for the record it was NOT ME WHO BROUGHT THIS UP, I AM TRYING TO GET BACK TO THE THREAD.

Now back to the thread

The pilots should be armed.

Cheers
Wino

[mriya225]

B Sousa,
My not being a pilot doesn't mean that misfortune won't find us facing the same fate on an airliner one day...

Wino,
Now back to the thread

The pilots should be armed.

[John McLaughlin impression]Wrong. Pilots will not be armed, now or in the near future.[/John McLaughlin impression] :p

[Capt. Crosswind]

Suggest non aviators should not clutter up the thread & leave operational matters to those in the front line.

[Orca strait]

mriya225 -

I like the "we" in A-T Team. Wink wink, nudge nudge, you lads lay down in the pointy end and we'll try not to take you out when we storm the aircraft.

When the A-T Team arrives at the aircraft all previous measures (policy, intelligence, security and prevention) have failed. It is akin to practicing medicine by rejecting prevention and going straight to amputation.

For the non-aviators, there are many in the pointy end of the aircraft that had, and have, many more qualifications and responsibilities than just flying the aircraft, some of it highly classified.

Well said by West Coast: Every time you get on an air carrier aircraft, you are putting your life in our hands. You trust in our abilities to get you from A to B. Arming pilots is just an extends our ability to do so. As hazards to aviation are recognized, pilots adapt to new procedures, and welcome new equipment to overcome them. Be it CFIT, runway incursions or hijackings, give us the training and equipment to try to overcome.

There are many tools in our toolbox and we must continually update and upgrade our tools and our skills, whether it is keeping a mountain from penetrating your windscreen to preventing some crazy barging into the flight deck (cockpit).

By the way mriya, some excellent political observations and comments.

Cheers
-----------------------------------

[Capt. Crosswind]

Neutral99
My post was not directed at you 99,but at previous submissions.
You posted your comment while I was typing my post , so I came in after your post. Please accept my apology for seeming to complain about your cluttering the thread which you certainly have not done.

New Subject:
How's this for a typical example of the bureaucratic wiseass, taken from the recent hearings on the 9/11 tragedy.

Senator George Allen (R) Va. " If they had firearms,if they had a pistol to defend themselves or their plane,would that have made a difference ?"

John Magraw. Transportation Security Under Secretary
(who unilaterally has made the decision that pilots should not be armed & is trying to tin plate his ass as all bureaucrats do)

"Well it may have,but that's a lot different today than it was then"
??????????????????????
Ah - Say again all after 'Well' ?

And that, fellow Pruners, is the argument for not arming the flight deck!?

[GrandPrix]

Been earning a living for the last 3 days and still not one viable alternative to an armed cockpit.
Lots of diversionary fluff from the likes of Mriya, but no solutions.

[I. M. Esperto]

No-draw Magaw

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 27, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern



By Joseph Farah



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

With a stroke of the pen, one un-elected and unaccountable federal bureaucrat – whose name may not be familiar to you – recently ruled that airline pilots may not keep firearms in their cockpits.

His name is John Magaw, or, as I call him, "No-Draw Magaw."

Magaw's newest job is Transportation Security Administration director.

Last week, Magaw told the U.S. Senate that pilots don't need guns. He told the Senate pilots would be better off concentrating on flying their planes. He told the Senate he is considering allowing pilots to carry stun guns or collapsible metal batons.

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., asked the obvious question about how the tragic and devastating events of Sept. 11 might have been recast without such restrictions imposed on responsible airline pilots, most of whom are trained in the military.

"If they had firearms, if they had a pistol to defend themselves or their plane, would that have made a difference?"

Here is the incomprehensible, elusive, nonsensical response from Magaw: "Well it may have, but that's a lot different today than it was then."

Hello? Earth to No-Draw: Don't the American people deserve a slightly better explanation than that? Don't the victims of Sept. 11 deserve a slightly more thoughtful response? Don't the families of those victims in both the planes and the buildings deserve some straight talk?

Let me tell you a little more about No-Draw Magaw and his career path to what has become a critically important post in this security-conscious age of international terrorism.

On April 19, 1995, Magaw was director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. You may remember that date in history. It was the day the Oklahoma City federal building was bombed.

"I was very concerned about that day and issued memos to all our field offices," Magaw explained. "They were put on the alert."

As a result of that alert, no ATF field agents in the Murrah Building were killed or injured – even though they were the apparent target of the bombing. No one else in the building got any warning, so 168 men, women and children were killed. But no ATF agent got a scratch. Magaw did a great job of protecting his own that day, but he didn't do much to protect innocent civilians.

The next time I heard about John Magaw was a year later. In 1996, Congress passed a contemptible piece of legislation known as the "Gun Free Zones Act." It created a 1,000-foot "gun-free" zone around every school in America – thus ensuring the Columbines to come.

But No-Draw Magaw, still the ATF director, interpreted this law in an amazingly broad fashion – one that betrayed his persona as a gun-grabbing activist rather than a responsible public official serving the best interest of the taxpayers and under the authority of the U.S. Constitution.

Magaw expressed the opinion in writing to at least one member of Congress that "schools," in the case of the "Gun Free Zones Act," included "home schools" that are operated under state law. In other words, Magaw decided it was against the law for home-schooling families to own guns and equally illegal for gun-owners to home-school.

That wasn't the end of the No-Draw Magaw saga. In 1999, President Clinton appointed Magaw to another powerful and sensitive position – coordinating domestic terrorism efforts for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In other words, No-Draw was instrumental in planning national policy to prevent terrorism two years prior to the biggest terrorist assault in world history.

We know now, of course, that Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts were all devoted to rooting out an imaginary threat from Christian, right-wing, anti-government militia types. Islamist threats were systematically overlooked.

Why did Magaw keep getting these big jobs during the Clinton administration? No-Draw was a favorite of the former president. Before getting the job at BATF, he served as director of Clinton's Secret Service. Imagine the secrets such a man will take to the grave.

Of course, that may explain why he got such posts during the Clinton years. What else explains his continued prominence as a virtual dictator of command-and-control-style national security policy during the Bush administration?

Americans may elect new members of Congress. They may elect new presidents. But they can never, it seems, change the names and faces of the permanent federal bureaucracy, which, ultimately has more negative impact on our rights and liberties than all three of the supposedly accountable branches of government combined.

That's the sad state of American self-government today. As many as 95 percent of Americans may back the common-sense idea of guns in the cockpit, but the permanent government can simply flout the will of the people.

[Orca strait]

No Draw Magaw sound like a star candidate for the ever career sensitive Washington FBI Directors job...:rolleyes:

[Orca strait]

People who carry guns in the performance of their duty:
* Agriculture inspectors.
* School Trustees.
* Armoured Car / Transport Guards.
* Bank / Institution Guards.
* Doorman at select Night Clubs.
* Etc.

Pilots? Craziest idea I’ve ever heard, they can’t be trained and apparently they have nothing of value to protect…

By the way, the first two are considered LEO’s and can carry their weapons on board a commercial airliner.

Here’s a previous post of mine that you may find informative:

Here’s a Canadian perspective (and these are Federal Statutes).
Criminal Code Chapter C-46. In This Act, "peace officer includes" (f) the pilot in command of an aircraft while the aircraft is in flight. It further defines in-flight as: (8) For the purposes of this section, of the definition "peace officer" in section 2 and of sections 76 and 77, "flight" means the act of flying or moving through the air and an aircraft shall be deemed to be in flight from the time when all external doors are closed following the embarkation until the later of: (a) the time at which any such door is opened for the purpose of disembarkation* The Aeronautics Act, Chapter A-2 stated: "pilot-in-command" means, in relation to an aircraft, the pilot having responsibility and authority for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time. *

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

[Wino]

Neutral 99

I know of no such cases where the Israelis have pretended to be the otherside and carried out a terrorist attack, furthermore I certainly know of no case where they have committed terrorist attacks against the USA, like you infer. Just proves you are reading that Arab propaganda hook line and sinker like those obscene claims that 5000 jews didn't show up for work in the WTC. We all know its lies. To bad you don't. Even further too bad that you can't stay on thread.

PILOTS SHOULD BE ARMED.
Comment on that please Neutral 99 as that is the tread.

Cheers
Wino

[Delboy]

Alternatives to the arming of pilots range from improving security on the ground to unarmed combat and initiating an aerobatic sequence. Aeros in a 747 at 33000 feet sounds decidedly risky. Unarmed combat is best left to the SAS. I don't know whether the advocates of better airport security have yet realised, but all the publicity about security from our various governments is not to make our skies safer, but to mollify the travelling public. They like to think that something is being done and our politicians will not disappoint them.
The reality is that now all our nailclippers have been taken off us, the only people on the aeroplane with any weapons are the terrorists. Nice to see our governments making someone's job safer, even if it is not ours. Wouldn't want to see a terrorist being attacked by some nailclipper wielding
granny.
An organisation with the resources of Al Queda would have no difficulty fashioning weapons that could pass through security in the spines of briefcases. The next phase will be to ban all hand baggage. Once the terrorist has pulled his kevlar knife out of the lapel of his suit, we will then have to walk through security in the buff. Eventually, the simple straightforward answer will look so obvious. We shall arm the flight deck. Why didn't we think of that before we lost another couple of hulls to terrorist action?
The PC brigade are going to kill more of us with their blinkered views. Keep it simple. Give me a gun.
Incidentally, I am a European, or more accurately, a Brit.

[steamchicken]

hmmm...this "worldnetdaily" lot sound really objective and entirely unbiased...

[Orca strait]

steamchicken-

Hmmm... a wannabee with full comprehension of what it takes to gain and retain the commanders chair of an airliner...

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

[mriya225]

RE: Capt. Crosswind
Suggest non aviators should not clutter up the thread & leave operational matters to those in the front line.
Man, am I glad I don't have that obectionable nerve in my teeth.

Perhaps it's slipped that vise-like grip you've got on perspective...
Of the 276 people that perished aboard aircraft on 9/11 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34223,00.html): 8 of them were pilots, 25 of them were cabin crew, and the remaining 243 were passengers.

And, if you'll recall: The only people that demonstrated any potential for interfering with the plan to use aircraft as weapons of mass destruction on that terrible morning, they weren't in the cockpit.
If I believed that there was even the smallest degree of intelligence in arming anyone on that aircraft--it sure as hell wouldn't be you--it would be your cabin crew.

The number of casualties was over tenfold higher because those aircraft were used as weapons of destruction that morning--and God only knows how many more would have died, if 93 had found its target.

Please excuse the intrusion of reason. I'll leave you boys to play this ridiculous, ego-gratifying game of "tough guy". Bleeech.

[Orca strait]

Mriya-
You are your own best argument. Your words are great and many but you have yet to present a viable alternative.

As far as ego's go: You know as well as I do, that if it comes to that--we will shoot you down.

Who's "we"?

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

[I. M. Esperto]

Orca - Thanks for the examples.

[Wino]

From your post.

As I've no doubt the US administration is all too well aware, standing up for the Palestinians againt Israel's bullying could well lead to a dramatic and lethal increase in attacks against the US apparently carried out by Palestinians.

You seam to claim that Israel will attack the US and pretend to be palestinian. Maybe you should read your own posts...

Cheers
Wino

[Capt. Crosswind]

It might be useful to define what is meant by the above.

*Closed circuit video covering the cabin.
*Double door flight deck access - that is, a system which limits access to one person at a time & the second door can't open until the first door is closed.
*Both pilots armed with revolvers firing frangible rounds

Airport Security
The usual system tightened up and with full CAPPS capability,viz., racial & nationality profiling

With the above in place it makes a suicide hijack as close to impossible as we can get.

I believe the Airline Passengers Association has demanded that
pilots be armed , and the Anti Gun lobby are happy with this also.
It's the rear echelon bureaucrats that living in Disney Land on this issue.

[Capt. Crosswind]

Mriya225

My comment related to the arguments against the arming of pilots & not to the sub threads such as the geopolitical aspects of the War against Terrorism etc.
I would not be so churlish as to dispute your right to voice an opinion on these matters. (See my apology to Neutral99)
However,unhelpfull arguments in the negative, such as 'pilots shooting themselves by accident',& your statement without any qualification that "pilots will never be armed" cross the line where your rights end and an Aircraft Commanders rights & responsibilities begin, responsibilities laid down in legislation,( not that bureaucrats like J.Magraw appear to understand this.) You now buy into the area of command responsibility & my suggestion was/is that this is reserved for those who are so qualified.
For that minority of the qualified who make statements like "no guns in my cockpit " they have abdicated their responsibilty & should not have command of a balloon on a string.

Read the posting by Orca on the people who are armed in the performance of their duty & reflect on what is at stake here.

As for the action of the aircrew on 9/11, they did as they were trained to do in a hijack -" go along with the demands & when you get on the ground it will be negotiated to as safe a conclusion as possible." We now know this is not the way to handle a WW III hijack, it is now a matter of having superior security & firepower.

[I. M. Esperto]

Neutral - The Lavon Affair was a classic case of this.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lavon.html

Also, the attack on the USS LIBERTY was supposed to be blamed on Egypt, but the ship just wouldn't sink and there were eyewitness to this one. The men who went overboard in rafts were killed by strafing.

We responded with Billion$ in aid.

The OD is a friend of mine, Jim Ennes.

[Lowlight]

Hey guys, Mriya225 sent me over to shed a little light on your request to be armed...

I have a minute or two of background in weapons so put up with this for a second.

Question, what weapon would you like to use? 9mm, 45, 22? Basically you would have to re-work the round to be used in an aircraft. Last images I saw of Federal Air Marshals training used a Sig 9mm, bad choice, your going through the person and into the airframe. The 22 or 45 is all you have and then your only getting so many rounds or at least no first round stopping power. We can't even talk Glaser Safety slugs, designed to penetrate first, expand second. Sub sonic loads, who's going to make them? United Mechanics, sure after the government signs on Remington, or Federal will probably love the contract, thats after some R&D to be sure they don't get sued for jams, malfunctions, or loss of life. Someone will start an Armory Union to outfit you guys, take care of the weapons and ammo. Fragable rounds don't break up when you want them too.

Next, who is going to carry it and where? The Pilot? Left seat, so your also left handed right, because your facing the wrong way and have about 3 seconds to react, so if it was me, I would put the round through my own right shoulder to hit the target in time. So you're probably just giving the gun to the extremely & overly trained hijacker... let's not forget there is going to be about 4 to 5 guys you need to stop. The right round to maybe not penetrate the person and plane more than likely won't cycle the pistol action, so wheel gun or manual, (only 6 rounds max in wheel?) Word on their training, they were only trained by US, English and Russian Special Forces, in places like Fort Bragg, Scotland, and Ukraine, so these guys know what they are doing. This isn't just a last minute idea by a group of extremist.

Then we have to be able to take out at least 4 guys, probably deal with a dead passenger, fly, and live to regret it. Does anyone know how many rounds Police Officers put into the ground during a surprise shooting? 3, a minimum of 3 rounds are going into the ground during a shooting and usually they empty the magazine, that is fact not conjecture. So can you pull the pistol out, compose yourself and fire effectively? (facing the wrong way) I am not sure I could, I actually would feel a bit helpless in that seat... even with a pistol, I bet I start seeing ghosts, jumping at every sound, and touching my piece more often then people would like... Distracting these toys can be.

Best chance I see is locking yourself in the cockpit, and listening to people getting executed behind the door, trying to get you to open it, not a job I want. Another question, your locked in there, you have pistol, 4 guys have your crew and a passengers by the throat and want you out... They already killed two, people are screaming, and you decide to open the door not knowing what you will find on the other side? You step out and two guys with women start to move towards you with their head behind the person, (they don't have to see, they can watch the ground) and as the get closer they throw the first woman at you, jump on top and wrestle the pistol away or do you shoot the women? This is a viable scenerio, try for a leg shot? Go through the floor, what below the aircraft baggage or avionics? Now with that wheel gun you only have 6 rounds, can both armed guys leave the cockpit and attend the problem?

Here is a scene, you're standing in the door, passengers are entering the plane, your wearing the gun, I come on last, hit you and take it, then because I can fly take off without you? Maybe? Guy in court took a weapon off someone today, so it can happen. I don't know too many variables you can't control. A pistol is not the answer, we had a saying in the Marine Corps, "Good to be hard, hard to be smart".

You're better off enlisting the Military to make flights a new duty station and sticking more than one guy on a flight, might be good work. They are already trained, paid and available to work.

Solutions?

[mriya225]

Capt. Crosswind,
My apologies for having expressed my visceral indignation, with so little patience. My statement with regard to "pilots never being armed" was meant to be interpreted as a light-hearted ribbing (which is why I specified that it was an impression of John McLaughlin--to call up the image of his grumpy, dogmatic wrapup of segments) in response to Wino's statement, when trying to get the thread back on track.

Gents,
I had hoped I might be able to talk you out of this idea--but, I genuinely appreciate your motives for being adamently in favor of it.

I sent Lowlight over because he's a former USMC scout/sniper and an expert with firearms; I figure:
If you absolutely insist on going this route--the least I can do is introduce you to someone who knows exactly what he's doing, and can guide you through the process of having a realistic idea of tactical impediments and getting the kinds of equipment that will reduce the opportunity for disasterous consequences.

This'll require some pretty special considerations--so, fortheloveofgod, take advantage of this opportunity to pick his brain.

[18-Wheeler]

As I wrote a couple of times before when all this started, we're pilots and we fly planes - we don't kill people for a living.

[GrandPrix]

Mriya,
So for the ump-teenth time, what is your viable solution?
I can come up with an equal number of scenarios that defend my position of having an armed cockpit.
I guess we just have to sit there in our paper mache vault, pee in our shorts and hope the end is quick and painless when the F-teen puts a sidewinder up our colllective arse.

[Lowlight]

I can understand you all wanting to flash some teeth with that smile, but pistols = problems, more than a viable solution.

See no 4 hour course is going to prepare you to deal with a group dedicated to inflicting damage to that aircraft. These guys are just too well trained and ready to give their life for the their cause. I figure given the situation, 3 to 5 men intent on taking over the aircraft, possibly wired will take a minimum of two men per target to immobilize the threat, in less than 10 seconds, that is alot of shootin, and twice as much movin than you have room on any plane. No free world anti-terrorist team would execute that without at least 8-10 guys, even if the plane was parked.

Solution, someone said, superior firepower, more like superior manpower, these guys may not be armed with pistols, but they are armed, so you have to move and clear in tandem down 2 ailses together that is just how it works. The cockpit is too small, no ones reaction could be quick enough and at least one man must fire from the weak side. (providing you both don't move at the same time knocking each other out of the way) Any firearm you use must be strong enough for a single round solution, are you willing to fire that same round at the window or instrustment panel from you seat? That is where you most likely to accidently squeeze off a rushed shot...

My thoughts, panic buttons for the cabin crew, and electronic locks on the doors. The flight crew will have to deal with the after effects that you can't stop the threat but may be able to land the plane? Hopefully the government find it unnecessary to shove a missile up your tailpipe, though a missile might be more merciful? Suppose you get pistols, the bad guys know this because the PR machine wants to shout it from the rooftops and they begin to train to work your own egos and training against you, these guys do their homework and are betting on you going soft. May take years, but over those years you begin to think the pistols worked and all is well... Surprise!

I think men in black on planes, more than one, less than five, rotating tours of duty, young hard chargers from the military. The Airlines want government help, government money, well now protect my investment in that flight.

[Tripower455]

I have a minute or two of background in weapons so put up with this for a second.

I believe that this statement is accurate.......

Question, what weapon would you like to use? 9mm, 45, 22?

Personally, a .45 (Glock 30) with a lasermax integral laser sight loaded with Glaser safety slugs would be my first choice.

Basically you would have to re-work the round to be used in an aircraft. Last images I saw of Federal Air Marshals training used a Sig 9mm, bad choice, your going through the person and into the airframe.

G-L-A-S-E-R..........

The 22 or 45 is all you have and then your only getting so many rounds or at least no first round stopping power.

Uhhh, there are many caliber choices in the effective working handgun field, but .22 is not one of them. My ultracompact Glock 27 (which is .40 S&W caliber) holds 9+1. My not quite as compact Glock 30 (.45 ACP) holds 10+1. Either one of these would be a good choice from both a stopping power and capacity standpoint.

We can't even talk Glaser Safety slugs, designed to penetrate first, expand second.

Why not?

Sub sonic loads, who's going to make them?

Well, most .45 loads ARE subsonic anyway, but what does that matter?

United Mechanics, sure after the government signs on Remington, or Federal will probably love the contract, thats after some R&D to be sure they don't get sued for jams, malfunctions, or loss of life.

You're rambling there sparky..........

Someone will start an Armory Union to outfit you guys, take care of the weapons and ammo.

I'll take care of my own weapons, thank you......

Fragable rounds don't break up when you want them too.

And terrorists don't follow TSA security directives......

Next, who is going to carry it and where? The Pilot? Left seat, so your also left handed right, because your facing the wrong way and have about 3 seconds to react, so if it was me, I would put the round through my own right shoulder to hit the target in time.

Shooting yourself in the shoulder? PAHLEEEZE! Weak hand shooting is not that hard. This is not bullseye competition at Camp Perry. This is last ditch defense of the cockpit. Sitting there and asking the bad guys to politely leave will not work......

So you're probably just giving the gun to the extremely & overly trained hijacker... let's not forget there is going to be about 4 to 5 guys you need to stop.

And without a firearm, you propose to stop them how? Even if you are struggling with the bad guy while seated, you have infinitely better chances of surviving with a fiream than with nothing.

The right round to maybe not penetrate the person and plane more than likely won't cycle the pistol action, so wheel gun or manual, (only 6 rounds max in wheel?) Let me repeat G-L-A-S-E-R....... Plenty of stopping power and will most likely NOT penetrate the hull.....not that I am overly worried about hitting a hydraulic, electric or fuel line. If the bad guys are in the cockpit, and I somehow manage to overcome them, I will GLADLY deal with a loss of "A" system. As far as merely puncturing the fuselage goes, a .45 makes a hole of 11.25 mm. Given the choice, (which I am not) I'll take a SLOW pressurization leak over a slit throat any day.......

Word on their training, they were only trained by US, English and Russian Special Forces, in places like Fort Bragg, Scotland, and Ukraine, so these guys know what they are doing. This isn't just a last minute idea by a group of extremist.

So we are better off fighting these highly trained individuals with our bare hands?

Then we have to be able to take out at least 4 guys, probably deal with a dead passenger, fly, and live to regret it.

I can deal with that.........I may regret it, but at least I'll be alive to do so! Without a firearm, how does one "take out" 4, presumably trained guys?

Does anyone know how many rounds Police Officers put into the ground during a surprise shooting? 3, a minimum of 3 rounds are going into the ground during a shooting and usually they empty the magazine, that is fact not conjecture.

Please support your conjecture regarding the minimum number of rounds that a police officer is required to fire into the ground.....

So can you pull the pistol out, compose yourself and fire effectively? (facing the wrong way)

Yes.

I am not sure I could, I actually would feel a bit helpless in that seat... even with a pistol, I bet I start seeing ghosts, jumping at every sound, and touching my piece more often then people would like... Distracting these toys can be.

In this case, I suggest that you not choose to be armed, as you will be a danger to yourself as well as others.......

Best chance I see is locking yourself in the cockpit, and listening to people getting executed behind the door, trying to get you to open it, not a job I want.

Well, we can lock the paper mache door, but I doubt that we will have to listen to people being executed for very long, since most "goal oriented" or "suicidal" hijackers really want to be in the cockpit and will force their way in rather quickly.

Another question, your locked in there, you have pistol, 4 guys have your crew and a passengers by the throat and want you out... They already killed two, people are screaming, and you decide to open the door not knowing what you will find on the other side?

This is the perfect time to NOT open the door. As long as they are behind it, I can continue to fly the plane. It's when they get in that there is a problem.

You step out and two guys with women start to move towards you with their head behind the person, (they don't have to see, they can watch the ground) and as the get closer they throw the first woman at you, jump on top and wrestle the pistol away or do you shoot the women?

You don't leave the cockpit in the first place.

This is a viable scenerio, try for a leg shot?

It's only viable if you leave the cockpit, which is NOT viable......

Go through the floor, what below the aircraft baggage or avionics? Now with that wheel gun you only have 6 rounds, can both armed guys leave the cockpit and attend the problem?

You don't leave the cockpit in this situation. (dot. end.) Besides, if it comes to down to it, I really don't care if there are a few extra holes in the baggage. Unarmed, the baggage, along with the airplane and everyone in it, will be reduced to it's basic atomic elements when it hits the building.

Here is a scene, you're standing in the door, passengers are entering the plane, your wearing the gun, I come on last, hit you and take it, then because I can fly take off without you?

I see, you're going to close the door, have the ground crew push back the aircraft, start the engines, taxi out to a runway, take off, navigate to the nearest skyscraper or nuclear powert plant and crash the airplane into it without any of the passenger, ground crew, copilot, flight attendants, ground ops folks etc. etc. etc. stopping you? Pahleeze.........

Maybe?

maybe not......

Guy in court took a weapon off someone today, so it can happen.

It can happen to a sky marshall, FBI agent, SS agant, USDA chicken inspector, postal inspector, department of education person , dea agent (all of which are allowed to carry guns on MY airplane.....) as well, and they are IN the cabin.

I don't know too many variables you can't control.

Me either, that's why I want to be armed......

A pistol is not the answer, we had a saying in the Marine Corps, "Good to be hard, hard to be smart".

Actually, a pistol IS the answer, and your second statement is very true.......

You're better off enlisting the Military to make flights a new duty station

Oh, I forgot to list military personell in the list of people that can be disarmed.

and sticking more than one guy on a flight, might be good work. They are already trained, paid and available to work.

Well, there's an idea.........isn't that what the sky marshalls do? The entire sky marshall situation begs the question. The pilots are killed, but the marshalls are able to dispatch the hijackers. Who flies the plane?

Solutions?

Yes....... http://www.glock.com/g30.htm

[18-Wheeler]

Lowlight, don't bother arguing with Tripower455 as no matter what common sense solution you may come up with, unless it's got a bloody big gun pointing at the bad guys he just won't listen and will twist everything around to suit himself.
Never mind that you're a professional, that won't count for a thing.
As a friend of mine said once, "Never have a battle of wits with an un-armed man, they'll beat you with experienec every time".
QED.

[Dale Harris]

Nobody said everyone had to be armed. It should be a matter of choice. That also makes the anti's happy too as they don't have to participate, they can wait for the sidewinder. If you don't want to go through some training and HAVE THE CHOICE, you don't have to. If you are prepared to do the yards, why should you not HAVE THE CHOICE? I think some here are missing the point. If I had the choice between the sidewinder and the ability to defend myself, then I WILL go down fighting. All I would ask is that I have the tools to make it at least a possibility. The advantage of some flights being armed and some not has the added advantage of making the choices for hijackers somewhat more difficult, doesn't it? Of course, if someone HAS found that mystical all answering solution that is "less than lethal" and works, well, we are all still waiting to hear about it. Please?????

[Delboy]

So, Lowlight, which Islamic terrorists do you know of who were trained by British, Russian or US special forces? It is more likely that their training was carried out in the deserts of Lybia or Palestine.
And as has been said before; the viable alternative to dying at the hands of suicidal terrorists is................
Saying, "No guns on my flightdeck" is easy to say from the comfort of your armchair. When the terrorist has pulled the sharp implement from the spine of his briefcase and stuck it in your ear, with what will you confront him; reasoned argument?

[Lowlight]

I can list a dozen or so terrorist, but Rahamutallah Safi, was trained by Russian Spetznaz in 60's, USA AND CIA at Bragg, Peary, & Pickett in 80's and Brit Regiments after (Scotland). We also trained Tibetan Rebels in Colorado, Trained others in US, Yousaf, Sayyad, Etc... Common knowlwedge these guys were brought over. We even have a US school dedicated to training South Americans... Just like we are training in Georgia, Philippines, and Yemen.

We gave 45 mil a year in training to Afghan Rebels from 7 Factions, 4 or which were "extremist".

Read "Fighting Dirty" 600+ of covert operations training.

Glaser's penetrate first, sorry will cut bulkhead up. Subsonic yes, still powerful enough to break something BIG. If you feel they are safe, take off alone, and shoot inside the plane then call me.

Question, Bulletproof vests set off metal detectors, yes or no?

A gun only protects the man carrying it, your locked in the cockpit with you gun, plane lands and crew is dead but you live, "survior guilt" anyone... Besides don't you guys have Axes already near your seats? Weak side shooting easy to teach? OK, then don't use it for a year and tell me how it goes... Who is paying for the class, who is paying for the Glocks? Ariline, or Pilot?

I will get the reports on PO, bottom line: 3 rounds aren't required to go into the ground, it is where the end up from the excitment, hand goes on pistol, finger on trigger, rounds start to fly out as they draw, called stress...

The systems needs a bunch of overhaul, but if I know your armed, I will play up to that, all I need is disrupt security, disurpt normal flight activity and get you to make 1 mistake and I set all this back 20 years, publc will turn on you, turn on Airline and turn on everyone else for arming you. The day you get armed I work towards that, may take 2 years but I work on nothing but that scenerio.

Don't get me wrong if I was flying I want a gun too, but not for any other reason but a greedy, personal, self satistifying reason, hardly as noble as protecting the plane or passengers.

Paper mache doors, get new doors, better locks along with electronic bolt locks that work off panic button, then you don't need a gun if you not exiting the cockpit.

we can go back and forth, but with looking at the total cross section of pilots, the average level of training, the training necessary to bring all up to speed and stay there, the point is lost. Effort vs Risk vs Reward, and I think the math is in Effort vs Risk's favor.

How much is a Sky Marshal paid vs a Military Soldier, Sailor or Marine? Which has large numbers, is cost effective, and can be rotated in and out before getting complacient? Plus changes the face in the seat, how about that for an unknown variable vs Solution, may not even have to overly arm them, thought alone would deter, especially if you were unsure how many guys on any given flight...

[Tripower455]

Lowlight, don't bother arguing with Tripower455 as no matter what common sense solution you may come up with, unless it's got a bloody big gun pointing at the bad guys he just won't listen and will twist everything around to suit himself.

What common sense solution has low light come up with???????

Or you for that matter.

18 Wheeler, refute ONE statement I have made on this issue with FACTS...... all we get out of you is generally smarmy one liners filled with innuendo and little logic.


Never mind that you're a professional, that won't count for a thing.

Professional WHAT? I suppose the fact that I am also a professional doesn't count with you either........... The difference between he and I is that I actually have expertise in both defensive firearms AND over 10,000 hours sitting in the cockpit of airliners.


As a friend of mine said once, "Never have a battle of wits with an un-armed man, they'll beat you with experienec every time".
QED.

I am learning that every day here on pprune...........

[18-Wheeler]

"What common sense solution has low light come up with???????

Or you for that matter."

They have been posted here by many people, hpwever you choose to ignore them for the very reasons I wrote above.



"Professional WHAT"

That's written above, I assumed that you could read. But you continue to prove otherwise.
There is no point in responding further to you, as you will no doubt continue to twist things to suit yourself.
You are an embarrasment to the trade and I seriously doubt your ability to command any aircraft.

[Tripower455]

I can list a dozen or so terrorist, but Rahamutallah Safi, was trained by Russian Spetznaz in 60's, USA AND CIA at Bragg, Peary, & Pickett in 80's and Brit Regiments after (Scotland). We also trained Tibetan Rebels in Colorado, Trained others in US, Yousaf, Sayyad, Etc... Common knowlwedge these guys were brought over. We even have a US school dedicated to training South Americans... Just like we are training in Georgia, Philippines, and Yemen.

We gave 45 mil a year in training to Afghan Rebels from 7 Factions, 4 or which were "extremist".


So, your solution is to sit there and try to fight these highly trained guys off with the crash axe and fire extinguisher?


Glaser's penetrate first, sorry will cut bulkhead up. Subsonic yes, still powerful enough to break something BIG. If you feel they are safe, take off alone, and shoot inside the plane then call me.

What can one possibly hit in the aircraft that will do as much damage as a sidewinder or building. How much energy will the fragments of the slug have after penetrating a bulkhead? A lot less than the aircraft will when it hits something hard.


Question, Bulletproof vests set off metal detectors, yes or no?

Since they generally aren't made of metal, I don't think that they would set off metal detectors.........

A gun only protects the man carrying it, your locked in the cockpit with you gun, plane lands and crew is dead but you live, "survior guilt" anyone...

The key word in this sentance is "survivor". If I was able to land the aircraft, then the aircraft was not used as a weapon. This is the entire reason for arming pilots. To prevent the wrong folks from taking control of the airplane. If the gun protects me, and I am able to continue flying the aircraft, hasn't it also protected thousands of office workers?

Besides don't you guys have Axes already near your seats?

This is as/more effective than a firearm while sitting in a confined space with the attackers behind you?

Weak side shooting easy to teach? OK, then don't use it for a year and tell me how it goes...

Actually, weak side shooting is easier to teach than hand to hand combat with highly trained individuals in a confined space. I routinely practice weak hand shooting during training with the local police (I volunteer to be the bad guy. Simunition HURTS, so I try not to get hit too often.......)

Who is paying for the class, who is paying for the Glocks? Ariline, or Pilot?

The way the DOJ proposed it, we would be trained at Quantico with a 2 week course, courtesy of Uncle Sam, and the weapons issued at the successful completion of the course.

I would be happy to provide my own weapon and pay for the training myself given the opportunity.


I will get the reports on PO, bottom line: 3 rounds aren't required to go into the ground, it is where the end up from the excitment, hand goes on pistol, finger on trigger, rounds start to fly out as they draw, called stress...

I am quite familiar with stress. A trainable situation. Much like an engine fire/V-1 cut/loss of all generators etc etc etc........

The systems needs a bunch of overhaul, but if I know your armed, I will play up to that, all I need is disrupt security, disurpt normal flight activity and get you to make 1 mistake and I set all this back 20 years, publc will turn on you, turn on Airline and turn on everyone else for arming you.

I totally agree with you about the system needing overhaul. I'd LOVE for you to "set all this back 20 years"! Back then, all hijackers wanted was to go to Cuba.......and pilots were allowed to carry guns as well as swiss army knives.

The day you get armed I work towards that, may take 2 years but I work on nothing but that scenerio.

2 years is better than the 5 minutes it'd take right now for you to take the airplane.........

et me wrong if I was flying I want a gun too, but not for any other reason but a greedy, personal, self satistifying reason, hardly as noble as protecting the plane or passengers.

Well, if you're that shallow and can't see the logic in arming yourself as a last ditch measure before EVERYONE on the airplane dies (as well as anyone hit on the ground) then I suggest that you choose not to.

paper mache doors, get new doors, better locks along with electronic bolt locks that work off panic button, then you don't need a gun if you not exiting the cockpit.

I agree about reinforcing the door, but any door can be breached. The reinforced door will take a little longer. It would give us time to divert as well as defend the cockpit.

we can go back and forth, but with looking at the total cross section of pilots, the average level of training, the training necessary to bring all up to speed and stay there, the point is lost. Effort vs Risk vs Reward, and I think the math is in Effort vs Risk's favor.

I disagree. Very few professions require the judgement or training that flying an airliner does. Any pilot that thinks he can't be trained to safely carry a firearm on duty should seriously reconsider his profession. Relatively small effort, little or no risk and very large reward if a hijacking is averted.

How much is a Sky Marshal paid vs a Military Soldier, Sailor or Marine? Which has large numbers, is cost effective, and can be rotated in and out before getting complacient?

Other than the cost issue, I don't see much difference between using military folks and the sky marshalls. Both are/would be in the cabin which increases the risk of the terrorist gaining a firearm.

Plus changes the face in the seat, how about that for an unknown variable vs Solution, may not even have to overly arm them, thought alone would deter, especially if you were unsure how many guys on any given flight...

I can't argue with you there, especially on the "overly arm" part. Imho, firearms in the cabin pose a much greater risk than on the flight deck, regardless of whose got them. The entire armed LEO situation is ripe for the picking from a tango's perspective. We are worried that some guy is going to (or has) impersonated a pilot, yet we let every Podunk PD guy with an easily forged ID, even easier to forge letter of authorization and a 9mm on our aircraft IN THE CABIN..........

[Orca strait]

18-Wheeler-

A bit tough on Tripower there old boy. From what I've seen, a valid argument (debate) has been put forth by several sides. The freedom to debate one's views is one of the cornerstones of our society. As a result of the many inputs, maybe, just maybe, we can glean from the high points of all sides and come up with a viable solution to our present (in)security conundrum.

Resorting to personal attacks would indicate that your argument ammo has been depleted and you are now picking up rocks...

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

[Tripower455]

Thanks for the defense Orca, but since 18 wheeler can't argue a point logically, he resorts to insult and innuendo.......It's sad that people like him are in the aviation industry.....


BTW, 18 wheeler.

I sent Lowlight over because he's a former USMC scout/sniper and an expert with firearms

Is this the sentance that you are referring to? While I respect his FORMER position (scout sniper is a tough MOS), his statements re: firearms on aircraft show quite a bit of ignorance on this subject, which brought on my rhetorical question, "professional what?". Since I am a professional pilot, I do not comment on scout snipering.


Once again, I challenge you to refute (sans insult) ONE statement I've made on this subject or at least come up with some sort of viable solution to suicidal hijackers. BTW, what exactly IS your position in the aviation field? You CAN'T be a pilot!


{edit}
Never mind, after reading your website, I find that not only are you a pilot, but we have very similar backrounds and interests. Why one would want to attempt to get 500 hp from half an engine is beyond me though :).

Why the hostility for disagreeing with you on this subject? I have read every post on this and other threads, and still haven't seen any alternative that is as viable, effective or SIMPLE as arming trained pilots. If I sound like a broken record, then CONVINCE me that there is a workable, effective alternative. There are lots of issues to address, but none that are unworkable.

Insulting me or others that disagree with you makes you look bad. I am only assuming that you disagree with my position since you never actually counter any of my statements, just post insults.

[Orca strait]

The argument to arm the flight deck or not needs to be put in context. The focus has been placed solely on the weapon, whether it’s sexy or not (too many movies, gun + attitude = bad a$$ mf). I’m a professional as are my colleagues. Command ratings are not handed out in holsters. Want to know what the next generation of First Officers have strapped to their hips? F-teen, B1, B2 etc., do you suppose a .45 will make them feel any manlier? As I’ve stated before in this thread, your aircraft Commanders and future Commanders come from a surprisingly “diverse “background.

I don’t want to have to be armed. Our job is about priorities, risk management, responsibility and authority. Those last two items are legislated.

Prior to 9/11 we had an entire curriculum on hijack response; unfortunately it was based on 1960’s scenarios; get the aircraft on the ground and negotiate. Things have changed. As Commanders and crew we could face the ultimate decision of sacrificing the entire aircraft to save a city block, or worse.

Put yourself in that seat for a quiet moment; think about the scenario, the people onboard, the people on the ground, the tragic events about to unfold. Now work your way backwards from that point in which you had to relinquish control of your aircraft. What tools, equipment and training would have given you the best chance to prevent that situation from developing to the point of no return? (And no; hiring 90,000+ Air Marshals is not the answer.)

Informed opinions would be nice.

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

[Lowlight]

I have not tried to talk to you about flying, rather about the issues in become a combat handgunner who happens to flying a plane. But using your own words you reduce yourself to taking shots at me. I put this as simple as I could, I could tell everyone that a 230 grain .45 caliber bullet has a muzzle velocity of 835fps at the muzzle and 830fps at 50yards, but it starts to get dizzying. Needless to say you are under the impression that each armed person can keep their cool and control the weapon during an unknown stress situation involving humans not equipment, I have issue with that. You are one voice and actually the only voice I have seen debating the merit of this exercise. I have some pretty realistic life experience in CQB and know first hand the dangers of engaging in a gun fight in close quarters. Take your glock and glasers and go shoot a car door, if you think it is safe you sit on the other side and at 15yards I'll shoot it... I have seen a .45 go through a Honda Civic from the trunk exiting the front fender, at much farther. Glaser are telfon coated for a reason, to penetrate the leather jacket of a person and it expands when it hits the correct tissue density ie: the body.

The only real defense is a uncertain offense, if they don't know what to expect at any given time they cannot prepare for it. You seriously don't understand the resolve and experience of the people your fighting. I have seen written alittle too much here the worry about a missile up the tailpipe, if it gets to that point isn't it too late anyway? And if your spending money cannot these planes be equiped to be flown from the ground? (Albeit expensive, but possible?)

Defense works in perimeters, you have to have several layers, each insures the next is that much safer, the answers happen before anyone reaches the plane. That means, people who care about their job, devices in place to detect and prevent, training to identify red flags, alot more can be accomplished off the plane rather than on the plane.

Anyway, I think it is a combination more than a single sided solution. But I am just a former, and not really sure what I am saying, so what do I know... Maybe you should come over to Sniper's Hide (http://www.snipershide.com) we only have some of the highest trained people around the world there talking about the issues of putting rounds on target.

[Lowlight]

Just so you don't think I am blowing smoke about the training, here is newly released article with some insight to the threat:
Hamid Gul, a former chief of Pakistan’s spy agency, said Hekmatyar should not be underestimated. Gul was closely allied to Hekmatyar during the 1980s Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and during the bitter factional fighting that followed the collapse of the pro-Moscow regime in Kabul in 1992.
“They should be afraid of Hekmatyar. He is a hard-liner, who has a large following,” said Gul, whose intelligence agency funneled millions of dollars in weapons to Hekmatyar during the 1980s war.
In 1992, when the U.S.-backed Islamic insurgents took power in Kabul and turned their guns on each other, Gul continued to be a strong supporter of Hekmatyar.
As prime minister of the feuding government, Hekmatyar fought bitterly with Defense Minister Ahmed Shah Massood, killed last September in a suicide bombing. Hekmatyar pounded Kabul with thousands of rockets until 1996, when he finally made peace with Massood and took power.

Full Article (http://www.msnbc.com/news/627086.asp)

[Tripower455]

I have not tried to talk to you about flying, rather about the issues in become a combat handgunner who happens to flying a plane. But using your own words you reduce yourself to taking shots at me.

How, exactly, did I take shots at you? I refuted several statements that you've made re: arming pilots. If you took that as a shot, I apologize. Heck, I've even made the statement that I respect your mos. Marine snipers are among the best in the world, and if you are one, I commend you. One of my favorite books of all time is "Marine Sniper" about Carlos Hathcock. Talk about a man dedicated to his work.......

This is an important issue that hits very close to home for me and a lot of other pilots.

I put this as simple as I could, I could tell everyone that a 230 grain .45 caliber bullet has a muzzle velocity of 835fps at the muzzle and 830fps at 50yards, but it starts to get dizzying.

Moot point.

Needless to say you are under the impression that each armed person can keep their cool and control the weapon during an unknown stress situation involving humans not equipment, I have issue with that.

I am under the impression that I absolutely can keep my cool in this exact situation. The rest can be weeded out with training. Besides, what do you suggest we do short of arming pilots with firearms? All of your attempts at argument try to prove that we shouldn't be armed, but in EVERY scenario you come up with, we're better off armed than not.

You are one voice and actually the only voice I have seen debating the merit of this exercise.

Which exercise are you referring to? This thread alone has over 5 pages........... I've seen names other than mine and yours on here.......

I have some pretty realistic life experience in CQB and know first hand the dangers of engaging in a gun fight in close quarters.

As have I, and you know what? I STILL believe that I'd fare better in a close quarters fight with trained terrorists armed than not........I will surely die unarmed. With a firearm, I have a chance.

Take your glock and glasers and go shoot a car door, if you think it is safe you sit on the other side and at 15yards I'll shoot it...

No thanks. Whether they will penetrate a door from 15 yards is immaterial to this argument. They are the least likely to penetrate hard surfaces of any factory ammunition, that's why the sky marshalls use them. As I've said many times before, any damage that a pistol round can do to the aircraft is so small compared to the damage that occurs when said aircraft hits something hard. Why is this so hard for folks to comprehend?


seen a .45 go through a Honda Civic from the trunk exiting the front fender, at much farther.

I can guarantee that it wasn't a Glaser that penetrated that many layers of steel. The plastic case shatters on impact and any remaining energy in the lead shot is spent rather rapidly.



theyare teflon coated for a reason, to penetrate the leather jacket of a person and it expands when it hits the correct tissue density ie: the body.

Glasers aren't teflon coated at all. They have a frangible plastic bullet case filled with compressed lead shot. The plastic breaks upon hitting something hard. I've seen demos where they were fired at car windows from about 5 feet away (oblique angles to nearly 90 degrees) and they didn't penetrate.

The only real defense is a uncertain offense, if they don't know what to expect at any given time they cannot prepare for it.

I agree totally. Too bad we're so predictable!

You seriously don't understand the resolve and experience of the people your fighting.

Actually, I do. That's why I want the option to be armed. When all of the other measures fail, for the exact reasons cited by you, I'd like a last ditch means of possibly saving the aircraft. Right now, when that cockpit door comes crashing down, there is nothing at all we can do, except hope that the future new hire in the f-teen gets the aircraft before anyone on the ground is killed. If the bad guys get in the cockpit, everyone on board will die.

I have seen written alittle too much here the worry about a missile up the tailpipe, if it gets to that point isn't it too late anyway?

Yes. That's why we'd like something between the missile and the TSA employees searching for tweezers.

And if your spending money cannot these planes be equiped to be flown from the ground? (Albeit expensive, but possible?)

How in the world can anyone think that this is an acceptable alternative to arming pilots? There are SOOOOOO many things wrong with the idea that it's not even worth considering......

Defense works in perimeters, you have to have several layers, each insures the next is that much safer, the answers happen before anyone reaches the plane. That means, people who care about their job, devices in place to detect and prevent, training to identify red flags, alot more can be accomplished off the plane rather than on the plane.

But, when all of these layers fail, due to the diligence and perserverence of the hijackers, and they ARE on the plane, the last layer should be an armed pilot.

Anyway, I think it is a combination more than a single sided solution.

I absolutely agree 100%. Firearms are part of the overall solution. Better intel, immigration control, scanning all bags for explosives, real biometric ID cards for airline personel, close the ground ops loophole, better cockpit doors, better security training for flight deck and cabin crews (The common strategy.....please......) and finally, and armed flight deck. As you have stated, and I agreed with. These people will find every weakness in the system, and exploit it. This is the entire reason for arming pilots. When all of the initial layers fail, there is one more, likely effective layer, prior to the missile strike.


But I am just a former, and not really sure what I am saying, so what do I know...

I didn't say it........ I am sure that you are great and proficient at what you do/did. It doesn't make you an expert on this issue. Nor am I for that matter, BUT I do spend many hours a month in the cockpit of an airliner AND have 17 years of hands on experience with all manner of firearms and 8 years of experience cqb training with the local pd.

I am still waitiing for a reasonable, well thought out alternative to arming pilots.

Maybe you should come over to Sniper's Hide we only have some of the highest trained people around the world there talking about the issues of putting rounds on target.

I don't preach about which I know little. Your site sounds interesting, and I might peruse it due to my interest in firearms. How long range rifle shooting relates to aircraft security, I can't figure out.

[Lowlight]

Let's just say you did it again, and from the first posts?

Training with the local PD, would that be the one you refer to as "Podunk"?

I guess the question becomes, "how many others have your level of commitment to firearm training?"

You're arguments in the merit of an armed flightdeck still rings of a single threat, but that can be my reading of you words? I would hope that given this threat and the option to be armed the guys pick your plane out of how many thousands of flights so you can calmly pull off that series of head shots...

Moot point? That Glaser have a velocity of 1350fps, that max effective is well beyond 100 yards, and a miss still hits something potentially vital? (PS pretty sure the plastic is a form of telfon, hence the material penetration boasted by Glaser)

Anyway we are walking in circles here, quick question what happens the first day an off duty pilot shoots someone in a bar out of their home state? Litigation Hell anyone... Far worst than any terrorist threat, cutting into company profits.

[Tripower455]

Let's just say you did it again, and from the first posts?

I did? What?

Training with the local PD, would that be the one you refer to as "Podunk"?

Yup..... the one and the same. Any one of those guys can and do travel armed, with about the same effort that it takes for me to get on the aircraft.......unarmed.

I guess the question becomes, "how many others have your level of commitment to firearm training?"

Well, since being an airline pilot is just about synonomous with training, I'd say quite a few would be willing to commit to the training........

You're arguments in the merit of an armed flightdeck still rings of a single threat, but that can be my reading of you words?

Was that a question? There are many threats to aircraft that an armed pilot can not possibly overcome. Planted explosives are one.

In the case of another 9/11 type hijacking, there is simply no other effective way to prevent the aircraft from being used as a missile, save the aforementioned future new hire in the f-teen, and that is not assured either..

I would hope that given this threat and the option to be armed the guys pick your plane out of how many thousands of flights so you can calmly pull off that series of head shots...

Well, if I were armed, and they did pick my aircraft, I'd go for center of mass........

Moot point? That Glaser have a velocity of 1350fps, that max effective is well beyond 100 yards, and a miss still hits something potentially vital? (PS pretty sure the plastic is a form of telfon, hence the material penetration boasted by Glaser)

Moot point because even if it were a 230 gr fmj, or 1155 fmj 9mm, a bullet or 2 hitting anything in the aircraft is preferable to the aircraft being used as a missile. I would much rather be alive to deal with a lost system than bleed out on the galley floor as some terrorist flies my aircraft to fulfill allah's will.

Anyway we are walking in circles here, quick question what happens the first day an off duty pilot shoots someone in a bar out of their home state? Litigation Hell anyone... Far worst than any terrorist threat, cutting into company profits.

Why would an off duty pilot shoot someone in a bar (other than the ex Marine types.... KIDDING!). Why would you think that pilots are any less responsible than say, the average postal inspector, podunk cop, soldier, fbi agent, USDA chicken inspector etc, etc,etc,etc.......... If it did happen, then the litigation hell you describe would likely be true, and for good reason. But it would be the Feds that authorize and train us, so, who gets sued?

Heck,I've had a ccw for my entire adult life. Guess what? I've never shot anyone, nor have I ever had an AD. Ever. And I am a pilot that is often off duty. I won't carry in a bar though.....

The question you should ask is what happens when an off duty sky marshall shoots someone in a bar.............we'd fall under the same bureaucratic umbrella.........

Long before 9/11 and this talk of arming pilots, I used to joke that the only person more dangerous than a pilot with a gun, is a cop with a gun. This stems from years of being around cops and firearms............

[Lowlight]

Why would an off duty pilot shoot someone in a bar (other than the ex Marine types.... KIDDING!). Why would you think that pilots are any less responsible than say, the average postal inspector, podunk cop, soldier, fbi agent, USDA chicken inspector etc, etc,etc,etc.......... If it did happen, then the litigation hell you describe would likely be true, and for good reason. But it would be the Feds that authorize and train us, so, who gets sued?

Exactly, you are no different, and people screw up no two ways about it, you just upped the odds. It is why Marines get busted, Air Force guys end up in jail after multi-state crime sprees, cops hit people drinkin & driving, the list continues, but you guys will go under the magnifying glass because of the debate. You have big Unions, big corporate bank accounts and big government bail out programs. Sued, everyone this litigious community can think of... because you have deep pockets.

Oh, and trust me you did, about 3 times.

[Tripower455]

Oh, and trust me you did, about 3 times.

I've never been sued in my life...........

[Wizard]

Radio show to talk - guns and pilots
Reporter Jon Dougherty guest on national program tomorrow

------------------------------------------
Posted: May 30, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Nita Brown

Tomorrow morning, WorldNetDaily columnist and reporter Jon Dougherty will join Phil Paleologos, host of the "American Breakfast" radio program, to discuss the arming of commercial airline pilots as a deterrent to terrorist hijackings.

Dougherty wrote a series of exclusive reports on the issue of arming pilots in the aftermath of Sept. 11 attacks, chronicling the progression of Federal Aviation Administration rulings that permitted, then later banned, commercial airline pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit.

According to Dougherty's reports, the FAA rescinded a rule allowing commercial airline pilots to be armed the same month it received a classified briefing that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network may be planning hijackings of U.S. airliners. His exclusive stories include: "FAA began 'disarming' pilots in '87," "Armed-pilot rule nixed after hijack briefing" and "Armed pilots banned 2 months before 9-11."

see link

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27779

[Wino]

Nope,
its not the antigun lobby I think.

What I think is that it is a scope issue for the police/TSA. They want to be seen as incharge and that gun on their hip makes em special. Lord knows the TSA aint doin much else.

Cheers
Wino

['%MAC']

You may have a very valid point there. Nobody wants their authority usurped, and a gun is probably the ultimate authority.

[Capt. Crosswind]

You're right Wino - In fact I believe the anti gun lobby are in favour of arming pilots or are at least ambivalent.
It seems the rear echelon bureaucrats are the problem and are trying to tinplate their asses now they are under the spotlight.
If they now approve arming pilots the next question is "then why weren't they armed years ago". Or in the case of the FAA at least after the warnings of increased risk months prior to 9/11.

[Wino]

Its even worse.
Why was the authority to carry guns removed AFTER the first rumblings of an impending action by Alqueada (before 9/11) was received by the FAA.


Isnt it amazing that not one person in government or the airlines or law enforcement resigned or been demoted over 9/11? During Pearl Harbor as Admiral King surveyed the wreckage he demoted himself by a star or two and then was further picked on by congress. He wasn't more or less cleared to well after WWII.

Infact, the incompentant have gained power over this.

Cheers
Wino

[mriya225]

Wino,
I share your interest in the conspicuous lack of demotions and outright firings over this extraordinary series of systemic "lapses"...

Looks like they've chosen FBI Director Meuller to take it on the chin for the lot of them--in spite of the fact that he'd been on the job for less than two weeks before the tragedy occured.

This administration has repeatedly stonewalled and rejected the value of any investigation into the events that preceeded 9/11--which I find phenomenally suspect.
I think the reason nobody's been canned is because they had, indeed, advised the Vice President and the President that the possibility for something like this to happen was getting more and more real--with every passing day. I think their collosal arrogance got the better of them and they blew it off, in favor of granting "wishes" and operating effectively like a governmental arm of the oil and gas industry to keep the pockets of friends and family well lined---that's what I think.

Now, think back--to that look on Cheney's face when he was talking about the directive to shoot down flt93--remember that look of tough resolution... See if that doesn't make your stomache turn, in the wake of the possibility that they had been forewarned--but opted, instead, to dedicate their energy elsewhere.

I don't know why this was suddenly rescinded--I were going to pull meaningless regulations off of the FAA's books, I wouldn't have started there... But, whatever.

What troubles me, is that we're already seeing signs of people becoming too confident: American Airlines CEO Urges Some Airport Security Measures Be Dropped (http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGASWU31W1D.html)

Excerpt:
"It will be a hollow victory indeed if the system we end up with is so onerous and so difficult that air travel, while obviously more secure, becomes more trouble for the average person than it is worth," Carty said in a speech to the American Chamber of Commerce in Tokyo.

Carty, who was in Japan to meet with business officials, said the airlines and the U.S. government improved airport security swiftly after the Sept. 11 attacks. In hindsight, as with many hastily made decisions, some aspects need changing, he said.

He said screening passengers at the gate after doing so at the security checkpoint merely added to costs and customer hassles.

"With the amount of security that we have in the aviation system today, the likelihood of a terrorist choosing aviation as the venue for future attack is very low," Carty said. "When you compare security across various potential venues, the airline industry is enormously well secured."

And then, he contradicts himself:

Carty said he was not opposed to pilots' having handguns in cockpits, but that priority should be given to other security measures such as screening passengers. Earlier this week, the U.S. government decided against allowing firearms in cockpits.

Carty didn't mention other specific measures he felt should be dropped.

[Wizard]

Would Mohamed Atta object to armed pilots?

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

In a new safety initiative, the Department of Transportation has instituted an affirmative-action program for Arabs interested in pursuing careers in aviation. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta explained the security advantages of the program, saying, "surrendering to discrimination makes us no different than the terrorists."

Since you can't tell these days: This is not, in the strict sense, true. It is true, however, that the department has prohibited pilots from carrying guns and has rejected the idea of a "trusted traveler" program. In fact, it's not doing anything to make the airlines any safer. This should come as no surprise, inasmuch as Mineta recently said he was unaware of any "specific" threat against aviation.

They hate us. They're trying to kill us. They use airplanes as weapons. If Mineta doesn't talk to his boss, can't he at least read the papers?

In congressional testimony last week, Mineta mercifully spared the senators a recap of his experience in a Japanese internment camp and allowed his assistant, longtime Bush crony and ATF apologist John Magaw, to explain the department's key security improvements. The reason Magaw decided to prohibit pilots from having guns is – and I quote – "they really need to be in control of that aircraft."

This is literally the stupidest thing I've heard in my entire life.

It is like saying women walking home late at night in dangerous neighborhoods shouldn't carry guns (or mace, for the gunphobic) because they "really need to be getting home." If the undersecretary for transportation security thinks we need to debate whether pilots "really need to be in control of the aircraft," someone other than him really needs to be in control of airline security.

The scenario under which a gun might become useful for a pilot is this: The hijackers have penetrated the locked cockpit and thwarted air marshals, passengers and crew. It's going to be difficult for the pilot to fly the plane after the cockpit has been stormed by Arabs. Whatever could go wrong at that point – a wounded passenger, a hole in the side of the plane, terrorists wresting control of the gun – is better than the alternative.

Ah, but Magaw is worried that the terrorists will now have a pistol. Think of havoc they could wreak with a gun. Of course, they'll also have a Boeing 767 careening at 480 miles per hour toward the nearest landmark building. Magaw seems to think the real danger is that terrorists will shoot at the White House from a window, not that they'll fly the plane into it.

Magaw is the worst kind of government bureaucrat. He defends fascistic government abuses – but the trains still don't run on time. Fascism is at least supposed to keep the citizenry safe.

As the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Magaw famously justified an unprovoked government assault against Randy Weaver and his family, culminating in the murder of Weaver's wife. In testimony before a Senate committee investigating the raid at Ruby Ridge, Magaw stubbornly refused to admit the ATF had done anything wrong whatsoever.

Indeed, he even refused to acknowledge a jury verdict finding that the government had entrapped Weaver. Of the jury's verdict, Magaw said: "Do you believe Randy Weaver – or do you believe the federal agents who have sworn to tell the truth and are carrying out a career in this government?"

If only airline pilots worked for the government! Then Magaw would not only allow them to tussle with terrorists, but they would also be free to gun down innocent Americans without criticism. (The Senate report found Magaw's testimony not credible and recommended abolition of his entire agency.)

Magaw's other airline safety improvement was to reject the idea of a "trusted traveler" program, which would allow passengers to avoid three-hour airport security lines after submitting to an intrusive background check by the government. As reported by the New York Times, Magaw spurned the trusted traveler idea on the ground that "he is not sure who could safely be given the card."

I don't know, how about ... NO ARABS? (Religion-of-Peace Update: As they prepare to stone a rape victim to death in Pakistan, the latest suicide bombing in Israel claimed the lives of a grandmother and her 18-month old granddaughter.)

Amazingly, President Bush has actually found someone even dumber than Norman Mineta to secure the nation's airlines. The secretary of transportation is the only person on the face of the globe who thinks the airlines face no terrorist threat, and his deputy – by his own admission – hasn't the first idea which airline passengers can be "trusted."

If these guys were doing their jobs right, Congress would be reining them in, civil libertarians would be screaming, and professional ethnic complainers would be holding candlelight vigils and singing "We Shall Overcome." Instead, Congress is forced to pass laws overruling Mineta and Magaw, civil libertarians are scratching their heads wondering why profiling is prohibited, and professional complainers are sending them flowers.

Maybe somebody else should be doing this job.

written by Ann Coulter, well-known for her television appearances as a political analyst, is an attorney and author of
"High Crimes and Misdemeanors." (http://shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=20&ITEM_ID=284) about Bill Clinton.

[Orca strait]

There does appear to be a concerted effort at or near the top, to stifle any logical or realistic ideas and programs from our present security conundrum.

[I. M. Esperto]

Consider these factors:
http://www.strangecosmos.com/read.asp?JokeID=2977

:D

[I. M. Esperto]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulgreenberg/pg20020529.shtml

Paul Greenberg (archive)
(printer-friendly version)

May 29, 2002

Arm the pilots

For reasons that remain impenetrable, if not just plain contrary, our inscrutable Department of Transportation continues to hold out against arming airline pilots. Why remains a mystery.

"Pilots need to concentrate on flying the plane," non-explained John Magaw, undersecretary of transportation.

But can you think of a greater aid to concentration on the part of the cockpit crew than knowing a sidearm is available should the cockpit door suddenly give way?

That kind of assurance clears away the mental clutter, and offers an answer to the unavoidable question that must now haunt cockpit crews. ("What do we do if the cockpit door gives way?")

Call it peace of mind. Arming pilots gives them a better alternative than crashing the plane with all aboard.

Why would anyone think that being rendered defenseless would help one concentrate? To quote one pilot: "How easy will it be for me to concentrate on flying an airplane when a terrorist breaks through the cockpit door and tries to slit my throat?"

A Beretta in hand is worth any number of theories in the bumbling hands of the Department of Transportation and Obfuscation.

It's a puzzlement why a government that would scramble jet fighters to intercept a hijacked plane -- which is a polite way of saying blow it out of the sky -- would deny pilots a last chance to avoid such an explosive ending.

This administration, which is supposed to be conducting a war on terror, did agree to consider -- just consider, mind you -- allowing the crews to have stun guns. But nonfatal weapons lack something essential in dealing with terrorists bent on taking over an aircraft:

Finality.

Letting those pilots who wished to arm themselves could also have a clarifying effect on those planning to hijack an airliner and plunge it into the national landmark of their choosing.

How could the terrorists know which crews were packing heat? How could they hope to overcome it? Suddenly box cutters might no longer seem the ideal weapon. No wonder three-quarters of the country's airline pilots, according to one poll, want the right to bear arms.

We're told that reinforcing the cockpit doors will make armed pilots unnecessary. We're told lots of things. The stronger doors aren't even required on all planes until next April, and there's no guarantee terrorists wouldn't find their way into the cockpit even then -- either by determined assault or some trick.

To quote George Allen, the senator from Virginia: "The cockpit doors are still not as secure as a vault. What is wrong with having a last line of defense if something does happen?"

Nothing, of course.

The argument in favor of denying the pilots weapons tends to view arming them as an alternative to stronger doors or more air marshals or better checks on the ground. But armed pilots are but one more (ITALCS) additional defense, one more failsafe, one more insurance policy. It couldn't hurt and it might prove a crucial help.

But can we trust pilots with weapons? Goodness, we trust them with the whole plane, why not sidearms? All of those pilots who wanted to carry arms would be trained before being issued a semiautomatic, and undergo psychological testing if that's any comfort.

What might comfort passengers is knowing that their cockpit crew is armed, unlike those on the planes that were hijacked and turned into guided missiles Sept. 11.

Many of these commercial pilots are ex-servicemen who already have received weapons training. They wouldn't be novices at defending themselves. And others.

The case against arming airline crews doesn't really rest on its (nonexistent) merits, but ideology -- the sheer, reflexive, unreasoning assumption that Guns Are Bad -- all guns.

To the gunphobes, it doesn't seem to matter whether those firearms are in the hand of terrorists or pilots. The ideologues bent on banning guns don't seem able to differentiate between the two.

To quote Greg Warren, a spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration: "We have just spent the last eight months purging the airspace of potential weapons. It would be unwise to suddenly flood the system with 100,000 lethal weapons."

But doesn't it make a difference who has those lethal weapons -- the airline pilots or the terrorists? Nobody seems to have a problem with air marshals' carrying weapons. Why not pilots who will be screened and trained?

Imagine how differently the events of Sept. 11 might have played out if the pilots had been armed, or even if the terrorists thought they were. It's called deterrence. And just now the country can use all of it we can get.


Read Paul Greenberg's biography


©2002 Tribune Media Services

[llamas]

Amen to every word that Mr Greeneberg wrote, and thanks for posting it.

I worry a whole hell of a lot more about some religious fanatic sitting next to me with a sharpened ball-point pen in his pocket and black murder in his heart, than I do about the average airline pilot packing heat. In fact, I'd worry a whole lot less about the former if there were a whole lot more of the latter.

llater,

llamas

[Flash2001]

"How would the terrorists know"?

They'd intercept the 3 week long trail of government mandated paperwork giving all the details!

[Check 6]

Right on!

;) ;) ;)

['%MAC']

Deterrence is the art of producing, in the mind of the enemy, the fear to attack. - Dr Strangelove

[Orca strait]

By JANE ARMSTRONG
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/aircraft/F16-01.gif

A U.S. Navy aircraft packed with people pretending to be hijacked landed at Vancouver International Airport Tuesday in a drill designed to test the ability of the U.S. and Canada to respond to a crisis.

Vancouver — The C-9 aircraft, the military version of the McDonnell Douglas DC-9, took off from Whidbey Island Naval Air Station at Oak Harbour, Wash., Tuesday morning. Less than an hour later, two U.S. fighter jets were streaming over Vancouver.

The C-9 was one of two planes involved in the mock hijackings.

Another, a Delta Air Lines Boeing 757, flew from Salt Lake City to Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska. Each plane was simulating a hijacking of a commercial airliner and each was packed with police and military personnel pretending to be civilians. The training exercise was planned before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States in which hijacked commercial airliners plowed into the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and a field outside Pittsburgh.

About 1,500 personnel were involved in the exercise, which included 200 to 300 Mounties, said RCMP Sergeant Grant Learned.

In the drill, fighter jets — first in the United States, then in Canada — responded to the emergency and were instructed to run through several exercises, including firing on the planes.

"We use a graduated response, which begins with simply intercepting and identifying the aircraft, and could include the use of lethal force and shooting down the aircraft," said Major Mike Snyder of the North American Aerospace Defence Command.

By Tuesday afternoon, each plane had landed safely in Vancouver and Anchorage. The ground exercises, involving mainly police personnel, extended into the evening. Also participating in the drill were U.S. officials from the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Delta Airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration.

Major Snyder said the simulation was designed to see how fast the North American Aerospace Defence command could respond to a hijacking report.

"Time is of the essence, especially when it comes to NORAD," Major Snyder said from NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colo. "Generally, we're only as good as the intelligence and the warning that we receive."

Fighter planes were launched on Sept. 11, 2001, in an attempt to intercept the terrorist-hijacked airliners, but none reached their targets in time, he noted.

"How quickly will NORAD respond? That's what being tested, really."

Tuesday afternoon, the U.S. Navy aircraft sat parked on a tarmac at Vancouver Airport, surrounded by at least seven tactical-police vehicles. Nearby, a sniper crouched on a moveable staircase. At one point, an aircraft door opened and someone waved.

There was no live fire, Major Snyder said, and at no time was there danger to civilians.

Since the terrorist attacks, NORAD has flown 22,000 sorties to watch the skies for hijackers and other threats, and fighter jets have responded to more than 300 incidents of planes raising suspicions — in many cases because the aircraft were off course or did not identify themselves.

Full Story (http://globeandmail.com/servlet/RTGAMArticleHTMLTemplate/C/20020605/utest?hub=homeBN&tf=tgam%252Frealtime%252Ffullstory.html&cf=tgam/realtime/config-neutral&vg=BigAdVariableGenerator&slug=utest&date=20020605&archive=RTGAM&site=Front&ad_page_name=breakingnews)

[Apollo 1]

I think that putting a valuable wepon into the aircraft cabin makes it that much easier for a hijacker to get past security on the ground. If his wepon of choice is already on-board, half of his trouble is over. All he now has to do is get the cockpit door open.

It has to start on the ground before the engines start. It has to start at the time a passenger books a ticket. How they pay. Where did they purchase. What is their criminal background. This may start to encroach on peoples civil liberties, but the only ones that have to worry are those that have something to hide.

Passeners boarding aircraft need to be scrutinized before being given a ticket. And I think that an airline has every right to refuse a passenger for any reason. We cannot and should not have to rely on the flight attendants and pilots for aircraft security. If they have to deal with a dangerous situation caused by a passenger while in flight, it's too late. They are ultimately the last line of defense. Let them do the job they are trained for, fly the aircraft.

Less problem solving,

More problem prevention.

[GrandPrix]

Been gone six days and see some agreeable posts from Tri-power and Orca.
But where are all the viable solutions as a LAST line of defense for the cockpit?
Train us and arm us now before another tragedy occurs!

[Wizard]

Violation of property rights by government hardly raises objections. If it did, the appropriate reaction to the banning by John Magaw of firearms in the cockpit would be: "Whose property is it anyway?"

U.S. airlines are, ostensibly, privately owned. Why, then, is the transportation secretary's minion not allowing rightful owners to defend their property? The dangers for commercial aviation of such a prohibition, arguably, have a lot to do with turning ownership – in this case airline ownership – into conditional tenure.

If things were as they ought to be, we wouldn't chafe about whether pilots should carry guns or not. Any tension would revolve around passengers choosing the airline that optimizes their peace of mind. Passenger X's reasons for taking airline A to his destination might be because the carrier's pilots are armed. Mrs. Y's overriding priority is to ensure her young daughters are not subjected to the mandatory pat downs – she chooses airline B, because its security personnel profile passengers.

In a word, true competition would arise, and the consumer would be in a position to shape the delivery of security through his buying or his abstention from buying. This indeed would be possible if airlines were not merely nominally private, as they are now, but instead were in a position to freely fine-tune their responses to consumer demand without interference from Congress and the regulators. It stands to reason that the stronger the proprietor's rights in his property, the better he is able to respond to the consumer.

Since regulation replaces consumer preferences with bureaucratic decision-making, it invariably instates the wrong standards or, simply, settles on lower standards than those of the consumer. While business will pay a steep price in the free market for misreading the consumer, a government-granted reprieve is always on hand in a regulated industry, especially one that is considered an essential part of the national infrastructure, as civil aviation is. On the heels of 9-11, government handed the airline industry a multi-billion-dollar bailout, as well as immunity from lawsuits. Thus were the airlines released from responsibility for the security of their passengers.

Government-run airports were – and still are – responsible for further vitiating passenger safety. As explained by economist Robert Murphy in an article entitled "The Source of Air-Travel Insecurity":

…the federal government had established minimum security guidelines and then forced the airlines to chip in their share to pay for them. Whatever their airline, passengers were funneled through a common security checkpoint, staffed by a third-party company. In such an environment, it would have been silly for an individual airline to spend millions of dollars to exceed the government's minimum standards by providing expert security personnel.

Because of the setup of [government-run] airports, every other airline would have benefited too from this arrangement, so it is doubtful that such an expenditure would have been rewarded by increased consumer patronage. Further, because the public naively believes the government when it "guarantees" air safety, even if an individual airline could have realistically offered better security measures than its competitors, consumers would still have felt that rival carriers were "safe."

Only when an airline can undertake "curb-to-curb" handling of its passengers will it stand to both reap the benefits that arise from providing superior service, as well as incur full liability for forsaking passenger safety. This is possible only in a privatized airport, where freedom of association and freedom of contract aren't overridden or blurred by government, and where responsibility isn't collectivized.

Alas, the recent federalizing of airport security has removed even the tenuous involvement the airlines had in the protection of their passengers. Civil servants-cum-political appointees continue to oversee the industry, leaving no doubts about the political commitment of this administration to full socialization of airline security.

Granting airlines the right to arm employees – and the freedom to privately contract with on-board security providers – rather than be compelled to stand in line for a federal marshal, will obviate somewhat the inevitable security pitfalls of a nationalized airport.

Closer to home – and equally ominous – is the manner in which the Fair Housing Act erodes property rights, and, with them, the right to safeguard our homes.

According to the Act, a property owner cannot "discriminate" against any person … in the sale or rental of a dwelling … because of race, color, religion … or national origin."

An essential attribute of ownership is the right to exclude, a right that could come in very handy considering that apartment building owners have been warned by the FBI (for what it's worth) about the possibility that al-Qaida operatives may rent suites and plant explosives in them.





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

By Ilana Mercer whose work has appeared in the Calgary Herald, Insight Magazine, the Ottawa Citizen, the Financial Post, the Colorado Gazette, Report News Magazine, LewRockwell.com and other publications.

[Covenant]

Passenger X's reasons for taking airline A to his destination might be because the carrier's pilots are armed. Mrs. Y's overriding priority is to ensure her young daughters are not subjected to the mandatory pat downs she chooses airline B, because its security personnel profile passengers.

And young student Z's reasons for taking airline C are that they engage in none of these safety practices but offer an extremely low price!

Surely you're not suggesting that all regulations should be determined by market forces alone?

[Wizard]

I hear you brother. Such ideas as you have highlighted best illustrate the need for mandatory regulated improvements to US security issues for airlines. Please note though, the above article written by a journalist (not me) is posted here for the purpose of showing the direction of SOME of the public debate and inform as to SOME of the current journalistic comment. No more no less. If you are still in the States I am sure you will see more of it than I do.

[Wizard]

Here's another commentary from a US Journalist Joseph Farah that he entitled "Making the air safe for terrorists"

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

Forgive me. For a little while, after Sept. 11, I actually believed our government might respond to the terrorist attacks with some common-sense, self-defense measures and policies.

Boy, was I a dope.

Despite the fact that polls of even gun-control advocates show 77 percent favor arming airline pilots to avoid hijackings, the Bush administration refuses to heed the call.

As WorldNetDaily has reported, the Federal Aviation Administration put the final nail in the coffin of firearms in the cockpit just two months before Sept. 11. In other words, even while reports were circulating about the imminent threat posed by al-Qaida to the safety of airliners nationwide, the government was doing everything in its power to make the air safe for terrorists.

Office of Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge has been unequivocal in his objection to armed pilots ever since. Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta has openly opposed the idea. And, last week, John "No-Draw" Magaw, the former director of President Clinton's scandal-plagued Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and now Transportation Security Administration director, told the U.S. Senate the concept was out of the question.

Imagine that. These high government officials – people who wouldn't think of flying on an airplane themselves that was not protected by armed guards – are deciding that airline pilots, most of them military trained, can be trusted to fly a $200 million airplane, but not with a loaded gun on board.

But I've got good news for you.

This is one battle we can win. And, if we win this battle with the ruling elite, who knows where it might lead. It might result in the biggest outbreak of common sense since 1776.

Here's why we can win.

The pilots are with us. This is our ace in the hole. Ultimately, if the government continues to flout the will of the people and the will of the pilots, air travel could be crippled.

There are rumblings – if ever so slight at this point – that some pilots just might decide some day they won't fly without the ability to protect themselves, their crew and their passengers, not to mention innocent civilians on the ground.

I'm not advocating a strike. But just the hint of such an action might be enough to get Congress off the dime. Legislation has been introduced in both houses not only to permit guns in the cockpits of America's airliners, but to mandate them.

What will George Bush do if such a bill lands on his desk?

My bet is he will sign it in a heartbeat. So far, Bush has listened to his top advisers on the issue. But his mother did not raise any stupid politicians. Bush knows where the votes are. If that bill makes it to the White House, it becomes law.

It's too bad we even have to fight over such a basic, fundamental principle. It should be a non-issue. Ordinary Americans should not be left defenseless while Ridge, Mineta, Magaw and Bush are surrounded by armed guards at all times – on land, sea and in the air.

But maybe it's better if we view this as an opportunity to slap these arrogant politicians down, hand them a stunning political defeat and let them know we're entering a new age of accountability.

Viewed that way, this might not be a waste of time, energy and resources. Instead, it could be the next shot heard 'round the world.

Maybe once we convince the political class we're not going to be left defenseless in the skies, we let them know we won't be left defenseless on the ground, either. Maybe it will be time to roll back all those unconstitutional federal restrictions on possession of firearms that have been passed in recent years.

Maybe, after that, we let them know we won't be left defenseless by their open-borders policies.

Maybe, after that, we let them know it's time to start rebuilding a civil-defense infrastructure in this country again.

And, maybe – just maybe – after that the political momentum will have shifted toward the common-sense will of the American people that we can take back our country from these fools once and for all.

[Caslance]

Is this the same Joseph Farah who believed that the "Y2K bug" was part of a global conspiracy to destabilise the US (by taking their precious guns away, I imagine!) and establish a New World Order?

If so, he's hardly an impartial disinterested commentator, is he?

[Caslance]

Yes, I thought so.

Here he is......!! (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14477) :D

[Covenant]

http://www.phys.psu.edu/~randy/misc/crackpot/cuckoo.jpg

[aviator]

Food for thought...




By George F. Will
Thursday, June 6, 2002; Page A31


The next perpetrators of terrorism in America probably are already here, perhaps planning more hijackings. Post-Sept. 11 airport security measures may have made hijackings slightly more difficult, but the fact that these are America's most visible anti-terrorist measures vastly increases the terrorists' payoff in proving the measures incapable of keeping terrorists off airplanes.

Recently this column presented, without endorsement, the views of three commercial airline pilots who oppose guns in cockpits. Today's column presents, and endorses, the views of three other commercial airline pilots -- two trained as fighter pilots, one civilian-trained -- who refute the other pilots' principal contentions, which were:

Proper policy regarding suicidal hijackers is to land as quickly as possible, which can be as quick as 10 minutes. So priority should be given to making cockpits impenetrable. Armed pilots might be tempted to imprudent bravery -- particularly "renegade" pilots with fighter-pilot mentalities, who would leave the cockpit to battle terrorists in the main cabin. And arming pilots serves the pilots' union objective of requiring a third pilot in each cockpit.

The three pilots who favor allowing pilots to choose whether to carry guns respond:

Passengers already entrust their lives to pilots' judgments. Landing a hijacked plane is indeed the first priority, but pilots need to be alive to do that. A cockpit impenetrably sealed from terrorists is an impossibility, in part because planes cannot be landed as quickly as the other three pilots say. An ignoble fear -- of lawyers, of liability -- explains why the airlines oppose arming pilots. But legislation could immunize airlines from liability resulting from harms suffered by passengers as a result of pilots' resisting terrorists.

Landing a plane from 30,000 feet requires at least 20 minutes, never just 10. A training flight, simulating a fire emergency on a flight just 4,000 feet up and 15 miles from Philadelphia's airport, takes about 12 minutes to land when done perfectly. Transatlantic flights can be three hours from a suitable airport. Such airports are not abundant west of Iowa. Which means on most flights, terrorists would have time to penetrate the cockpit.

Bulletproof doors are not the answer: The Sept. 11 terrorists had no bullets. Well-trained terrorists can blow even a much-reinforced cockpit door off its hinges using a thin thread of malleable explosive that can pass undetected through passenger screening procedures when carried on a person rather than in luggage. Here is what else can be undetected by security screeners busy confiscating grandmothers' knitting needles:

The knife with the six-inch serrated blade that a passenger found, in a post-Sept. 11 flight, secreted under her seat. Two semiautomatic pistols that recently passed unnoticed through metal detectors and were discovered only when the owner's bags were selected for a random search at the gate. A mostly plastic .22-caliber gun that looks like a cell phone. An entirely plastic and razor-sharp knife. A "bloodsucker" -- it looks like a fountain pen but has a cylindrical blade that can inflict a neck wound that will not stop bleeding.

The idea that arming pilots is a means of justifying a third pilot is derisory: Reengineering cockpits for that would be impossibly complex. Equally implausible is the idea that a Taser (electric stun gun) is a satisfactory aid when locked in a plane, seven miles up, with a team of trained terrorists.

A pilot's gun would never leave the cockpit because the pilot never would. And shooting a terrorist standing in the cockpit door frame would not require a sniper's skill. The powerful pressurization controls, as well as the location and redundancy of aircraft electronic, hydraulic and other systems, vastly reduce the probability that even multiple wayward gun shots -- even of bullets that are not frangible -- would cripple an aircraft.

About fear of "fighter pilot mentality": The military assiduously schools and screens pilot candidates to eliminate unstable or undisciplined candidates. Airlines, too, administer severe selection procedures for pilots, who are constantly scrutinized. Captains have two physical examinations a year (first officers, one) with psychological components. Everything said in the cockpit is recorded.

Besides, many passengers fly armed -- county sheriffs, FBI and Secret Service agents, postal inspectors, foreign bodyguards of foreign dignitaries. Why, then, must the people on whom all passengers' lives depend -- pilots -- be unarmed? Especially considering that the prudent law enforcement doctrine is that lethal force is warranted when menaced by more than one trained and armed opponent.

To thicken the layers of deterrence and security, in the air as well as on the ground, Congress should promptly enact legislation to empower pilots to choose to carry guns. Time flies. So do hijackers. And the next ones probably are already among us.

[LAZYB]

(fwd)


Dumb.

Less-than-lethal devices, like TASER, Pepperballs, beanbag shotgun loads, stun guns, pepper spray etc. have genuine law-enforcement and security applications; cockpit defense, however, is not one of them. Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge has come out and stated that arming pilots with firearms: "doesn’t make a lot of sense to me." Considering the alternatives to arming pilots, leaving flight crews defenseless or giving them an ineffective non-lethal defensive tool, the only thing that doesn’t make sense is Tom Ridge’s position on this matter.

The TASER naturally appeals to some folks because it’s less-than-lethal and therefore not as fearsome or politically incorrect as a pistol. For these very reasons, it is not nearly as effective as a good handgun either. To use the TASER, a person attaches a cartridge to the front of the device that contains wire coils and two spiked electrical leads that enter the body of the target. The rear of the unit looks a lot like a pistol. Once the trigger is pressed the twin spikes fly out, each attached to a thin, 21-foot long wires, and imbed themselves in the skin of the target and deliver an electric jolt, which will generally incapacitate the average person for several seconds. Additional jolts can be given by pressing the trigger.

Sounds effective, right? Wrong. Unfortunately, this design has several inherent flaws. First, in order to be effective, the leads must enter the skin. Therefore, if the hijacker is wearing an appropriately thick shirt or jacket, the leads will not contact the skin, and the TASER is going to be minimally effective. Second, if two hijackers bust down the cockpit door, the TASER is useless. Theoretically, the pilot could zap one, do a quick cartridge change and zap the second intruder; of course, once the cartridge attached to the first intruder is removed from the unit, he can no longer be zapped. So, by the time the second intruder has been zapped, the first has fully recovered and is therefore free to begin slashing the pilots’ throats while his buddy recovers. With only one TASER against two intruders, the pilot would almost do better to zap the one and then beat the second intruder with the TASER unit itself, not something a pilot should have to deal with in a cramped cockpit. Furthermore, even if only one intruder breaks into a cockpit and is successfully subdued by the TASER, what then? Someone has to jump on him before he recovers and handcuff him. Who’s job is that going to be? Please don’t say the other pilot; he’s flying the plane.

The only viable way to protect the cockpit of a jumbo jet using a TASER would be to have several of the units in each cockpit, each fully charged with at least one spare cartridge per TASER. This is a rather expensive and silly solution to the problem of cockpit security.

A vastly more effective solution is a pistol, preferably one chambered for a no-nonsense cartridge like .45 ACP, .40 S&W or .357 Magnum.

If I were in position to recommend what to equip pilots with, given my background as an NRA-certified personal protection instructor, I’d suggest a .45 ACP Glock model 36 Slimline fitted with a suppresser and accessory rail-mounted tactical laser (with a pressure switch on the grip) with magazines full of Glasser Safety Slugs, Mag-safes or similar fragmenting bullets. Such a pistol is the right tool for the job and as my eighth-grade wood shop teacher insisted on saying: "A tool for every job, a job for every tool." Indeed. Using a TASER to defend a cockpit is akin to using a monkey wrench to drive a nail, sure, it’ll kind of maybe work, but it really isn’t the best tool.

The above-described Glock, however, is the right tool for the job, regardless of what Ridge and other opponents of arming pilots might think. The Glock truly is perfect for this role, it has earned a reputation since its introduction to US markets in the late 80s as a reliable, incredibly durable, simple-to-operate pistol that works well. Glock pistols in a variety of models and calibers are now safely stored in the holsters of many a police officer across the nation. They’re a work-a-day pistol that lacks an external safety toggle, instead relying on a trigger-mounted safety lever that compliments internal inertia safeties, which Glock calls its "Safe Action" system. The only controls on a Glock are the trigger, slide catch, magazine release and ‘takedown’ buttons, very straight forward and easy for a non-gun savvy individual to use in a crisis situation. I’d suggest the Glock 36 Slimline over the standard .45 caliber model 21 because the 36 is the first Glock to get away from double column magazines and features a slim grip that users with a variety of hand sizes will find comfortable. Since these guns will likely go a long time between cleanings, Glock’s reliable design and corrosion-resistant construction will guarantee they work when called on, even if they haven’t seen a drop of G96 Complete Gun Treatment in years.

The .45 ACP cartridge has proven itself in countless shootings, and when topped with fast, frangible bullets, will not puncture the fuselage of an airliner. Upon striking the center-mass of a would-be hijacker, the incapacitating effect of a .45 ACP Glasser will last a lot longer than would that of a TASER, i.e. permanently as opposed to five seconds. Furthermore, the .45 ACP doesn’t care what the hijacker wears, as long as it’s not Kevlar, it’s going in to disrupt a few vital organs.

I would also suggest a suppresser be attached. .45s are loud in general, but in the confines of a cockpit the noise would be deafening. The discharge of a suppressed .45 ACP in a cockpit would still be noisy, but the suppresser will protect the pilots from temporary near-deafness. The laser sight will help the user aim quickly and nothing takes the fight out of someone like seeing that glowing red dot hone in on their heart. With the Glock 36’s 6+1 ammo capacity, seven separate hijackers could be dispatched quickly and if more shooting was necessary, a few spare, loaded magazines can be kept handy. Because of the suppresser, these pistols couldn’t be the issued directly to pilots (without them having to contend with mountains of permits and paperwork anyway, unless F-troop makes an exception for them), but rather to each individual plane. One member of the flight team—copilot, navigator, whoever—could be designated as the person who wears the pistol in a shoulder rig and then returns it to a small gun safe in the cockpit after the passengers have deplaned. Issuing them to the plane instead of the pilot would help ensure that only frangible bullets were kept anywhere near the firearm.

Another very good alternative to the Glock 36 is a Glock 23. It’s a pistol of roughly the same size, and it holds 10+1 rounds (in post-ban magazines, that is) of .40 S&W, a potent cartridge that surpasses the .45 ACP in the Fuller Index (a system that predicts one-shot-stops) when using conventional hollow points.

With frangible bullets in the firearm, the plane’s passengers could be protected by the installation of a thin wooden door a few feet outside the cockpit door, or even a set of heavy curtains made of Kevlar or similarly strong artificial fabric. Frangible bullets break apart upon contact with anything, shedding weight and velocity rapidly. When they hit a solid object like a wall, they shatter harmlessly. Upon striking a soft target like a person’s chest, they penetrate as they fragment, depositing all of their considerable energy into a shallow wound cavity that causes massive tissue damage.

Naturally, the problem with my recommendation is that it makes sense and therefore will not be heeded. Instead, United will sally forth and equip their pilots with TASERS. With Tom Ridge’s endorsement of such silly measures, other airlines will likely follow suit. Now, I’m not suggesting TASERS and other less-than-lethal weapons are useless or have no place in law-enforcement or security. Quite the contrary, I’m actually a fan of some less-than-lethal instruments, especially Jaycor Tactical System’s Pepperball Launcher (essentially a Tippman Pneumatics paintgun that fires balls filled with powdered pepper spray instead of paint). However, the Pepperball Launcher is as inappropriate for use in cockpit security as the TASER, but for different reasons.

The cockpit of commercial airliners needs to be viewed as a castle, a fortress that must be secure. Beefier doors are a good start, but any door, regardless of how sturdy, can be overcome by a determined enough individual or group. Should that door be broken down, the pilots need to be able to permanently defeat the intruder or intruders. Incapacitating (hopefully) them for a few seconds isn’t enough. The simplest, most obvious choice is a pistol, particularly one very like the Glock I described above. Again, we get into the whole political correctness issue; sure, it’s nicer and kinder and gentler to temporarily incapacitate a cockpit intruder than it is to shred his vital organs. Thing is, we’re talking about a cockpit intruder here, not a drunk that got tossed out of a bar and is giving the cops a hard time.

Anyone with the wherewithal to get on a plane today probably hasn’t been living under a mushroom for the last six months and is, therefore, aware that pilots don’t want anyone visiting them in the cockpit. The way I figure it, if someone does break down a cockpit door, they can’t be up to any good and have forfeited their rights and life by doing so. Simply put, today, if you break down a cockpit door, you deserve to be shot in the chest. Twice. By a .45. If that doesn’t make sense to the guy charged with operating the Office of Homeland Security, then he’s as ill suited for his job as the TASERs are for cockpit defense.

Kyle Lohmeier

:D

[llamas]

That's "Glaser Safety Slug". Not "Glasser". It's a little hard to take a voluminous screed like this seriously when the trade name of a recommended product is repeatedly mis-spelled.

Having carried a handgun, both open and concealed, for years, most of what appears above is, IMHO, much overblown and based in competing fireside theories instead of actual practice. A laser targetting system, for example, is a stone waste of time on a handgun required for quick and effective use. The batteries are always flat or the switch always malfunctions. Pilots have good eyesight, give them rugged open sights and have done with it. Same for a suppressor (silencer).

Similarly, the extended discussion of the competing virtues of different frangible bullet types, &c, &c, &c, is mostly a bunch of abstract theory and ignores the fact that it really doesn't matter if a bullet punctures the fuselage of an airplane. Trust me, the plane will not explode if it does, and no passengers will be sucked out, James Bond films notwithstanding.

The Glock is a fine weapon in the hands of a well-trained officer. It suffers, however, from the lack of a secure and reliable deactivating device (a 'safety') and is therefore always hot when loaded - which may explain the number of A/D's which the Glock has suffered - including not a few bathroom incidents.

Breathless talk about big manly calibers like the 45 ACP and suchlike ignores the fact that most people cannot shoot this antique caliber well because of the severe muzzle blast and recoil.

If flight-deck crew are to have the option to be armed (and I think they should) give them Smith and Wesson revolvers with open sights, 38-Spl caliber, with a two- or - three inch barrel and leave it at that. It works, it's simple and safe, it's more than adequate for the purpose required, and just about anyone can shoot it. Leave the incredibly finely-detailed discussion of the handgun that is the absolute ne plus ultra of self-defense to the pages of magazines and the back rooms of ranges, where it belongs.

Me shootin straight
With my thirty-eight
Beats all his jive
With his forty-five.

llater,

llamas

[Capt. Crosswind]

Orca strait
You're right.
Listening to the fatuous statements coming from the rear echelon
bureaucrats in recent months I can only come to the conclusion
that the aviation industry is ruled by "imbeciles who really mean it".
That's the way to bet anyway

[Capt. Crosswind]

llamas
I've sat on my hands while the discussion of suitable weapons has been going on as I'm no expert in this field.
My military training was to proficiency standard with the S&W 38 a long time back, & I feel that from the point of view of reliability & simplicity your suggestion has my vote.
A lot of talk has gone on about recurrent training to maintain proficiency if pilots are armed ! For weapons professionals ,viz., law enforcement agents ,I have no doubt this is the case. But to be able to hit the center of mass of a hijacker at a few feet I doubt this is necessary.
If you can handle the weapon safely & hit a bull in the ass with a bucket of wheat that's all the accuracy you need to deter hijack attempts.

[LUM]

Two young people who tried to hijack a plane of the interior lines of Ethiopian Airlines were killed Sunday by agents of the national Security installed on board, announced the radio Ethiopian main road (official). One of the two stewards of the plane was slightly wounded in the attempt. The two hijackers, 20 and 22 years old, tried to hijack a plane which had taken off of Bahir Dar (north-eastern) for local Addis Ababa at 16h40 (13h40 GMT).

[Whiskery]

Should be more of it - shooting hijackers I mean!

[climbing turn]

hmn, Id rather there were less hijackers making it onto a/c than more shooting of them on a/c. There's something about bullets flying around a thin tube surrounded by fuel and full of electrics that un-nerves me.

[BlueEagle]

Well, Ethiopian are definitely getting more modern anyway, the last time an unsuccessful high jack attempt was made in the Middle East/Africa they cut the high jackers throats!

[Notso Fantastic]

This prompts a review of the British Afghan hijack case. Are there any 'good' hijacks where the perpetrators should not be sent back to the nation of hijacking? I don't think so. So why is the UK making that planeload of hijackers so welcome? What example does that set?

[Orca strait]

KISS (keep it simple stupid) this isn't about the latest in gun technology and image but the basic requirement to add another layer of defense without overwhelming the present duties and responsibilities of the pilots. Every air force officer in the past 50+ years has had basic training and proficiency checks using the humble .38, and carried them on board his or her aircraft. The naysayers in the arming of the pilot’s seem to think that we have to be trained as counterterrorism experts, whereas basic, safe gun handling and proficiency is all that is required. An armed pilot will not leave the flight deck in pursuit of bad guys in the back, but fortify the flight deck so as to get the aircraft on the ground ASAP.

Drawing from the many threads on security, arming, pilot decisions regarding safety issues on board the aircraft etc., there appears to be a common thread from the naysayer:
-piloting is about glamour and pay
-computers can fly the airplane anyway
-someone can fly the aircraft from the ground
-a gun would just boost a pilot’s ego

I do not mean to discredit naysayers whom are pilots, as I stated earlier this is about a balanced debate. As there are many reasons to arm the flight deck there are equal reasons not to arm it. What I will vehemently defend is our professionalism, responsibility, authority and the fact that yes; a pilot can be trained to handle a simple tool such as a firearm.

The recent release of the actions taken on the AA flight with the shoe-bomber give vivid and chilling detail of what the crew of a flight can encounter (congratulations to the entire crew on a job well done). At the crew level, we will study this scenario and train for it in the years to come, the same as when wind shear was first identified. We identify problems; prepare solutions and prevention strategies then train, train and train. Anyone who believes you can leave this to a computer should stick their head back into their Buck Rogers comic book and enjoy their take on reality.

As some may have astutely observed, an armed flight deck would not have helped in the case of the shoe bomber. However, an armed flight deck armed with pertinent intelligence (which was out there and known by the FBI and other security agencies), up to-date threat training and re-stated positions of authority and responsibility would be a big step in hi-jack /aircraft threat prevention.

Everything is at the political level at this point (this includes the unions which in my view are as politically charged and inept as our federal masters).

In the meantime, the crews will continue to relinquish their shoes and finger nail clippers at screening in the interest of "aviation security".

[Hoverman]

"So why is the UK making that planeload of hijackers so welcome?"
Because we always make everyone welcome, law abiding applicants for entry and bogus asylum seekers alike.
The UK taxpayer also spent a fortune providing lawyers to defend them when they were done for highjacking. :rolleyes:

"What example does that set?"
Precisely.
That's one of the reasons we attract more bogus asylum seekers than any country in Europe, and probably the world.

When then Home Secretary Jack Straw made a statement saying they'd be sent straight back because highjackers could not be seen to benefit from their actions there were howls of protest and he had to apologise and say he meant "after a trial, of course." :rolleyes:

[411A]

Well now, for all those opposed....Sky Marshals do indeed work.
Like Wyatt Earp...plug 'em fast...case closed.
No trial, no three squares a day...just very....dead.
Works good, lasts a long time.

[Kaptin M]

"Fools rush in (again) 411A.
Doctors said that about Thalidomide when it was released as a sedative!!

Assuming our "Sky Marshals" Buck and Roy Rogers) were NOT such "Dead-eye Dicks" - and obviously in this case they weren't, as a steward was wounded - and a couple of stray bullets entered the pilots' bodies. Remember, that cockpit door is double/triple latched from the INside.

I agree with the end result obtained in this case, but the weapons need further refining.

[GrandPrix]

Remind me again why an armed cockpit is bad. How can the snipers in the cabin make any of you feel safe?

[GrandPrix]

Orca Strait,

Great post. You are far more eloquent than I.
Could not agree with you more.
Still have not heard any effective deterence to another 9-11 type event.

[411A]

Pilots belong up front....not in the back...firing willy nilly into the...punters.
Marshall Dillon's...they ain't....more like Chester.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Kap M...I must most humbly and sincerely grovel at your feet seeking your forgivness and understanding for what I'm about to type:D

411A on this point and ONLY this point I agree with you...the only good hijacker is a dead one.

If they hijack an aircraft to a 3rd country and claim asylum then just put em on an aircraft home...shackled, and let their own countrymen deal with them...clearly the Politicians and Bleeding heart, cross dressing tree huggers can't face facts so why make them!

Pretty soon we'd run out of potential hijackers...it won't happen overnight, but it will happen:D


Chuck.

[Whiskery]

Chimbu chuckles - go to the top of the class. Dealing with hijackers must be SWIFT and FINAL.

If they hijack the aircraft to a 3rd country, I say, forget the shackles and wasting good space sending them home - execute the bastards on the tarmac with a complement of CNN news crew there to record the event.

A deterent is what is needed and a few more in flight shootings by the air marshalls or special services target practice on the tarmac will be all that is required.:cool: :cool:

[Orca strait]

My apologies on the long post, however a direct link was not available and the article is to good to pass up...

Mark Steyn
National Post
When last in this space, 10 days ago, I was writing about whether political correctness kills. This was apropos the 9/11 nutters: "Everything they did stuck out. But it didn't matter. Because the more they stuck out, the more everyone who mattered was trained to look the other way."

I didn't know the half of it. The other day, Johnelle Bryant, an official with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, gave an interview to ABC News in which she revealed that Mohammed Atta and three other September 11th terrorists had visited her Florida office seeking government loans. America, it seems, came this close to having the World Trade Center incinerated at the taxpayers' expense.

Mr. Atta swung by in May, 2000, and Ms. Bryant remembers quite a bit about it. "At first," she says, "he refused to speak with me," on the grounds that she was, in his words, "but a female." After he'd reiterated the point, she pulled rank: "I told him that if he was interested in getting a farm-service agency loan in my servicing area, then he would need to deal with me." Throughout the hour-long interview, he continued to dismiss her as "but a female."

Ms. Bryant says the applicant was asking for $650,000 to start a crop-dusting business. His plan was to buy a six-seater twin-prop and then remove the seats. "He wanted to build a chemical tank that would fit inside the aircraft and take up every available square inch of the aircraft except for where the pilot would be sitting."

Hmm.

When she explained that his application would have to be processed, Mr. Atta became "very agitated." He'd apparently been expecting to leave the office with cash in hand. "He asked me," recalls Ms. Bryant, "what would prevent him from going behind my desk and cutting my throat and making off with the millions of dollars in that safe." Try this with your Royal Bank loan officer -- I find it works every time. But Ms. Bryant replied politely that there was no money in the safe because loans are never given in cash, and also that she was trained in karate.

His fiendish plan stymied at every turn, Mr. Atta then spotted an aerial view of Washington hanging on the wall behind her. He told her he particularly liked the way it got all the famous landmarks of the city in one convenient picture, pointing specifically to the Pentagon and the White House. "He pulled out a wad of cash," says Ms. Bryant, "and started throwing money on my desk. He wanted that picture really bad."

She told him it wasn't for sale, but he only tossed more dough at her. "His look on his face became very bitter at that point," Ms. Bryant remembers. "He said, 'How would America like it if another country destroyed that city and some of the monuments in it,' like the cities in his country had been destroyed?"

Hmm.

Mr. Atta then moved on to other prominent landmarks in other American cities, and enquired about security at the World Trade Center. Ms. Bryant had a Dallas Cowboys souvenir on her desk, and he asked her about their spectacular stadium and, specifically, the "hole in the roof."

At that point, the chit-chat turned to Mr. Atta's own country, which he claimed was Afghanistan. "He mentioned Osama bin Laden," she says. "He could have been a character on Star Wars for all I knew." So Mr. Atta helpfully explained that this bin Laden guy "would someday be known as the world's greatest leader."

Alas, the interview ended badly from the terrorists' point of view when Ms. Bryant informed her visitor that the loan program is for farm-based projects and a crop-dusting business did not qualify.

A few weeks later, another September 11th killer showed up, Marwan al-Shehhi, seeking half-a-million bucks supposedly to buy a sugar-cane farm. Accompanying him was Mr. Atta, but he was cunningly disguised with a pair of glasses and claiming to be someone else entirely, attending in his capacity as Mr. al-Shehhi's accountant. Sportingly, Ms. Bryant went along with the wheeze. I'm reminded of the time my sister tried to wangle her boyfriend a day off work. She called up the receptionist and, adopting a fake accent, told her that she was the dentist's secretary and he needed to come in immediately for critical dental work. "My God, that's terrible," said the receptionist. "I'll tell him at once." She then buzzed through to the boyfriend: "Stewart, Karen just called pretending to be the dentist's secretary. Do you think she needs to see a doctor?"

But Ms. Bryant didn't think Mr. Atta was sick. The safe-breaking, the throat-slitting, the fake specs ... why, he was just being charmingly multicultural! "I felt that he was trying to make the cultural leap from the country that he came from," she says. "I was attempting, in every manner I could, to help him make his relocation into our country as easy for him as I could." Unfortunately, his imaginative business plan for a crop-duster capable of crop-dusting Texas was frustrated by the unduly onerous restrictions and bureaucratic torpor of the USDA program. By late summer, Mr. Atta and his chums had concluded the government was never going to buy them their own twin-props and they'd have to make do with the aircraft that were already up there. So they switched their flight training courses from small planes to large jet simulators, and told their instructors to skip all that takeoff and landing stuff.

Ms. Bryant has come forward now because she thinks "it's very vital that the Americans realize that when these people come to the United States, they don't have a big 'T' on their forehead." No, indeed. In some cases, they have a big "T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T" flashing in neon off the end of their nose. Ten days ago, I pointed out that these fellows made virtually no effort to blend in. They weren't in "deep cover," they were barely covered at all. Atta was the brains of the operation, and he did a marginally better job of it than Leslie Nielsen would have. His one great insight into Western culture was his assumption that he could get a government grant to take out the Pentagon. Yet no matter how dumb he was, officialdom was always dumber.

"If they watch this interview and they see the type of questions that Atta asked me," Ms. Bryant told ABC News, "then perhaps they will recognize a terrorist, and make the call that I didn't make." Meanwhile, here are some signs to look for:

1) He threatens to cut your throat.

2) He talks about the destruction of prominent landmarks.

3) He enquires about security at said landmarks.

4) He hails Osama bin Laden as a great leader.

There'll be more of these stories, tales of men virtually screaming their intentions but up against a culture sensitivity-trained into a coma. A stump-toothed Appalachian mountain man would get slung out on his ear if he was that misogynist and abusive in a government office. In a Hollywood movie, the guy refusing to deal with the little lady and demanding to see the real boss would be a sexist Republican Congressman. In the new motion-picture blockbuster The Sum Of All Fears, the Islamic terrorists of Tom Clancy's novel have been replaced with neo-Nazis -- a safe villain that won't offend our delicate multicultural sensibilities.

The good news is we're up against idiots. The bad news is we're also up against the suppler idiocies of current Western orthodoxy. Thus, the U.S. government's new plans to photograph and fingerprint visitors from countries "believed to harbour terrorists" have already been attacked by Mary Robinson, the UN Human Rights honcho who's never met an Arab dictator she didn't like. Islamists want to kill us in the name of Islam. Regrettable, but there it is. If we pretend otherwise, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Canadian Islamic Congress and the Islamic Society of Britain might be nice to us. But, speaking personally, I can't say I care. If Islamic lobby groups throughout the Western world really want to hitch their star to a bunch of psychopathic morons, good luck to them. It's a free country. Hey, we'll even give you a government grant to tell us how racist we are.

[taildrag]

One pilot here in the US recently wrote a letter to a newspaper saying, despite ALPA's position, most of the pilots he surveyed, when asked, "Would you like to fly with some of the pilots you have worked with, knowing they have access to a gun in the cockpit?" the answer was almost invariably, "No!"

Judging by some of the posts here, it is easy to understand why.

I'm a working ALPA member, but disagree with their position.

There is no viable solution, either way. I know some pilots would like to go down fighting, instead of feeling helpless. Would that solve the problem? Probably not. Commanders chafing at loss of authority somehow seem to think they can solve the problem by shooting terrorists and save the day. Good luck!

Perhaps a pistol might comfort a pilot, but I seriously doubt guns in the cockpit in most cases would be enough to prevent hijacks by determined terrorists.

Calls for "viable alternatives" are hollow. There ain't none.

Aye, there's the rub.

[steamchicken]

The Afghans who took the Ariana 727 are still here because they are legally refugees: persons fleeing persecution or well-founded fear of persecution, as laid down in the UN Convention on Refugees. As I recall, it later came out that the hijack was a put-up job to get out of Afghanistan and everyone on the aircraft was more or less in agreement, still less did anybody get hurt. We can't send 'em back for nicking one of Mullah Omar's aeroplanes...

BTW: Good luck to the Ethiopian cops!

[Capt. Crosswind]

I expect the leading experts in this field would be El Al.
I wonder if the bureaucrats have bothered to ask them for advice?

[max_cont]

It’s been an interesting read…as usual.

Speaking as someone who used to use firearms in the military on anti terrorist ops, I would wholly agree that pilots could be trained to use a simple weapon like a pistol. I do however remember the amount of practice it required to become lethal to our intended targets and not team members and the public. I know you cannot maintain a safe and accurate standard of combat ability by shooting once or twice a year.

When I left the Army and started to shoot competitively in practical pistol and police pistol competitions, I was firing around 1200 rounds a month just to stay good. I was never a champion but my standard was not too embarrassing either. I honestly believe that the vast number of pilots won’t have the inclination or the time to master the art of shooting and thinking at the speed required in a CQB situation. I fully accept that there are more US personnel who can shoot to a very high standard, but adding fear and surprise would reduce that ability to something more mundane. How many employers would be willing to give line pilots the range time needed to maintain that skill?

The only viable solution IMHO is to let dedicated personnel train and serve on A/C throughout the World. They get to train for and maintain the required skills and we don’t have to play “Billy the Kid” or get shot at in the process. It’s got to be a win win situation. :)

[ijp]

Darn, and I had my trusty Sharps 45-70 ready to go. Maybe pop a Buffalo or two during cruse. Also, if we were "packing" we could say goodby to security, or compare guns to see whose was bigger?

[Roadtrip]

There is a huge commotion in the cabin, screams, fighting, and now someone is trying to break down the cockpit door.

I don't need to be a marksman, or a delta force team member to empty a magazine into the first, second, and third guy that manages to break through any part of the door. This elitist BS about being some sort of trained anti-terrorist expert is a red-herring meant to confuse people who can't think critically. As far as pax or crew being injured inadvertantly . . . does anyone think that an Air Marshall would even hesitate to shoot through a pax if the survival of the aircraft and the lives of maybe thousands on the ground was at stake?? How do you feel about Barney Fife and Mr. Fish Inspector packing iron in the cabin?? How much proficiency and training does Mr. Fish and Game Warden have in close order combat in an aircraft?

The alternative to losing command of the aircraft is mass death of those on-board AND a lot of people on the ground. I'm sure 9-11 would have been MUCH worse off if they had lethal cockpit defense. The lack of common sense with some of you is astounding.

[Capt. Crosswind]

Well it seems those who argue to not arm pilots are failing to win over support from those in favour of the armed flight deck.

However, there is one group who would fully support the unarmed pilots argument - al Qaida.

I trust this causes some discomfort to those in favour of a defenceless flight deck.

[max_cont]

I was under the impression that we were discussing methods of ensuring flight security.

Pax who happen to be armed, do not come into the equation.

The thought of you blazing away at the first thing through the door is precisely why our governments won’t allow us to be armed.

It has been already been pointed out that pax will now know they have to intervene or die. The odds that a small number of unarmed terrorists will prevail over 200 plus pax, fighting for their lives is slim at best. They most certainly won’t have the time to break into the flight deck at their leisure. (Just me doing some critical thinking ;) )

I think it very strange that some advocates of arming the flight crew believe that they don’t require practise in CQB. Just about all security agencies that do this, train very hard at it. I will admit that most team members don’t include a pilot among them; perhaps that’s where they’re going wrong. ;)

It’s not elitist BS, it’s the simple truth. Next time you’re down the range give it a go and see how you compare. Just like flying, it has to be trained for and the skill level maintained.

The ammunition used by some teams is designed to disintegrate after hitting a target. This helps protects the A/C skin. Shooting through an innocent passenger (as has been suggested) in an effort to hit a terrorist is a big no no for that reason alone, not to mention the legal and ethical implications. I have no idea whether the US sky marshals are issued with this type of ammunition though. Even standard ammunition does strange thing after passing through a medium. I have seen a 7.62 round hit a small bit of wood and change direction by at least 80 degree’s. This is no surprise to anyone that shoots a lot.

It does occur to me that if the normal type of police firearms training were sufficient to deal with this kind of threat, why do governments spend fortunes, training special teams?

I repeat, the best thing IMHO is to let properly trained men and women do the job, while we fly the aircraft, it’s what we do best.

Some form none lethal flight deck defence would be a good idea though, how about very powerful cattle prod that could double as a nightstick. This way it could be left on the A/C like the handcuffs and is unlikely to upset to many foreign governments. I would imagine that you could defend the flight deck with such tool.

[Roadtrip]

1. If the pax manage to stop the terrorists, they won't be tearing down the cockpit door. Hence, no need for lethal cockpit defense. Can we be sure that that will be 100 percent effective? OF COURSE NOT.

2. If someone manages to break through the door, I don't have time to play 20 questions on their motive or identity. For the sake of saving thousands of lives, questions come later.

3. I don't need to go to a "range" to be proficient at hitting a man size target at 4 feet range . . . . just armed and prepared. The hardened door give me time to prepare physically and mentally.

4. The aircraft can fly itself on autopilot if necessary. Because the pilot takes his hands off the yoke and throttle doesn't mean the airplane snaps out of control. Another non-sensical false arguement put forth by the ill-informed or disengenuous.

5. Lethal cockpit defense is LAST DITCH. For those who are challenged by critical thinking, that means that it's the defense of LAST RESORT. Last resort means all other screening, air marshals, Barney Fifes, Fish Inspectors, pax intervention . . . . AND the hardened cockpit door has failed. Lethal cockpit defense is the LAST THING BEFORE COMMAND OF THE AIRCRAFT IS LOST AND THOUSANDS POTENTIALLY ARE MURDERED.

6. The governement and airlines have, so far, show themselves to be INCOMPETENT of defending the cockpit. Personally I don't care what the government or companies want or don't want. It's not THEIR LIVES at stake everyday. It's ours - EVERYDAY.

Security is best in layers. Forbidding the final and most effective form of defense is just plain stupid.

And BTW, cockpit defense weapons should be installed as aircraft equipment in quick reaction safes at each pilot position, not carried on the person.

[max_cont]

We also cannot be sure that an armed pilot would be 100% effective. Part of any soldier or LEO’S firearms training includes clearing stoppages. One at the wrong time and you’re stuffed.

It’s very easy to miss a man size target. You can see it every day on the range, especially when you throw fear or panic into the equation. Try shooting against a pro-timer one-day and see how good you are then. You personally may be an excellent shot, but there are many more shooters out there where the safest place for bystanders is in front of the person shooting and these individuals have been blazing away for years.

I suppose that in your scenario the terrorist wouldn’t be unsporting and attack the flight deck in numbers, so you can calmly shoot them one at a time.

You’re dead right about security in layers though. This has got to be the way forward.

It does seem that the US government would rather shoot down an A/C if it becomes hi-jacked and heads toward a sensitive area. It’s now just another unfortunate fact of life.

I would hope that the US government considered the arguments for and against arming flight crews. Although you’re arguments are passionately put, they and similar arguments failed to win the day. I suspect that some of the counter arguments came from the security agencies themselves. Until you find a more convincing argument, you’re going to have to stick with the fire axe like the rest of us.

Cheers.

PS Thanks for the tip re the autopilot, I’ve always wondered why things calmed down when I say, “centre in command” after we’ve cleaned up :D

[WhatsaLizad?]

max cont,

It's good to see that your mentioned security agencies have provided the cockpit crews the training and guidance on defensive use of the crash axe.

Have you gotten any real training?

I for one am scared of sinking it into the head of my Captain on the backswing yet I read nothing about this from any of the anti gun crowd.

Your gun range examples don't apply much either. How many rounds have you seen fired from a seated postion at a simulated cockpit door 3 feet away? We aren't talking about hitting head looking around the mid-gally from the cockpit, we are talking about hitting a struggling human in the final stages of a successful door breech, one at a time.

If you want to play Medievel axe warrior, go ahead. I think the modern defense will be safer many miles from safety at 50W

[max_cont]

WhatsaLizad? Sorry I don’t get the bit about security agencies giving advice re the fire axe. To clarify my statement: since the US pilots are not allowed to have a handgun on the flight deck, the only item of use is the fire axe. (Pretty much like the rest of aviation)

Rest assured, your government is not the only government not to have a coherent strategy for aircraft security and no, I’ve not had any training on the use of a fire axe for self-defence. We’re still debating which bit to use, the spike or the blade. :)

If you think it’s likely that you are going to hit your skipper on the back swing with the axe, I don’t like his chances of surviving an encounter with you armed with a handgun. ;)

My reference to the range has more significance than you would imagine. The hero only blows the evil terrorist clean off his/her feet with a pistol in Hollywood. In real life thing are a bit more difficult. Unless you can hit the body T right at the start, your suicidal terrorist will be all over you like a rash. He or she may die from wounds received later on, but that won’t matter. If they have done their homework they will know how to enter a defended doorway and maximise their chances of achieving their goal. You being able to hit him in the foot arm leg abdomen or wherever doesn’t get the job done. You can bet your life you aren’t going to get the chance to shoot them one at a time, it’s going to be fast and furious. One of the reasons security agencies use SMG’s as the weapon of choice is because it far easier to hit the right places when you’re stressed.

I agree with you that a pistol is far more effective than an axe… in trained hands. The problem is, is that some pilots believe that they don’t need the training or practice to maintain that effectiveness.

Unless your government has a change of heart, I’d start working on that back swing of yours. ;)

[Capt. Crosswind]

Proponents of a Defenceless Flight Deck

Does it ever concern you that you have 100% support from al Qaida ??

[LAZYB]

llamas,

A stunning dimissal that clearly indicates who is the better man. :D

It is also clear that anyone with a poor memory and/or who misspells shall have their whole life's work and knowledge justifiably repudiated.:o

With frangible bullets in the firearm, the plane’s passengers could be protected...

A witty retort, & unresponsive:

it really doesn't matter if a bullet punctures the fuselage of an airplane. Trust me, the plane will not explode if it does, and no passengers will be sucked out, James Bond films notwithstanding.

You have done much to support firearms in the cockpit with your haughty oneupmanship.

The absolute ne plus ultra team player:p

[Roadtrip]

It's not the PC politicians and security agency chiefs that put their ass on the line everyday. They sit in their safe offices very detached from the reality situation. After all, these are the same people responsible the mess we're in now.

I say again. I don't need to be a marksman to hit an intruder trying to break through a reinforced door at 4 feet, especially with warning. With a moderate training program in weapon handling and ROE, pilots could be taught to handle weapons, especially since many are already familiar. I dare say that a single hit to any part of the body would significantly slow the breaching process. The second hit would most likely stop it altogether.

A jam? In the very unlikely event of a jam, there's another weapon instantly available from the other pilot. Any weapon is only most effective when warning time is available -- that is what the reinforced door does -- it buys time. When the time is up, the door is breached and you're facing down determined terrorists, what do you want to be holding, a .40 cal. or your d**k?

In case you're not informed, Mr. Magaw, head of the TSA, is a former BATF type and is fevently anti-gun. I guess as long as his butt isn't in the sling everyday, it's easy to hold his opinion. Further, if lethal cockpit defense is such a bad idea why haven't they even tried to explain and give their reasoning behind their ruling, aside from "we don't support it." The reason is THEY DON'T HAVE ANY LOGICAL REASONS EXCEPT THAT THE ATA AND ANTI-GUN LOBBY ARE AGAINST IT.

These guys are betting with our lives that 9/11 won't happen again. Gross buffonery comes to mind as a pertinent descriptions.

I'M SURE 9/11 WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WORSE HAD THE COCKPIT HAD LETHAL DEFENSE.

[I. M. Esperto]

http://www.strangecosmos.com/read.asp?JokeID=3151

No Joke

[GlueBall]

The "hijack theme" of breaking into the cockpit and wrestling control from the pilots is no longer an option for terrorists. This technique has already been expended and would no longer provide an element of surprise.

The knowledge and certainty that all concerned passengers, fearing for their own safety and survival, would pounce on any prospective hijacker(s) makes the likelihood of this scenario and the necessity of pistol packing pilots history. (El Al pilots are unarmed).

As has been demonstrated in the Middle East, the greater danger will come from suicidal martyrs with explosives strapped to their bodies. Getting past airport security checkpoints with undetected explosives on body or in checked baggage must be the mission of enhanced airline/airport security.

Additionally, airport perimeters could be made more secure. Instead of an ordinary chain link fence, a concrete retainer wall encompassing terminals and runways would prevent potential "truck bombs" from being driven and crashed into taxiing jets.

[Roadtrip]

"The "hijack theme" of breaking into the cockpit and wrestling control from the pilots is no longer an option for terrorists."

I guess that's why the airlines are being forced to spend about $20k per aircraft on hardened cockpit doors.

The lack of critical thinking is truly astounding. Gamble with your own life, not mine, pal.

[I. M. Esperto]

I repeat, we need to be armed.

[aviator]

There is progress being made after all...

From the latest issue of Avweb:

GUNS ALOFT, CONTINUED: Yesterday, bipartisan legislation that would create a test program allowing up to 1,400 airline pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit was approved by the U.S. House Subcommittee on Aviation.

The legislation would authorize a two-year testing period
during which 250 airline pilots would be deputized to carry weapons. At the end of the two-year period, the program would be reviewed and could be expanded to include up to 1,400 pilots. Preference would go to pilots with experience in the military or law enforcement.

NOTE: AVweb's NewsWire at <http://avweb.com/n/?25b> includes the complete text of the proposed legislation, HR-4635, the "Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act."
:)

[Wizard]

Does anyone know what is the actual weapon being proposed or considered likely and also any info on if special rounds (ammunition) is being proposed or considered and if so what type?

[Capt. Crosswind]

I have no idea what weapon or round but my vote would be for a S&W revolver - no problems with jams as with an auto pistol,simple & reliable as pointed out in previous post by Ilamas.
A low velocity hollow point round might provide ample stopping power ? I'm no expert & out of my province in the matter of firearms and the above suggestion maybe nostalgia.
I was trained in one day to safety & proficiency standard with the S&W 38 shooting from standing & kneeling on one knee position a long time ago. Seems to me that is all that is required - you don't need to be trained to Special Forces standard to be a deterrent to suicide hijackers.
The proposal seems inadequate but at least a step in the right direction.

[I. M. Esperto]

I think .38 hollow point's are the right load.

[Orca strait]

The discussion on weapon and ammunition IMHO is not relevant. Whatever combination is chosen should not be public knowledge.
The idea of arming some flight decks is to provide one more reason not to take on an airliner when there are more accessible targets of opportunity out there for the would be anarchists.
Let’s hope they are foiled at all roads and avenues…

[Flash2001]

The standard US military sidearm for many years was a .38 calibre revolver. In the early 1900s the Colt model of 1905 and later the 1911 replaced it because it would not stop Muslim fanatics called, I think, Juramentado. These used to enter US military areas in the Phillipines and do serious damage before noticing multiple .38 calibre hits. In this case size does matter.

While I see the rationale behind many of the anti gun in the cockpit arguments, I cannot think that there are many pilots who would not wish to be armed when the b******s are at the door.

Obviously preventing them from getting there should take first priority.

[ww1]

My problem with having guns in the flight deck is:
1. a potential hijacker will KNOW that there's a gun on board, which solves one of his problems;
2. training & recurrent training on gun handling;

And regarding those armored flight deck doors - what's to happen if we are knocked out in a crash, and the cabin crew can't open the ****ing door to get to us?

Let's get better-trained personnel manning better equipment at our airport screening stations. Let's NOT saddle pilots with more resposibility than we already have.

[Capt. Crosswind]

WW1 ,if the suicide hijacker knows there is a gun on the flight deck it does not solve a problem - it gives him a problem.
In the current security situation control of the aircraft is the target & is what has to be protected.
The safe use of a revolver is not rocket science - and recurrent training is only necessary for Special Forces/ Law Enforcement
professionals who need to be highly proficient at all ranges & under all sorts of conditions.

Flash2001, interesting post, there's nothing new under the sun
it seems.

[Flash2001]

IBNI (It'd Be Nice If) the flight crew could carry arms without a lot of paper that would, if compromised, tell everyone where the guns are. We should maximize the uncertainty that a hijacker feels.

[ww1]

capt. crosswind
You mean it'd be okay for you to fly with a guy charged with the responsibility of handling a type of deadly weapon he hasn't touched in 1 or 5 or more years?
It's a remote possibility, I know, but if we are expected to use deadly force in a crisis situation, I think it would be prudent to be proficient in the employment of that deadly force.
We get checked every six months flying the airplane, and although misuse of a handgun would kill less people at a time than a misflown airliner, they'de be just as dead.

[Wizard]

ww1 - when was the last time you, or most of us for that matter, were proficient in wielding the fire axe for a lethal blow and be "proficient in the employment of that deadly force" as you suggest would be needed before this serious additional defense option (handgun) being discussed here would be OK to be used?

[bugg smasher]

One wonders, underboost, who indeed would be well-advised to stick “to subjects of which you have knowledge”.

You have been clearly presented with an argument that is extravagantly forceful, yet logical, thoroughly considered, and strategically well founded in the constructs of current world opinion.

Unlike some, I defer to those who have the ability to think in the abstract. They may yet, God help us all, save this planet from the excesses of the many.

So, my weak-kneed brother, answer now, or forever hold your tortured and self-indulgent peace.

[Wizard]

just came across this written by a US journalist............

"If hijackers are able to force themselves into the cockpit, all that pilots have to prevent the plane from being turned into a cruise missile is a crash ax, a flashlight and a flight manual."

That's what David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association had to say while endorsing pilots carrying guns in the cockpit. Oh, now I feel safe.

I say, give the pilot an "armed seat." If the cockpit door is broken open, the pilot pushes a button and the back of the seat would let go with a fatal blast, killing the terrorist SOB.

Never mind that thousands of lives are at risk from air terrorism. John Magaw, undersecretary of transportation security, with Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta hiding behind him, told a senate committee that pilots don't need guns. In fact, Magaw said he decided they will not have them.

I repeat what I said last September: If pilots are denied this one last chance to save lives, they should strike. Now. There's no requirement they sacrifice their lives for their job.

Remember, the same government refusing guns for pilots has decided that if a terrorist does get into the cockpit, the government will order the plane shot down, killing everyone!

Please explain where it says on my ticket that when I board the flight, I put my life in the hands of a Washington bureaucrat with his finger on the "fire" button.

I hope intrepid trial lawyers are loading their legal ammo for the lawsuits with Magaw's name on them the next time a plane is hijacked.

And there will be a next time if you listen to Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al. It's one doomsday headline after another from these men telling us it's not if, just when, and we can't prevent it.

They speak for the government. But it's the primary job of government to protect citizens, first within our borders and then beyond.

The warnings we're getting, with all the gloom and doom of Armageddon, is that when this apocalypse happens, it will be here, on our home turf.

OK. If that is the case, then what's wrong with taking all means to protect ourselves?

How safe are we?

Despite all the hoo haa, ever since Sept. 11, people have gotten past airline security with guns, knives, swords and all other kinds of possible weapons.

Bolstered with their new importance as "government employees," airport security workers feel free to search people arbitrarily, practice rudeness, get too personal with body searches, waste time on the wrong people and manhandle personal belongings.

Airport employment checks across the country have shown high numbers of employees who weren't American citizens, lied on their applications, used false ID's and had criminal records. These were people doing security checks and maintenance people with access to planes. Any of them could hide a weapon or bomb onboard, if that was their intent.

They should have been fired, but no! Excuses were found. As for citizenship, it's in the works now to speed up legalizing them. Wait a minute! Why the special treatment?

Just what is the line between us and terrorists who may try to pull another hijacking horror similar to 9-11?

If you listen to the administration … Well, if you listen to the administration, what you hear is that "we just don't know."

So what's the problem with Magaw and Mineta?

You have a plane filled with people, cargo and fuel and flying at high altitude and speed. Terrorists take over. It doesn't matter whether they have box cutters, guns, bombs or nail clippers. At some point, they get into the cockpit.

If they get that far, clearly the rest of the people in the plane couldn't stop them. At that moment, life and death are in balance between the terrorist at the door and the pilots.

What do they do? According to the guys safe on the ground and protected by armed security people – "just fly the plane."

Are those pilots – educated, trained, experienced, responsible and with a desire to live to get home to their families – able to defend themselves and the hundreds whose lives they have in their hands?

No. Because John Magaw has decided – no guns.

It makes as much sense as police without guns or a disarmed Secret Service. In fact, it makes as much sense as telling citizens they can't defend their homes with a gun.

It's not about stopping terrorism – it's about guns and the attempt to disarm all Americans. It shows how little value bureaucrats put on our lives and how pitiful is the war on terrorism.

[Capt. Crosswind]

Point taken & acknowledged WW1
I guess the point I wanted to get across is that to be a competent deterent to suicide hijackers, pilots don't need the
training of Special Forces / Law Enforcement professionals.
Safe handling of the firearm and being able to hit a barn door at ten paces is adequate training for this situation.
What recurrent training is required I leave to those more knowledgable in this field.
In my military time we did an annual refresher on the range
which seemed okay for the basic proficiency level to which we were trained.

[ww1]

roger that, capt. crosswind

[Wizard]

Pilots offered free
firearms training
Classes seen as way to protect passengers, crew on airliners

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

By Jon Dougherty

In the wake of serial terrorist attacks involving the use of hijacked airliners, one firearms training company is offering free defensive gun courses to commercial airline pilots.

"Commercial airliners must be willing to take an uncompromising stand that will not allow anyone, under any circumstances, to access the controls" of a plane, said Dr. Ignatius Piazza, the founder and director of the Front Sight Firearms Training Institute, in Las Vegas. "The pilot and co-pilot are responsible for the security of the cockpit. Without a gun to defend it, the cockpit crew is easily defeated."

Piazza's offer of free gun training comes as a number of airline experts and former pilots are pushing for enhanced security and safety standards in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, in which two hijacked airliners were flown into each of the twin towers of the World Trade Center and another aircraft was flown into the Pentagon. The twin towers collapsed within an hour of being struck.

A fourth hijacked airliner crashed in western Pennsylvania; authorities believe passengers may have overpowered the 3-4 hijackers reportedly on board.

U.S. government officials have said they are placing armed deputy marshals aboard more airline flights to complement a rather small number of armed "sky marshals" who accompany mostly international flights. Arming pilots and aircrews has also been considered but has yet to be seriously discussed.

"… When both pilot and co-pilot are armed and trained … they have the tools, ability and will to defend themselves and repel the murderous intent of terrorists," Piazza said.

Former airline pilots also supported Piazza's plan.

"The [Sept. 11] terrorists knew that they would face no opposition to the hijacking, once they managed to get on the airplane," said Dennis Vied, a retired TWA captain with 28 years experience flying commercial airliners. "All they had to do was threaten to do something to a passenger, and they would be allowed access to the cockpit."

"The terrorists knew they would face no armed opposition," Vied, a former Front Sight student, added. "We have such an abhorrence to guns that we fail to allow the good people to arm themselves for defense. I hope this is a wakeup call to America."

Vied said he believes aircrews should be armed.

"There is so much emphasis on prevention and precious little emphasis on the ultimate lines of defense," he said.

Aaron Benedetti, a United Airlines 747 copilot and Front Sight graduate, agreed that the emphasis practiced by airlines is on compliance with hijackers, not self-defense or defense of the airplane.

"We get recurrent training regarding hijacking and security procedures, but the training centers around placating and negotiating with the terrorists to safely land the plane," he said. "We are told not to make any aggressive move[s] and to work toward a calm outcome."

"The World Trade Center disaster is a real blind spot in our training," he continued. "The attack reveals that perhaps the only way the pilots could have stopped it would have been to deny access to the cockpit and stop the terrorists from taking over the controls of the plane. …"

Benedetti said he recommends locking the cockpit and allowing the copilot to guard the cockpit door with a gun.

Mark Donovan, a pilot for Southwest Airlines, noted that the "political climate in commercial aviation prior to the World Trade Center attack has not been conducive to arming pilots."

"In fact, just the opposite has occurred," Donovan said. "Airlines have disarmed pilots to the point where a terrorist with a box cutter can take over control of a plane because no one is armed to defend the plane or themselves."

He noted that despite disarming pilots, "numerous federal agencies are allowed to carry a gun on commercial airlines, including such dubiously qualified agencies as the Bureau of Engraving and Printing," a division of the Treasury Department, "the Department of Agriculture, Department of Education and the Smithsonian Institute."

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

any comments on these guys for training aircrew?
http://www.frontsight.com/home.html

[Wizard]

House committee approves arming airline pilots 26th June

see http://www.nandotimes.com/politics/story/447908p-3583980c.html