***arm Airline Pilots Now***

[tdponder]

ARM OUR AIRLINE PILOTS NOW!

According to news reports the Bush Administration has made a
decision not to allow Airline pilots to protect themselves, their
crews and their passengers with firearms.

The Administration and the Congress should realize now that WHEN
more airliners are hijacked and used as missiles against Americans then
we shall be getting only what we did not prevent!

The administration and Congress are loosing their voters' trust by not taking all appropriate steps to see that the tragedy of 9-11 is not repeated. You think there is political unrest now, think about charges after 9-11 happens again! Voters will hold President George W. Bush and his Administration and members of the Congress personally responsible.

If a significant number of AIRLINE PILOTS REFUSED TO FLY UNARMED then this incredibly wrong decision would be reversed overnight! Passengers also should demand to have armed pilots.

The notion that pilots would shoot their own flight instruments is absurd in that a pilot would be shooting always and without exception toward the cockpit door BEHIND his pilot seat. Already Air Marshals are flying armed with pistols that have special ammo that does not penetrate the aircraft fuselage. What's the difference between first class and the cockpit, 10 to 15 feet?

How many more airline pilots must die by having their throats sliced open before the necessity of arming our pilots and making them the last stop in thwarting a devastating hijack is understood?

In the name of the security of our country I urge you to contact your members of Congress and to notify President Bush that you support the reversal of this decision immediately!

T. D. Ponder
Airline Transport Pilot
Birmingham, AL

[email protected]

Contact Email Addresses:

[email protected]

[email protected]

Congress

http://www.mrsmith.com/index2.html

FAA:

[email protected]

[Avman]

Arming pilots is just about the craziest idea I've ever heard. There's more chance of a firearm being misused by a pilot than being attacked by terrorists. There should be no arms whatsoever on board the cabin and cockpit of an airliner, period!

I for one would not want to fly with an airline whose crews are armed.

[411A]

Arming pilots is a complete waste of time. They belong up front, flying the aeroplane, not exchanging fire at the OK corral.
Armed and properly trained Air Marshals, on every flight...the only way, IMHO.

[CloggyUK]

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: "

[TDK mk2]

I wonder if T D Ponders real name is Charlton Heston...

[Skol]

411A. If you want Air Marshals on every flight you're going to need 90,000 of them

[Wino]

Pilots were required to carry guns untill well into the 50s and were actively encouraged to keep carrying them into the 70s during the hijack years. There are no cases of bad things happening as a result of pilots carrying guns.

On the other hand 1 hijacking was foiled when the captain shot the Hijacker dead. It would seam that the impirical evidence of 50 years of guns in aircraft are that they significantly improved safety, not harmed it.

Cheers
Wino

[underboost]

I'm trying hard to understand the objection to arming pilots, but I guess I'm too dense. The way I understand the ALPA proposal, a gun in the cockpit would be employed only after every other method to prevent terrorists from taking control of the aircraft had failed. In other words, the hijackers are aboard the aircraft, they have overpowered or killed the cabin crew, they have not been subdued by the passengers, and they're busily breaking down the reinforced cockpit door. The flight crew is either going to subdue them, hold them at bay, or go for a one-way ride into a building. I suspect even a European cockpit crew might want to unholster a weapon along about then.

[Capt. Crosswind]

I think this vote should be for pilots only & not the people who will be will be watching the tragedy unfold on CNN.
Wino has given the answer to the fatuous postings in the negative & Underboost has summed up the situation nicely.

[B Sousa]

Me, I like the CAR-15. Trouble is the God-Dam Hot Brass from the left seater keeps bouncing off the glass and ending up down the back of my flight suit....
If Mohammed wants in the doorway, drop him like a bad habit.....
Yes We are ARMED in Nevada......

[Semaphore Sam]

Europeans have a prediliction against ' typical US cowboy' ideas of individualistic bravado; understood. But!

Given, most flights will not have 'Sky Marshalls' assigned (just not enough to go around).

Given, 'Sky Marshall' duties as defined before 9-11, were not to prevent cockpit entry, but to prevent cabin take-over. The threat has changed; it is now sudden attack against the cockpit. To prevent such attack, 'Sky Marshals' must act as a permanent barricade against such sudden storming of the cockpit. They can't be unknown pax, spread through-out the cabin, because their reaction time would be too slow. To work effectively, there has to be a physical, gun-proof barrier behind which they would stay, guns at the ready; anything else would not signify. I am talking about a WWI gun-nest, with one-way mirrors & bullet-proof walls, between pax & cockpit. Without this, each time a pilot takes a pee, or the F/A takes food/coffee/gossip forward, there is unacceptable threat of takeover; the idiotic 'strengthening' of cockpit doors is laughable. We all know such a 'barrier' strategy will never be put in place.

Given, 1)most flights will not have marshalls, 2)even with marshalls, their deployment will not be effective, and 3)the cockpit door is no barrier at all, an armed cockpit crew is probably the only reasonable answer, inadequate as it may be.

[B Sousa]

"I suspect even a European cockpit crew might want to unholster a weapon along about then."
So Sorry Underboost, guns are forbidden in Europe unless your a Terrorist

[Avius]

Arming Pilots means additional training, physical AND psychological. As these skills need to be maintained, a great deal of recurrent training is needed.......Professionals such as police-forces are training to use their weapons almost on a weekly basis.......hardly justifiable for a pilot flying the line.

I say, get me a safe double door to the cockpit and let me do my job flying the airplane. The rules of engagement have changed after 9/11 and the chances of hitting a bullet between the Harward MBA educated eyes of an fortune 500 executive, who happens to sit in the first class are probably greater than having a fanatic nightgown gaining access to the cockpit.

That's my opinion, anyway

Cheers

[Konkordski]

Wonder how many pilots -- particularly in the USA -- really just want the kudos associated with being authorised to carry a gun.

I know of at least two instances in which pilots have come to physical blows in a cockpit over disagreements. Now throw in a firearm for good measure... :rolleyes:

[STOP STOP]

Don't care much for the idea of any one (Maximum of two as Flight Engineers disappear) of the flightdeck crew leaving a secure cockpit to tackle any concievable number of highly motivated and trained Terrorists with what, one maybe two guns! No Thanks.

Just imagine - Highly vocal but unarmed hijackers over powering one Heroic pilot - oops, now they're armed.


Increased ground security ensuring no weapons or terrorists board an aircraft. If this fails and there is trouble on board, we can divert and get the Aircraft on the ground ASAP from the safety of a properly secured Flight Deck.

[Lucifer]

Wino

Nice fact, but the truth is that although it was allowed to carry guns from the Cuban Missile Crisis until 2001 I believe, this was to be done on an airline-by-airline basis (not individual choice), and none signed up. As such, pilots have been fully unarmed for far longer than you imply.

To be honest, 2 pilots vs 4 or more hijackers don't stand a hope in hell: pilots get bundled by more people than they can hope to shoot, and hijackers gain 2 perfectly working guns. Great.

[ETOPS773]

Just out of curiosity..how many of you guys do think Bin Laden and his loonies are going to use planes as weapons again??The reason 11/9 worked so well is because they had the best element of attack-suprise.we are expecting planes to be used next time,I personally don`t think they will.Its been done.I think they will strike again in another destructive and spectacular .This is not the place for speculation on that..back to the point though.

Anyone hear about the Air Canada 767 that was escorted back to KLAX after a passenger did something suspicious.
I fyou did,you`ll know the passengers piled on top of the b*****d and pretty much stopped anything happening anyway.

You really think passengers will sit back and let it happen again..I don`t think so.
From personal experiance..when your afraid,your body pumps out a hell of alot of adrenaline..i don`t know the science of it,but its for a good reason i believe..prepares the body for shock and unusual conditions.If someone hijacks my plane i`d be worried..and ever discovered who the most dangerous people are..they are the ones who are afraid and are being cornered.fact.
thats the passengers.
Remember the plane that didn`t hit any buildings..think it was a UAL 767??..anyway,they learn`t about the NYC/DC antics and took over the plane so it wasn`t used as a missile.They knew what was going to happen,I don`t believe the passengers in the other planes that hit buildings did..I believe the pilots said they were returning to airport?
My point is..anyone who hijacks a plane now,unless he has a heck of alot of nasty friends on board,is going to face alot of very scared passengers,stiff resistance..and they WILL fight him,and i think..as long as the aircraft isn`t empty,will overpower the hijackers.

I`m 20..haven`t lived compared to some of you guys..only got a PPL..not a commercial pilot,(I wannabe)..but i know already,guns are not going to be on a flight deck of my aircraft.EVER.
They aren`t the solution to problems,they cause too many to be called that.

Just my 2 cents anyway guys.

Stephen.

[Miles2000]

Well said, ETOPS.

This subject was debated ad nauseam only recently. The results of the poll then were much the same as this time - less than a third of pilots wanting to be armed.

Is it time to close the subject? It is NOT (thank god) going to happen.

[Capt. Crosswind]

Looks like the anti gun wusses have started to hijack this serious thread to tell the guys who are in the front line how it should be done. Like I said before - these people full of hypothetical reasons for not arming the flight deck will be watching the tragedy unfold on CNN.
When the suicide hijackers fly into the nuclear plant/battle group carrier/major building or what have you they (the unarmed flight deck push) will disappear into the woodwork from whence they came.
And for the airline beancounters - let me clue you in - the pax aren't coming back until they know the flight deck is secure.

[I'd rather]

I tend to agree with Stop Stop. If you put a gun on board an aircraft, you remove one of the difficulties facing a terrorist ie. how to get a gun on board. He no longer has to - all he has to do now is work out how to get at it. (The film "Airforce One" is an interesting demonstration of this principle, I think!)

Added to that the level of training that would need to be given to pilots, all the things that could go wrong (discussed at length on this and a similar thread), I think it's impractical - better security and screening on the ground is the answer, together with better procedures and defences in the air to make sure that, whatever happens, terrorists don't make it into the cockpit.

[B Sousa]

From information above, it appears only 1/3 would consider being armed.
In that case, make it optional and have standards for those who wish to be armed.
The bad guys can play: guess who is armed.....

[underboost]

Absolutely agree, STOP STOP! A pilot should never leave the cockpit to shoot at a hijacker. However, this scenario is a smokescreen raised by the anti-gun faction. Truth is, a gun in the cockpit would be used only as a last-ditch effort to prevent hijackers from entering the cockpit. What are YOU going to do while the door is being kicked off it's hinges? If anyone has a workable idea other than arming the pilots, they're keeping it mighty quiet.

[Lucifer]

Nice dive, pullup and -ve g thena bit of nasty manoevures that don't break the g-limits. Should keep them off their feet.

Voluntary guns isn't going to work as I don't want to be working next to a guy WITH a gun, and most of the 2/3 will probably agree with me.

[Wino]

LUCIFER,

To get control of the guns, they have to already have control (IE killed) the pilots. At that point, 2 guns don't matter, the terrorists have a weapon of mass destruction. How hard is that to figure out? If the pilots lost controll of the aircraft 2 guns don't matter, but if the two guns help the pilots keep controll of the aircraft, they have saved the lives of everyone on the aircraft and thousands more on the ground.

Futhermore, I know of many people that were carrying guns in the cockpit right up till the mid 80s when they were required to go through security like everyone else. That exemption that the airlines didn't apply for was irrelevant till the mid 80s.

As to pilots coming to blows which someone somewhere else mentioned, that was something that was MORE common in the days before CRM. Columbine is a non player. We aren't talking about children here either...

Cheers
Wino

[Capt Claret]

Surely the answer is better security on the ground NOT arming pilot's to the teeth for a reenactment of shoot out at The OK Corral!

I'd love to see a pilot strapped in to the seat, flying a demanding ILS, grab the gun, turn to his/her right to shoot the intruder.

In Aus for example, the Govt is spending dollars on sky marshalls, adding surcharges onto the price of tickets to pay for it, yet to the best of my knowledge, they still don't x-ray checked luggage. So, any suicide bomber has free reign. Yet I can't take a small screw driver (used to tighten spectacle frames) or my leatherman on!!! :rolleyes:

Time to get real methinks.

No guns on my aircraft! :rolleyes:

[Wino]

Capt, Claret,

How can you know how an airline works and say such a thing? The proper way to do it would be to have one person fly the aircraft and the other handle the emergency. We do it with engine failures, fires, smoke in the cockpit etc, Why would this be different? It is just another Emergency Procedure!

Does the mear thought of a gun turn your brain to that much jello?


We both know that security will never be perfect. IF you can't keep knives out of prisons where everyone is regularly stripped searched and has no rights, how will you keep them off of aircraft? ANd even if you keep most weapons off the aircraft, if you put 10 people on the aircraft that are SKILLED in hand to hand fighting, they are going to be able to force their way forward and breach the cockpit, atleast untill the permanent doors are installed which will take years.

Sky marshals wont work because there will never be enough and they also interfer with the revenue of the airline. Do you really want to take 2-4 seats out of every airplane in such a marginal business? Plus who would pay for it all?

Cheers
Wino

[Captain Stable]

Wino, please don't start to insult people whose opinions differ from yours.

You have stated your opinion. Fair enough. The vast majority of the remainder here disagree with you. I am among that number.

I cannot envisage any situation in which firearms on board an aircraft will improve the situation. Further, knowing that firearms may be on board will simply persuade any potential terrorists to modify their method of attack.

The number of possible cases in which firearms will assist are so few and those in which they will not so large, plus those cases in which they will actively degrade the chances of a successful completion of the flight so large, that I cannot see any half-way decent case to be made for it.

[Capt Claret]

Wino

I can say 'that' simply because it's what I believe. My job as Captain of the aircraft is to fly it safely, first and foremeost.

It's not to try and shoot someone in a confined space, whilst strapped into a seat that greatly restricts my movement.

As for one flying and one attending to the terrorist, great idea, but I'll bet that very few people would remain completely unfazed whilst sitting in a control seat and having the other pilot exchange shots with said terrorist.

I remain convinced that the idea of pilots trying to be the last line of defence with a gun is ludicrous. I much more favour an earlier suggestion of some unsettling manoeuvres, as I believe that as a pilot I have a greater chance of succes than I would with a gun.

To the best of my knowledge the USA has the highest rate of gun deaths in the world. It seems obvious that gun ownership and the carrying thereof, doesn't really improve one's chances. There must be a lesson there somewhere!

[Wino]

Captain sable,

The post was so lacking in common knowledge of how things are done in the cockpit (IE one flies the plane, and one carries out the EP) that I think it was a fair question. I wasn't attempting to play the player, just point out that the post was unfair and slanted. I felt that assuming Captain Claret is a pilot (and I assume that he is) the he simply typed something designed to get a response and that it was knowingly false or overly simplistic. I should have just said so, Mea Culpa.

Captain Claret,
Very few people would remain unfazed if an engine blew up on the wing. The difference is that PROFESSIONAL PILOTS train for it so that they aren't unfazed when it happens. The same thing would be done with the arming of pilots. You don't introduce ANYTHING into an airline envirnment without procedures and training and proving runs... We are nitpicking procedures that would be implemented, but my guess would be that as one person unstraps and heads towards the door to be ready to fire in response to the assault on the door, the other pilot would make sure the aircraft was on autopilot to minimize the effect of flinching...

Manuevering the aircraft to put the pax off balance is an extremely dangerous idea, far more dangerous than firing a properly trained and loaded firearm at a short distance. You should take a look at the injury patterns through out the aircraft during upsets. You will hardly spill the drinks in the front while you are turning all the people in the back of the aircraft to strawberry Jam. Furthermore, the aircraft is not tough, just ask my two friends Ed States and Sten Molin who died at the controlls of AA flight 587. The FDR readout did not have much violence at all BEFORE the tail departed the aircraft. Not to mention the effects of 400 pound drink carts landing on babies etc...

If you were properly trained with a firearm, you would have a far greater chance of resolving the situation without injuring your passengers (Who would most definately sue)... Is it fair to kill 20 or 30 people in the back of your jet because you are squeamish? Or take sidewinder and lose the whole aircraft?


Yes the USA has gun deaths. So do Germany, the UK and everywhere else. IF you can't honestly trust the people you are flying with to use a firearm in a resposible manner with proper training and supervision, you better not climb into an airplane with them at all. And this is most certainly a fair statement in view of EGYPT Air 990 and Silk Air.

Cheers
Wino

[captchunder]

On my aircraft we are already armed... but not with guns.

I reckon I could do more damage with my nice sharp crash axe with x mg of adrenaline floating through my veins as I could with a little handgun.

And there would certainly be time to be ready for it as they kicked the secured cockpit door off its hinges.

But lets be realistic. None of us would stand much of a chance, guns or no guns, if we were up against a team of vaguely organised terrorists even with minimal weaponry.

I agree totally with previous posts as to stopping these guys getting on in the first place. Intelligence and security at the terminal is where its at, boys and girls. THAT is the last line of defence, as far as I'm concerned. Everything we do on board is playing succour to the media frenzy. Faced with a situation, I don't think guns would help one iota.

[Wino]

We are getting self defense courses at my airline. The crash ax has too wide an arc and is not recommended in a confined space. The Perp will simply step inside the arc and you are screwed...

Other things are recommended but I won't talk about them.

You guys should atleast take a close quarters self defense course, then get back to me.

CHeers
Wino

(PS the intructors say the same thing, never bring a knife to a gun fight <G>)

[Capt Claret]

Wino,

your level of condescension is quite remarkable.

If it's ok with you, I'll go to work now.

[holden]

Wino and others,
Its no use trying to convince the euros that carrying guns is the solution(or part of the solution)...guns arent part of their culture,never will be.Its just not in them.Add to this,they only experienced 911 by watching CNN.
Pilots(US at least) should be armed so that if ALL ELSE fails,they have something in which to defend themselves and their people.Its a clear case of self preservation.
The rules of the game are changing..we must change too.Somebody pompously stated that pilots are there for the safety of the aircraft and should just stick to their traditional role...yeah fine,but how would you say that to the pilots of 911?

[MR WIBBLE]

Hello Boys and Girls and fellow Citizens of Wibble,

Just thought I'd express my views on this subject.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

do you get my point?

This is the craziest idea I've ever heard.

Oh, I've got an idea lets get a gun in the cockpit and give the potential terrorist/s a good incentive a reward for when they get into the flight deck, oh yes when they get there at 37,000 feet and the trigger gets pulled and puts a hole in whoevers head is in the way and, lets face it probably shoot the aircraft consoles (which I think could effect the flying of the aircraft) and then let the bullet penetrate the fuselage and, oh yes - cause a decompression.

No, I have changed my mind, this is a great idea, lets get the flight deck armed, while we do that we could get the crew armed. oh to hell with it we might as well give each passenger a gun each as they board the aircraft.

COME ON, WHOEVER THINKS THIS IS A GOOD IDEA NEEDS TO GET THEIR HEAD READ.

Now I think I made my point, I hope.

[Roadtrip]

Mr. Wibble is a textbook case of a person unable to think clearly and logically, nor has any subject knowledge.

"Oh, I've got an idea lets get a gun in the cockpit and give the potential terrorist/s a good incentive a reward for when they get into the flight deck,"

If they take command the flight deck, Mr. Wibble, they already have what they want, and will either be able to carry out their mass murder plan, or at very least crash the airplane if the pax try and intervene.

"oh yes when they get there at 37,000 feet and the trigger gets pulled and puts a hole in whoevers head is in the way and, lets face it probably shoot the aircraft consoles (which I think could effect the flying of the aircraft)"

Frangible ammunition will likely do non-critical damage to the aircraft. Ok, somebody gets hurt by a stray round. How many get hurt if command of the aircraft is lost? Again, the alternative is losing command of the aircraft and subsequent mass murder and mayhem.

"and then let the bullet penetrate the fuselage and, oh yes - cause a decompression. "

Obviously, Mr Wibble doesn't understand anything about aircraft pressurization, weapons, or special ammunition, either. Mr Wibble, do you know how large the outflow valve is? Do you even know what it is? I thought not.

Mr. Wibble, why don't you go over to the Brain Surgery forum and spout off your opinions there as well. They'll be about as intelligent and coherent as they are here.

"His Royal Highness, King Wibble, Supreme Ruler, Planet Wibble.

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

The Wibble army WILL get you, They're everywhere................"

Please beam back to home planet, King Wibble.

[Seriph]

You're right holden, we do not have a gun culture in Europe, consequently we have fewer homicides and drive past shootings!
I cannot imagine anything quite as useless as a gun in the flight deck.

[ETOPS773]

This has been done to death before and the result is always the same.

NO NO NO!!!!

[Capt. Crosswind]

Seriph, try imagining a gun on the flight deck as a deterrent to a suicide hijacker(s) breaking down the door,murdering the pilots & then using the acft as a missile to murder hundreds more.

Defence in Depth is what is required.

[arcniz]

Capt. Stable - To me, it seems you make the point that Wino has tried to advance even as you are seeking to rebut it.

The possibility or probability of weapons and other means of resistance being available to the flight deck has the effect of requiring attackers to come up with more complex and difficult strategies for the same goal. If the good-guys in the planning department are doing their homework, they will anticipate and bolix the process for those other strategies as well.

At some point it just won't be worth the trouble to pick on aircraft, so the thugs will turn to terrorizing something simpler. Is not so hard for mischief makers to identify alternative punchbowls.

Meanwhile, it could be right handy to have the wherewithal to dispatch amateurs who might not have done the full analysis.

OTHERS have made issue over the immense training required to keep pilots proficient in use of their weapons. But guns are actually very simple and reliable tools to operate, especially as compared to large passenger aircraft.

The inference is that armed pilots would need skills comparable to commandos or police. This is really a stretch, since only a very small number of situations are likely, all would have a high level of motivation built in, and none of them require real sharpshooting to make a useful "impression" at 5 or 10 paces. Some training, yes - but not so very complicated or frequent.

Psychological attitude is a scary issue, as many spouses can attest, but at some point the system has to entrust the flight crew with things much more dangerous than popguns, so they better be good for it.

Overall, I think WINO is close to right about this.

(FOOTNOTE) Virtually all passenger aircraft contain some controlled force explosives for doing the right thing at the right time in emergency situations. Mil birds are full of 'em. Even cars have them. So let's not overlook the benefits to be derived from some extra toggle switches (covers would be a good idea) attached to well-placed slicer-dicers. It's nice to have a multi-disciplinary approach to really important problems.

(and a wee bit of a REMINDER)
As for the alleged 'U.S. gun culture', a fair part of that may come from the experience and trauma of several generations of American kids who have had to put their lives on hold - or worse - to cross the drink so as to pry not-so-peace-loving Europeans from each-other's throats. Let's not be so sanctimonious - mein geheerter Herren, cari amici, et toutes des votre copains. It doesn't fit the facts.

[skibum]

Boy, oh boy........this subject really gets us going. Some food for thougt: What do I do with my "issued handgun" when I get to Madrid, Rio, Buenos Aires, Bogota (OK I might need it in Bogota), but the point is; are we going to have armories at every station to check guns in & out. Just the logistics og that........and what about that crazy capt who wants to impress the F/A and ends up shooting the F/O or the hot head who runs to the back during boarding to throw off a misbehaving pax etc. etc. and where to we keep it while flying? In the kitbag, under lock & key (No), shoulder holster? I don't know. Personally I think we are better off securing the cockpit to a satisfactory level. What do you think?

[MasterGreen]

A handgun in the cockpit is just too much of a hassle. I had to carry a sidearm and a longarm for many years and they are a pain in the butt for, if nothing else, security and safety issues. The hassles involved with a sidearm around the planet, around airports etc, is just too much to imagine. As for keeping one in a flight deck lockup - too hard.

However that is not to say that pilots shouldn't have a weapon - just that a handgun is the wrong one.

My company have been looking at and talking about Tasers - well that's a flawed approach also IMHO. These are cranky things and they are burdened with many problems in a confined space.

With a little training a nice pointed stick can be very effective as can many other things found on the flight deck. The axe, as was said earlier, is a bit limited - but if it had a nice spike on the head then it could be more useful.

There are people on this planet with some very special and unpleasant (for those on the wrong end) skills that could be very useful in resolving this issue. I have yet to read of a company or authority that has invited a few SAS / RANGER / ADD YOUR OWN people to do a study on this. Give a half dozen of these people a cockpit mockup and they would - I am sure - come up with a credible and effective defence plan that would be usable by pilots in the space, situation and time available.

I have my own take on this as best I can, as I am sure most have. But it is not for discussion here. But it would be nice to have some real experts have a look at the problem and give me and us a "heads up" on the possibilities. That this has not happened is not certain - but no-one has mentioned it to me yet. And I would like to know...

MG

[Capt. Crosswind]

It sure does Skibum - and justifiably so.
The consequences of a suicide hijack are horrendous to say the least.
It it also brings out a lot of hypothetical & bizarre reasons for leaving the flight deck defenceless.
No ground security system is 100% & the terrorists are not to be under estimated in their ingenuity to breach any system.
An armed flight deck gives defence in depth.
Defence in depth makes a hijack most unlikely,as someone has pointed out in a previous thread/post.
Don't fret about the detail , concentrate on the consequences.

[CAT1]

Most of the people I work with would be more a danger to themselves if armed than a deterrent to terrorism. If a terrorist knows there is a gun on board, why bother trying to smuggle one through security? I'm convinced it's only a matter of time until we have an incident where an armed pilot shoots out a window or shoots a steward as he brings in the coffee....
If you want to play with guns then join the military.

[MR WIBBLE]

Hello Boys and Girls and fellow citizens of Wibble,

How about the possibility that the mentally unstable people are not always the hi-jacker or the terrorist but the pilot and crew ocassionally as well. Wasn't the Silk Air recently and I'm sure there was another one over the past 2 or 3 years which was a case of the Pilot being mentally unstable. Now if that Unstable pilot or crew member has access to a gun, makes alot of sense doesn't it?

Although the hijacker and terrorist in this day and age poses the bigger risk and threat to the airline industry, it maybe worth looking at the other unlikey or overlooked possibilities.

As someone has already said on this topic, if the is a gun on board already, surley that is an reason why the potential terrorist or hi-jacker will not smuggle one on board.

And surley if Mr Bin Laden (or anyone else for that matter with a big enough resource) wants to infiltrate somewhere he will probably have someone there now and in place for the future, now for example if someone who works for him is in place working for an airline already, surely Mr BL would be rubbing his hand together if the was a gun on the aeroplane.

I am only expressing my views and thoughts and don't want to offend anyone. If these are my thoughts and concerns, how many other people who don't use the forum are thinking the same thing? Surley I am not the only one who thinks this way.....

[CAT1]

I don't think there's anyone else here who thinks he's from planet wibble....

[ORAC]

Well if you do get them, what will happen when you open the aircraft doors in the UK? Will you get arrested for having an illegal firearm?

[Wino]

You guys aren't thinking about colateral benefits of being armed as pilots.

If you are gonna arm pilots, you are gonna have to have some sort of universal ID that will allow you to avoid security (What is the point if you can carry a gun?). This is probably the ONLY way we are going to be able to get back to the good old days of not being strip searched before every flight.

By mandating an armed pilot force, the government will be REQUIRED to issue the flight deck an ID that will be sufficient to allow us to bypass security.

If we don't get the guns we won't ever get the ID. We haven't had one yet, the government simply doesn't care if a few pilots are inconvienienced. Infact they like having us strip searched in front of the public. It is all part of the visual bandaid that has become security. So what is the moral of the story? Guns WILL get us respect.

Cheers
Wino

[Steepclimb]

Underboost accidentally gave us excellent reasons why guns are not needed in the cockpit while arguing in favour of guns.

Quite simply any hijackers have to subdue the cabin crew, any marshall on board and the entire passenger complement, Then break down the now reinforced flight deck door, before finally facing the pilots now fully armed with the crash axe.

Just how likely is that scenario these days. Personally were I to find myself on a flight with hijackers. I would attack, what have I got to lose? Hijacking as a means to an end is finished. If anything positive was to come out of the whole thing, that's it. Nothing like 911 can happen again.

Guns are not needed now and wouldn't have prevented 911.

Arming pilots isn't going to happen anyway.

One thing HOLDEN, we Euros had to put up with terrorism when all you had was 'DIE HARD' one, two and three. Heavier security at airports is a long standing issue over here. Even in Britain a normally unarmed police force patrolled the airports with assault rifles for a very long time. Most terrorism is a series of bombings and shootings by some disaffected minority. That continues to go happen on an almost daily basis somewhere in Europe. America has so far escaped this kind of grinding terror. But the easy availability of guns in the States means more people get killed by a disaffected individuals with guns every year than are killed by terrorists either in America or Europe.
At the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland it was safer to be a combatant there, statisticly speaking than to be a civilian in certain American cities.
Terrorists have a long way to go before they can match the carnage of the gun culture.
Just a thought, the NRA shares two initials with another armed organisation. Interesting don't you think?

[Divergent Phugoid!]

Havent read all the replies as of yet but has no one thought of installing Tazers or what ever the correct term may be these days, ellectronic stun guns, to the doors or other areas which could be activated by both cabin crew and pilots, COVERTLY, to down anyone attempting to enter an aircrafts off limits areas?

What a shock (sorry) a terrorist might get to find himself on the floor bound and in opperative for the duration of the flight....

There are ways to do this so come on ladies and gents think of appropriate areas (flight controls, door handles, just think of the possibilities... ) where these could be fitted and opperated from....

[GlueBall]

WINO your point about getting some sort of Universal ID card is easily understood. But the carriage of weapons by ordinary (non law enforcement) pilots across international borders as a means to that end is impractical reality. Keep in mind that reciprocating multinational and bilateral agreements would also have to permit pistol toting pilots of foreign air carriers to enter the US of A. How would you manage the logistics of concealed weapon permits for literally hundreds of thousands of airline pilots operating cross border flights?
Just because the U.S. Congress had approved it, doesn't mean that the U.S. Senate will approve it, nor does it mean that the White House will approve it, nor does it mean that the managements of the airlines will approve it, and most importantly, nor does it mean that individual foreign governments will allow pistol toting aerial cowboys of U.S. carriers to land their airplanes in their country.
Think about it. And then think some more about it. The bottom line is that domestically it might be possible; internationally, the issue is deader than dead.
:eek:

[HugMonster]

I think I'll open a book now on who gets shot first:-

Hostie bringing tea/coffee 5/4 favourite
The other pilot 7/4
Innocent pax 15/1
Flight Dispatcher (in fit of rage) 50/1
Herb Kelleher 200/1
Terrorist 1500/1

[zoru]

on a simpler note..

how about wiring up the cockpit door to a serious amount of volts..

ok you could still toast the hosties if it went wrong, but at least it wouldnt make too much noise...just a faint aroma of burning flesh!

apologies to tracy. :)

[Wino]

Glueball,

You would need an armoury at every foreign airport that you serve, or else the weapon would have to be part of the aircraft. Either is quite doable as the maint is required to keep similar levels of controlls on their spare parts (you can't just leave em lying around the ramp, You have to know where and when the tire came from and how it was stored etc...)

Untill the door to the cabin is done away with once and for all this is the single best short term solution. In the long term access to the cockpit is gonna wind up being like the baggage compartments. From outside the aircraft only, no pass through to the main cabin. Then it doesn't matter what rude thing you do to the pax/flight attendants, you won't be able to get into the cockpit. There is nothing back there that we need, and everything we need to see can be done with camera's some hard wired and even a portable one for the F/A to bring around and point at the unanticipated problem.

In the meantime, the first mandatory step would be the vetting and issuing of ID to the flight crews, followed shortly by extensive training. The only way we will get those ID is as part of the arming process.

Huggy, if you think that Pilots are unable to maintain control and discipline of a simple tool like a gun, I certainly wouldn't want to be a pax on your airline where those same people you are afriad of are operating complex, dangerous AIRCRAFT.

As to your ods.

I am placing a bet right now on Hijacker (which I will include in the category of terrorist) I am putting up 100 dollars.

You now owe me money, make it payable to pprune for more bandwith please. I will have Danny send his boys around to collect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He also was ambidextrous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Bonnell quit carrying his weapon July 7, 1954.

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

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

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

[G.Khan]

I was told, but never able to confirm it, that Aeroflot carried a gun or guns in a locked box on the flight deck. Not sure if it was to stop hijackers or the crew from defecting to the West.

In todays scenario a locked box on the flight deck, keys with the crew, possibly collected from crew reporting or handed over from crew to crew, would be feasible and no one would have to pass security with a gun in their possession.

SOP would dictate where the weapon was kept during flight, transit etc.

[saudipc-9]

Come on guys, arming pilots is not the solution. Before long we will be arming bus drivers and train conductors!
The solution is to stop these people before they get near the aircraft.
However, if someone does get onboard and decides to start some thing then lets face it, we all have a duty to take control of our own destiny. If someone stands up and starts a problem they should find themselves faced with a number of angry pax. Let's not just sit there like terrified sheep and be led to the slaughter.
The cockpit door should stay closed regardless of what goes on in the cabin, land at the nearest airfield and if you are somewhere that precludes this, then dump the cabin pressure. Running around is a bit more difficult if you don't have any O2 or you have a mask stuck to your face.
Something else to be considered should be an ID card for someone in a uniform such as Police/Military/Fireman etc.. They could identify themselves to the cabin crew as someone to be counted on during a problem. The reward for this is a discounted airfare ,but they would not be allowed to drink alcohol on the flight.
The old idea of "let's just do what they say and we will all be OK" no longer applies. It is now"you do something and I will stand up and kick your @ss or die in the attempt."
I owe my wife and child nothing short of that or I am a pathetic excuse of a man.

[BlueEagle]

Saudipc-9 - You will probably die in the attempt. Have you ever done any anti-terrorist training within the confines of an aircraft?

Very easy to say what you will do, much harder to do it, as, very sadly, the gallant lads who tried to retake the aircraft on Sept. 11th discovered.

One terrorist, with a gun and the will to use it, will quickly subdue a cabin once he has shot dead a ringleader or two, even if he is armed only with a knife he will inflict serious damage before being overpowered by which time his accomplices will have disabled the flight crew and have control of the aircraft.

I agree with the idea that the weapon should be a part of the aircraft and not a matter of individual choice, to be toted around the airport at will. If tech crew can be trained and trusted to fly a 400 tonne aircraft which contains 400 pax and 173 tonnes of fuel all around the World, taking off and landing in all weathers and coping with various problems as they arise then surely, after the appropriate training in the use of small arms in confined areas, (cockpit mock-up for example), they can be trusted to have pistols in their custody as a measure of last resort?

[25F]

Bruce Schneier in this Crypto-gram newsletter (http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0208.html#8) is worth a read on this subject.

The original poster was not - he / she / it was a troll.

The Crypto-grams immediately after 11/9/2001 are also well worth reading:
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0109.html
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0109a.html

The newsletters are mostly about computer security but they make many good points about aviation security - for example why passenger profiling / face recognition schemes are fundamentally flawed.

[MaxMet]

I dont trust most pilots with an a/c never mind a firearm.

[saudipc-9]

BlueEagle,
Your probably right, I might die in the attempt. However, the rules have changed. Anyone who finds themselves facing a terrorist on an aircraft had better face up to the fact that they are dead anyway. What good is an anti-terrorist squad of SAS or SEAL's when the jets are being used as missiles.
If you are going to die you might as well go as the United Airlines flight did. By doing what they did and sacrificing their lifes, I have no doubt that they saved hundreds of others. God bless them.
Sitting in my seat hoping that everything turns out alright is no longer an option. We have to take control over our own destiny.
Even if aircrew do have a weapon, the training you are talking about takes a very long time to get proficient. Most likely the result would be someone shooting themselves in the foot.

[Roger_Ovair]

Maxmet I am with you. Pilots and guns... I remember boring hours spent in the cold war on exercise. The guns we had been issued with, Browning 9mm if I remember, were like magnets. We couldn't help but be drawn to then and to play with them. The usual game was to strip it down whilst in the crew room on standby way beyond one's level of knowledge. Then later to try to put it back together from a hastily collected handful of bits.

Variations on a theme were that a group of pilots (and navigators) would do said demolition exercise to a number of weapons. The bits would be mixed up whilst on top of the coffee table or Uckers board, and the race would be to see who could put their gun together again quickest. It made the hours fly by.

Maybe it would be a good addition to the cockpit for those long trans-siberian legs after all?

As for the temptation and dangers of fiddling with the damn things, read Wino's reported account again. The pilot with the gun got lucky when the bad guy's gun misfired. Otherwise it wouldn't have worked out too well.

Love

Roger

PS. Talking of Aeroflot, forget axes etc, I understand they have developed a nice range of only mildy poisonous knock-out gasses which might be very effective in the cabin. :D

[Celtic Frog]

OH DRONE BORE AND WHINGE>>here we go again with the age-old arming pilots debate.

Ok folks,,I understand, and can even in some ways agree with both sides of the arguments, but let me say just this..

Whenever you visit most non-UK airports, many of the ground staff (security, customs, immigration and others) all carry guns...IT's NOT A BIG DEAL !!!

We don't hear horror stories about these people all suddenly going mad with their weapons.

And what about he young troublesome boy at school who always gets into trouble with a mis-spent youth, has no qualifications, isn't particularly bright and can't find a job...he can still apply to join the army as a squaddie.
After a course of drill marching and discipline, one of th efirst things that happens is..they put a high powered guns in his hands and teach him how to kill.

With no disrespect to them, are we going to sit back and accept an argument that airline plots are less professional, less responsible than these people ?

I dare you to make such an accusation in any pilots crew room.

Of COURSE each individual would have to be trained in the various aspects of gun control etc, and would require specific carriage / storage restrictions, and so on....we don't simply give people a gun and say "Get on with it" like they do in the movies.
And it has to be said that for varous reasons of personal assessment, perhaps a few individuals would be deemed unsuitable to carry such a weapon.

One final point ... and just for the record, I have a long history of using firearms (pistols) and also making the ammunition.
I'm not by any means an expert on the subject, but I can promise you that it's easy for ammunition to me made which would flatten (not necessarily kill) a terrorist without damaging any part of the aircraft other than a slight dent if it was to miss., and would not likely kill an innocent passenger at any distance more than point blank.

This guns debate is an important one, but please, lets keep this debate based on reality, and not over-opinionated self-imposed expertise.

This website can be read by anyone, and comments like "I wouldn't fly in an airliner if the pilot had a gun" has as much use as saying "I'll never go on holiday because the airport staff there carry guns"..and such comments are not doing any justice to the vast majority of pilots who work hard at keeping their professionalism to the highest standards.

:eek:

[BarryMonday]

Well said Celtic Frog, objectivity and common sense, just what is needed to get this topic back into focus before it gets hijacked by the 'anti-guns anywhere' lobby.

Met-Max, I take it that you don't travel much then?:)

[saudipc-9]

Age old debate over arming pilots? As far as I know this debate has only really started just over a year ago!
I think you hit the round with the firing pin when you said "ground staff" Celtic. There is quite a difference between being on the ground and airborne with someone waving a firearm about.
You seem to think that most squaddies are a bit thick and if it wasn't for a course in "drill marching and discipline" they would be off trying to kill us all!! I happen to know a few squaddies and they have all been rather thoughtful people who just happen to enjoy running about in the rain. Do you think we pilots are better and more professional than the foot soldier? As an ex Air Force pilot, I can tell you that I believe no one earns their pay more than the squaddie!! What exactly is your solution?
Barry, you thank Celtic for his objectivity and common sense then demonstate a lack of bothbefore it gets hijacked by the 'anti-guns anywhere' lobby. :rolleyes:

[GlueBall]

Atop this very Forum is a "poll" that clearly shows the ultimate outcome of this deader than dead proposal.

[Celtic Frog]

OK saudipc..and my apologies to those squaddies who misunderstood my comments..of course I have a huge amount of respect for squaddies..many of whom I have met and regard as intelligent thoughtful people.
And perhaps without realising it yourself, I reckon you actually agreed with what I was at least trying to say...
The anti-gun campaigners tend to tar all pro-gun supporters with the same brush..something like:
"If you have a gun , you are therefore an irresponsible psychopath..."
And now it feels like people are trying to add :
"...especially if you're at the controls af an airliner"
Squaddies, (great people) customs, security staff, immigration, police, and in some countries, other specific occupations, are authorised to carry weapons for the purpose of preserving life.
Yet airline pilots are often in charge of more lives at any one time (other than train drivers and ships' captains),
Of course here are considerations regarding training, ballistics, circumstances, etc but whichever way the argument swings regarding arming us, in the interests of our industry, please let's not tolerate anyone trying to accuse us of being less capable of being trained, less responsible, less sensible, less thoughtful, less anything, than any other group of people who are authorised to carry weapons to protect lives.

[BarryMonday]

Not a good sign when you have to lower yourself to a personal insult and still don't make your point is it?

If you disagree with what I say, fair enough, but at least stay civil and if you can't do that then abstain.

GlueBall - If the people that voted on this forum in any way represented the people who will eventually decide the issue I would agree but I don't think the PPRuNe voters are representative.

[saudipc-9]

Celtic,
You and I are in agreement, although I think from slightly different view points. Your thoughts that anti-gun campaigners tar and feather the pro-gun lobby with the same brush is probably true. However, I think the same could be said for the reverse.
I am not anti-gun, I just don't think this is the solution that we need. The reason 19 terrorists got onboard and were able to take over those aircraft was because we let them. The security in the US and other countries, was in the past shocking! We have to stop these people well before they get near an aircraft. A firearm onboard treats the symptom, but does not cure the disease. Believe me I don't think we are any less capable of handling a firearm that is not my argument at all. Of course we are able to do so I just think there are better ways of handling the situation than to add more firepower.
Barry, Sorry if I hurt your feelings but if you say something on here which is in poor taste, then expect to be called on the carpet for it. I wasn't trying to insult you nor be uncivil , just making a point.

[Celtic Frog]

Don't you just love it when we can all kiss and make -up ??And one quick croak before I go...like Barry, I am always aware of these opinion polls as they offer no indication of the personal knowledge each voter has on whatever subject is being voted.
Ok..that's enough for me..I'm off to catch some flies.
see y'all !
"Ribbet"

[saudipc-9]

Since when does a voter actually have to know something about the subject being voted on? Just look at Parliament:p

[hptaccv]

"...more guns less crime!"

As seen on many a US bumper. It may be true that the cultural differences may influence the way we think about how firearms are handled in everyday life; but isn't this a typical case of working on the symptoms because the problem is much more difficult to tackle? Lacking sufficient airport security and proper background checks on ground staff, cannot be compensated by establishing a second line of defense in the cockpit.
No western country is as lax with guns as the US, is it that far fetched to somehow link this to homicide rates?

[Celtic Frog]

saudpic ..I love your comment about politicians. the fact that somebody wants to become one should automatically disqualify them from becoming one !!:p

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Simply not going to happen. It will create more problems than it solves.

Scenario one.
The bit between the flight crew walking off an aircraft, all carrying guns, and arriving at the armoury. Not too difficult for some airport working n`er do wells to club them over the head and nick their guns. If you believe all airport workers are safe to trust you really are supping too much of the old sauce.;) There you go a couple of guns on the wrong side of security. Give them to numb nuts terrorist who is em planing. By the time the knocked out pilots are discovered many aircraft are already in the air, which one is it? Result major terrorist incident caused by arming pilots.

It really is more trouble than it is worth.

As for training pilots to a lesser level than police/military. The Police and military that have firearms and are correctly trained, regularly have accidents, which kill one of their colleagues. Pilots will be no different.:rolleyes:

As for the Odds Wino I hereby accept your payment of 100 bucks. :p However you won`t have to pay it because pilots on commercial jets will NEVER be armed so it is a moot point really.

[BlueEagle]

Vortex - Your suggested scenario has no credibility if the weapons are kept secured in a locked container on the flight deck - been done before. There is no need for crews to carry the weapons on their person when not on the aircraft.

Skill At Arms training covering the safe handling of a pistol need not take too long to achieve a satisfactory standard and can be kept up by practice with a disabled unloaded example kept for that purpose. Accuracy takes longer to learn but at such short range, as is likely to be the case in an aircraft, should not present a big problem.

[boofhead]

Whenever guns are discussed it polarises into those who hate them and those who don't. Some seem to have a visceral fear of guns and believe that they have a life of their own, capable of jumping out of a cupboard and shooting them dead. But a gun is only dangerous if it is pointed and the trigger is pulled, so you should fear the shooter, not the gun.
I see reference often to the 30,000 killed by guns in the US, but you should know what that figure represents. Of the 30,000, 10,000 or so are suicides. Woud they still be dead if they had no guns? Probably, so we should look at their reasons for doing what they did rather than the means.
Another 9,000 are those killed by law enforcement officers, so presumably those killings were justified. Or not. A man at a halloween party last year in LA was dressed as a pirate and had a plastic gun. A policeman saw him from the garden outside and fired 14 rounds at him through the glass, 9 rounds went wild but five hit the poor b*gger, in the BACK. The investigation cleared the cop. We should be outraged at that, I think.
1,500 are accidental deaths, tragic of course, but in the scheme of things not so many. 10,000 die in the US every year from errors by medical personnel, but we don't call for stethoscopes to be banned. Another 18,000 die because they have no or inadequate health insurance, but we don't call for universal coverage. Maybe we get upset at the wrong things.
Of the rest of the 30,000, about 60% are due to drug or gang activities, and are generally black on black (in other words, a small part of the population). The insane war on drugs and the politicians refusal to re-think a failed idea is the blame here.
The final few thousand are what you would correctly be afraid of, being killings and murders by civilians. But even that is not what you think, since it includes those (successful) defences against bad guys trying to commit crimes. The civilian record in this regard is better than that of the police, in that their actions are not found to be at fault as often. another one or two million (yes, million!) crimes are estimated to have been prevented by civilians using guns (not necessarily firing them, but letting the criminal know that you have a gun and will use it).
So the 30,000 becomes just a couple of thousand. Still more than the UK, sure, but on a per capita basis not so bad, and maybe those murders would still have happened, even without a gun.
Criminals prey on the weak and defenceless, such as those in "gun free" places like Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Liverpool, London and Sydney. And, yes, airplanes.

[saudipc-9]

Boofhead,
I think you need to look again at your figures. Your 9000 police related shootings seems abit high. If I read the PDF correctly the figure 270 seems more accurate. only 8730 deaths different from yours!!!
[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_15TB18.pdf[/URL]
Reading your post, you seem to be able to dismiss 30'000 deaths a year rather easily.
So the 30,000 becomes just a couple of thousand. Still more than the UK, sure, but on a per capita basis not so bad
"" Not so Bad!!!!"" Come on Boofhead if one of those couple of thousand was someone you loved, I think your post would have a different slant to it.
I agree with you ,in part, that it is the person which is responsible for what happens. However, as sad as it is to say, I think that the average Joe on the street is not responsible enough to own a firearm. The public needs to be protected from themselves. That's why they have seatbelt laws and you still see people driving without one. "Duhhh, I might not be able to get out if the car catches fire Duuuh"

[Celtic Frog]

Just a quick comment folks before I go to bed...
I can't comment on Boofhead's statistics because I haven't got a clue what they are, but I reckon to compare pilots with guns and soldiers having the occasional accidental fatality, ...let's not forget that soldiers are regularly training in simulated battlefield conditions...trenches, forests, night time, smoke screens, playing good guys / bad guys etc. ..so accidents are an occupational hazard.
Pilots would hopefully NEVER pull the gun out of the holster except to check it / load & unload, and practice in a controlled shooting range under strict safety rules.
And as for an airside airport worker clobbing a pilot over the head and hijacking ...I've never heard of it happening at other airports where other airside staff carry guns.
Besides, if that was beleived to be a potential problem , it only takes a few seconds for the pilots to dismantle their guns before leaving the aircraft..perhaps even locking at least part of it in a specially installed lockable compartment in the aircraft.

[boofhead]

Thanks saudipc, I was quoting from tables that have obviously been massaged. Yours look more reliable.
However they still show that the accepted 30,000 gun deaths in the US is not correct, in that you have to look at what those numbers mean. In the CDC figures they claim nearly 11,000 homicides, a far cry from the 30,000. Of course that is still tragic, as is the accident numbers, and I hope I never feel the pain of losing a family member to firearm violence, nor you.
Of the 11,000, you can see from the breakdown that most are committed by a certain group of the population, and this is probably due to drug dealing and gang activity. Solve that problem and the gun violence loses its ability to lead the headlines.
I tried to show that gun haters do not always tell the truth and so I put an error in my own post (about the police shootings) so I am just as bad. I should be whapped alongside my head.
But the conclusion is still valid: Of the gun deaths in the US every year, only about one third are homicides, and according to the FBI only one third of those are murders. The rest are criminals killing other criminals, self defence and so on. For a country of 270 million, around 3000-4000 murders using guns each year is a far cry from the 30,000 you are so often told about, and the rate is not far off those of other industrialised countries. If you are not involved in drugs or gangs, and you take normal precautions for your own safety, you are just as safe in the US, even in the big cities, as you are at home.
So when you vist the US, or fly in a US airplane when the pilot might have a gun, do not despair.

[saudipc-9]

Boofhead,
Don't whap yourself outside the head, it will upset your aim;)
I love going to the States. I even lived in Texas for two years flying T-37's on exchange and my wife is American. Don't get more gun crazy than the" Lone Star State" mind you the beer could use some work.
I felt perfectly safe there, as long as one stayed out of certain neighbourhoods. That goes for any city in the world I should think. If gangs or criminals go about killing each other then I'm all for it. They are doing society a favor and sparing us the time/money to send them to the gas chamber. I know I'm a bit odd in that I support the death penalty but not firearms in general.
My major point, as I have said in other post's, is just that I don't believe that firearms on board are the answer.
Don't dispair I will visit the US and I will proudly fly on a US airplane:D
Cheers

Ps Anyone read the book "Chicken Hawk"? It's about a Air Cav pilot in Vietnam. There's a classic part in the book when he blows a hole in the instrument panel with a pistol. Had me laughing for hours that part.

[Celtic Frog]

That's it..I'm off to buy a copy of Chickenhawk !
One point I liked was Boof's comment how gun haters tend to talk rubbish about the subject. Couldn't agree more.
I don't have a problem with people who hate things like boxing, foxhunting, skydiving, motorbikes, guns, etc, but the world is full of the "Let's ban it" brigade who base their point of view on emotion rather than knowledge, and all they achieve is yet another "I'm right & you're wrong" argument, but the problem with this website is that the public can read it , and they believe that such comments are coming from professionals aviators, and that does us no favours ...and that's why, in any forum, when we see opinionated emotions like... " I wouldn't fly with a pilot who does XYZ.." we should stamp that sort of thing out asap.
There..I've said it...back to the swamp.
CROAK
:D

[BarryMonday]

Couldn't agree more Celtic, the 'anti-gun anywhere' group are a strange bunch indeed, subjective to the end, (and very rude if they fail miserably to make their point and have it pointed out to them!:) ).

[BlueEagle]

According to the BBC internet page the Americans have said, "Yes, arm the pilots" - A part of the pro argument was to do with the number of pax who might change carriers, depending on which ones were armed.

[Capt Homesick]

Wibble, I appreciate that parts of your posts were intended to be humorous (I hope they were anyway) : taking the posts as a whole, you might like to be careful whom you accuse of mental instability... on a more serious note, in the case of Silkair, or Egyptair, or indeed 9/11: how exactly would a firearm in the flightdeck have made anything any worse?
Bert, I have probably said this before, but not all Europeans are automatically anti-gun: many pilots in particular have had some element of military training.
Max-met, I would suggest you give up all your connections with aviation and travel by train. Underground train.

[Bubbette]

Does this mean CRM is going to have to add a how to defend yourself with a gun module? And what if your co-pilot uses it on you?

[copter]

WHAT UTTER NONSENSE! I will never agree to carrying a gun in my cockpit. Fortified/armored doors and aft video surveillance are the best and only defense for the cockpit.

The chance of me getting out of my seat, turning around to face a standing intruder while concurrently pulling, aiming and firing a gun at him/her - all in one or two seconds, mind you - would be a greater miracle than the second coming of Christ.

The knowledge that pilots may be armed will only convince a would-be terrorist to shoot first and ask questions later and he'll know exactly whom to shoot. The only people who should carry guns on airliners are Sky Marshals who are thoroughly trained in their use and who cannot be easily identified and singled out by terrorists.

[A310driver]

This survey should indicate whether responders are commercial pilots flying the line every day or others.

What possibly could have been worse on 9/11 if the crews were armed?

If the cockpit door is being breeched, any crew will have time to draw and aim given the recent reinforcements. It only takes a few seconds....if the door is being foricibly opened, shoot first ask questions later.

These bleeding hearts will keep coming -up with endless lists of what-ifs. In the end there is only one way to deal with the bad guys...it's you(me) or them. If the bad guy is intent on destroying the aircraft as in 9/11 there's no way to make the situation worse.
If the guy wants to go to Havana and live to talk to the TV cameras he needs the crew to take him there and land so he's not going to want to take the crew out.

Accidents happen......Question: How long or how many accidents does it take to equal the 3000 deaths of 9/11? How about a millenium for starters?

Teaching responsible people the basic elements of gun safety and handling can be accomplished in 8 to 16 hours of training depending upon extent of prior experience with gun handling...this includes 4 hours of legal and situational awareness training.

Guns in the cockpit ...........great idea which will soon happen. If the bleeders don't like US types packing heat, don't fly on 'em.

[Roadtrip]

Well I tell you what copter . . . . if I'm ever your copilot and I'm authorized lethal defense, I'm going to have it. If you don't like it you can walk off the flight deck and we'll get another captain with balls.

[A310driver]

Roadtrip I understand your concerns but all this QRM about comparisons with military training is not germane. Military combat involves relatively long range firing as in tens of yards or more. Defending the cockpit is a close range problem as in a few feet....point and shoot. They aren't going to be trying to take out a bad guy in Row 30 from the cockpit door. I have the feeling that some of you guys have never handled a firearm and if that's the case you shouldn't be talking like experts. Try it .......you'll like it!

[boofhead]

Pilots in the US (and elsewhere) carried guns routinely for many years and there were no problems with this policy. Guns in the hands of the pilots (the good guys) did deter crime, as they still do in other situations. Nothing has changed, and allowing pilots to carry weapons would improve safety, not degrade it.
The same people who decry armed pilots accept armed sky marshalls, presumably because those marshalls have been highly trained in the use of guns on airplanes. Yet reports of the sky marshall program show many are resigning or taking sick days because of the lack of training and over-work. The new security bosses have introduced a dress code that would allow a potential hijacker to easily identify the marshalls. The firearms training and skills required to qualify for the program have been markedly reduced, to the point that many marshalls are now hardly more able to handle a hijacking than a layperson.
Yet only pilots cannot be trusted to handle a gun safely?
Surely before posting comments here it would help to research the situation a little and have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the facts.

[Roadtrip]

It is quite germain, A310 driver. The key point is familiarity and sober approach to lethal defense. Close order lethal defense can be taught, especially to someone already familiar with firearms.

The virulent anti-gun crowd will always come up with an excuse based upon a half-truth assumption, a complete lie, or, better still, an emotional diatribe with no basis in truth. Their objective is not safety, but rather a political agenda.

The salient points in the lethal cockpit defense are:

1. It is the last ditch resort when all others (profiling, screening, physical security) etc, have failed.

1. Training in lethal defense of the cockpit for cockpit crews.

2. Strict ROE, including not EVER leaving the cockpit with a weapon or during crisis. Lethal defense is a last ditch attempt to retain command of the aircraft. After all, if you don't retain command, then the rest is irrelevant. Retaining command of the aircraft seems to a point easily acquieced by many Europeans and British. I suspect, however, that only a fraction of the people on PPRUNE are airline pilots at all, but rather, far distant wannabees with a lot of opinions and (obviously) not much knowledge to back them up.

3. Cockpit doors are reinforced and breach resistant to provide reaction time from the cockpit team.

[BlueEagle]

Mike, you create the picture of guns being waved around the cockpit on every flight regardless - it simply won't be like that. As has been mentioned, it is the last line of defence and was not available to any of the flight deck crew on 9th September 2001.
Had pistols been available it is just possible that the outcome would have been different. To suggest that guns in the cockpit would lead to abnormal behavioural responses is not fair or reasonable. I too am highly skilled with small arms and have used them under the most adverse of conditions.

Pilots cope with the continuing introduction of new equipment and systems and would easily handle small arms training - if it takes time to stay current so what? Better than losing all pax, crew, aircraft and high rise just because the option of arms was not available.

[boofhead]

But you have to give Mike credit for a logical argument. When things go bad, the F16 will be there to shoot the airplane down, which is obviously better than having the crew defend the flight deck with their evil .38.
I see reference to "the rules have changed" in dealing with hijackers, but have not seen any official notice of the new rules. Can anyone point me to a source of these new rules?

[BlueEagle]

Mike, when did you last use the fire axe for real? Well, I think you will find a fire arm on the flight deck would be used just about as much.

Don't think I am avoiding any real questions at all, just sticking with reality.:)

[boofhead]

I don't know if guns are the right answer to the problem of security, but when they were regularly carried they did not cause the type of problems posited here, and in general were probably a positive way to offer security. Why would they not be the same now? What has changed?
It is my opinion that guns are not dangerous in themselves, and if every passenger on board was armed surely the chance of a criminal or hijacker being able to carry out his nefarious plot would be nil. More practically, if every airplane had a sky marshall or armed crewmember, the safety of the flight would not be in doubt. We walk around public areas such as airports, city squares, banks and so on with armed persons all around us, some obvious and some concealed, and we do not give it a second thought. But if it is on an airplane we shiver and cower. Maybe it is a perceptual problem and we should get over it.
Meanwhile the airlines are being destroyed by the way our governments have made it so difficult to simply get on an airplane and fly. Passengers loads are down 20% since 9-11 and the main reason (not the only one of course) is the extreme hassles and delays we must now face at the airports.
The recent series of hijackings (funny, I thought the new procedures were meant to stop them) show that even the dumbest criminal can get around airport security. So what is the point? If it doesnt work we do the same things, only more?
Don't we ever learn?