"House OKs Bill to Arm Airline Pilots"

[mattpilot]

I can't believe no one posted this yet. Anyhow, ...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=716&e=4&u=/ap/20020710/ap_on_go_co/pilots_guns_11

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

WASHINGTON (AP) - Airline pilots could carry guns in the cockpit to defend their planes against terrorists under a bill the House passed overwhelmingly Wednesday despite the opposition of the White House.

The legislation, approved by a vote of 310-113, would allow guns for more than 70,000 pilots if they agreed to undergo training. Lawmakers stripped out provisions that would have limited the program to some 1,400 pilots, about 2 percent of those flying.

Despite the strong House support, prospects in the Senate were not good for the legislation. Besides the White House, those opposing it include Ernest Hollings, a South Carolina Democrat who heads the Senate Commerce Committee.

The guns-in-cockpits question is among a host of aviation security issues that arose after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In this case, House GOP leaders have been at odds with the administration, which has repeatedly argued that cockpit crews should focus on flying planes and let air marshals worry about security.

Though Republican and Democratic leaders of the House Transportation Committee agreed to arm only a fraction of the pilots, rank-and-file lawmakers voted to expand the program to any pilot who volunteers.

"If there is a credible threat that requires arming pilots, why would you restrict yourself?" said an amendment sponsor, Rep. Peter DeFazio ( news, bio, voting record), D-Ore. "Having that minuscule number of pilots trained and armed would not make any sense. If the pilots should be armed, there should be some significant number."

The measure also would require more self-defense training for flight attendants and give the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 90 days to act on an airline's request to equip pilots and flight attendants with non-lethal weapons such as stun guns.

"Today, armed F-16s are prepared to shoot down any commercial jet that is hijacked by terrorists," said Transportation Committee chairman Don Young, R-Alaska. "It is imperative that under these new circumstances, we must allow trained and qualified pilots to serve as the last line of defense against such a potential disaster."

Opponents of the legislation have expressed concern that an errant bullet could kill a passenger or knock out a critical electrical system.

A flight attendants union also opposed arming pilots.

"Giving guns to pilots without specific cabin defense requirements for airlines could be deadly for flight attendants and passengers," Patricia Friend, president of the Association of Flight Attendants, said last month.

TSA head John Magaw, who announced the administration's position against guns in cockpits, has said that a pilot should give undivided attention to flying his plane, landing it as quickly as possible and conducting in-flight maneuvers to keep hijackers off balance.

Rep. John Mica ( news, bio, voting record), chairman of the House aviation subcommittee, dismissed the administration's objections.

"Bureaucrats set the rules. We set the policy and the laws," said Mica, R-Fla.

Pilots' unions said their members needed the guns to prevent terrorists from breaking into cockpits and commandeering airplanes, as happened last September.

The Air Line Pilots Association ( news - web sites) has contributed $764,000 to federal candidates since Jan. 1, 2001. That's more in donations than was given to candidates by any individual airline, with 85 percent of the money going to Democrats, many of whom joined the majority House Republicans in supporting the legislation.

Before the vote, the Allied Pilots Association, which represents American Airlines pilots, urged its members to call lawmakers and ask them to increase the number of pilots who could carry guns.

In strengthening airline security following the attacks, lawmakers gave the decision to arm pilots to the TSA. After Magaw announced the administration's decision against guns in the cockpits, lawmakers in both houses introduced legislation to overturn that action.

Magaw said the presence of air marshals on board many flights and the use of reinforced cockpit doors provide sufficient protection against terrorists.

Although passage in the House had been predicted, the legislation faced difficult obstacles on the other side of the Capitol.

Congressional aides have suggested that the measure may be offered as an amendment to a bill providing money for the Transportation Department, because Hollings' opposition is enough under Senate rules to keep the armed-pilots bill from coming up for a vote.

"A freestanding bill is not the only way to pass something in the Senate," said Sen. Robert Smith ( news, bio, voting record), R-N.H.

[AEROVISION]

Yes it was, by Samson July 10 21.29

Anyhow, although the house passed it, leglislation is far from sure yet.

best regards

A.V.

[Carruthers]

Yep, looks like they have finally lost it over there. Lets hope Osama doesn't pick on buses, trains, ships or push chairs next time or everyone will be 'tooled up'. Wish they could get on with life, the rest of the world have been living with terrorism for decades.

[aztruck]

Fantastic...NOT. Now you dont need to smuggle a weapon on board...the feds have done it for you. Mind you, one would have to have the cockpit door open in order to use it. Unless of course you were an unstable Pilot about to "do the postal thing".
Thank God it wont happen over here.

[Field In Sight]

Will the start checklist now include "guns locked and loaded"

[ww1]

Wonderful. Guns & drunk pilots. :eek:

[Tripower455]

Now you dont need to smuggle a weapon on board...the feds have done it for you.


They've been doing it for years. Armed LEO's are always on board with guns in the CABIN. If this passes, at least the guns will be on the correct side of the cockpit door........

[FlapsOne]

How would the crew get through UK securuty if starting a duty in UK?

We can't even take a pair of nail scissors on board - negating the possibility of a vicious manicure any where in European airspace!!

[Low-Pass]

Why don't they just wire a bomb into all aircraft that can be remotely detonated by ATC. Then they'll really have control.

"AmericanXX, you are identified and cleared to explode..."

:eek::eek: :eek:

[Captain Sensible]

Where would these gun(s) be stored? How would they be accessed? Would they be loaded and cocked from, say crew handover? etc. etc. etc. Uk police procedure is very clear in respect of landing in UK with gun(s) on board a civil operator; you must give sufficient notice before date/time of landing, usually to be done through the appropriate authority, then they will board, take an inventory and confiscate the gun(s) & ammunition for the duration. Then we haven't even started with the Swiss and their rules vis a vis overflight and landing Switzerland with guns & ammunition...............

[breguet]

If there is an attempt by terrorist, are these cowboys ready to shoot one of their flight attendants or a pax who would be used as human shields...

[Hood]

Having a gun in the cockpit will not stop suicide bombers walking into a terminal building or walking through the FBO (where there is zero security) and using a bizjet as a missile. As always prevention is better than a cure. The USA should put their foreign policy under the microscope and try to work with the rest of the world instead of trying to dictate to it. The lives and futures of foreign nationals are worth more than dollars and votes, which at the end of the day is all the Presidency is concerned about. The
Federal Reserve is controlled by private, non muslim banks, no friends,no money, no vote, no White House occupancy.

[Kaptin M]

breguet, do you think that a terrorist who uses a pax or F/A as a human shield/hostage, might have even WORSE plans for everybody, once he gains admittance?

A Tazer (or 2) stowed in the cockpit - along with the crash axe :eek: yes we ALREADY have that !!

But please - NO SWISS ARMY KNIVES NOR NAILFILES :rolleyes:

[paulo]

Do El Al arm their pilots? What's their terrorist prevention record like?

[WhatsaLizad?]

"AmericanXX, you are identified and cleared to explode..."


Low-pass,

You above qoute may have been a lame attempt at humor, it wasn't funny.

26 of my coworkers were slaughtered on 9/11,or died in the A300 accident last fall. Another 13 almost were scattered over the Atlantic with a bomb by a Brit Islamic fundelmentalist scumbag.

In the future, referring to "Airliner XYZ" might be more appropriate.

[Tandemrotor]

WhatsaLizard

Could you tell me, did your airline have a locked flight deck door policy prior to August of last year? If it did, how much use do you think it was?

Second, what makes you people on that side of the pond think you have a monopoly on the best ways to defeat "terrorism"? when you only just encountered it?

I too have lost friends. Whatever makes you think that arming pilots, locking doors, searching peoples shoes, posting armed guards at check in etc. will improve yours, mine, or anyone else's security?

When was the last time you heard a terrorist say - "Let's hit them right where they most expect it"?

Accept it. You CAN learn from others!

Fly safe

[WhatsaLizad?]

searching peoples shoes, Tandemrotor

Tandemrotor,

You have got to be kidding? Here is a fact. If my company had gave me the FAA information about the possibility of shoe weapons, and I was informed about this scumbag Islamic fundementalist Reid, and got a look at those hightop shoes, I guarantee that I would have said, "did you check the shoes?"

Pressed for time right now, I respond to your other points later.

[Uncle Paul]

America does not follow, we lead.

[PanicButton]

Although I'm against having guns on board, be it terrorist or crewmember carrying them, I'm interested in how they intend to implement this.

My thought would be the new smart guns where only a specified user or users can use the guns, i.e. the gun won't fire unless the right fingerprint is on the handle. The gun or guns for that matter would never leave the cockpit during stopovers. They would always be stowed in a locked compartment

In an ideal perfect world the gun will always recognise the right fingerprints and a shot can't go off any other way. Also in an ideal world all pilots would be expert marksmen and would never ever miss the terrorists and accidentally shoot an inocent passenger.

However a gun may very well be a threat to a terrorist intending to use a small knife. And maybe the notion alone of a gun aboard the airplane within the reach of a crewmember is enough to deter terrorists from hijacking planes.

"All you need is faith" When you have faith nothing will stop you.


I'm not sure guns will do the job but we need to turn the tables against this new kind of terrorism. Going along with everything the terrorists demand is not the way to do things today. It will be interesting to see how things will progress.

[WhatsaLizad?]

Could you tell me, did your airline have a locked flight deck door policy prior to August of last year? If it did, how much use do you think it was?

It was FAA regs that the door stayed locked. I'd figured the flimsy door gave me only enough time to turn and attempt a defense. Pre 9/11. I had already considered the crash axe, a 3.9 inch knife, and the fire extinguisher as defense means. Half asleep at 0300 in a 767-300, when I sat in relief in the left seat, the door stayed locked. 3-5 seconds is all I wanted.



Second, what makes you people on that side of the pond think you have a monopoly on the best ways to defeat "terrorism"? when you only just encountered it?

Please enlighten me, my memory of each attack on a EU country is somewhat grey, but when exactly have 3,000 citizens been slaughtered, and their capitals and goverment been attacked on the same day. I believe to collective terrorist attacks over 30 years may be a substantial number, I just don't have the facts at this time.

I do not believe the US has any "monopoly" on dealing with terrorism, however forgive us if we fail to ask your permission regarding the operating practices of 12 aircraft carriers, 100 subs, and 900 attack aircraft. Criticism of incidental contact with the ordance of these force should be accepted however.


I too have lost friends. Whatever makes you think that arming pilots, locking doors, searching peoples shoes, posting armed guards at check in etc. will improve yours, mine, or anyone else's security?

1. Locking doors.
We were extremely lucky some "nutter" or a terrorist didn't bring down an aircraft before 9/11/. Unrelated to the Islamic fundementalist attack of 9/11 were several instances of attacks on the cockpit. I was for a reinforced door before 9/11 due to instances like the BA-747, Alaska Air, Southwest Air, and a few AA instances (one a crazy naked lady, looks unknown). The airlines should have been also monitoring the rising popularity of suicide terrorist attacks and the apparent societal approval of them by somewhat large percentages of Muslim countries. there was enough celebrating after 9/11 by educated groups in many of these countries that I will never forget nor forgive. Yes, the US goverment ignored the warning signs too.

2."searching peoples shoes"
I think I covered that one previously. An additional note. I watched a couple walk through a metal detector outside the US, and the female set it off during her walk through. I watched her wanded by security, she smiled saying her numerous bracelets set it off, then happily walked to her flight. Her screener never wanded what I believe is known as a "Hijab" covering her head and shoulders, nor her somewhat large heeled boots. She went off to her domestic flight, in our same gate area. I do wish she had been wanded all over and her shoes checked. Yes I do fear the blond, blue eyed descendent of the Crusades that may slip through also.

3."posting armed guards"
A Grocery store near me has a armed guard posted at the entrance. I think 250 people in line near a public curb deserve the same. Terminal attacks can make a big "splash" for these scumbags. If the grocery store can have a armed guard, why can't a terminal area. Before anyone comments on the crime in America, this same chain of stores only post guards at certain stores, near problem areas. If London isn't like that, it will be in the future.

When was the last time you heard a terrorist say - "Let's hit them right where they most expect it"?

After 9/11 when some flea infested scumbag said they would hijack more aircraft and hit more buildings. I would expect an attempt there or many other ways.

Accept it. You CAN learn from others!

I do, everyone should. From everyone, friends and enemies both.

Fly safe

You too, but if your lax enough to not even lock the cocpit door nor give a crap about shoes, stay east of 50W. Again stay safe and I wish you and all the best.;)

[AA SLF]

Uncle Paul -

WELCOME to the PPrune Forums. I like your comment a lot! :) And I am in agreement with it.

WhatsaLizad? - Glad to see that you fly for the best airline in the world! :D My handle should tell which one I favor by a 99+ % majority.

USA Ppruners - Amazing isn't it how the folks from the OTHER SIDE OF THE POND mostly line up on the against side and we mostly (notice I said mostly 411A) are the opposite..

Well, that ought to bring out the hardhats and flak jackets, eh?

:rolleyes: :D :cool: :p

ps - please see the signature line below folks

[Dan Winterland]

So how's this going to work with the average airport security muppet?

"You can take the Magnum 44 in with you, but sorry Sir, we will have to have your nail file".

Hmmmm!

[Romeo Romeo]

At least they'll be able to get their coffee through security now. :rolleyes:

[Red Wine]

Remember.....The quickest way to get shot shot is to carry a gun.

Our collegues of Uncle Sam kill and mame more of there own each year than does anyone else.........

Let us all know when this arming takes place........and the load factor on Non US Carriers will increase.

Its good rumour that El AL pilots are protected by at least 2....or 3 Marshalls on each flight.....and two reinforced cabin doors with an airlock between...........

[Techman]

Uncle Paul, so does the lemming in front.

[Red Wine]

Hey Uncle....

Not quite sure in what you lead.........Oh thats right:

You lead to the highest national debt per capita.
You lead in the largest prison population per capita.
You lead in the highest muder rate
The highest slums
Involved in most wars........

And what has all that got to do with aviation.........not much...

Did you also know that Airbus and Eurocopter now lead!!!!

[con-pilot]

Old American saying;

“Never bring a knife to a gun fight.”

Now why am I not surprised this has turned into a typical anti-American thread.

WOW, surprise, surprise!

Oh, yeah red wine, ah never mind, you're not worth it.

I really don't think that all of you are getting the concept of having the pilots armed.

It is the threat of the pilots being armed. It will make a hijacker think twice. (works for El Al)

(edited myself Danny, no worries.)

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Heliport]

AA SLF
Whilst some of those making stupid anti-American remarks appear to come from the British side of the pond, if you look again you'll see that many are not. We don't have a monopoly!

con-pilot
Thanks for adopting a mature approach. I hope other Americans follow your example.
You've obviously remembered anyone with an e-mail address can register with Pprune - people aren't required to demonstrate they can argue intelligently and/or keep their prejudices under control.

To the America bashers
If you want to criticise American policy, it can be done without childish comments - as Hood has done.
Provocative remarks tend to provoke - simple fact of life. If they continue, the discussion will inevitably degenerate. If that happens, and the thread has to be closed, don't forget who started yet another slanging match.

Heliport
Administrator

[Red Wine]

Sorry Con-Pilot....

My intention was never to raise our hackles.....but rather to correct the self serving statements of a few......Uncle Paul settle down.

My point is that the more guns, knives, bombs there are........the more people will suffer........the idea of arming pilots will attract the support of those that think carrying guns in supermarkets or whilst walking the kids to school will make the world a safer place.......rubbish.

The facts that I quoted suggest that its just the opposite.......not my facts neither.....straight from the Net........thats if you can believe anything on the www.

If the airline you fly for.....or the airline that you fly with, still has one of those thin pathetic cabin doors that any old lady could kick open [thats if its locked].......then please place the pressure on the airline to fix that problem......after all any old downtown bank has a strong door on its safe...and thats only money !!!!

Not sure if you saw the unofficial list of the most respected professions in the world [think it was the Bulliten Magazine].....yes pilots were number one.........politicians number forty nine....[just above drug dealers at 50].........so lets not ever tarnish that image by becoming pistol packing pilot policeman....leave that to the experts.

[Heliport]

Thanks Red Wine.

In fairness to 'Uncle Paul' there were lots of provocative comments before he retaliated. ;)

[Secret Squirrel]

Just think about the delicious possibilities, though. All those surplus CSD's you could use for target practice. Oh the joy we could bring to the airline industry.

[paulo]

Good oh.

Does El Al's strategy prove anything or is it irrelevant?

[Capt. Crosswind]

El Al's strategy sure does prove something , Paulo.

It proves that Defence in Depth deters hijack attempts.

[BOING]

Forget El Al. The US isnever going to implement El Al's first line of defence - which is to sort pax by ethnic group. Too many votes depend on touchy minority groups.

[AA SLF]

Heliport -

THANK YOU for bringing some moderation to this thread. Well said.

Please note - I did not specify a particular "pond". Last I looked the USA had a very large pond to our West, as well as to our East. I was very careful in that regard.

The UK certainly does not have a majority on a certain position, this is a very divided issue here in the USA as well.

Again - THANK YOU for the intercession.

[Heliport]

Wino [post deleted]

I've been trying to ensure that this thread:
(1) isn't ruined by bigots making offensive, and extremely provocative, generalisations about other countries;
(2) doesn't degenerate into a childish slanging match; and
(3) doesn't have to be closed.

For all three of those reasons, I've deleted your post.
Your offensive comments about Europeans are not acceptable in this discussion. I suggest you try JetBlast if you wish to pursue them - yet again.


Edited to add .....

All contributors
In my previous post I warned against using this thread as an excuse for making silly anti-American comments because they were the cause of the problem at the time.
It simply didn't occur to me it would be necessary to explain that my comments were not an open invitation to intellectually-challenged Americans to make offensive, and extremely provocative, generalisations about Europeans.
I was obviously wrong. :rolleyes:
I hope it's clear now.

Heliport
PPRuNe Admin

[Wino]

Wino - Part of post deleted yet again! :rolleyes:
Your childish introductory comment was completely unfounded and demonstrates that you are unable or unwilling to understand why your earlier post was deleted.
I'm not prepared to waste any more time deleting/editing your posts.
Either keep to the rules or you'll be banned from 'Reporting Points'. Simple as that!

Heliport
PPRuNe Admin



I believe that the congress has done the right thing. A new series of procedures and equiptment will result including possibly the addition of an armory either on the aircraft or at originating and terminating airports for flight deck

As to whether pax will increase or decrease. I would suggest that we allow the market to bear that out. Some my go up some may go down, but by and large people shop price convienience and brand and even things like safety don't overide a fare sale or frequent flier miles.


Cheers
Wino

[con-pilot]

No sweat Red Wine, I’ll buy the first round.

But I still have the fear of how rescue personnel will be able to gain quick access to the cockpit if the need should arise when these armored cockpit doors are installed. I realize that I don’t fly airliners anymore, but things can change. Just a thought.

Take care.

[Heliport]

ndp
Once you've deleted your post - even unintentionally when adding something - it's lost. If it helps you recreate it, your main points were:

(1) If we make too many changes to our lifestyles in response to terrorist threats, the terrorsts have won anyway.

(2) You condemned the terrorist atrocities against the US (which you described as a 'great country') but suggested that as part of the effort to reduce the risk of terrorist actions against its citizens, the US government should look at the potential consequences of its foreign policy, in particular supporting Sharon's actions in the Middle East instead of maintaining a neutral peace-making role as a super-power.

There was more, but that should be enough to get you started! :)

[whisperbrick]

One area no one seems to have touched on:

The SAS, delta Force and German GSG9 spend months and months locked away practicising the art of suppressing terrorists in an airliner cabin;just think of the split second judgement and high levels of markmanship involved (anyone who has fired a 9mm pistol rapidly will attest to this, its not easy to stay on target) so what training will be given to pilots ?whose gonna pay?And as it is a perishable skill they will probably need a range session more often than a sim ride !

I can't see this coming to fruition: especially with the legal practices of the USA. Can you imagine it, the F/O tries to shoot a terrorist and drills aunty mabel instead: he gets sued, so does the captain,airline, aircraft manufacturer etc...........

[Wino]

I don't know what you deleted heliport.
As the post stands now is how I left it with the only change being the modified time stamp.

My last edit was at 928 and yours of 954. I think maybe I should take the additional precaution of changing my password, though the time frame is close enough for possibly a late refresh.

Not looking for a fight

Cheers
Wino

[Tripower455]

Can you imagine it, the F/O tries to shoot a terrorist and drills aunty mabel instead: he gets sued, so does the captain,airline, aircraft manufacturer etc...........


At least that FO, as well as a majority of his pax (except for Aunty Mabel of course) is still alive to get sued (and I agree that in this situation, there would be tons of lawsuits). Is it somehow more palatable when everyone on board dies when the the aircraft is hit by the missile, or hits the building?

If Aunty Mabel (and everyone else on board) gets killed by the bad guys, do you not think that there will be tons of lawsuits?

Every time I put my name in the log book, I am responsible for the safety of my pax and crew.


We've already seen what happens when the bad guys get control of the aircraft. Nothing that's been done post 9/11 will prevent it from happening again.

[WhatsaLizad?]

. Can you imagine it, the F/O tries to shoot a terrorist and drills aunty mabel instead: he gets sued, so does the captain,airline, aircraft manufacturer etc...........


This poster is for a trained, proficient armed pilot if the unfortunate need arises. In this debate there are many problems to be considered such as storage, procedures, foreign countries, cockpit door openings, ect, that can increase the risk rather than lower it.

Too often to debate is clouded by statements that totally lack ANY logic or INTELLIGENT thought that may contradict ones own personal anti-gun view. Read the above statement again. The only reason the FO would have a shot at the TERRORIST would be if the cockpit door was breached. A terrorist gets in the cockpit and you are afraid of getting sued?

Let me paraphrase your statement;

Can you imagine it? A person accidently shot an innocent bystander in an attempt to shoot a killer who was attempting to murder his child.

In my example, there was a 100% chance the killer was attempting to commit a murder, much like todays terrorists. Any armed defense carrys the risks of hurting innocents that must be weighed against stopping the bigger threat.


I am a airline pilot and I am told to fly the plane, not be a cop nor constable. Why then if the FIRE light comes on, am I told to be a fireman? I :rolleyes:

[virgin]

Not sure about this one, I don't know enough about guns.
But I can't help feeling we're p*ssing in the wind as far as some security measures go. If extremists are determined enough, they'll get round any security precautions and all we;ve done in many cases is inconvenience ourselves for nothing.

Maybe NDP has a good point.
Looking at the causes of terrorism has to be an important part of fighting it. I admire the US, but it's foreign policy is sometimes a bit hamfisted. Interfering in the internal affairs of another country is bound to cause or fuel resentment. Being seen as a neutral power is bound to help.

Wino
Don't be an 'asshole' all your life. I saw your second post (before Heliport edited it). I don't think he took too kindly to you telling him he should delete somebody else's post and I don't blame him.
Try letting something drop now and then.

[Wino]

Virgin, that was up for less that 30 sec before I pulled it down, and left the post as it currently is...

20 plus min later I was edited for probably something else.



On the thread

Airline pilots in the USA were required to carry guns for 50 years. In that time there were no recorded misdeeds that I can find. There was however 1 hijacker shot dead by an American Airlines DC-6 captain in the 50s in Ohio.

A gun a simple tool. Yes misuse or carelessness can have dreadfull consequences, but so can a chain saw or an airplane. With proper procedures and training (and no one receives more regular training and testing than an airline pilot) they should be just fine. IF you cannot trust a pilot with a simple tool like a gun, how can you trust them with a complex tool like an airplane.

And yes pilots are not perfect, they might even kill themselves and all on their aircraft intentionally (Egypt Air and Silk Air come to mind) but they don't need a gun to do that! On the otherhand a weapon does increase the odds that a determined assault on the cockpit will be repelled atleast long enough to get the aircraft on the ground where better assistance is available.

Im on my way to recurrent training in Dallas tonight. I will have to shoot a couple of approaches, then shoot water on a fire, there is no reason I can't shoot 50 rounds into a target on a gun range right next to the fire range.


Cheers
Wino

[WhatsaLizad?]

whisperbrick,

Sorry I left out that your first comment about the SAS, Delta Force, and GS9 training in the cabin was an excellent logical point. Any pilot attempting to resolve a situation in the passenger cabin while armed would most likely be an absolute distaster and would definately increase the risk over that of an unarmed crew.

The weapon should only be there to help prevent commandeering of the aircraft for use as a weapon


One other note; On a range the other day I fired two 10 round 9mm magazines from a Glock very rapidly, at a target aprox 3 meters away. Both groupings would have fit well inside the dimensions of a cocpit door.

[jet_noseover]

WhatsaLizad

"I am a airline pilot and I am told to fly the plane, not be a cop nor constable. Why then if the FIRE light comes on, am I told to be a fireman?"

The oil refinery operator, nuclear facility worker, hazmat truck driver, homeowner, etc become fire fighters as well when the FIRE light comes on.
Are you a cook when you prepare a meal for the family, cab driver when driving kids to their activities, painter when you "refresh" your home, gardener when planting your tomatoes?

It appears pilots in the US trust the security on the ground to protect their citisens from terrorists on water supplies reservoirs, nuke plants, refineries, natural gas compression stations, pipelines, high-rise buildings but not in the air.

My question:
How different is it upthere from downhere?

If pilots get the weapons, why not the rest of working America?

[whisperbrick]

whatsalizad,

yes I did apply some thought to my post, i was thinking of accidents within the scenario.
but it seems that you are seriously suggesting that these weapons would only be used should a terrorist breach the cockpit and you would cut him down ?

So if your favourite flight attendant, Betty-Lou, is about to be maimed, stabbed etc. in the cabin and you look through the peephole you think that you would be able to overide the basic human instinct to go and help (no doubt tooled up)?I don't think so.

And incidentally I am not anti-gun, I am in fact a UK Firearms certificate holder, although over here automatic weapons are not allowed in civilian ownership (thank god).

[Wino]

Whisperbrick

So then if you can't restrain yourself in that scenario, what will restrain you without a gun? If you have a hero complex so bad and can't follow procedure, than you probably shouldn't be entrusted with an aircraft in this day and age.

Cheers
Wino

[Tripower455]

How different is it upthere from downhere?


You answered your own question.

On the ground (which, presumably is where these nuclear power plants, factories etc ar elocated), the SWAT team, fire fighters etc, have ACCESS to the above mentioned buildings. The only thing that the authorities can do is shoot us down (since they cannot keep the baddies off the aircraft).

[MarkD]

WhatsaLizad?

were you twisted around in your seat and strapped in when firing off that handcannon, or standing up in marksman position?

Not really a realistic simulation - need to add a cramped cabin and screaming pax for realism!!

[WhatsaLizad?]

It appears pilots in the US trust the security on the ground to protect their citisens from terrorists on water supplies reservoirs, nuke plants, refineries, natural gas compression stations, pipelines, high-rise buildings but not in the air.

My question:
How different is it upthere from downhere?


jet_noseover,



jet_noseover

Using your above examples, yes I trust the security on the ground in each place listed. Please tell me this jet_noseover, at which control station for a water supply resevoir ( resevoirs are tough to make lethal themselves), nuke plant, refinery, natural gas compression station, pipeline can the general public be seperated by a single door, of lesser strength than any even on the drawing board, without any armed guards on the public side, 98% of the time. I await a full report.

With your high rise example, I have never seen a highrise that has every entry point ,beside the main entry way glass ones, equipped with heavy duty steel doors far stronger than any aircraft will see. Every large highrise I have seen is 100% staffed with armed guards. see the difference.

If they protect the cockpit like they do with your above examples, and I won't even arm myself with dirty looks.

[AA SLF]

whisperbrick -

As a simple PAX/SLF I do NOT want anyone from the flight deck to come into the cabin in a "takeover" situation. NEVER - EVER.

USA airline pilots can, IMHO, can depend on their PAX to defend the cabin with maximum force available to them (usually pure numbers!). In the case where a "takeover" person has reached the flightdeck door while his/her pals defend behind then I want the PNF INSIDE the flightdeck to be able to defend as a "last ditch" line-of-defense. I fully expect that the Pax will ultimately prevail over the "takeover" defenders but it might take some several seconds. We need the PNF to defend for that amount of time. American "professional" Pax learned post-Sept/11/01 that they have to do EVERYTHING in their power (which is considerable) to defend the cabin. I HOPE the same could be said of Pax/SLF in the rest of the world!

jet_noseover -

You say you are from the USA - lots of recent articles in the news about "defending" power-plants; reservoirs, etc. How do either you, or I, know that "armed defenders" have NOT been quietly moved INTO these facilities. Would you "blab" this to the nation if it had been done (move defenders in), and thus "forewarn" the bad folks? I thought an ambush only worked when the other side did NOT know about the ambush?

For instance - did you know about the Greenbriar Resort facility. Well I did, it had the call-sign of "bluegrass" at one time. Reason you didn't know, was "security". Basic need to know situation.

Why do I want the cockpit to have access to a pistol? As a last line-of-defense, pure and simple. Anyone that can not appreciate this line of reasoning is just slightly out of touch with the real world of "bad people". To be handled by the PNF!

Yes, there will be a lot of "things" to be overcome to go BACK TO an armed cockpit in the USA, but nothing good in life is ever easy, is it?

Please read my signature line below . . . . . . dAAvid

[WhatsaLizad?]

whisperbrick,

Sorry if I generalized a anti-gun poke at you, it should have been left out of the post. I don't want to thread drift nor debate it, but I believe US citizens are only allowed to own automatic weapons with some sort of a permit called a ClassIII. You can look it up yourself but I believe there is only one crime on record of a legal owner of a ClassIII fully automatic weapon using his weapon in a crime and I think he was a cop who killed an informant. I am sure God appreciates the thanks.

Yes, I am also for being armed ONLY for defense of the cockpit. Your example is something that should be dealt with in any training for armed pilots, maybe more than marksmanship itself. Most police forces seem to train their members not to enter "no win" situations without significant backup, why would pilots be any different. Before 9/11 I would agree that the leverage owned by a hijacker when he states "OPEN THE DOOR AND NOBODY DIES, IF YOU DON"T I'LL CUT HER THROAT", would be tough to ignore armed or not. Would you trust him after 9/11?
Trying to get a disabling shot at a hijacker hiding behind a hostage aft of the cockpit is a ludicrous thought.

[WhatsaLizad?]

were you twisted around in your seat and strapped in when firing off that handcannon, or standing up in marksman position? MarkD

I submitted the post before I added the words "non-scientific, non-statistical, possibly lucky" about my range visit.

I would like to see adequate testing about the suitability and marksmanship when strapped it and twisted around. But if I can twist around and pour myself a coffee plus a sugar packet ,in the dark , behind the center console with more body movement than a firing position, I am somewhat suspicious of comments like yours. For pure marksmanship in a stable non-emotional range visit, a seated position using the seat for a brace might have provided more accuracy than my standing position.




By the way, I would hardly call a Glock 17 with 9mm ammo a "handcannon". I fired 3 rounds into the soft pine target supports for laughs. The wood board, which I could easily break over my knee, was about 8 cm wide and 1.5 cm thick. The 9mm rounds put 3 small holes in the wood without moving the target nor doing much damage. I would prefer the "HollyWood" effect of exploding the wood supports as shown in many movies though:D . Maybe some useless .50 caliber show gun might qualify for "handcannon" status, however most handguns don't.

[jet_noseover]

AA SLF, others...

Tell me what good guns are going to do you when the hijackers are to target international flights to/from and over America.

No matter which way you turn, your butt is still behind you. :) :):p :) :p

[WhatsaLizad?]

jet_noseover,

I may be taking a guess here but I think your nuke control example is a fairy tale. Do you mean to tell me that at US nuclear plants I can park my rented Saturn (or Ryder truck), then walk up to the ONLY door to the control room, bang on it and say "Pizza Man! please open up".

Listen carefully, unlike the examples you listed, unless there are armed marshals on EVERY flight, it isn't the same as a nuke plant, LNG control room ect. They have 100% armed security for immediate response for fock ups in with their first layer of security which include items such fences, gates, guards, background checks ect. That is why you can't bring a gun to work as a nuke control tech, they have someone there 100% of the time to provide lethal defense. Giving examples comparing flight ops to places that have 100 % armed guards on the premises is idiotic.

. I simply think you guys have enough to deal with upthere to begin with to be burdened with what air marshals should do.

Fine, put an armed Air Marshal on every flight. That is my first request. Is it going to happen ? What carrier besides El Al with its limited long haul flights will do it? You somewhat alluded to the common statement of " I want the pilots concentrating on flying not gunfighting". Why is it that then that these same people have no problem with a pilot cocentrating on fighting with a medievel crash axe?

Tell me what good guns are going to do you when the hijackers are to target international flights to/from and over America.

The US has limited control over foreign carriers and their practices. In reality, the actual numbers of aircraft, mainly widebodies except from places like Mexico and Canada, are relatively small. This is a guess, but I think 20 F15's could cover the coast from Virginia to Maine for scheduled airline service. My airline has something like 2500 flights a day. the US doesn't have enough fighters to cover them all, not including every other US airline. If the main threat could come from foreign carriers, cutting out the blizzard of potential targets like USair, Southwest, Delta, could make life easier for them. Besides that I don't really want to see them acting out a hostage response scenario.

[jet_noseover]

AA SLF

"How do either you, or I, know that "armed defenders" have NOT been quietly moved INTO these facilities. Would you "blab" this to the nation if it had been done (move defenders in), and thus "forewarn" the bad folks?"


Media has been known to do exellent job on "blabbing". They hear bits and pieces of what might be going on and write sensentional story to sell the paper. I posted on the Airlines, Airports & Routes an article from a reporter in training about the "GO" event, see what the comedy it turned out to be...


Not that you were not aware of this :)

[Tripower455]

Not quite, Tri. The territory is accessible, not the containment bldg.

What makes it unaccessable? A locked door? The guards outside of it? Symantics. Help is not far away.

I don't know enough about nuclear power to argue what effect a stray round would have when fired in a control room. Would it be as bad as if a terrorist who knew what he was doing pulled the control rods out all the way? Besides, when was the last time a terrorist hijacked the control room of a npp (not to say that it can't/won't happen....)? Maybe you should be armed!


Are a lot of workers at a nuclear plant allowed unfettered access to every part of the plant with NO daily security screening and cursory (at best) pre employment screenings? Just about every airport worker you see scurrying around on the ramp has NOT gone through any type of daily screening to get there.

Can I get a job at the nuclear plant today and bypass security tomorrow?

An airliner is not going to blow up (or even go critical:)) if someone fires a round into a cb panel. Certainly nothing as bad a having the aircraft flown into a building will happen. That argument also doesn't seem to apply to sky marshalls, barney fifes etc. who, I guess never miss.........


If the main threat could come from foreign carriers, cutting out the blizzard of potential targets like USair, Southwest, Delta, could make life easier for them.

WhatsaLizad?

That is a great idea! No worries about running afoul of the law in other countries and less worries about having MY airplane used as a missile!

[WhatsaLizad?]

That is a great idea! No worries about running afoul of the law in other countries and less worries about having MY airplane used as a missile!

I don't have clue what you said. I meant that a few foreign carriers with suspect security are easier to track and unfortunately shoot down than the multitudes of domestic carriers. Whether they are easier or more difficult to penetrate now is something I do not know nor will comment on

[GlueBall]

Congressional approval by itself is no mandate. The Senate has to approve it by a wide margin to override executive veto. And then, even if it were to become legal, the individual airline companies will have to approve of its pilots being armed while on duty.

Just because ALPA and APA wants its members to be armed in the cockpit does not signal automatic approval by air carrier managements, or for that matter, approval by the traveling public.

So all you wannabe pistol toting aerial cowboys, don't wet your pants just yet.

:p

[jet_noseover]

"Do you mean to tell me that at US nuclear plants I can park my rented Saturn (or Ryder truck), then walk up to the ONLY door to the control room, bang on it and say "Pizza Man! please open up". "

No, Lizmad.

You can park any where you find the spot... 4500 feet from the main gate. Good luck. :)
Pizza guys stay out of the premises, I want a piece of pizza, I go to get it. On the way back I "hot touch" my id, palm and eye are read, am frisked and that pizza gets a whole body count. :)
I got used to cold pizza and monthly reports from the rad/chem departments that the pizza I brought on site had more rad's than the yearly allowable for a person doing work in the chamber!!! There goes my lunch for the year. :)



Lizman, on the serious note...

To get to the nuke plant you almost need to be a superman. We do not have guns to do our jobs and I am sure you do not need one to do yours. Demand the security on the ground.

We (unions) have, and been successful.


"Giving examples comparing to places that have 100 % armed guards on the premises is idiotic."

Lizad maybe you're not aware of it but we have the same safety measures taken at our gates as at the airline pax do. Nothing extra.

calling the comparison of flight ops to ground ops as idiotic is insulting. I hope you did not mean it. Nothing is ever a 100% safe., take that to the bank.

[daidalos]

I’ve been following this thread, as any other thread in PPRUNE, and I was wondering why nobody, or almost nobody has raised the question of what we really want?
I’m reading about arming the pilots! I assume that we’re talking (actually you’re talking) about US pilots?
I mean the US government is accepting the notion of armed pilots in the cockpit with the proper training and all…
OK. I can live with that! You – US – pilots, can learn to shoot and carry a firearm. I believe it can be done! And everybody will be happy?
Imagine, now, just imagine, a foreign airliner – like mine- coming and going out of – let’s say – New York, and taking off for Europe, with plenty of fuel, and using – just for the sake of the argument – runway 31L. Now, those who know the path will need no more words. For those who don’t, let’s say that you just see, straight ahead, the Empire State building!
Now tell me something. Are you going to teach ME how to fire a gun, in a situation like this, or are you going to … ban any foreign airliner that do not have armed pilots?
That’s a question that I had the first moment I head about arming airline pilots, who – by the way – are searched like hell in the security lineups! (I was searched for half an hour because the security lady thought that I had a … fork!!! In the end she realized that it was an electrical socket!!!)
The point that I would like to make is:
Are you talking ONLY about US pilots (Meaning more pax for us) or for all pilots coming and going to US airports (and meaning trying to find another job) ?
I am for the re-enforced cockpit-doors, but that’s it!! Maybe, and why not, some cameras watching the adjacent area.
No guns for me, thank you.

[WhatsaLizad?]

We can demand all we want be remember the smallest airport has much more real estate than the largest nuke plant.

jet_noseover,

I guess you keep missing my point. With the initial layers of security, all of your examples are relatively same as with air travel. All of your ground examples have the additional layer of armed defense on call for immediate response. There is none usually in the air.

I suspect a nuclear control tech worker might feel a little bit more vulnerable in his control room if the only security was a single door between the control room and an outdoor public picnic area where entrance is gained by paying $100 and showing a picture ID,( fake if necessary and doubtfully noticed), and if the only guards in the event of attack were 60 minutes away.

[Techman]

It still have to go through the senate and even then Bush can still veto it.

[jet_noseover]

How am I missing your point? lizad?

Substitute the "pilot" by " reactor operator". truck driver, nat gas pipeline operator,etc.

Are you telling me you are to do someone elses job because you have no trust in the gov. you voted for to protect you?

[Wayne Jenkins]

Heliport [Sir]

I will try not to upset anyone....!!!!

1. Maybe this is more a cultural issue than a security one!!!

From all that sit around the "Pond", there are two very opposite policies on guns and the attached restrictions, hence it is understandable as to why most Non US Pilots would be opposing the equiping of professional pilots with such devices, as that is the culture and enforced by legislation of the various European, Australian and New Zealand Governments.

Whereas, the "Right" to own, carry and use such devices in the US is enshired in the constitution.

Which is right and wrong.........well I promised "Heliport" I would not upset anyone....:)

2. These idiots that decide to grab control of an aircraft [not just airliners].and then do their worst are normally part of a team......maybe 2 or 3 or more on each aircraft.........lets say a pilot is lucky enough to neutralise [z] one idiot whilst sitting in his control seat.......what do you think the rest of the idiots are going to do.........lots of passengers and cabin crew will bear their fury.

3. Security in depth is the only answer.......better screening, Armed Inflight Marshalls, and security cabin doors that are strong enough to resist the forcable entry......Pity Australia's national airline is not listening.

4. As these idiots are now well aware of the beefed up security at the worlds major airports, they will move on to the next soft industry......


5... An interesting initiative by UA, but who is going to monitor the video cameras during the critical stages of flight...?

Did I upset anyone.........??

[Heliport]

Well done, Jenkins! Stand easy.

And the next time I hear any of the men saying Ozzies can't argue a point without being abusive, I'll be using your post to prove they're wrong! :D

Heliport

[Tripower455]

I don't have clue what you said. I meant that a few foreign carriers with suspect security are easier to track and unfortunately shoot down than the multitudes of domestic carriers. Whether they are easier or more difficult to penetrate now is something I do not know nor will comment on


And I agree 100%! That is a great idea. It is impossible for the USAF to track every domestic flight. The number of international flights is relatively small. If US domestic pilots are armed the chances of them being successfully hijacked go down. Those going to or from countries that won't allow it will have the backup of being shot down. Everyone is happy!

[WhatsaLizad?]

How am I missing your point? lizad?

Substitute the "pilot" by " reactor operator". truck driver, nat gas pipeline operator,etc.

Are you telling me you are to do someone elses job because you have no trust in the gov. you voted for to protect you?


jet_noseover,

I'll try one more time. I acknowledge the possible communication breakdown that happens from trying a conversation in 4 sentences. ;)

For the following, assume the examples in our previous discussion of control centers with the possiblility for large destruction such as aircraft cockpits, LNG or refinery control centers in populated areas, nuke plants, ect. Leave out truck drivers even though they can have quick armed defense through police forces in populated areas if time enough to call.

Read the following, here is how the aircraft is different.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Security at nuke plants, LNG or similar control centers, refineries, large profile highrises or complexes.

1. Basic outer ring or layer; Fences, gates, locked doors, adequate lighting, cameras, alarms, ect. Inner layers may be composed of the same.

2. Human security; Worker background checks, visitor or customer background checks or intelligence regarding them. activity monitoring

3. Basic intelligence covering any possible threat

4. Trained, armed security personell available 100% for immediate response.

Security in aircraft cockpits.

1 Same as above

2 Same as above

3. Same as above

4. Said to be very limited for US carriers. Others such as EL AL apparently have 100% coverage, same as #4 above. This is how inflight aircraft security is different from the control centers above.


I have no desire to "do someone elses job" like an Air Marshal

[WhatsaLizad?]

cont'd

I have no desire to "do someone elses job" like an Air Marshal, if they are onboard .

If they are not onboard, although I don't want the job, someone should defend the cockpit.

[WhatsaLizad?]

Wayne Jenkins,

I think some of debate gets clouded by those bringing the cultural issues into the conversation. It is wrong for the US pro-gun side to bring the right to bear arms into the debate because this issue is light years away from a untrained hunter or homeowner owning a firearm for whatever reason. I believe it also is just as wrong for the anti-gun side to look at this issue with the same emotion as they view the untrained hunter or homeowner owning a firearm for whatever reason.

Both side should look at this issue from the view of risk and probabilities. The pro-gun side cannot dismiss the risks associated with accidental discharge, storage, crew transfer procedures, training, proficiency, aircraft damage while the anti-gun side cannot dismiss the possibilities that these problems cannot be overcome and largely reduce the threat of an airliner being used as a weapon or shot down.

Get SAS, GS9, Delta Force to act out every possible cockpit defense scenario with independent observers, armed and unarmed, and train a small control group of pilots with varying skill levels in defense of a cockpit mockup while both armed and unarmed.

Bringing cultural or political BS into this just means someone is willing to sacrifice someone else for their beliefs.

[A and C]

My main worry about arming flight crew is that it is a big change in "mind set" for a well balanced proffesional to go from normal day at work mode to kill someone mode .

If guns are to be carried on the flight deck then the crew must be mentaly prepaired to use them at an instant as well as trained to shoot.

I am sure that we could all learn to shoot a gun in the cool atmosphere of a shooting range when all that is on the receving end is a paper target ,but when it is a human who is the target then doubt creeps in.

If the flight crew member hesitates for just one tenth of a second then they are likely to lose control the gun and that is the very worst thing that could happen.

On balance I dont think that it is a good idea to arm all flight crew but I see a real benifit in some well trained and screened flight crew having guns on the flight deck and this would leave an eliment of doubt in the mind of a person who wanted to take control of an aircraft as to what they would face in the way of opposition.

this would also be safer for all of us as I dont think that I would trust the "skill at arms" of some of the people that I fly with and fear getting shot by accident !.

I hope that this is a balanced reaction from the side of the pond that has over reacted to law abiding people from keeping guns for sport.

[Flying Lawyer]

As I'm not an airline pilot, and my knowledge of guns is limited to shooting pheasant and a few sessions on police ranges here and in the States, I'm not qualified to comment on the 'guns' issue.
But, if anyone's interested in the wider topic of hijacking, what goes through a hijacker's mind, why they do it etc, there was a fascinating interview with Leila Khaled in the October 2000 issue of 'Aviation Security International'.
(For our younger readers, Leila Khaled hijacked a TWA flight in 1969. She attempted to hijack an El Al flight in 1970 but was overpowered; the second hijacker was shot.)

It's outdated in some ways because, she doesn't consider hjacking to be legitimate in current times, and condemns killing innocent people - but still worth reading.
It's re-issued on the web here. (http://www.avsec.com/leila_khaled_frame.htm)

[Roadtrip]

With lethal defense strickly limited to cockpit defense AND behind a hardened door that gives the flight deck crew to assess the situation, there is really no need for "instant" decisions. If someone is trying to break through the hardened door, it's going to take awhile. Authorized entry/exit is easily handled procedurally, and/or with physical/sight barriers to prevent opportunistic attack.

One more time:

1. Lethal cockpit defense is the last ditch defense when all else has failed.
2. Loss of command of the aircraft = mass death and destruction
3. Lethal defense is limited to defending the cockpit and retaining command of the aircraft. Shooting a man size target, with prior warning, at 4 feet trying to breach a door doesn't require exceptional marksmanship.
4. Hardened cockpit doors give the aircrew time to present a defense prior to breach.

[mattpilot]

@A&C

but when it is a human who is the target

I dont really consider a terrorist "human", so to speak. If i know, and i think i can safely assume that, that a hijacker will try to endanger my life and each individuals life of the crew/passengers for their own personal gain, rest assured, i will (would, once i get there :)) kill the "terrorist".




On another note, ... a couple of months ago when i took an Advanced Regulation Ground Class we had an assignment to come up with a new rule, or change one. I proposed to arm only the PIC. To make a long story short, the reason only he should be armed is because he is the one DIRECTLY responsible for the flight and only he can/should make the decision of whether or not a shot will be fired on his plane. Afterall, if a bullet misses and damages the plane, the PIC is the one who has to deal with it, not someone else.

[Jetlegs]

Stupid anti american remarks are not allowed.................
A good thing.

Offensive, and extremely provocative, generalisations about Europeans neither............
Another good thing.

But why the heck does nobody bat an eyelid at the fun suggestion of using FAs for target practice then?

Secret Squirrel:
Just think about the delicious possibilities, though. All those surplus CSD's you could use for target practice. Oh the joy we could bring to the airline industry.
Excuse me for failing to grasp the logic here........... :rolleyes:

[virgin]

C'mon, there's a big difference. ;) The CSD suggestion was clearly meant in a light-hearted way not to be taken seriously.
The snide American bashing has spolied many a good thread.
I didn't see Wino's post before it was deleted but if it was anything like his views on Europeans I've read on JB before, it's a good thing it was deleted or this debate would have been closed in no time flat.

Back to the debate -

I'm easy about US flight crews being armed. I wouldn't want to have a gun myself and don't think we need them, but it's up to each country and each company to decide.

Locked cockpit doors can work. Read the Leila Khaled article. It's gripping stuff, and a good insight if you read it with an open mind.

I'm strongly against restrictions on the people allowed on the flight deck. Let the Captain decide. I've taken my wife on occasions and my son now he's od enough. If the flight crew can vouch for the person personally, that's enough in my book. If you can't trust the flight crew, then we're on a hiding to nothing anyway.

[Wino]

Having just come from security on my recurrent training, most of my comments will be "Can't talk about it."

A couple of points though. Richard Reids shoes turned out to be extremely sophisticated devices with many times the explosive power of the bomb that brought down the lockerbie jet. The shoes were examined (though not placed through explosive detectors ) in Paris and were cleverly designed and escaped detection. When they were recovered they had been jammed against the bulkheld in an extremely fragile part of the aircraft. The device would have brought 63 down.

Now here is the important part. American as a "common Carrier" (as all major airlines are) is extremely limited in their ability to legally refuse to carry someone. Basically they can delay them pretty liberally, but to deny them totally is very very difficult. A common carrier must take all comers. In France we had zero ability to refuse to carry someone or to screen them. Infact by French regulation final authority rested not with the Captain but with the French Government. This has since changed somewhat.

That is the first part about why security is tough on aircraft. And that is the extent of what I can talk about from security class. On to further analysis...

The second part is why the comparison to nuke plants isn't very good. Simply put, only if you had to come inside the plant to consume the electricity would the comparison be valid. An airline has to by its nature bring its customers into its soft belly to carry them. A power plant simply sends the power out where the product is consumed at home. Furthermore a nuke plant probably has very few deliveries. A few spare parts here and there, once a decade or so a few fuel rods, and then the employees. Airplanes need fuel, food, cleaning, maintenance, pilots, flight attendants and then scores of pax every day. The only way you can guarantee the security of the aircraft is to lock it down. But if you lock it down, you CANT FLY IT!

Security will never be more than a visual bandaid/ and small speed bump for those attempting to do evil things with aircraft. The hope is to make it more difficult so that the bad guys will move onto a different target. And indeed there are better ways to attract attention. Individual kidnapping works just as well or better for releasing your favorite political prisoner.

The problem here is that aircraft have been elevated to a new status. They are now not vehicles to be commandeered inorder to go for a ride and make a statement. An Aircraft is now a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION. You wouldn't leave a nuclear warhead just laying around in the street. Nuclear qualified crews to the best of my knowledge are armed everywhere (Any british Nuclear qualified pilots please chime in)

The value of an aircraft has been raised many many times by sept 11, so though the expense of taking one over has been raised (more people needed, better planning and weapons etc to deal with the increased vigilance, locked doors etc) the payoff has been raised even further making the likelyhood of further action greater than anyone realizes, when just looking at it from a macroeconomic point of view.

So the moral of the story is that you can't look at an aircraft and just see the plane and the people. You have to look at it like you would look at a WMD that isn't secured very well right now. The US approach has been basically to add the equivalent of a self destruct button on a nuclear missile. In this case its via sidewinder armed fighter aircraft patroling the areas of a likely target. It would be nice to have someother option as well...

Cheers
Wino

PS. Was that calm enough heliport ;) ?

[Wino]

Flying Lawyer,

Then link doesn't work, could you repost it please?

Thanks
Wino

[virgin]

Wino
I've just tried the link again and it does work in the end, but much more slowly than a few hours ago. I got the "too many people accessing this page" warning a few times. The power of Pprune?? Try www.avsec.com and clicking the interview on the menu page.
The wait is worth it - good interview and a very informative description of the 'big picture' if you read it with an open mind. ;)

[Capt. Crosswind]

Considering the consequences of a successful suicide hijack I find it difficult to understand the mind set of the anti gun proponents. (whose arguments are mostly fatuous at best.)

Their argument for an undefended flight deck does however have 100% support -
From the terrorist groups.
This worries me.
*It should also worry the unarmed flight deck proponents.

[A and C]

I have no problems with killing some one who is trying to take control of the aircraft and the status of them is in my mind is "to be stoped by eny means at my disposal" how ever this takes a big mental change of gear on the part of the flight crew and I think that a large number of flight crew are not up to that.

It is a big step to kill a human , I have never (thank god ) been in the position to have to make that decission but a guy that I know who has been in a war situation said that even he had to think twice about pulling the trigger the first time that he had the enemy in his sights.

This is from a man who is fully mentalty trained and prepaired to kill and who used guns every day of his working life , could we ask this from a twenty year old junior femail FO ?.

As I said in my last post I,m not anti gun on the flight deck but I have grave misgivings about them falling into the wrong hands following the crew being slow or unwilling to shoot.

[ww1]

I wonder if my chief pilot will allow me to refuse a flight if I find myself flying with a John Wayne wannabe who can't wait to show me how quickly he can field-strip and clean a Glock.

.....it's REAL easy. This gun's got a NEAT safety feature in the triggerBANG!!!!......

Great. Now we gotta dump fuel....

[I. M. Esperto]

ww 1 - I'm a 20,000 hour "John Wayne Type", who are you, a Barney Frank type?

Click on links for full report:

Thanks to all of you again from Captains Tracy Price (Chairman); Marc Feigenblatt (Vice Chairman); Bob Lambert (Webmaster and Membership); Joe Gennaro (Government Affairs) and Scott Lewis (Government Affairs). Each of us is personally grateful for your relentless support, encouragement, and faith.

APSA Web Site: http://www.secure-skies.org


--
To unsubscribe/change profile:
http://www.emaillistfactory.com/x?u=7592452,$1$YNSOj$/xPv8DXXawT5smpGXqOnN1

To subscribe:
http://www.emaillistfactory.com/x?oid=04696w



Email list management by http://www.emaillistfactory.com


You'll want to read every word !!!!

APSA JULY ARMED PILOTS UPDATE

YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE MOST IMPORTANT UPDATE WE HAVE EVER SENT YOU.

We are now in the crucial final rounds of our fight to secure our cockpits. While we just scored an impressive victory over staunch opponents, much remains to be done. PLEASE read this carefully so that you understand where we-and our sworn enemies-are. If ever we needed strong grassroots support, now is that time. BEGIN BY GIVING THIS UPDATE ABSOLUTELY MAXIMUM EXPOSURE. Forward it to everyone in your address book, and ask them to do the same. Print it out and take it to work with you.

We are this close to victory; now is not the time for relaxing. If you need to skip to the Action Items, see the last page and pick up the phone.

TREMENDOUS APSA-LED VICTORY IN HOUSE!

This is HUGE. On Wednesday, July 10, the House of Representatives passed two crucial amendments to the weakened HR 4635 Bill by approximately a two-thirds majority. More importantly, the bill itself, with the Amendments, passed with a veto-proof three-quarters majority. Kudos and thanks aplenty go out to Representatives John Hostettler (R-IN) for his amendment and Peter DeFazio (D-OR), John Thune (R-SD), and Joe Barton (R-TX) for their joint amendment.

The week began much differently, with only a modicum of optimism. The Arming Pilots Against Terrorism bill, HR 4635, that began as a well-crafted attempt, mutated into a less-than-worthless compromise because of weak advocacy on the part of one group that was afraid of offending its pro-labor (and anti-gun) allies, and even admitted as much. The grisly details of this compromise are a story for another time (we promise). Fortunately, APSA and the Allied Pilots' Association (APA) stood in the gap. As of Monday, our allies barely hoped to get a couple of luke-warm amendments attached; we started to fear that our only remaining hope was in the Senate. Then APSA Chairman Tracy Price and Board Member Bob Lambert spent two long days visiting specific key Representatives along with APA CADC leadership Al Aitken and Rob Sproc, shoring up support for real amendments with teeth. These were probably the two most productive days spent by APSA activists. Backing them up were thousa
nds of you APSA members and millions of G. Gordon Liddy (www.liddyshow.us) listeners who jumped into the fight en masse. APSA and Liddy activists absolutely inundated the House with calls; and folks, that got their attention, and they let us know about it. Suddenly, the House came alive and Congressmen were fighting for the opportunity to floor amendments.

[BOING]

IF the proposal to arm pilots passes in the Senate and pressure on the administration is high enough then US pilots may indeed get approval to operate armed. At this point the problems mentioned already in these posts will need to be addressed, selection, training, regulations and security issuses. Since roadblocks will be inserted by various parties at all stages this could take a while.

It is already being claimed that a very small number of pilots will actually be qualified, even wish, to carry firearms as a result of the projected rules to be applied. (Such as, quiet reasonably, great and potentially onerous responsibility for security of the firearm and total abstinence from alcohol while in possession (at all times).

However, the object of the legislation will have been achieved. Terrorists will have another, very major, obstacle that they will have to contend with in the planning of their activities. They will now have to consider the potential of an armed pilot on the aircraft. Whereas, with Air Marshals the terrorists know that the number of Air Marshals is limited and they cannot cover every flight they know there is a pilot on EVERY flight and that that pilot could be armed.

Perhaps the armed pilot program could work in a sort of reverse way. Since the terrorists know every pilot is potentially armed perhaps they may give up the idea of aircraft targets in favour of something a little easier. Perhaps the arming of pilots could, in fact, be a means of releasing security personnel to defend presently lightly defended targets.

[Xeque]

Just for fun, this evening I hung my mobile phone on my belt and then drove into the local village having strapped myself in as all good drivers should.

As I was "proceeding in an orderly fashion" the moble phone rang!! Just trying to extricate the phone from within the constraints of my safety belt was a major operation (and Yes I know I should have parked by the side of the road but this is Thailand) but my point is this.

Here I am, a bonza airline pilot with my Magnum Whatever strapped to my waist. An "evil doer" dives headfirst through the plastic and cardboard that makes up the door to the flightdeck and...

What to do?

Come on guys. The armed option is futile and dangerouse. Make the access to the flightdeck impossible and the "evil doers" will have to think of something else.

[BOING]

Excuse me Xeque but I must point this out. Just because you are incapable of tying your shoe laces without falling over does not mean everyone else is similarly physically impaired.

I have seen very impressive demonstrations of trained people actually bringing a pistol into operation whilst performing a forward roll along the ground and firing accurately when they stop rolling. In fact, it would be my personal opinion that , after the cockpit door was secured, there are better places to stow a firearm than on your body, such as positioned vertically between your flight manuals in your flight bag. This provides easy access to the firearm and yet would provide concealment and allow you to prevent easy access to the weapon if the cockpit should be entered by a baddy.

To get sensible about the factors involved in firearms carriage by anyone, not just pilots. I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon as are many other ordinary citizens of my state - it is no big deal to qualify. I passed a character test, legal investigation and had to carry out minimal training. There are thousands of other citizens in my state just like me who can carry concealed weapons, it has been this way for quite a few years. Do you know how many times concealed weapons have been used illegally by these people, ONCE.

Surely, if the average citizen, who is willing to become properly certified for the right, can be trusted with legal and sensible use of a concealed weapon then a pilot, who undergoes far more stringent psychological and medical testing than the average man and who we would expect to have far more "operational" wisdom and ability to handle stressful situations than the average man can be trusted also. As pilots we are far more aware of the dangers inherent in using a firearm in an aircraft than the average man, even a law enforcement type.

I am getting rather fed up with the oft expressed opinion on this site that somehow pilots, usually of another nationality, are subject to attacks of JohnWaynia and at the first opportunity would rush about an aircraft shooting all and sundry. If this is really your belief look across the cockpit at the next person you fly with. Ask yourself if he or she is the type to run amok. If the answer is "yes" then ask yourself what the heck you are doing sitting next to that person flying an aerolplane. One of you should not be in that cockpit.

The granting of permission to carry a firearm in defense of others bestows a great responsibility. However, it is a responsibility which has been laid on many other people, policemen, immigration officials, almost any federal or state law enforcement official of any type. Pilots who express the feeling that somehow their brother pilots are incapable of meeting the qualification standards of these other occupations are seriously belittling themselves.

[I. M. Esperto]

Just knowing that the pilot is probably armed with turn away any potenital hijacker.

There are sites in the USA where one can check the violent crime rates and burglaries for states which have strict gun control, and those that allow it's citizens to carry a concealed weapon.

Do the search, and make your own judgements.

An armed society is a POLITE society.

[jet_noseover]

Tripower,
Whatsalizad…

I am sorry for this lat(er) reply, I did not try to ignore you..

“What makes it unaccessable? A locked door? The guards outside of it? Symantics. Help is not far away.

I don't know enough about nuclear power to argue what effect a stray round would have when fired in a control room. Would it be as bad as if a terrorist who knew what he was doing pulled the control rods out all the way? Besides, when was the last time a terrorist hijacked the control room of a npp (not to say that it can't/won't happen....)? Maybe you should be armed!”

Not really. There are 2 doors and 2 controllers (on the everage). You think terrorists will not know it? Have 1 at each door and you’re done.
To pull the rods takes time and the moderator will “kick” in automatically filling the containment building (pwr’s) reducing neutrons escape to atmos. (In short)
They won’t have it (that time) unless they are incapacitated. You fire a (stray) bullet at the controls and you are as good as dead, so is half of the population in the 30+ mile radius.
And no, Tripower. Not everyone has access to everywhere. The magnetic card, palm reading will open the door only to those who are to be there.
I do not want to be armed. I trust the ones that are, were or to be hired to do this job. Especially after September 11.
“An airliner is not going to blow up (or even go critical) if someone fires a round into a cb panel. Certainly nothing as bad a having the aircraft flown into a building will happen. That argument also doesn't seem to apply to sky marshalls, barney fifes etc. who, I guess never miss......... “

Never mind the cb’s, have this sob you shot fall on the power levers and who will desperately pull them up and to off, extend flaps, slats, brakes, at fl350, what do you do?

Whatsalizad
You and I both know it is impossible to have in the US what El-Al has. All I am saying is that maybe before you make the pax nervous, having this firearm,you should try the security measures the feds try to provide. Let them have their shot at it first. :) As I said you almost need to be a superman to get to the nukes and you have the same folks, background-checked, palm, eye read coming in everyday for many years. So you have a point, it’s not the same.
Lizad, I am not an American, but been here for a while now, and hate to see this land become another gun-run, desperate, scared and run by weapons under the “excuse” of security. Gotta draw a line somewhere.

Wino…
Stay coll!!! :)

I. M. Esperto

“An armed society is a POLITE society.”

Sure…

You’ll be polite as long as they whip this .38 at you, then you go home and call them bastards.