Guns in Cockpits

[notmyC150v2]

I just read in the Courier Mail that the Americans have just passed a law to allow "specially deputised" captains to carry guns and use lethal force during flight.

I have 2 questions.

1. Are they nuts?

2. Does anyone think they would have the ability to shoot someone? Would shooting them be the right decision? Remember the naked guy trying to get into the cockpit a few weeks ago?

Okay there are more than 2 questions, so shoot me.

[shaablamm]

Guns on the flight deck----NO

Would I be-able to shoot someone?-----YES.

It would obviously depend on the situation. You bring up the naked guy, well he was obviously a bit disturbed but a terrorist, a bloke carrying an AK or MP5 yeah no worries if it was going to aid everyones and my own safety. Without question. The only thing is 1 hand gun in a pressurised a/c and more than 1 terrorist onboard. You don't really have a chance. The only real time of use would be on the ground somewhere and possibly only in an assist situ as the boys come rolling in with their flashbangs,,,,YEAH what fun.....

O yes in answer to the first question, are the Yanks nuts?-----YES

They always have been.

[Hugh Jarse]

I'm not a great fan of guns, but you have to ask the question of whether things may have turned out differently on the 11th Sept last year had the crews on the affected A/C been armed?

However, the Septics seem to be a gun-crazed lot. They own guns like we own mobile phones. ;)

Don't forget that not so long ago they used nuclear proliferation as a DETERRENT to all out nuclear war.

Dickheads............

[Wizard]

Captain Sitting Duck

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

"If hijackers are able to force themselves into the cockpit, all that pilots have to prevent the plane from being turned into a cruise missile is a crash ax, a flashlight and a flight manual."

That's what David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association had to say while endorsing pilots carrying guns in the cockpit. Oh, now I feel safe.

I say, give the pilot an "armed seat." If the cockpit door is broken open, the pilot pushes a button and the back of the seat would let go with a fatal blast, killing the terrorist SOB.

Never mind that thousands of lives are at risk from air terrorism. John Magaw, undersecretary of transportation security, with Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta hiding behind him, told a senate committee that pilots don't need guns. In fact, Magaw said he decided they will not have them.

I repeat what I said last September: If pilots are denied this one last chance to save lives, they should strike. Now. There's no requirement they sacrifice their lives for their job.

Remember, the same government refusing guns for pilots has decided that if a terrorist does get into the cockpit, the government will order the plane shot down, killing everyone!

Please explain where it says on my ticket that when I board the flight, I put my life in the hands of a Washington bureaucrat with his finger on the "fire" button.

I hope intrepid trial lawyers are loading their legal ammo for the lawsuits with Magaw's name on them the next time a plane is hijacked.

And there will be a next time if you listen to Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al. It's one doomsday headline after another from these men telling us it's not if, just when, and we can't prevent it.

They speak for the government. But it's the primary job of government to protect citizens, first within our borders and then beyond.

The warnings we're getting, with all the gloom and doom of Armageddon, is that when this apocalypse happens, it will be here, on our home turf.

OK. If that is the case, then what's wrong with taking all means to protect ourselves?

How safe are we?

Despite all the hoo haa, ever since Sept. 11, people have gotten past airline security with guns, knives, swords and all other kinds of possible weapons.

Bolstered with their new importance as "government employees," airport security workers feel free to search people arbitrarily, practice rudeness, get too personal with body searches, waste time on the wrong people and manhandle personal belongings.

Airport employment checks across the country have shown high numbers of employees who weren't American citizens, lied on their applications, used false ID's and had criminal records. These were people doing security checks and maintenance people with access to planes. Any of them could hide a weapon or bomb onboard, if that was their intent.

They should have been fired, but no! Excuses were found. As for citizenship, it's in the works now to speed up legalizing them. Wait a minute! Why the special treatment?

Just what is the line between us and terrorists who may try to pull another hijacking horror similar to 9-11?

If you listen to the administration … Well, if you listen to the administration, what you hear is that "we just don't know."

So what's the problem with Magaw and Mineta?

You have a plane filled with people, cargo and fuel and flying at high altitude and speed. Terrorists take over. It doesn't matter whether they have box cutters, guns, bombs or nail clippers. At some point, they get into the cockpit.

If they get that far, clearly the rest of the people in the plane couldn't stop them. At that moment, life and death are in balance between the terrorist at the door and the pilots.

What do they do? According to the guys safe on the ground and protected by armed security people – "just fly the plane."

Are those pilots – educated, trained, experienced, responsible and with a desire to live to get home to their families – able to defend themselves and the hundreds whose lives they have in their hands?

No. Because John Magaw has decided – no guns.

It makes as much sense as police without guns or a disarmed Secret Service. In fact, it makes as much sense as telling citizens they can't defend their homes with a gun.

It's not about stopping terrorism – it's about guns and the attempt to disarm all Americans. It shows how little value bureaucrats put on our lives and how pitiful is the war on terrorism.

written by Barbara Simpson, "The Babe in the Bunker" of WorldNetDaily.com

[Capt Claret]

and it's one of the most stupid ideas put forth in my time in the industry. :rolleyes:

[Kev Rivkin]

Q1. Yes, they are nuts, although it could be stated more charitably as neurosis.

Q2. Yes, anyone can shoot anyone if they feel their life to be in danger. Shooting attackers would be the right decision if the 'deputised' crew member was within his/her legal and ballistic parameters.

Despite the naked bloke being armed with a Mutton Gun, shooting him would probably be incorrect.

The idea of arming cabin/tech crew so that they can act as a defending or deterring force is about as bright as cross training them as an operating theatre team just in case a pax needs an on the spot triple bypass at FL370.

The idea of arming crews implies that the company cannot/will not afford to pay for a dedicated plainclothes armed security team sitting on cabin seats. They would be far more effective a force than easily identified armed crew members who would have their hands full with their primary tasks.

The whole idea smacks of Humphrey Bogart (etc) flying along in his DC3 wearing a .45 cal pistol.

ed. (sp)

[Gracefull]

Got to agree with the majority of responses on this one.

1 Gun in the cockpit is 1 Gun too many.

Have had occassion to carry pistols whilst on flying duty and can assure you it creates multitude of problems:
1.To remain qualified and legal in its use you must be trained and practice regularly. Another quaterly qaulification.
2.Pistol must remain under lock and key or on the person at all times...this gets to be a real pain.
3.After flight pistol must be secured and responsibility transferred.
4.Ammo must be kept separate from weapon unless at high degree of readiness. If pistol is loaded it now becomes even more headaches due to handling discipline and increased risk.
5.Unless said pilot is to be on flightdeck 100% of time you will need 2 qualified pilots.
6.The practicalities of using a gun in a cockpit are scary:Its near impossible to jump to the firing position with the gun at "ACTION"state , loaded and cocked from a seated,harnessed position in a cramped cockpit. Arny Swarzenegger fine ...real pilots no chance.
7.Even with regular training it was not unknown for pilots in the RAAF to accidentally discharge a round when handling pistols.
8.Pistol can easily end up in the wrong persons hands in hijack situation.

Am all for proactive solutions to this new era of air threat but give me a solid door with no passenger access any day.

[Hugh Jarse]

Plus having one weapon in bed on an overnight is bad enough without a second :D:D:D:D:D

Small calibre only ;)

[Mainframe]

There are alternatives to guns in the cockpit.

April 1994, Fedex Fl 705, DC10 Hijack.

A disgruntled employee deadheaded on this flight with the intention of hijacking, disabling the crew to achieve that, and then intended to do a kamakaze into Fedex's HQ Building to indicate his disappointment with his employer.

The details of how the crew, despite massive injuries, subdued the hijacker, regained control and the ensuing overweight, overspeed single pilot landing make interesting reading.

The captain's head injuries were such that he now can no longer fly, but he is able to speak to and educate others on his experience.
The flt Engineer also suffered serious wounds, as did the F/O.

Try searching the web on this or read the book "Hijacked" by David Hirschman.

Briefly, the engineer was battered almost unconscious first, ( he had noticed the CVR cb tripped and had reset it a couple of times).

The Captain was next to be attacked (hammer blows to the skull) and at that stage the F/O threw the DC10 into some abrupt manoeuvres including neg G and sudden rolls that threw the assailant to the floor.

The F/E, badly injured, restrained him long enough for the F/O to get out of his seat and over power him. Whilst the assailant was secured the critically injured Captain maintained control until lapsing into unconsciousness and the F/O diverted for an emergency landing at the closest field, arranging for police and medical help to be in attendance.

The aircraft suffered structual damage as a result of the flight manoeuvres and that was a factor in the higher landing speeds required, but landed safely.

I don't think a gun could have helped the crew in this circumstance, the element of surprise was in the hijacker's favour and he had injured all crew members quickly, incl the F/O.

I still feel that something can be learned from the F/O's quick thinking in desperate circumstances and acting in a way that the hijacker did not anticipate.

[TurboOtter]

you have the right to bear arms, or the right to arm bears!!!
That is the true American spirit!!!
:D :D

[429 CJ]

Anyone got a small amount of webspace to host a wave file on this very subject? (an absolute cack)!

[Offchocks]

I can see it now.....a shoot out in the flight deck between the crew and the hijackers. People would be hiding behind panels/seats and bullets would be flying every where....... just like the movies. What a load of American guano! :rolleyes:
On a lighter side with regards to the nude fellow, I remember a story of a very large muscular American on a trans atlantic flight who apparently was going around the cabin nude being a real pest to female pax.
The cabin crew could not control him and nobody wanted to get in his way because of his size. The Flight Engineer was sent down to sort him out with a CO2 fire extinguisher, for those who don't know C02 ext. they have a large discharge horn, make a hell of a noise and leave a deposit of what looks like ice crystals. Well a shot of this and the nude guy became quite controlable!!!:D

[Slasher]

Our mob has for years carried .38 pistols in our 737s on certain routes and right where I can easiley get it. Training was extremeley thorough and a competancy check is necessary every 12 months.

Havent fired a round in anger yet but its a nice secure feeling its there if I ever have to use it.

[SydGirl]

If pilots wanted to kill a hijacker, all they'd have to do is start talking about 89, the hijacker would immediately suicide.

Pardon the digression.. back to our regular scheduled programming...


SG
:)

[Chinook]

Should flight crew be armed?

Would I shoot 'harmless naked guy' if faced with a cockpit 'invasion'?

Would I sleep well at night?

YES .... YES .... YES

I am not a fan of firearms, I find them deeply concerning but until a more suitable option is 'approved' go with the deadly force and to hell with the poor 'harmless' sad fellow who forgot (or decided not) to take his medication.

Any day you kiss your kids goodnight is a good day gents.

[Hugh Jarse]

Chinook, I might sound over simplistic here, but wouldn't it be easier to just make it harder to get through security at the gate?

It's kinda like all the air rage that's put down to alcohol consumption....This is a daily occurence but airlines continue to serve alcohol. I don't know any western airline that DOES NOT, yet it's always left to the crew to deal with the inadequacies of the system.

Or, you could relate it to speeding fines. Government says "We'll up the fines, etc". Does speeding reduce? NO.

The government simply increases it's revenue.

NO GUNS. You don't pay me enough to do so.

[IsDon]

There are options other than guns.

OK capsicum spray is not on as all aboard would probably end up suffering the effects once the a/c has spread it all around.

Taser guns are one option. They send out 2 electrically connected darts that then discharge a non-lethal disabling charge which would then give you enough time to restrain the guy.

This is not suggested for the benefit of the hijacker/streaker/pain in the ass concerned but for everyone else on board.

1. A gun in the cockpit, either on the pilot or on the aircraft, would be the first target of the potential hijacker. Why smuggle a weapon through security, when all you have to do is steal the one that is already on board.

2. An electrical dart won’t depressurize the aeroplane.

3. If you miss the baddy, and hit Mrs. Smith in 1A, she won’t be happy about an electric shock of several thousand volts, but she would be positively pissed about a 38 slug between the eyes.

There are other options as well. A company called Metal Storm produces a pistol that can only be used by the owner and can be designed to deliver ordnance that is more airliner friendly. Not sure about the details of this one a mate was telling about an article he had read somewhere.

I don’t think I like the idea of sky marshals either I’m afraid. The IQ of some of the rock apes employed by some of the security firms around this country are less than their shoe sizes. I think I prefer not having Whyat Earp with an itchy trigger finger down the back.

[Slasher]

To answer a few pvt mssgs I recieved on the subject

* no I cant answer on how we are taught to aim and shoot a hijacker/terrorist and where the gun is and on what routes we carry them on. Youll understand thats strictley Company security info!

* The bullets themselves are hollow and designed to break up into small pieces on impacting the hijacker/terrorist. What comes (if anything) out the back of his/her body or head is only guts. Our aiming rules minimise this possibility anyway

* Engagement rules are VERY VERY strict! No we cant go poppin someone just because hes drunk and wants to open the door at 35000 feet! Six stipulated "events" need to be clearley satisfyed before we are authorised to start blowin away people. Nearest I ever got to was only 3 events.

* Yes certain cockpit doors have ALWAYS been bullet-proof. Score one for commie paranoia.

[Ford Airlane]

On the upside - As an S/O or F/O it would give you real clout when you resorted to "Captain, you must listen!" (...or I will pop a cap in your ass :p )

:eek:

[The Bionic Vapour Boy]

There is a simple way to stop terroists from getting onto the flight deck. Make it a separate compartment, with access only when the aircraft is on the ground through a separate hatch.
Or if you don't want to go that far, install 2 strong doors, bullet proof, with a security camera on the outer one. Someone wants access (eg hostie with food) then the outer door is opened from the flightdeck, the inner door, cannot be opened until the outer door is shut an secure. So if someone else is seen going into the compartment (between the inner and outer doors),with the hostie, then implement the security procedure. (I don't know what this could be, maybe the taser thing or even depressurisation of the compartment)
The compartment can then be used as a holding cell until landing at the nearest point. (In the case of the camera being disabled, then you just don't let anyone in).

Ok sounds a bit over the top, but IMHO it sounds a HELL of a lot better than carrying a firearm of ANY kind on an aircraft.

[boofhead]

You can hear the knees popping from here!

I have yet to hear of a problem caused by pilots having guns on the flight deck from the many many years it was done in the US and other places in the world. And I have heard of a few cases when having a gun prevented mischief.

[18-Wheeler]

The Bionic Vapour Boy, that's pretty much what El Al do. They have an airlock type door system to get into the cockpit.

Guns in the cockpit is insane.

[OhBehave]

The extreme measure of allowing guns to carried in flight decks is an over reaction to a one of a kind occurance. Sep 11 is the only time an aircraft has been hijacked and crashed into buildings. The carriage of firearms in aircraft will introduce more problems than they will solve.

Typical US response - you disenfranchise most of the world then when they finally bite back you just add more weapons to the situation.

[WhatsaLizad?]

Typical US response - you disenfranchise most of the world then when they finally bite back you just add more weapons to the situation.

OhBehave,

"bite back"? How you little pathectic rectal ticks rationalize the current world situation is unbelievable. It wasn't a "bite" on September 11 or in Bali, it was a slaughter of innocent, defensless people. The only thing these jackals will understand is a brutal 7th century response from a 21st century society. If that includes a swine fellatating jihadist getting several .40 cal rounds in the face while attempting to breach a cockpit, so be it.

The term "disenfranschise" to me means parking ones tanks and soldiers uninvited in another country and installing a colonial goverment. To some weasels here it means building a McDonalds (full of locals of course), buying a 737 and having a crap US Television show on channel 3. The second example is much less intrusive, but it still gives many groups around the world to blame the US for their problems instead of their own societies that are based on bribery, graft, corruption, nepotism and other tribal crap.


OhBehave, you can return to wallowing in your own national impotence.

[waterops]

Hugh Jarse: Your post is at odds with your signature. Some tough talk about not living on your knees?

OhBehave: Actually, it wasn't the first time... I believe the first was, like, 40 or 50 years ago, also in NY City but the Empire State Building.

[Pitch and Break]

What a predicament?
There are many good arguements for having guns issued to cockpit crews and equally as many good arguements for not doing so but, THE MOST POSITIVE ARGUEMENT FOR NOT ISSUING GUNS TO AIRCREW is the second post on this thread - the gung-ho, shoot em all dead attitude of SHAABLAAM; (a junior Qantas captain.) I say; with flip-dick attitudes like that around; we are better off not adding yet another lethal weapon on board. Let's hang back just a tad and see if the sky marshall concept is effective before we allow untrained, unprepared and for the most part, unwilling personnel to become armed and dangerous.

[Hugh Jarse]

Waterops,
my signature is how I feel about employees being shafted by large companies and taking a stand. The line was originally penned by Rob Hirst, Jim Moginie and Peter Garrett of Midnight Oil back in 1982. Their intent was probably different to my interpretation but it is a valid statement nonetheless.

It's nothing to do with the idiotic notion of arming tech crews when more effective and safer means AT THE GATE are available. :)

[faheel]

Here is another perspective:)
http://www.netlaughter.com/packingpilots/packingpilots.cfm

[Slasher]

Jarse mate, your right about preventing the disease to begin with rather than looking for a cure: Start at the GATE. But terrorists (islamic or not) are quite surprisingley smart especialy if theyve done a little homework in aviation security matters.

My mobs policy (and that of the commie government) is that armed tech crew is the last line of defence in any hijacking for whatever purpose the hijacker intends. As I said Ive never fired a shot in anger but if push comes to shove then my aircraft, pax and crew come first. Hijackers are waaaay down the food chain. We are fully trained in all aspects of the Stockholm syndrome etc and how to think in defensive terms and respond timely but aggressively if the sh!t ever hit the fan. I dont know about Shablaam and what the White Rat's policy is, but theres a HELL of a lot more to arming tech crew than just packing him some heat one day and saying "here flyboy, use this anytime you need to blow away them f**king terrorists!"

While the possibility still exists (esp copy-catters), it has to be remembered that these al-qaeda bastards do not repeat their actions using the same method more than once. Using commercial aircraft as guided missiles, for these pr!cks anyway, is a done deal. Other methods such as a ship/yacht or train hijacking and ramming the same at full throttle into a civilian-rich target such as the Fremantle shopping wharf in Perth (esp if a yacht was pre-loaded with high explosives) would be just as deadly as any aircraft when you think about it.

[CitizenXX]

Waterops,

Wasn't hitting that building an accident? Perhaps we're talking about different incidents, although you don't say it was intentional, so maybe it is the same.

My only recollection is that of a B25 taking off and turning the wrong way in fog and slamming into the Empire State building. It stood though.

Slasher,

Are you going to be supported by your company and the law if you pop somebody? I'd want it written in the management's blood I think. The only managements I've worked for seem to be good at saying they'll support you until it is actually required.

[D.Lamination]

:D

To Quote Captain Sitting Duck:

posted 6th September 2002 11:00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Captain Sitting Duck

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

"If hijackers are able to force themselves into the cockpit, all that pilots have to prevent the plane from being turned into a cruise missile is a crash ax, a flashlight and a flight manual."


Maybe we should take a leaf from out of the Russians book and put them to sleep with the Flight Manual? It works for me (The Flight Manual insomnia cure that is)


Seriously tho-
Guns in the cockpit are a really bad idea for many reasons.

Just look at the simple statistic Americans own the most guns to "protect themselves" yet suffer the most gun deaths. As a rule the more guns you have around the more deaths you will have.

[OhBehave]

Whatsalizad,

"It wasn't a "bite" on September 11 or in Bali, it was a slaughter of innocent, defensless people."

You are right. It was.

Unfortunately your government has been directly and indirectly responsible for the slaughter of millions of innocent civilians the world over for 50 years.

Until the US government makes better foreign policy decisions, there will be countless numbers of people cueing up to attack the US as "blowback" for the pain caused by the land of the free.

Open your eyes son.