Armed Pilots (Merged)

[skidcanuck]

Pilots prepare to arm and defend

After rugged training, new aviation era could begin Sunday
Pilots take part in gun training at a Glynco, Ga., facility in April. Those who qualify will be able to carry .40-caliber semiautomatic pistols on flights starting Sunday.


By Sara Kehaulani Goo
THE WASHINGTON POST

GLYNCO, Ga., April 17 — Seated in a classroom chair that served as a simulated cockpit, the 25-year veteran captain of a major airline raised a red plastic gun in two hands and twisted to his side to confront his assailant.

WITHIN SECONDS, the pilot was locked in a tug of war for the weapon in a scenario envisioned to take place at 30,000 feet in a space the size of two bathroom stalls.
“Nobody knew how tough it would be,” said the weapons trainee, a Boeing 767 pilot who was not allowed to give his name for security reasons. He and 45 other commercial pilots had spent days in a padded room practicing physical combat techniques, emerging with bruises and scrapes on their hands, knees and elbows. “It’s brutal work,” he said.
The volunteer group was taking part in the first training program to certify pilots to carry guns in the cockpit. Those who qualify will be able to fly with their .40-caliber semiautomatic pistols holstered to their bodies by as early as Sunday. The weapons program is the latest in a series of security measures since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist hijackings that are changing the nature of American air travel.
The pilots are learning a range of tactics, including shooting over the shoulder, a maneuver that worries some security experts.





• Airline security special report
• Armed pilots must put guns in lockboxes





“If you’re shooting over your shoulder while the cockpit door is open, there’s a good chance you’re going to miss,” said Doug Laird, a Nevada-based security consultant who used to run Northwest Airlines’ security division. “If you miss, where is that round going? It’s going into the cabin.”

TRAINING KEPT A SECRET
In the new uncertain skies, airline passengers never know whether a bank executive or an undercover armed federal marshal is seated next to them. Travelers also have grown accustomed to federal security screeners rummaging through their luggage. In an added mystery, pilots will not reveal to passengers whether they are armed.
Not even the pilots’ own employers, the airlines, know if a pilot is in the training program. Once the pilot passes the course and is armed, he or she must notify the airline within 24 hours of flying.
First, the volunteers must pass a battery of tests, including a thorough background check, a psychological evaluation, and classroom exams on liability and legal rules. The pilots also must graduate from precision firearms training by the end of the week. Just days into the program, two pilots dropped out, for reasons the federal government won’t discuss.
Inside classrooms and outside at the bug-infested firearms range here at the sprawling Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, pilots are learning to shoot from the same instructors who teach sky marshals and other federal agents before they are deputized.





Pilots have lobbied aggressively for the program, insisting it was their duty to protect the cockpit with a lethal weapon. Congress overwhelming passed a bill last fall that gave any airline pilot the option to train and become an armed “federal flight deck officer.”
“This is the first time we have done something like this,” said Robert Johnson, a spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration. He added that the program will evolve and probably change after the first group has finished. “We are going to learn as we go.”
Trainees who were interviewed today said they volunteered because they believe only a gun would help them protect their aircraft, for which they feel personally responsible.
One female pilot who has flown for a major airline for 14 years said she appreciates the reinforced cockpit door and the better screening of passengers and luggage. “But the ultimate link in that safety chain is me,” she said. “And I need to defend myself and my aircraft.”
Johnson said armed pilots will not reveal their identities for their own safety and as an element of deterrence to terrorists who might try to break into the cockpit.

NEED FOR TRAINING QUESTIONED
‘If you’re shooting over your shoulder while the cockpit door is open, there’s a good chance you’re going to miss. If you miss, where is that round going? It’s going into the cabin.’
— DOUG LAIRD
security consultant Some security experts said that heightened precautions in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks make arming pilots unnecessary. Congress passed the law allowing guns in the cockpit at a time before federal security screeners had taken up posts at every airport checkpoint in the nation and before passenger luggage was screened for explosives. Earlier this month, airlines were required to super-reinforce cockpit doors with a strengthened material throughout the door — not just with a metal bar as was required after Sept. 11.
Pilots will be trained on Saturday in firing over the shoulder. “The threat is probably every time coming from behind” the pilot, Johnson of the TSA said. “It literally is shooting with limited information to stop the target.”
Johnson said the pilots will use paintball guns to learn a variety of tactics for shooting over the shoulder.
Laird, the former Northwest security chief, wondered whether arming pilots won’t do more harm than good. He said pilots already have a crash ax they keep in the cockpit, which could be used to fend off an intruder. Using a gun at close range creates the opportunity for an assailant to grab the pilot’s weapon, he said. “When they talk about firing at point-blank range you’ve got a problem, because if the person is that close to you he’ll probably grab the firearm,” Laird said.
A former chief executive for Israel’s El Al, which is considered one of the most secure airlines in the world, said his carrier considered arming pilots but decided it was better to protect the whole plane instead. That meant training flight attendants, adding air marshals and reinforcing cockpit doors.
“Pilots themselves may feel safer with guns in the cockpit,” said Joel Feldschuh, former El Al chief executive and now president of security consulting firm GS-3. “But ensuring the safety of the entire cabin, nose to tail, should be the priority. Arming pilots on U.S. planes will be just one part of that overall solution.”
‘This is the first time we have done something like this. We are going to learn as we go.’
— ROBERT JOHNSON
Transportation Security Administration Flight attendants also are concerned. They still fear that a terrorist in the cabin could attack passengers, and they have received only a few hours of training in how to defend themselves and enlist the help of travelers.
“There are going to be pilots with guns, and flight attendants will not have been trained on how a pilot is going to react in a certain situation with a gun,” said Jeff Zack, spokesman for the Association of Flight Attendants. “We won’t even know if they will come out of the cockpit” if there’s a disturbance in the cabin, he said.

FOR TSA, CAUTIOUS STEPS
The TSA said it recognizes there are many possible dangerous scenarios and is moving cautiously in arming the pilots. The training probably will evolve as the agency learns more and gets feedback from pilots and law enforcement personnel.
The TSA is using $500,000 to fund the program and has asked for $25 million next fiscal year to continue it. The agency is aiming to begin a full-scale program by mid-July, but the number of pilots it will be able to train — at a cost of $6,200 each — will depend largely on how much it gets from Congress.
The agency’s approach has calmed some critics of the program — principally at the airlines — who opposed the idea while it was being debated in Congress. Some said they are now more comfortable with the program because they don’t have to pay for it and it seems the TSA is moving cautiously.
Some security experts said that heightened precautions in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks make arming pilots unnecessary.

United Airlines’ Hank Krakowski, who heads the airline’s safety and security division, said he would prefer that United pilots carry non-lethal stun guns, which emit electric shocks. But United has five pilots attending the TSA’s training program and, from what he has heard so far, Krakowski said he approves of the way the TSA is going about it.
John Hotard, a spokesman for American Airlines, said the carrier approved of the program, particularly since it doesn’t have to pay for it. Airlines also are exempt from liability if a pilot accidentally shoots a bystander on board.

Researcher Margaret Smith in Washington contributed to this report.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Max Angle]

Anyone want to take bets on how long it will be before a gun is discharged accidently or in circumstances other than a possible breach of the flighdeck?. Guns out when you go to the loo?, Guns out when the door is opened to bring in lunch or a coffee?. First "friendly fire" victim is likely to be one of the cabin staff.

[Pointer]

or one of the flightdeck crew...duhhh!

Can some one tell me how are they going through security? any thoughts? "take the shoes off but leave the gun"?

[Hilico]

Won't firing over the shoulder (let's hope all the captains are left-handed) make the shooter instantly deaf in one ear?

[rag]

Forget the guns just bring back the tough old FE's

[Alpine Flyer]

IFALPA and the majority of pilots worldwide are against arming pilots for very good reasons.

Maybe the US are different because their pilot ancestors were required to carry guns until about WW2 to protect the federal mail bags.....

If every one of the 100.000 pilots worldwide carries a gun there are 100.000 more guns on flight decks than there are now. Given this number a certain percentage of accidents is inevitable. Sitting strapped to a forward-facing chair you are at a disadvantage against any attacker from the outset, so even non-lethal stun guns won't be a big help.

For some reason the USA don't see the math that the large number of gun-related crimes is directly connected to the easy availability of guns....

BTW, there's a good novel called THE TRIGGER co-authored by Arthur C. Clarke on the subject of firearms.

[300-600]

I'm all for F/O s carrying guns.Maybe then we won't get so much C@#P from some of those in the left hand seat!

[126.9]

I think it's a fantastic idea! :ok: As long as it's ALWAYS strapped to the bearer, and only leaves the holster to be used in anger, I'll feel a lot better on board.

[Earl]

Alpine I dont agree with your idea of the math where as Americans and the availability of guns produce more gun related crimes! No way!
Since congress passed legislation allowing anyone with a small training course to carry a weapon on their person gun related crimes have dropped in the USA.
The average criminal now thinks twice before entering someones home or vehicle to do harm.
Being a lifetime member of the National rifle association the strongest lobby in the USA helped get this passed.
Pilots carrying guns may not have helped on Sept 11, or would it?
The hijackers may have dropped the whole idea if they knew in advance that they would meet trained armed resistance.
Thank God that I live in a country where we still have the right to own and carry a firearm.
Is that what bothers you the most?

[Airbrake]

I give it 6 months max before either Clint or Hank blow a hole in Mr Honeywells finest PFD or Nav display.
That will be a good Tech log entry!

[pilgrim]

So it,s a sad day for the aviation Industry when we have (US) to Arm pilots . Another Knee -Jerk reaction, In an Knee Jerk Goverment. No thought Has been given to this dangerous programme, I am not anti American mearly anti-Gun on aircraft, The basic security implications of storage ,ammunition types(cos some will choose their own) no matter what the rule book say,s How many Negligent discharges of firearms will we have in the cockpit (no such thing as an accidental disharge). having spent a large percentage of my working life round firearms and a/c , the two should never be intoduced to each other. 18 months ago i had to seperate 2 pilots beating 10 bells out of each other in a cockpit, had they been armed ? who knows what would have happened. so we can forget all the knives, cutlery knitting needles cos the pilots got a gun, last line of defence I dont think so?. I wont be using their services back to BA me thinks

[rwm]

Most of the terrorist groups all ask that the USA stay out of their particular countries. Perhaps if uncle Sam would mind his own buisness and stop worrying about who has what in their country, the world would be a more peaceful place. I don't care what my neibor has in his closet, and he shouldn't care what I have in mine. Don't forget who dropped the bomb, and placed most of the weapons of mass destruction in the hands of these terrorists, and helped them get to the place of power in the first place.

Guns, planes, and pilots don't mix. Don't forget that it was a sofisticated group that did September 11th, and next time they want to make a statement they will. Guns in the cockpit or not. I'd be more affraid of a missile attack on take-off. Or maybe catching a deadly flu.

[Speed of Sound]

So after all ........

the efforts to improve security at airports around the world, now we are helping the terrorists by putting guns on board for them.

I for one will not be using an airline that has any firearms in the cabin or flight deck.

Unbelieveable!

SoS

[Earl]

USAF transport pilots have been carrying guns for years as anti hijacking procedures.
Not one accidental discharge of a firearm ever.
Know all about it, done it for years.
These guns will probably never be drawn.
The fact they are there will be enough.
On the comment of 2 crew members fighting, I would not allow them to carry either.
They should not even be flying if they are that unstable.
On the comment of the USA looking in everyones closet, thats life, get used to it.
Sure their will be more to come.

[witchdoctor]

Given the frequency with which fatalities and serious injury result in relation to gun use, even by highly trained professionals like the military (even under closely supervised conditions on the training ranges, never mind an unpredictable and adrenaline pumped life-or-death scenario), I think we will be seeing a spate of cock ups and accidents involving reactionary pilots which will lead to the legislation being withdrawn inside 12 months.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Will armed pilots only operate on domestic US sectors? Can't imagine how they would want to go to the hassle and expense of complying with - say - UK firearms legislation were they to land in LHR. As soon as the doors open they would become a criminal...

Honest question.

WWW

[EGCC_pax]

No Thankyou.

A gun in the wrong hands on board a/c is asking for trouble. The Pilot may have it in a locked cabinet but if the terrorist overpowers him(Dont forget terrorists have nothing to loose) this puts the safety of the a/c in danger. Plus we all know what sort of record the Americans have on "Frendley Fire Incidents" dont we.

Paul :mad:

[Airbubba]

>>Will armed pilots only operate on domestic US sectors? Can't imagine how they would want to go to the hassle and expense of complying with - say - UK firearms legislation were they to land in LHR. As soon as the doors open they would become a criminal...<<

Don't know how familiar you are with UK firearms laws but several air carriers operate into LHR with weapons and comply with local regulations. El Al is the most visible but there are others...

I'm not crazy about the guns myself but I have operated into LHR with armed crewmembers.

[Earl]

In the case of the Military the weapons are locked in a secure location and remain on the aircraft during night stops.
If they, the locals have some sort of amory or police station then they are checked and reclaimed prior to departure.
Many times I have walked through civilian airports and only had to show my military concealed weapons permit.
Never a problem.
Sure the airlines have all of this worked out.
International flights, embassy runs etc.

[slingsby]

Completely stupid idea, coming from a hyper paranoid society hell bent on destroying everything they don't know anything about. If in doubt, shoot it.
Having spent the past two weeks on domestic US carriers and travelling through 15 of so US airports, the lack of obvious security was frightening so it's now not surprising aircrews are taking the law into their own hands, because that is what it is. A discharged weapon, a shot passenger, an injured crew member leaves debate open for a certain few valid arguements.

No thanks to flying in the USA again or on a US carrier

[Notso Fantastic]

This guns on Flight Decks issue really brings out the woolly headed thinkers. Wake up people! Get real and smell the air! Give me a gun and I can guarantee that no hijackers take me over and kill everybody on board and several thousand on the ground too. The hijacking game has changed! It's a lot more serious now, and if there is an attacker on the FD, then the danger of an accidental discharge of the weapon is neither here nor there! It's a 'last resort' defence. It's not going to be waved around on the FD like a toy, but anybody entering the FD with box cutters/Stanley knives should have several holes blown into them- it's the only way to save many many lives. I can't believe the naivety of some of the 'instant' experts who feel so much need to pass an out-of-date opinion in Pprune with no expert knowledge! Wake up! The world has changed.

[Hand Solo]

Give me a gun and I can guarantee that no hijackers take me over and kill everybody on board

Errr, no you can't, thats the point. Unless you're exceptionally quick on the draw and at a high state of alertness at all times. I reckon if two trained hijackers rushed the flight deck when I've got the full 5 point harness on I'd have my throat cut before I'd got the damn gun out of the holster.

[Earl]

Well said "Not so fantastic"
Hand Solo, if the cockpit was rushed and you had no time to draw your weapon before your throat was cut?
If you had no weapon this would happen to you anyway!
Whats your point?

Mr. Slingsby,
You state that you will not fly on a US carrier again due to security or lack of such.
Perhaps you should try our bus system on your next visit!
Sure that you will feel safe and very impressed.

[Notso Fantastic]

So HS, the point is? If the FD is rushed, you are in an aeroplane of dead people. What harm does a gun do then? Nobody can rush the FD without having to get a Cabin Crew member out of the way first. It gives you that instant when they can then find a rather large barrel pointing at them. Part of the responsibility of carrying a weapon is to prevent it needlessly being lost. It must be quickly available when needed. When you talk of the FD being rushed, you are on a last chance defence. The only viable alternative is a self destruct button.

[Bogner]

Notso Fantastic.

Over the last few months, airlines around the world have been bending over backwards to fit these phase two doors to flight decks.
Is the US government now suggesting that actually, these doors are worthless and can't to the job they were designed for? If so, lets go back to the old system, which was a hell of a lot safer in other situations.

Also, I may be misunderstanding the events of Sept 11th, but I thought the airlines involved had a locked flight deck door policy and it was only the fact that the door was opened that allowed the events to transire as they did.

Allowing the pilots to have a gun may allow the pilots to go down in a blaze of glory, but the end result will still be an aircraft full of dead passengers. Lets keep guns away from airside.

[GlueBall]

Hello Captain Earl: USAF transport pilots usually fly from one heavily secured Air Force Base to another; they don't carry civilian pax, they don't exit their base with sidearms, they don't commute to the downtown Marriott for layovers, and they don't go through the baggage drill at airport screening stations.

[Avman]

OK you pro gun American airmen, then why not allow law abiding registered firearm holders to travel on your aeroplane with their guns then? Arming commercial pilots is just about the most insane thing since George Bush. It will in time cause more problems then it's intended to solve. The USA is being systematically destroyed - from within!

[Earl]

As I stated earlier the guns are left secured on the aircraft at non military bases.
Aircrews do stay downtown when the local bases are full.
The civilian bag drill is done only on rare occasions such as picking up Nat gaurd troops at civilian airports.
For you Anti-Gun people do you see an alternative here?Since we are having this discussion maybe some of you have a better idea
for FD security.
I dont agree with many things happening in the USA, but in time things will mellow out.
FD security is one thing that we are determined to protect.
The point being made here is that its not a accident waiting on a place to happen.
If further hijackings could be prevented then maybe the public would trust air travel again.
For this we would all benefit.

[Elmer the Monk]

I think it's fair to argue that Americans hold gun culture in a rather different light to the rest of the world. Of course, it is part of their Constution that they have the right to bear arms; their whole history has been cut and shaped by personal weaponry. It's very much part of their life.

Just look at what has been happening in Iraq. American soldiers were opening fire on vehicles that refused to stop at checkpoints. Children were killed. British military personnel said that they would let such vehicles through rather than open fire - 'it's just not worth it', said one spokesperson. American tanks had daubings on their hardware such as, 'this is for the NYPD', and 'this is for 9/11'. I saw one marine telling an Iraqi civilian protester that he was the one with the gun, so back off! Guns, guns, explosives, bombs and guns. Take that, punk! It's the culture and it's been fuelled by Hollywood. No one else in the world has such a pumped up belief in their own military and how capable it is of kicking arse. A military reputation created by Hollywood, and the army's own rhetoric, rather than by actual combat successes.

It's a unique culture, the American one; one we either admire or loathe. Either way it's contrived an end to a worldwide problem of airline terrorism, a uniquely American end.

Forget the movies. Have you actually been involved in a physical fight, or perhaps witnessed one? There's tremendous confusion. A surprise attack on anyone is likely to provoke momentary paralysis in the victim. There is always a shock factor that make 'surprise' attack so effective. That's why they are used!

The number one has just opened the flight deck door, he or she has a cup of coffee in one hand, a menu in the other, say. Passenger X on the front row rushes the door. Coffee spues forward, the pilot flays his arms as the hot liquid splashes him and the instruments. The no 1 falls on the the centre console, the first officer moves to catch her, let's say. There is shock and confusion for both pilots and for the no 1. But not for the hijacker. He is on control. He has so much time to subdue the pilots before they recover from the initial shock that it's slowtime for him. The pilots are barely aware of his being there. By the time the rest of the crew, or passengers react, the hijacker has at least one gun in his hand.

We in England - where guns are so low profile that regular police officers do not carry them - cannot understand the American decision to allow pilots to carry them. For their part, the Americans - living where guns are part of the legend - cannot understand our horror at this decision. But can we all agree that the money being used to train these pilots could be better spent at keeping potential hijackers off aircraft in the first place. If the hijacker doesn't have a gun, then I doubt he or she would be able to defend him or herself against todays post 9/11 passenger.

Come on guys, you're getting far to cocky for world peace to prevail. Democracy means accepting that there are countries whom are not going to subscribe to your American ideal - countries with 'anti-American views'. Learn to live with it; it could temper the terrorist hardline against you.

[bigjarv]

Earl! I don't reckon this is an anti-American thing! You seem to be taking it personally. I think Hand Solo's point was that the hijackers cut your throat, sleal the gun, and then play with the plane.

It's a bit of a tricky one but I reckon aeroplanes should remain gun free. Seems to add a risk where there wasn't one before. America is comfortable with guns on all other modes of transport, for staff and passengers. Don't think we are as comfortable over here in the UK. Hate the dammed things myself. They are the work of the devil (I know Earl. I'm a wuss!!!). Guns give people too much power and power tends to go to peoples heads. It's too easy to use power unwisely. Look at all powerful people (particularly heads of state eg Sadam, Bush, Blair. Cheats and liars the lot of them). In all honesty, Earl sounds like he is honest, respects and takes pride in his weapon and the power it gives him and understands its implications, but not everyone is like him. Thats what scares me.

[Metro man]

After all the hijackings in the 1970s security precautions were put in place to stop it happening again ,did they work ?

I'm all in favour of better screening of passengers ,improved X ray machines etc , but as a last line of defence WHEN the hijackers have managed to bypass all this new security I want the option of shooting them myself in order to save the aircraft.

Minimum wage security guards regularly carry firearms ,why not highly trained pilots.

Sure the procedures for carrying guns around will be complicated and expensive ,but surely simpler and cheaper than the clean up of the World Trade Center.

Everybody goes on about headlines resulting from accidental discharge or a passenger being shot ,how about "Hijack Foiled -Armed Pilot Saves Aircraft"

If you had been flying the BA jumbo with the deranged man struggling with the controls going through 110 degrees of bank would you like to have been able to shoot to defend yourself ?

Glock make some lovely sub compact semi automatic pistols and I will be carrying one as soon as it is legal for me to do so.

PS Off to the firing range after lunch.

[Fujiflyer]

I don't hold any strong views on the subject myself - I can see arguments for and against.

Is it not the case though now, that the suicidal hijacker will now that he "knows" that the pilots are armed attempt to take out both of them somehow (a smuggled weapon, maybe), when previously he might not have done, thus denying the pilots the <slender> chance for them to regain control?

FF

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

After over a year of arguing, I still can't think of any way in which a firearm on the flightdeck of any of the 9/11 aircraft would have made things any worse...

[Max Angle]

Glock make some lovely sub compact semi automatic pistols What exactly is LOVELY about it. Unbelievable!.

[411A]

Interesting discussion on the Phoenix area radio a few weeks ago.
A UAL Captain calls in (from his mobile phone while driving to the airport) and defends his 'right' to be armed. Radio host asks...'excuse me Captain, but suppose the co-pilot is armed as well, and you have a disagreement with him. What will you do?'

UAL Captain replies...."I would shoot the son of a bitch".

This is exactly what was said, true story. Could not believe my ears.

Personal opinion...armed pilots are a COMPLETE waste of time, period.

[PPRuNeUser0171]

Minimum wage security guards regularly carry firearms ,why not highly trained pilots.

Because CERTAIN security guards are HIGHLY TRAINED to carry firearms where as an ordinary highly trained pilot is not.

Pilots with guns scares the hell out of me, I know enough about guns to have see the damage they can cause.

The last thing I would want to see is an armed shot out between some terrorist who is prepared to die and a pilot who thinks he is John Wayne.

Besides, Arming a pilot is one thing, How the hell is he supposed to go up against a gang of armed terrorists?

What happens if the terrorist takes a hostage?

What happens if one of the 'innocent passengers' turns out to be a terrorist and tackles the pilot who is playing john bloody wayne?

As highly trained as a pilot may be, There is a lot more to taking down a terrorist than pulling the trigger.

PLEASE, Leave the counter terrorism and any shoting to the people who are HIGHLY TRAINED to do this, they would never think about telling you how to do your job so please don't assume you can down a terrorist like they do on the movies.

Gary.

[HalesAndPace]

Blimey, glad I was sitting down when reading 411A's last post, both for the radio phone-in story :eek: and for his (unexpected!) views on guns in the cockpit! Good for you, Sir - it's not often I agree with you, but 100% with you this time!!

A few thoughts:
When (& where) are these gun-toting Wyatt Earps (Earpesses) going to load (& unload) their little toys?
Will they be allowed to have a round fed into the chamber at all stages of flight?
What ammunition will be cleared for use?
What recurrent training will they have to do?
What if the other (unarmed) pilot says "No way, I don't want to fly with a gun in the cockpit"?
Don't want to know the security system, but how is TSA going to handle this at security checkpoints?

Oh well, time to take the kevlar vest out of storage & give it some frequent flyer miles when hopping around on internal USA flights!! Bet the standard aircraft first aid kit doesn't have the dressings for gunshot wounds - they'll need them at some stage in the future.....:sad:

[skidcanuck]

Here's a solution - allow U.S. Postal Workers to ride the jump seat; they're always carrying weapons, aren't they?

Just kidding, folks!

;)

[rwm]

I like guns. I have several. Pistols, rifles, and a shotgun. I enjoy shooting them. Will never think about bringing any of them to work. I was in the military. Been trained to use guns. Still will never bring a gun to work. Pilots and guns don't mix.
If you want security in the cockpit, then don't let pilots carry guns. A much better solution would be to fly with air marshals, who's only job is to protect the aircraft and all its passengers. Someone mentioned earlier a senario about an F/A bringing in coffee, and a passenger rushed the cockpit. There would be no reaction time, and no pilot with a gun could save the day.
I travel through the USA regularely, and am disgusted by how I'm treated. I must take my bags and re check them. If I wanted to put something into, or take something out of my bag, I could. Once my bags are checked, I should not have to touch them until my final destination.
This world is being driven by knee jerk reactions, led by the most knee jerk nation in the world. Led by the most simple minded idiot who has ever taken office. Give me Bill Clinton any day. At least if he wanted to invade a nation, it would only be to look for his next sex partner.

[saudipc-9]

Earl,
I flew with the USAF for a couple of years on exchange. Who exactly are the USAF protecting themselves from by carrying a firearm? Who is going to hyjack a C-130 or C-141???
FD security needs to be started well before any passenger arrives in the cabin. Let us be absolutely honest about security before 9/11. It was incredibly slack and was an open invitation to someone who wished to exploit it. Of course that statement is said with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. However, while I was down in the states, I can honestly say, I was staggered by how bad it was.
FD security is all about prevention. There is no way that anyone should be able to get onboard with a weapon. If they do then the flight deck door must remain closed regardless of what happens in the cabin. Arming us is not the answer, it is only a very dangerous band-aid solution.

[arcniz]

When legendary David put down giant Goliath with a sling and a rock, his victory was largely the result of using some available but unconventional appropriate technology to solve a critical problem.

It's worthy of note that the locals in the neighborhood are still creatively murdering each other using all the tools available, including rocks, a few thousand years hence. One might venture to say: "Religion and Murder are the mare's milk of the Middle East. " Also: "Rocks are dangerous weapons."

I suggest that people seeking a sense of proportion might review the history of this and related topics with "rock" substituted for "gun".

Technology begets technology. Modern airplanes are full of machines, devices, tools, equipment, and facilities intended to make the transportation process operate better and more safely. Many of these are either inherently dangerous or amenable to serious misuse if the operator is careless, stupid, or malicious. All of these are, in one sense or another, under control of the flight crew. We have to hope that they will be trained to use them skillfully and effectively as may be necessary. Bankers and insurers usually insist on it. Psychiatrists and other docs and lots of managers watch over it And the evidence to date shows that the system works pretty well.

Guns are just another embodiment of technology - a means for projecting force across a distance. A fire axe or a common screwdriver can cause many of the same negative outcomes that are seen as the downside of airborne guns. Just like rocks, it's all in how they are used.

Skillfully, one hopes.

[brownstar]

guns in the cockpit - are you crazy !!

just remember Fedex - how would have that have ended if there had been a gun on board.!

i havent' read all the posts on this subject but i hope there never comes a day when guns are on board public transport aircraft on a regular basis. that will be the day that i stop flying !

[18-Wheeler]

Without a doubt one of the stupidest things ever to happen to aviation.

[T_richard]

Just out of curiosity,

Why were two pilots fighting with each other on the FD? Why were they allowed to remain on the FD after order had been restored?

Does anyone KNOW what kind of ammo has been approved for this situation? I was under the impression, it was short range, fragible (sp) loads.

I am a right wing gun nut, but I gotta see this over-the- shoulder shot performed before I will believe it is a valid tactical manuever. I think there is a problem here that is waiting to surface.

[T_richard]

Mike

LMAO that is sooo sick.:) :)

[amanoffewwords]

As a simple pax I can see a problem with armed pilots - from the terrorist point of view the pilot is a known threat - i.e. he/she knows where they sit and, (I'm guessing here), through the freedom of information in America, would probably know what weapon they were carrying. Based on that information they could probably work out a time when the pilots would be at their most vulnerable and attack then.

Air Marshalls on the other hand are an unkown quantity to the terrorist - are they on-board, is there more than one, where are they sitting or are they pretending to be crew, etc.? In my mind a much more effective way of dealing with the issue. It would also re-assure me that the pilots are keeping to their day job, and the Marshall to theirs. Seems to work for El-Al anyway.

The other thing that comes to mind is that the pilots in America are not the only ones allowed to carry weapons. There was a post to that effect in January 2003, in this thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36873) which listed the other people in the list. I'll reproduce part of TR4A's post for your convenience.

The following Federal agencies may be armed during flight -whether on official business or not.
-Bureau of Printing and Engraving
-Coast Guard
-Customs
-Defense Nuclear Agency
-Dept of Agriculture (Poultry Inspectors, etc)
-Dept of Commerce
-Dept of Education
-Dept of Health and Human Services
-Dept of Labor
-Dept of State
-Dept of the Air Force/Army/Navy
-Dept of the Interior
-FBI
-General Services Administration
-Postal Service
-Secret Service
-Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
-FAA
-IRS
-Dept of Transportation
-CIA
-DOD
-Dept of Energy
-Dept of Housing and Urban Development
-Dept of State
-Dept of the Treasury
-National Security Agency
-DEA
-Federal Prison System
-Federal Protective Service
-Marshals Service
-Smithsonian Institution

All you need is for someone to forget to tell the Cap'ain that someone from that list is on board and..

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/shootout.gif http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/steyr.gif

I think I'll take the train, thanks

[T_richard]

My momma always told me not to growup to be a poultry inspector, too risky:p And the Smithsonian, forget about it

[World of Tweed]

In my humble opinion.....If I was a terrorist wanting to hijack an aircraft.

Would I:

a) Attempt to sneak a ceramic (or other hard-to-detect) gun through secruity - thus endagering the sucess of my mission.

OR

b) Not bother and let the Knee-Jerking Government pre-load my weapon for me. Which, no doubt will be convieniently located in to the side and slightly behind the crew seats AKA in their flight cases.

Why would a terrorist bother carrying his own 'piece' if he knows he has access to the flight decks' own weapon via the forward toilet bulkhead(and cockpit door for that matter) and the conveniently located fire axe?

'Fodder' for thought?

[skidcanuck]

"My momma always told me not to growup to be a poultry inspector..."

They're always in a 'fowl' mood!!!

:hmm:

[PPRuNeUser0171]

but I gotta see this over-the- shoulder shot performed

It's not that hard a shot to do when you are standing on the ground.

In the air a little bit of CAT and whoops, one dead pax, Never mind, plenty more left.

The type of ammo that has been approved is a special expanding shell type, they are designed to puncture the body but not to exit.
The idea is not for airframe protection but for passenger protection as normal bullets will exit the terrorist and hit people behind or go through seats.

Also, How does our gun-totting pilot handle a terrorist holding a grenade with no pin? One shot, he drops the grenade and boom..... Game Over.

Gary.

[T_richard]

Yeah I understand its not difficult to do in a training exercise , I'd like to see someone perform that shot in a cramped cockpit with a hell breaking loose in the cabin. And there is the matter of a grenade with the pin out. Better minds then mine are at work here I guess

[Tripower455]

And there is the matter of a grenade with the pin out.

In this case, as in the case of a terrorist using an RPG or placed explosive, the gun has a zero net effect on the outcome. (Is the bad guy going to put the pin back in before he flies the plane into a building?) The point is moot. Compare it to trying to use the apu fire bottle to control a rapid depressurization.

In the case of a determined hijacker(s) attempting to wrest control of the aircraft away from the pilots, the gun can have a positive effect. Without it, the pilots (and everyone else on the aircraft) are dead anyway. The firearm gives the pilots more of a chance of keeping control of the aircraft.

As far as "trusting" pilots with guns is concerned. Any pilot that can't be trusted with the responsibility of handling a gun, can't be trusted with the hundreds of lives and billions of $$$ of liability that he incurs every time he goes to work.

[PPRuNeUser0171]

Tripower455,

Most hijackers don't want to die, It's very very rare for a hijacker to die in the cause of whatever they are campaining for,

However, Most do take precautions to protect themselves and the pin-out grenade is a favoured one.

At the end of the day a pilot is paid to:

Aviate
Navigate
Commuicate

I don't see 'shoot' anywhere in that list.

I don't see how a firearm can help a pilot keep control, The best way to retain control of the plane is to STAY ON THE FLIGHTDECK not running around pretending to be Steven Segal shooting people.

There are hundreds of thousands of potential terrorist scenarios, It's not just a matter of the good guy vs the bad guy, A pilot cannot be expected to be able to deal with all of those scenarios, When an hostage situation happens on the ground there is a veritable army invovled in solving it with as little loss of life (both terrorists and civilians) as possible.

If pilots start going armed then there will be more death and destruction in the skies than we have now.

Gary.

[T_richard]

Good Morning All from the rainy east coast.

Gary,

I believe there was a time when hijackers intended to get out alive, that operating model changed on 9/11/01. Unless I am misinformed a pilot has the same total authority and the same absolute responsability as a ship's captain. Security of the a/c is very much within his AOR

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

As I see it, the gun is the last resort method of denying access to the flight deck. On it's own it is useless, but in conjunction with an armoured door, it can stop a suicidal hijacker gaining access to the controls.
Ideally, any hijacker will be overpowered by the passengers and cabin crew- but if not, that should still allow time for one pilot to leave his seat, deploy whatever extra barriers are available (jump seat, whatever) and be facing the doorway ready to resist. If the door is forced (I doubt if the armouring can be made perfect) he is then in a good position to shoot the hijacker.
In any of the scenarios above (passengers/cabin crew held hostage, "traditional" hijacker, etc) the armed pilot does not leave the flight deck, he does not even open the door.
With any hijacking, the hijackers must now be kept away from the flightdeck, at any cost. It is unlikely that suicidal hijackers will identify themselves as such- how do we tell what kind of hijacker we have? Take them where they want to go, but don't give them an opportunity to take control. In the final analysis, if they're willing to destroy the aircraft to gain access to the controls, then givng them that access seems like a very bad idea. Once the aircraft is safely on the ground, throw the firearm out the window if you want to keep it away from the hijacker!

[Tripower455]

Gary, no flame intended!


Tripower455,

Most hijackers don't want to die, It's very very rare for a hijacker to die in the cause of whatever they are campaining for,

However, Most do take precautions to protect themselves and the pin-out grenade is a favoured one.

In that case, keep the door locked and land at the nearest suitable airport. No one will die, since he will not let the pin go. The gun is a moot point. See my analogy about the APU fire bottle.....

At the end of the day a pilot is paid to:

Aviate
Navigate
Commuicate

I don't see 'shoot' anywhere in that list.




If a pilot is dead, then how is he going to do those things? If you add shoot to the list, he might not be dead.

I don't see "act" in the list either, yet we must perform in the "security" show every time we go to work.


I don't see how a firearm can help a pilot keep control, The best way to retain control of the plane is to STAY ON THE FLIGHTDECK not running around pretending to be Steven Segal shooting people.

I agree with staying on the flightdeck. armed or not

If you are unarmed, and the bad guys breach the cockpit, you will not be on the flight deck very long after your throat is slit. You will likely be on the galley floor.

There are hundreds of thousands of potential terrorist scenarios, It's not just a matter of the good guy vs the bad guy, A pilot cannot be expected to be able to deal with all of those scenarios,

No, but an armed pilot can deal with a scenario that is not only likely, it has already happened. Several times. Why have we recently gotten cargo fire suppression systems on the aircraft? Because there was a cargo fire that took down an aircraft. Should we remove them since they won't have any effect on an engine fire? Every piece of emergency equipment on the aircraft is there for a specific purpose, usually because an incident occurred that could have been prevented had that piece of equipment been installed. Again, see my APU fire bottle analogy.

When an hostage situation happens on the ground there is a veritable army invovled in solving it with as little loss of life (both terrorists and civilians) as possible.

This is an option that we do not have in an aluminum cylinder six miles up in the air. Hostage crisises in this situation are currently solved with the business end of a missile.

If pilots start going armed then there will be more death and destruction in the skies than we have now.

Please back this statement up with fact.

Prior to 1987, many US pilots regularly carried guns at work. There had not been one problem to that point, in fact, the only time that I can recall a gun ever being used was to successfully thwart a hijacking. It was never a "problem" until the feds started treating pilots as passengers. Pilots, by nature and neccessity, are responsible people.

The reason that pilots stopped carrying guns circa 1987, was due to the PSA 1771 incident. After a ground ops person hijacked an aircraft, pilots had to submit to passenger screening. Of course, the "trusted" ground ops employees, (which is everyone except pilots and FA's), STILL don't submit to any type of screening to access the "secure" areas.......

Forgive me if my confidence in this Maginot Line security progam is lacking.

With any hijacking, the hijackers must now be kept away from the flightdeck, at any cost. It is unlikely that suicidal hijackers will identify themselves as such- how do we tell what kind of hijacker we have? Take them where they want to go, but don't give them an opportunity to take control. In the final analysis, if they're willing to destroy the aircraft to gain access to the controls, then givng them that access seems like a very bad idea. Once the aircraft is safely on the ground, throw the firearm out the window if you want to keep it away from the hijacker! :ok: :ok: :ok:

Very well said!

[flying paddy]

First guns in the cockpit, what next sidewinders under the wing. Guns are for cowboys not Professional Air Crew. It is only a matter of time before there is a so called friendly fire incident, Remember these are Yanks we are talking about.

P.S All British air crew keep your heads down we know what they are like.

[Bogner]

Another scenario to ponder (I don't think it has been raised before)...

Imagine a skipper who was qualified to carry a gun, and an FO that wasn't. If the skipper wants to go for a 'physiological' break he surely can't leave the gun in the cockpit with the FO as the FO isn't qualified to carry one. What does he do with the gun? If he leaves the flight deck with it he must be susceptible to being attacked, thus giving a weapon to terrorists.

Will there be a locker in the flight deck? If so, will the qualified crew member have their own padlock to ensure it is only they who can access it?

Likewise, on leaving the aircraft for a nightstop what is done with the gun then. It wouldn't be possible to leave the gun on the aircraft as chances are the same aircraft would not be waiting for them after 1/2/3... days. Does this mean aircrew hotels must now have 'gun lockers' on their list of facilities.

It also seems worrying that El Al apparently considered this option, yet decided against it...

[T_richard]

I don't know what is available in the UK, but in the US there are several brands of lock boxes available commercially that are designed to securely store a firearm yet provide access to an authorized individual quickly. Some use a rapid code entry access, others use a cylinder key. Can't one of theses boxes be bolted down on the flight deck? dimensions are approx. 18"x12"x4" I think

[T_richard]

Trip

I agree, I don't understand this passing around the box game. although a .40 cal pistol is a lot to carry in an underarm holster,(I've done it) compared to say a sm/med frame S&W revolver and a hip holster is awkward to access if you are sitting down in a five point restraint. Maybe TSA needs to rethink the choice of weapon, a small frame .38plus or a .357 in an ankle holster would be handy without all the handling, and since some S&W revolvers's are double action only the chance of accidental firing is reduced. Plus the new S&W's have titanium frames making them much lighter to carry.

[Earl]

Very happy to see some more support here regarding this issue.Some seek to forecast or perdict all the Gloom an Doom here concerning carrying a firearm on the FD.
Some seek to make humour of the issue.
When it does work we should open a new thread saying"I told you so"
If some mishap would occur then a new directive would be put in place I am sure.
I am confident the program will work well with no risk to the law abiding passengers what so ever.

[Tripower455]

As for this locked/unlocked box issue, what 6 year old schoolboy dreamt up that one??

Thank the assorted genius' at the TSA. The same folks that mandate passenger screening for flight crews (the only employee group that does not need to carry a weapon to have control of the aircraft), yet gives every other employee at the airport back door access. Still.

[skidcanuck]

It will be interesting to see this included in sim training - fire the weapon at the instructor then don the mask for rapid depressurization

[Flap 5]

The point that has been missed by who ever dreamt up this idea is that the terrorists on Sept 11 2001 had undergone many months of intensive training to complete their task. With a gun now being available in the cockpit all of the weak points mentioned by bogner and others will be investigated thoroughly by the terrorists and after many months of training they will gain access to a cockpit and will have a better knowledge and training to access the gun than the pilots themselves.

The pilots are now puting themselves in more danger as the terrorist will have to 'disable' the pilot much more quickly than before to prevent them getting to the gun before the terrorist does. This increases the likelyhood of a severely incapacitated (dead) pilot and no one at the controls, and a terrorist with a weapon which has been provided for him.

[Max Angle]

The only time that the gun is allowed to be out of the box is when the cockpit door is closed and locked. This insures that the gun will be unavailable when the cockpit is most vulnerable. So the gun is only allowed out of the box when the door is locked and there is no chance of anybody gaining access to the flightdeck. When the door is opened and there IS a chance of someone getting in the gun stays in it's box. Pure genius!. At least it means the only people likely to be shot are the pilots who wanted the damm guns in the first place and not the cabin crew or pax. Just don't take them out to stroke or clean them at the same time guys, bit of a problem if you both get shot.

[Tripower455]

This increases the likelyhood of a severely incapacitated (dead) pilot and no one at the controls, and a terrorist with a weapon which has been provided for him.


I can't see how it increases the likelyhood of a dead pilot. If you are unarmed, you are dead anyway. They are not in the cockpit to negotiate with you. With a firearm, you actually might have a chance of not being dead.

[Elmer the Monk]

"Go around."
"Nah, there's plenty of runway left."
"Go around!"
"C'mon, I can stop this baby on a dime!"
"Go around, mother f...er, or I'll blow your goddamn head off!"

Just out of interest, are there any US pilots out there who disagree with this new policy?

[steamchicken]

That list of departments is pure comedy! The Smithsonian Institution - I suppose it's one way of keeping pesky schoolkids' sticky fingers off the exhibits - do you feel lucky, punk? Well do you? STEP AWAY FROM THE FOSSILS OR I'LL BLOW YOUR PERP BRAINS OUT!!! Great stuff...if the ATF have to carry firearms, do they also have to drink and smoke?

Madness, anyway. Think of the distance from the back of your seat to the door - how quickly can you lunge it?

[Tripower455]

Just out of interest, are there any US pilots out there who disagree with this new policy?

I am a US pilot, and I vehemently disagree with this new policy.

That does not mean that I am against arming pilots, I am against the irresponsible carriage policy that the TSA has implemented as it is a potentially dangerous way to handle a firearm, day in and day out.

This topic comes up quite often, especially of late, and I have only spoken to a few US pilots since 9/11 that think that pilots should not be armed. I haven't spoken to one that agrees with the way that the TSA has implemented the policy, btw.

[Tex]

Yes, to answer your question. there are US airline pilots who do not agree this is a good program.

I have to carry my M-9 pistol while flying my military (reserve) aircraft, but that is for an entirely different reason. That is for self defense on the ground, while evading capture.

I believe that civilian airline pilots sjould have been trained, long ago, in resisting cockpit entries, rather than the passive approach which was chosen pre-911. The terrorist knew the passive approach and exploited it. Now, we are going to knee-jerk because ALPA has so much lobbying power, and it makes a Senator or Congressman look like he is doing something to combat terrorism. Don't misunderstand...I am a die-hard, gun-owning conservative, but totin' a pistol in the cockpit is the wrong approach.

I am licensed (American spelling) to carry in my state, but I will not even consider applying for the new FFAM program. It's the wrong approach, and I see it gone in a few years.

[T_richard]

TripowHow did TSA come to develop this particular method for introducing and securing a firearm on the FD? I have no flying experiance, but I have spent a lifetime around firearms which leads me to question everything from the choice of weapon to the means of storing it. Who did TSA look to for guidance? Anyone know?

[Tripower455]

TripowHow did TSA come to develop this particular method for introducing and securing a firearm on the FD? I have no flying experiance, but I have spent a lifetime around firearms which leads me to question everything from the choice of weapon to the means of storing it. Who did TSA look to for guidance? Anyone know?

I haven't a clue who they consulted on this, but I can assure you that actual airline pilots had no input in the matter. This has all of the earmarks of a typical, bureaucratic comittee decision. They have taken a fairly simple program, and tried to reinvent the wheel.

Congress wanted it, but the TSA didn't, so it appears that they have made the program as onerous and difficult as they can to discourage participation. I believe that the FFDO will be the ONLY federal LEOs that are not required (heck, not even allowed) to carry their weapons on their person at all times while travelling. I can't help but feel that the average pilot would be a lot less of a liability (more familiar in the environment makes for better SA) in the cabin than the average EEOC chicken inspector is riding armed

I have heard that the backround checks are more severe than those of the air marshalls, but don't know that for a fact.

The fact that the TSA has given itself the power to revoke the airman certificates of "security threats" without ANY recourse on the part of the pilot, makes me think twice about participating. In the interest of "security", they are not even required to tell you why you are considered a threat!

[T_richard]

Trippster

First of all you have my sympathies, in 23 years in business I have seen more than enough decisions by committee that turned a horse into a camel. Maybe a little commonsense refinement will smooth ou the rough edges. One can only hope. As a dyed in the wool gun nut, I think the following issues should be reviewed:

selection of firearm; a snub nose .38 or a.357 will be easier to maintain, operate and secure the a big glock .40 or similar weapon. If you don't get the bad guy at close range within say 4 shots, there isn't gonna be a gun battle.

storage/carry; an ankle holster fits the body configuration, maintains weapon security and minimizes handling by unauthorized staff.

I really want to see someon execute the "over the shoulder" shot with lights blairing, horns going off and bodies flying around. I am sure its not the only maneuver, but it has a high probability.

Finally, don't make fun of those chicken plucking fowl inspectors. You don't know what its like when the rooster is on the loose in the barnyard. A lot of cocks get hurt in these situations:E

[Flap 5]

Tripower,

To answer your question to me. The reason why it increases the likelyhood of a dead pilot is because the terrorist knows you may well have a gun in the cockpit therefore he will have to act much more quickly to incapacitate you. Previously he could just threaten you with a knife. Now the stakes have been raised. He knows he must get you before you get him.

Furthermore not all pilots or cockpits will carry guns. However the terrorist has to assume that there is one in the cockpit, as there is now the possibility of there being one. Therefore the terrorist will now be much more aggressive in his approach, with little chance of the pilots defending themselves, even when no gun is actually present.

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

Flap, remind me again: how many of the pilots on any of the aircraft hijacked on 11th September 2001 survived?

[Budgie69]

The difficulties of "over the shoulder shooting" have been well described.

I think a far better solution is to have a rearward facing blunderbus fixed to the cockpit coaming with a string linking the trigger to the cockpit door - what could be simpler and or more effective?

I am sure that suitable weapons could be unearthed from military museums etc. Just sharpen the flint and they will be ready to go. Instead of carrying guns pilots would only need to carry a little black powder to refil the priming pan every day or so - it could be part of the copilot's preflight checks.

[Tripower455]

To answer your question to me. The reason why it increases the likelyhood of a dead pilot is because the terrorist knows you may well have a gun in the cockpit therefore he will have to act much more quickly to incapacitate you. Previously he could just threaten you with a knife. Now the stakes have been raised. He knows he must get you before you get him.

I still don't believe that arming pilots will increase the chance of dying.

The stakes were raised on 9/11. "The Common Strategy" (placate the terrorist :rolleyes: ) concept is what allowed the bad guys to get the upper hand. They knew what the flight crew would do and they played to those weaknesses.

Since 9/11, the bad guys have to assume that the pilots will resist a takeover attempt at all costs, whether they are armed or not, and will try to eliminate the pilots as quickly as possible. IMHO, the likelihood of a dead pilot is greater if the pilot is unarmed, since at this point, he will (or at least should) be resisting the bad guys. Having a weapon will give the pilot the edge. The baddies also know that there are future new hires in F-Teens waiting for the hijack code if they do actually get control of the aircraft. Again, whether the pilots are armed or not, they will try to eliminate them as quickly as possible to achieve their goal.

Furthermore not all pilots or cockpits will carry guns. However the terrorist has to assume that there is one in the cockpit, as there is now the possibility of there being one. Therefore the terrorist will now be much more aggressive in his approach, with little chance of the pilots defending themselves, even when no gun is actually present.

As I said before, the terrorist has to assume that the pilots will resist either way, and will act accordingly.

The days of "Take me to Habana" are over..........

[Flap 5]

Clearly there are a vocal minority of people out there who think that pilots should carry guns whatever the logic and evidence against it.

Charlton it is pure arrogance to think that a pilot, trained to fly, would overpower a terrorist, trained to kill, in a one on one in the cockpit. On Sept 11 it is highly likely that the terrorists would have overpowered the pilots and crew, even if the crew had guns, because the terrorists were highly trained to do so. Pilots are trained to fly. As we know that takes up quite enough of our time. We can never expect to achieve the level of expertise as the terrorist can who spend all of their time training to be a terrorist.

[Tripower455]

Charlton it is pure arrogance to think that a pilot, trained to fly, would overpower a terrorist, trained to kill, in a one one one in the cockpit.

That's why we need guns. It evens the playing field.

On Sept 11 it is highly likely that the terrorists would have overpowered the pilots and crew, even if the crew had guns, because the terrorists were highly trained to do so.

It wasn't just likely, they DID overpower the crew and take the aircraft. Had they known what we know now, some of them might still be alive, armed or not.

Pilots are trained to fly. As we know that takes up quite enough of our time. We can never expect to achieve the level of expertise as the terrorist can who spend all of their time training to be a terrorist.

So we sit quietly and accept our fate? I do not understand this line of thinking.

The powers that be will never (even if they actually tried to) be able to keep bad guys off the airplanes. Any cockpit door that can be opened, can be breached.

[S76Heavy]

All you gun fanatics are missing the point: The authorities should make a real effort (not a token one like nowadays) to keep terrorists from getting on board in the first place.

This gun program is just window dressing; "look all you voters, we are being tough on terrorism. We keep you safe and ignorant". Yeah right.:yuk:
Te next step will be issuing parachutes so the pax can get of a hijacked plane. And I'm sure the politicians will call it something very impressive..:*

[Tripower455]

Clearly there are a vocal minority of people out there who think that pilots should carry guns whatever the logic and evidence against it.


I haven't seen any logic or evidence that furthers the argument against arming pilots. Actually, PPrune is the only place/forum that I've been to where the pro arming pilots are in the minority.

This gun program is just window dressing; "look all you voters, we are being tough on terrorism. We keep you safe and ignorant". Yeah right.

I agree, this program IS just window dressing. Just like having flight crews (and ONLY flight crews) submit to passenger screening, "randomly selecting" little kids and old ladies (heaven forbid we profile), and the myriad of other wasteful and ineffective programs deisgned to make it appear that "security" is tight.

[Metro man]

Does any pilot reading this honestly believe that security at their home airport is so tight that it would prevent them ,with their inside knowledge , from getting a weapon on board an aircraft if they really wanted to ?

I'm sure most of us have thought how it could be done.Who else knows some of these holes in the system?

An armed pilot is simply the very last line of defense ,ideally any threat would be dealt with before the pilot is forced to consider shooting.Improved screening ,better intelligence on threats ,a highly trained and armed sky marshall ,reinforced locked door to the cockpit etc. , but what happens when all this has failed ?

Imagine the following situation ;hijacked aircraft ,sky marshall over powered terrorists making for the flight deck ,you are on board with your family.Would you like the last chance offered by your pilots being armed or not ?

[S76Heavy]

Metro Man,

If I really believed that having armed pilots on the flight deck was a necessary last line of defense, I would find other means of transport or simply find somewhere else to go. Especially where the family is concerned.
These guns are just another accident waiting to happen, and I will not subject myself or my family to that risk. Fortunately, I live and work in Europe.

[PENKO]

So why aren't we arming our flightattendants?
Wouldn't that be a tad more effective than pilots shooting from their seats with shoulderharnesses on?

[Budgie69]

Derringer strapped to the inside of the thigh!!

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

Flap5, it doesn't bode well for your understanding of my argument that you can't even get my name right...

Clearly there are a vocal minority of people out there who think that pilots should carry guns whatever the logic and evidence against it.

Whatever you think, I used to believe that pilots should not be armed... I was persuaded otherwise by reasoned argument over the last 19 months.

... it is pure arrogance to think that a pilot, trained to fly, would overpower a terrorist, trained to kill, in a one on one in the cockpit.

Is it? For a start I'm not proposing a fair fight... there are a few refinements you can make to an armoured flightdeck door to tilt the scales tremendously. Also, there is a reason why firearms have the nickname, Equalizers.

From as far back as the matchlock, a major advantage of firearms has been their ease of use. Here is a device that gives a semi-trained individual a good chance against an armoured knight- someone who has spent his lifetime learning to fight. Obviously, training would be required- personally I would prefer to have at least monthly practice sessions, after the initial course. It is also worth remembering that many airline pilots have some form of military training. Even for those with no military experience, given that professional pilots tend to be intelligent, motivated individuals, with acceptable hand-eye coordination- a good proportion will be capable of passing the course.

S76Heavy: I infer that I am one of the group you refer to as "gun fanatics"- I learnt to shoot as a child, on the farm where my grandfather lived and worked. From an early age I was taught that firearms are dangerous tools, to be handled responsibly and with care, but not to be feared. I have never found the need to own a firearm of any kind: in what way do I qualify as a fanatic? Other than disagreeing with you of course... :rolleyes:

PENKO: it's a valid question- in my opinion, it would be a bad idea, because, unlike skymarshalls, cabin attendants are visible and automatically identifiable. Sure, so are pilots- but the pilots are locked inside the increasingly well-fortified flight deck.

Even as a last line of defence, armed pilots would not be my first choice. I would prefer an SAS man, wearing full body armour, sitting in a rearward facing seat just inside the flight door. Ideally HIS firearm would be coded to his fingerprints so that only he could fire it.... and no, none of this post is a joke.

[tenke]

How many pilots are/will be truely prepared for the consequences of shooting someone in order to conduct their flight safely? For if you are carrying a gun, ready to shoot you had better be thinking about it every minute of everyday, on and off work. Not just on the dreaded day you have to use it. I imagine we are going to end up with a new breed of pilot. I certainly do not take this issue lightly. If I am to be prepared to shoot for mine and others protection at work then maybe I should consider where else I am prepared to pull and use a gun for my and those in my cares' protection.

[S76Heavy]

CBFO,

In my view everybody who is advocating guns on the flight deck or is prepared to give it a go, is guilty of allowing the government of the USA to get away with crap security at airports "because they have provided for extra security on board". That is why I used the term 'fanatics", because of the very limited scope of the discussion.
And yes, there will be a number of responsible adults with gun handling experience among the pilots, but it still is an accident waiting to happen. The pilot is the least capable person on board to handle a gunfight as far as position and location is concerned.

OTOH, an SAS trooper facing rearwards, now we're talking..

And Tenke, I agree wholehartedly. That is why I will resign from my chosen occupation should a similar system be adopted in my company (not very likely, though).

[Flap 5]

Oh I do apologise CARLTON! Shock horror! Misspelling of post on chat site! That must mean my argument is wrong then! := :oh: :bored: :hmm:

[PENKO]

Yes! It is a bad idea arming the flight attendants, and yes I have serious doubts about armed pilots. But if there is to be a gunfight in the aircraft anyway, I would put my bet on the flight attendants.

- they are more in number
- they are everywhere in the cabin (well... at least more spread out as the pilots)
- more situational awareness than 'oh boy, oh boy, IF someone enters my cockpit, I shall blow his brains out'


Of course, as Carlton mentioned, a flight attendant is very visible in the cabin. True, but everyone know for sure where the pilots sit...even with the door closed...



Wouldn't you put your bet on a well trained flight attendant and let the pilots do what they do best behind a locked, bulletproof cockpit door?


edit for typo

[pilgrim]

This arguement is going to go on for a long time, the minority who want to be heroe,s and blow the terrorist,s away and save the day, and qualify this absurd situation of armed pilot,s and FO,s , And the majority who find it utterly mindless, it will all come down to a major incident , in which many people,s lives will be at risk, a dedicated nutter/ terrorist will have no problem disarming a person male/female constrained in a harness. If the checks are done on the ground proffessionaly, there is no need for armed pilots it,s a no brainer. some of us on this site gained their education at places with quaint names like Forkhill, Goosegreen, wireless ridge, mostar and a few others. And we value professional attitudes and practical solutions not knee jerk pancho villa tactics and mindset.

[Captain Sensible]

I agree with "pilgrim", who sounds as though he knows what he's talking about. The results of the poll also endorses what many of us think; this is an appalling knee-jerk reaction that satisfies the lust of a few,and is not the professional answer to an essentially politcal problem.

[Tripower455]

And the majority who find it utterly mindless, it will all come down to a major incident , in which many people,s lives will be at risk, a dedicated nutter/ terrorist will have no problem disarming a person male/female constrained in a harness.

It appears to me, that the "majority" who find it mindless, are not thinking the problem through.

If the checks are done on the ground proffessionaly, there is no need for armed pilots it,s a no brainer. some of us on this site gained their education at places with quaint names like Forkhill, Goosegreen, wireless ridge, mostar and a few others.

If the terrorists don't fly on airplanes, then there will also be no need for armed pilots. I can't comment on the rest of the world, but in the US, the "professionals" (TSA) are NOT going to keep determined terrorists off commercial airliners. They'd do pretty well if they wanted careers as actors though......

BTW, I've never heard of the places mentioned, but I assume that they are military training ares. With all due respect, being trained in the military does not automatically make you an expert on hijacking or cockpit security.


And we value professional attitudes and practical solutions not knee jerk pancho villa tactics and mindset.


Since the bad guys will still get on the airplanes, regardless of how severely the passengers and crew are harassed, what do you suggest be done in a hijacking situation between the professionals searching the pilots bags at passenger screening, and the future new hire in the F-Teen? Right now, we are to "lock the door and land at the nearest suitable airport".......... do you see any holes in that procedure?

I find it interesting that my peers (mainly in the UK), who hold positions of great responsibility (pilots), feel that they are not responsible enough or posess the judgement to safely and effectively handle a tool as simple as a weapon. Do you trust yourself not to pull the fire handle in flight? If you can be trained start the engines properly, you can be trained to handle a firearm safely. I also find the "leave it to the sky marshalls" etc puzzling as well. While they are highly (?) trained to thwart hijackings, the mere presence of the gun in the cabin is a liability, since that weapon can be taken from them and used to take over the airplane. It's even more of a liability when armed leos other than marshalls are carried, for the same reason, even if they have gone through "training" to allow them to carry on the aircraft (I used quotes, because I have personally seen the training, and it consists of a 2 hour videotape).

The fact that it is somewhat easy for an armed leo to board an airliner in the US makes me a bit uneasy as well. Without going into detail, I believe that it would not be much harder for a bad guy to impersonate an armed leo and board my airplane than it is for ME to board my airplane.....

Tactically, the cockpit is a simple situation. The argument that a pilot can be easily disarmed is moot, since even if he IS disarmed, is he any worse off than he would be if he weren't armed in the first place? If the bad guys make it to the cockpit, I would place them in the "goal oriented" hijacker category, since they've managed to overcome the passengers and a somewhat reinforced door (think: maginot line). At this point, you are truly a sitting duck, and if you end up struggling with him, there is a better chance of overcoming him with a weapon than without.

edited for typos and grammar.

[Flap 5]

Indeed the pilot is worse off if he is disarmed. The terrorist is now armed. He does not need his own gun. If the pilot was not armed in the first place the terrorist would need to take his own weapon on board.

Therefore the carrying of a gun by the pilot is a double disadvantage - unless you can be certain that he will be able to use it affectively himself without the terrorist getting hold of it. I, and most others, are not convinced that the pilot could do so and it is clear from the arguments put forward on this chat site that the majority have thought the problem through.

I recently had the pleasure of going through Orlando Airport as a passenger. The security was chaotic. It was noticeable that the US emphasis on peoples 'rights' meant that certain groups of people had a more easy route through security than others. A terrorist can easily exploit this. I, being British, did what I was supposed to do, and suffered accordingly. If I had played the system I could have gone through quicker and more easily.

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

Penko, I still disagree with you about the flight attendants- they spend their time surrounded by passengers (all of whom must, sadly, be regarded as potential threats), and usually have their hands full. I suggest that you watch the cabin crew the next time you fly as a pax- sure, they will notice a passenger who acts abusively, especially as this behaviour tends to escalate with time. The passenger who sits quietly, watches the safety brief, then (after the seat belt sign is turned off) goes to the toilet- are you suggesting that the FA draws her weapon and covers him while he passes her in the aisle? And btw, sometimes we operate with only one flight attendant, and rarely more than two: I doubt any of our FAs would stay with the company another day if they were told they would be issued with firearms...
Flap 5 , you still haven't answered my question: how many of the pilots of the aircraft hijacked on 11/9/2001 survived? I queried your mis-spelling of my name because it implied that you hadn't read my posts properly...
S76 Heavy: you're assuming that anyone who advocates armed flight deck crew does so as an alternative to proper airport security. As several of us have said, armed crew are an additional precaution- indeed, without an adequately armoured flightdeck door and surrounding bulkhead, totally useless.
Pilgrim: I have no ambition to be a hero: heroics imply the lack of proper planning.
The carriage of a firearm in the aircraft is another ramping up of the onboard security level which have, necessarily, made this proffession a lot less fun. If anyone imagines I actually want to carry a firearm at work (or elsewhere) they are very much mistaken- as I have said previously, even when handgun ownership was legal in the UK I never felt the desire for one.
If I had known, before my first airline job, how rapidly the security environment would change, I think I would have stayed a flying instructor.

[Tripower455]

Indeed the pilot is worse off if he is disarmed. The terrorist is now armed. He does not need his own gun. If the pilot was not armed in the first place the terrorist would need to take his own weapon on board.

Worse off? It depends on your definition of worse off! Since you will die a horrible death either way, which is worse? The end result is the same. The bad guy has achieved his goal of taking over the aircraft. With the firearm in the hands of the pilot, the terr. has less chance of doing so.

[ocean]

Pilots should definitely not be armed. Guns are very dangerous weapons and they do not belong on planes.

As a passenger, it does not make me feel more secure knowing the pilot is armed and dangerous, it actually makes me feel worse. The safety of the passengers should always be the number one concern, and arming pilots is very unsafe.


Armed pilots cannot prevent or stop a hijacking and/or terrorist attack, if anything they will make things more dangerous. The terrorist could easily disarm the pilot and take over the aircraft, or the pilot could go on a shooting spree.

Pilots should stick to flying the airplane, they should not be carrying guns.

[Metro man]

And as you're sitting in your seat with terrorists trying to break in to the cockpit you will no doubt think "Gee , I'm so glad I don't have a nasty gun to defend myself with ,I'll just sit here and get my throat slit then they can crash the aircraft wherever they like."

Some of us would rather be able to put a couple of rounds into a hijacker and have a chance of going home.

[S76Heavy]

Carrying guns just serves to give a false sense of security. To passengers and crew alike, and especially to the morons who are responsible for airport security. THAT is the main problem.
Apart from that, there will be accidents, it's simply Murphy's law.:rolleyes:

[sidewalk]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and you are certainly entitled to mine.

What scares me is not that the cockpit crew may be wearing a sidearm but that a lot of the fruitloops on this particular thread and elsewhere on the PPRuNe forums are flying the plane!

[skidcanuck]

For those interested, check out http://www.secure-skies.org

[T_richard]

Good Morning All

Once the terrorist is on the plane, the probability of a safe and uneventful flight is quickly approaching ZERO. According to the APSA which sounds like a offshoot of the US airline pilots union, 25% of weapons carried on a plane by testers are getting through. They have a pretty picture of a synthetic dagger that would certainly get my attention if held to my neck. So the plane is in the air and there are from one to ? number terrorists onboard. They have a plan, they have weapons, they're ready to go. IMHO the scenarios run basically something like this: Terrorists launch attack-

F/A is armed, (s)he is trapped behind a cart, in a tight corner and disarmed with(out) prejudice. threat remains

Undercover skymarshall(s) respond to threat, if all goes according to training the terrorists are subdued and threat is removed. If skymarshalls meet Murphy's Law and they don't eliminate the entire threat, terrorists are about to seize control of the plane.
IF, they can get into the cockpit. They may use live hostages, sequential killings, a sledge hammer, C4 or what ever they have planed for to get that door open. If the pilot is unarmed, the entire plane now becomes their weapon. The Good Guys lose at this point.

But.. if the pilot is armed, the terrorists have to eliminate one more serious obstacle (the pilot) to take the plane. The pilot can't be taken by surpise like the F/A since (s)he heard all the commotion in the cabin, (s)he has had at least a couple of seconds to prepare because the T's have to blow, pry, intimidate the door open.

The point is the a/c gets one more chance.

Now I am not a pilot or an counter terroism expert, but it doesn't take a genius to sketch out the rough plan, I understand that the devil is in the details. But I do believe this, The more chances you have to take the plane back, the luckier you can get and if the T's take the plane it isn't going to be a "catch and release" affair. Every soul onboard will probably die.

[radeng]

So will a pilot be allowed his Swiss army knife or whatever? Or will it be a case of 'revolver - yes, Swiss army knife, NO'?

[GlueBall]

El Al has reinforced double cockpit doors. This way there's never an "open" passageway between cockpit and cabin during entry and exit of a crewmember. Its pilots therefore don't need and don't carry guns. :ok:

[T_richard]

Glue ball

If I read your post correctly, there is a area between the two doors for someont to stand in while the first door is closed and before the sedcond door is opened? Do I read your post correctly

[Rommel]

Has ANYBODY considered screening the cargo and the people who load it at airports around the world?

Were all looking the wrong way,classic "kneejerk" reaction.

Wake up all those authorities out there.

[GlueBall]

Exactly, T-R, just as an "air lock" on the coning tower of a Sub, but in a horizontal position.

[Slim20]

Just heard that 10% of the first intake of pilots for weapons training in the US failed on the basis of the mandatory psychological / background checks.

Doesn't exactly fill one with confidence, does it??

[T_richard]

Glueball

An airlock type passage to the flight deck, hmm.. adds some interesting wrinkles to the basic scenario. Pilot without a gun might have to be willing to sacrifice some bodies to hold onto the plane, but I think I leave those details to the experts. I do like the double door though.

Slim 20

What failure rate would make you happy 0%.... 100%? What? I think its a little premature to second guess a fledgling program?

[Tripower455]

Just heard that 10% of the first intake of pilots for weapons training in the US failed on the basis of the mandatory psychological / background checks.

There have been conflicting reports. I have heard that 2-4 left the first and only FFDO class ever held. 2 for sure "failed" out due to "backround checks". I've heard that the others voluntarily dropped out for other reasons.

A close friend of mine knows one of the guys that "failed" his backround check. He was ex air force, and held top secret clearance while overseeing the transportation of nuclear weapons. As a civilian, he (along with one of the other guys that "failed" his backround check) was one of the more vocal lobbyists for arming pilots, after the TSA said that they wouldn't do it. They convinced congress to override the TSA's decision, which angered a few folks in the TSA. I find that a pretty big coincidence.

Since the TSA doesn't have to tell you why you "failed", there is no accountability.

[benhurr]

Well I think I will start including the fact that I hold a shotgun license (UK) on my CV.

And here was me thinking that I didnt have enough hours.

[skidcanuck]

Gentlemen, this article was recently in TIME magazine (FYI).

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



Saturday, Apr. 19, 2003
Armed Airline Pilots Rail Against the Rules
Flyers complain that TSA guns-in-cockpits plan is designed to fail
By VIVECA NOVAK/WASHINGTON
Days from now, some pilots could be packing heat behind the reinforced cockpit door of airliners filled with screened passengers, X-rayed baggage and, occasionally, an armed air marshal. After months of controversy, 46 of the airline pilots who have pushed for guns in the cockpit spent the past week in gnat-infested Glyncoe, GA, undergoing intensive firearms training. But despite an impressive display put on for the press, there were clear signs of the contentiousness that has plagued efforts by pilots to arm themselves.

Some participants accused the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) — which originally opposed arming pilots — of designing a program so rule-bound and cumbersome that it was guaranteed to fail. At one point, according to pilots who talked to TIME on background, there was even talk of a mass walkout.

The plan to arm pilots was passed by Congress in 2002 after more than a year of intensive lobbying by a group of flyers and the National Rifle Association, who outmaneuvered opponents including the airlines, other pilots, the TSA and, originally, the White House. The airlines see nothing but trouble in having a firearm — which could in theory be wrestled away by a hijacker, damage the aircraft if fired, or lead to the death of someone who meant no harm — in the same confined space as the plane's controls. Many pilots, on the other hand, want as much security as they can get. "It beats having an F-16 shooting you out of the air," said Steve Luckey, a security specialist with the Airline Pilots Association, referring to the government's solution of last resort when confronted with a hijacked airliner that could be used as a bomb. While TSA won't release numbers, the percentage of flights with an armed air marshal aboard is in the low single digits, Luckey said.

The congressional decision obliged TSA to drop its opposition and design a training program. Its technical aspects, including marksmanship and non-lethal self-defense, were excellent, pilots concurred. But after the 48 flyers — selected from a list of volunteers to bring diversity of gender, type of aircraft, corporation, age and experience — were two days into their training, they got into a combative exchange with a TSA lawyer, sharply questioning some of the rules he was laying out and at one point laughing at his response. That brought a reprimand from a TSA psychologist, and then from the TSA official who was heading the training, who reminded them that they were being watched and graded until the end of the week, said several of the pilots.

The whole program was so "unworkable," so bound by restrictions and conditions, said one pilot privately, that he planned to put his gun away when he finished the program and never take it on a flight. The pilots have also vigorously complained about how their .40-caliber semiautomatic handguns must be carried: in a lock-box, inside a bag, until they get into the cockpit and lock the door.

In addition, a day-and-a-half into the training, two of the pilots were bounced out, including one who previously transported nuclear weapons for the Air Force and is currently a union activist. They were told only that the decision was based on their background checks.

By the end of the week the air had cleared somewhat; pilots said that TSA officials were listening to their complaints and promising to make some revisions. This group of pilots were "guinea pigs," said TSA spokesman Robert Johnson. "We'll see what changes need to be made." But how many more pilots will be going through the voluntary program remains undecided. This session cost $500,000, and it's unclear if there's money for any further training this fiscal year — TSA has requested $25 million for the program in 2004. It's also unclear how many flyers will sign up. Future sessions will require them to pay their own travel, room and board, and they all must return to Glyncoe or its equivalent facility in New Mexico twice a year for requalification, again on their own dime.




Copyright © 2003 Time Inc. All rights reserved.

[Flap 5]

We rest our case m'lud.

[beardy]

Just one incident involving an armed pilot and the travelling public will lose confidence. Moreover the incident need not necessarily involve the firearm, drunkenness, garrolous behaviour, sexual misconduct, etc.. and they let him carry a gun, just think of the headlines.

[GlueBall]

The program eventually will implode on its own, because few pilots will want to spend their own (unpaid) time and money (for transportation and lodging) for initial qualification and for recurrent qualification.

No doubt, what most of those wannabe aerial rambos had anticipated was that they would be earning full flight pay during gunnery training.

And last but not least, there just aren't many potential terrorists who, under the new security measures, would be inclined to do battle with alert passengers while trying to work their way into the cockpit to takeover the airplane.

:(

[skidcanuck]

Would this gun rule only apply to domestic flights, or international as well? And, if both, wouldn't some countries object to these measures?

[Earl]

I just left the UK and was watching the news on Sky one.
They claim that fish feel pain and the anglers feel that they will try to ban fishing next.
This is big headline news their.
If this is banned will passengers with fishing poles be considered terrorist?
The world is getting out of hand here.
This Bin Laden fool does not even have to say another word, we are destroying ourselves.
Guns in the cockpit, fish feeling pain, Fishing banned, whats next?

Come on you pilots in the UK, if you let these radicals and this PETA orginazation get away with this one then you are going to be laughed at all over the world!
Dont worry about guns in the cockpit in the USA we will be doing our Bass fishing and hoping this stupid thinking does not travel across the Atlantic.
Here it seams that we are losing more rights everyday and guns Maybe is not a good idea, but no one will ever take our guns or fishing poles away.
Get it together or become a vegitarian!

[gohogs]

Sept 11 would not have had the same outcome with todays mind set. No cooperation with the terrorist and kill them if they attempt to breach the cockpit.

People are getting wrapped up about guns and forgetting the reason for arming the cockpit.

I laugh when people express concern about weapon discharge making a hole in the jet. The weapon discharge of the F-15 "escort" will do more than create a little "pressure squeal".

As to pilots just flying the jet and getting it on the ground, get real. If the cockpit is breached I will not be at the controls, I will be engaged in hand to hand combat with the crash ax. My weapon of choice would be a pistol...well placed shot to the heart, done deal.

Whats the old joke about bringing a knife to a gun fight?

Looking forward to my Federal Flight Deck Officer training class.

[hillary]

Do we really want to carry guns? If the Capt. or F/O have a gun then the hijacker may be able to get to it. What happens in a case of an accident? :( Either some one may get killed or hurt that should not have been or damage to the plane. I for one would hate to carry a gun. I'm a pilot not a police officer

[casual observer]

I didn't browse through the whole thread, so I don't know if my concern has been discussed in this thread.

What we are trying to prevent are events similar to 9/11. However, by arming pilots, we have drastically increased the possibility of a repeat of the Silkair or (alleged) Egyptair crash. I simply don't think this is a good idea.

[Turn and Burn]

The terrorists have boarded the aircraft with their kevlar and ceramic knives. They are more than a match for the plastic knives and forks carried by our passengers. The law-abiding Cabin Crew and the passsengers have been disarmed by security, since they are unlikely to be carrying ceramic nail clippers. The terrorists meet resistance from passengers. Some they will win some they lose.
Today the terrorists win. They now try to break down the fortified cockpit door. Today they succeed. If you are not armed with anything but bare hands you are going to die and your aircraft will be aimed at a suitable target. Your aircraft is then brought down with a sidewinder.
If the terrorist is lucky he hits a heavily populated target. Had you had a gun, you may not have saved your passengers but you may have kept control of your aircraft so that you could have landed it on a runway, saving a lot of lives on the ground.
To those of you who say you are not Police Officers, maybe so; but you expect your passengers and Cabin Crew to be experts in unarmed combat.
Put a gun on my flight deck. Let it be in a container which allows, if necessary, rapid disposal into the bowels of the aircraft. Draw up rules requiring a tech log entry whenever it is withdrawn from its holster and in such an event, let there be an enquiry conducted by the company

[Metro man]

If this poll had been taken BEFORE the attack on the World Trade Centre I doubt the percentage in favour would have reached double figures. At the moment it is 30% in favour ,after the next big one let's have another poll ,those in favour will probably be in the majority.

To those talking about EL ALs security procedures ,how do you know for sure that they're not armed ? Prehaps a current EL AL pilot on this forum could post a detailed list of their security measures ;) I think not.

[GlueBall]

After 9-11 and reinforced, armored cockpit doors, forced entry has become a virtual non issue. This security hole has long been plugged and is now dwarfed by much larger security concerns:

Shoulder fired Stinger type missles;
Remotely detonated plastic explosives in checked baggage;
Suicide bomber-passengers with undetected plastic explosives wrapped around their bodies;
Suicidal passengers spreading viruses like smallpox, or ...SARS;
Suicidal truck bombers crashing explosives ladden cement mixers through fragile airport perimeter fences...into taxiing jets....

Nothing that a pistol toting pilot could prevent. :(

[T_richard]

Glueball

Wasn't the purpose of taking the planes on 9/11 to turn them into air to ground missiles. If they blow up a plane on the runway with a cement truck, its just another aviation accident. (don't read that the wrong way). A plane in the air under the control of a terrorist is a missile of serious proportions. I don't like TSA's handling of the first training class, but I can't imagine a plane under terrorist control getting down safely. It will either become said missile or the target of a F-18 sidewinder missile (or something). What do they have to lose by having a gun onboard?

[gohogs]

I support the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program. A armed pilot is the last line of defense in the event the cockpit door is breached. The new and improved cockpit door does not give me a warm fuzzy and TSA is no better now than before 9/11.

The cockpit door is more fortified but, will only slow a determined terrorist down. The added time afforded by the fortified door will allow armed pilots to draw the pistol and kill the terrorist when they attempt cockpit entry.

Many people argue that pilots should only fly the jet and not be expected to defend the cockpit, get real. If a terrorist enters the cockpit the last thing I will be is a "sitting" duck. I shall be out of my seat defending myself. My current weapon is the crash ax but, not for long. Soon I'll be able to place a few rounds into my attacker...done deal.

I know, what if I miss and shot a passenger or put a hole in the jet. If I miss and the cockpit is taken over my F-15 back up will finish the job. Result, all dead and more than just a little pressure squeal.

On the other hand if I kill the terrorist, with my pistol, the F-15 back up will not have to take action and we all live "happily ever after".

[gohogs]

On Sept 11 F-15s where enroute to "intercept" a United 757. At this point the twin towers where both in flames and the Pentagon had been hit. Thousands dead and dying. The United 757 was on it's way toward Washington DC.

It did not take rocket science to figure thousands more on the ground where about to die, killed by a 757 guided missile.

When it became obvious the F-15s would not "intercept" in a timely manner, two airborne F-16s where sent to "intercept". Before the F-15s or F-16s "intercepted", the United 757 guided missile crashed short of it's target, saving thousands of lives on the ground.

Once an airliner cockpit is taken over, the jet is now a weapon. That's the reality of 9/11. All the passengers and crew are dead people (once the cockpit is taken over). Do you really think an order will not be given to shoot down an airliner on a bee line for New York, Washington DC or Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant?

The choice is shoot down the jet or allow it to complete it's mission, the plane load of people on the 757 guided missile will die in either case. The shoot down will save thousands.

Conclusion, prevent the cockpit from being taken over. How? Arm the pilots with pistols.

Or would you rather just let the jet (guided missile) complete it's mission?

There's more important concerns than your unfounded fear of pilots carrying guns.

[WhatsaLizad?]

Mike Jenvey,

Exactly where have you been 20 months?

Surely, no rash decision on shoot down orders will be made if a 747 is commandeered at 50W, but if clear evidence is at hand with an aircraft near any major east coast city, or many military and nuke plants, things will get very ugly very quickly.

Bureaucratic paperwork snafus are probably not going to be a problem if these radical islamic scumbags try it again. On 9/11, some unarmed interceptors briefed how they might have to ram an aircraft after what happened in the morning. Waiting for an aircraft to land to check on political viewpoints isn't likely to be high on the list if a 400,000lb aircraft is near any potential targets.

Here is a quote you would never hear as an aircraft is diving for a landing out of FL200 as the attackers start to successfully breach the door. CA:"I say First Officer, thank heavens with all that is going on, we don't have to worry about shooting a gun at those misguided chaps breaking through the door behind us!"

The world is a messy place, carry a mop.

[Tripower455]

How realistic do you think a shoot-down scenario will be? Take the time-scale into account for verification of hijack, intercept, confirmation of “illegal” flight status, etc. Then order the USAF/ANG aircraft to engage, taking chain of command decisions into account.

As far as time goes, the F-Teens are up flying CAP quite often. This shortens the response time to minutes.

I've had to stay at FL190 on my way up a lot longer than usual on many occasions since 9/11, due to our future F.O.s in the F-Teens. It doesn't happen as often any more, but for a while there, I had several escorts that I could see, every time I departed BWI!

Knowing that I was being tracked by an armed fighter did NOT give me a warm and fuzzy feeling! What would happen if he accidentally shot me down? I guess that it would be preferable to simply arming pilots........

[WhatsaLizad?]

And where were you for the years prior to 9/11 when everyone else was saying that aviation security in the USA was abysmal??

Flying like you and saying cockpit security sucked, procedures sucked and checkpoints in the US were manned by a bunched of illiterate, non-english speaking idiots.



Glueball has a much more realistic approach to possible attacks in the future, especially the Stinger option

Glueball and you are right on in one scenario of the terrorists goal being that of simple destruction of an aircraft. We all know the vulnerabilities due to the different methods to achieve that goal. A gun won't do any good against a whole list of threats if the goal is just wiping an aircraft out.

The other goals of mass destruction with an aircraft are something you and many others are somewhat in pathological denial of what could happen. A gun won't help your Stinger scenarios, but it can help prevent many other scenarios that could result in an aircraft pulling a split "S" into a crowded stadium or one of our goverments.

Personally, if you don't like guns, fine.
Just don't risk the lives of thousands, nor the functioning of my goverment just to make a political point.

[OFBSLF]

For many years in the 70's and 80's, some US airline pilots carried guns in the cockpit. And they didn't have the advantage of the current TSA training. But there still weren't any of the incidents that the doom-and-gloom crowd here is predicting.

[Heilhaavir]

True about El Al security having guns on board and on the ground at all stations. Not true for El Al pilots, they are there to fly the plane :) and don't need guns.........and for Earl, ALL El Al pilots have served in the military and recieved similar training as yours if not better :)

T-Richard,
indeed you read GlueBall's post correctly. Although not "air locked" you must close one to be able to open the other, going in or going out. The double doors are not just "reinforced", the whole bulhead and double doors are armored, or in other words and without getting too much into certain details, bullets would not do much damage to such a system. Therefore no need for the operating crew to carry guns. That's the job of the fine young men that are strategically placed in the back on every flight :)

Just a quick recap on the last hijack attempt on El Al: Sept 1970's El Al 707 hijack attempt was foiled by the inability of the hijackers (Patrick Arguello and Leila Khaled) to enter the flt deck (even though they had hand grenades and guns, not "box cutters"), the quick thinking of Capt Uri Barlev (clicking the AP off and pushing the nose forward to destabilize Arguello & Khaled giving an oportunity to one of the fine young men in the back to shoot Arguello dead) and the tremendous courage of purser Uri Cohen who took 7 bullets while taking care of Khaled (he survived). The A/C landed safely in London and Khaled was handed over to the British authorities while in the mean time Swissair, PanAm and TWA were unfortunately succesfully hijacked.

Was that too much info MetroMan?

Pat
(Ktanim aval Hazakim!)

[saywhat]

I for one have seen a lot more psycotic captains than terrorists rescently. I think it's a great idea that they should be armed. Perhaps all co-pilots should be issued with cyanide tablets so that they can pop it after being accidentaly shot, as there is no chance that a medical crew will be able to get through the strong room doors that have to be fitted to aircraft.

THE TIME HAS COME TO BAN PASSENGERS FROM AIRCRAFT. BUS THEM. IT'S MUCH SAFER THAT WAY.

[gohogs]

saywhat,

Do you realize a "psycho captain" does not need a gun to harm all on board? They may dive the aircraft into the ground and that's it, no gun required.

You think that the "psycho captain" being provided the gun will now allow them to carry out a desire to kill all on board? Get real.

Again, there are bigger threats than armed captains and first officers. Yes, first officers are allowed to be Federal Flight Deck Officers as well. Oh my god, psycho first officers!!!

It's all moot, the program is up and running. I'm looking forward to my Federal Flight Deck Officer training date.

I'll bet if you are ever on board a jet with terrorists battering the cockpit door, you'll be praying the captain and first officers are both armed. You would be foolish not to.

[Metro man]

The cockpit door seems to be the big factor in all this ,so let's do away with it. Weld a big piece of steel from one side of the aircraft to the other , that would require a cutting tourch to get through ,bit difficult to get one past security. Have a letter box system for passing meals through. Crew to enter and leave via emergency exits. Access to the flight deck impossible from the cabin , ever. Problem solved :ok:

Guns no longer required .Anything short of this still leaves the possibility of hijacking open.

[Metro man]

Heilhaavir

Assuming for the purpose of this reply that EL AL pilots aren't armed remember that they have the whole EL AL security apparatus behind them. As you said the double locked doors and armed sky marshalls , prevented the last hijack attempt. Would the 11 September attacks have succeeded with these security measures in place? I think not . Note that the hijackers didn't attempt to take over an EL AL aircraft and us it in the attacks ,too difficult ?

Alright then ,if you upgrade security EVERYWHERE , ALL THE TIME to EL AL level ,ie interviews with each passenger ,searches down to the toothpaste tube contents , double reinforced doors and skymarshalls on all flights ,with the 90 min check in times and additional costs involved , I will reconsider my opinion.So far you haven't changed my mind.

[gohogs]

Metro man,

What about the toilet? Sad to think that your kidding around post is actually someone elses serious solution.

I mean, you are kidding, are you not?

[saywhat]

I have a solution, I think. Lets issue all passengers with guns. That way we should be sure that the good guys with guns outnumber the bad guys with guns and then the bad guys will become as paranoid as us good guys and will be scared to use their guns. 42 GAZILION AIRMILES FLOWN SINCE 9/11 WITHOUT A GUN USED YET. Maby we're missing something here.

[gohogs]

saywhat,

Why are you so afraid of guns? I grew up with guns. Hunted food and killed the occasional varmit.

Worked for Dick Nixon as a trained protector of the USA. Airborne infantry.

A gun is no big deal.

[Heilhaavir]

Metroman,

I am not paid to figure out a system to keep YOU safe on an airplane as pax or crew and I don't really care if you are for or against guns on the flt deck :)
You questioned someone else's post (I think it was Glueball's) about El Al pilots not carrying guns in the cockpit: (To those talking about EL ALs security procedures ,how do you know for sure that they're not armed ?) and I answered ...... Now wether El Al's security procedures are costly, time consuming and whatever else you want to throw in there, you are free to think whatever you want. The fact is that if you were stupid enough to attempt to gain access to an El Al cockpit you would be neutralized in a matter of seconds and the pilots would never have to get involved :D :D

Pat
(Ktanim aval Hazakim)

[Metro man]

If I've got the sort of back up that an EL AL pilot has I will be quite happy to concentrate on flying and leave my involvement with guns to the shooting range at the weekend. Im sure the sky marshalls are far more proficient with weapons than any pilot could ever hope to be.

It isn't going to happen though ,can you imagine businessmen in a rush having to check in 2 hours before a 30 minute flight ,trains would be quicker.And what about the cost of all this additional security ,airlines could never afford it. It would break the industry.

At the moment, 20 months on from the attacks, I believe less than 10% of flights in the USA carry sky marshalls. In other words there is a greater than 90% chance of NOT having armed back up on board ,very reasonable odds if you're a terrorist. All those boxes of tweezers and nail clippers confiscated from old ladies don't reassure me that a weapon couldn't be taken on board.

However 100% of flights carry pilots and in the absence of a massive security upgrade to defend us and our aircraft we should be trained and allowed to defend ourselves.

Prehaps some of those who answered the poll that guns were useless and the pilots should concentrate on getting the aircraft on the ground could explain how they are supposed to do it if they are dead.

[gohogs]

Mike Jenvey,

You worry about small stuff. The bigger issue is preventing thousands dying at the hands of a 757 guided missile.

I'm all for doing what is needed to prevent cockpit takeover. Many pilots are stepping up to the plate by signing up for the Federal Flight Deck Officer program.

A armed cockpit is a good thing.

It's a done deal. More money has been set aside for the training and the program is off and running.

Looking forward to my FFDO class and the added layer of protection.

[Bally Heck]

I think that everyone on the aircraft should be armed.

Lets all have guns. There is then no doubt that the bad guys would be outnumbered, and outgunned. We would all come home safely.:{

[FaPoGai]

Well of course girls this is a red herring.

Delightful scene is it not? Going down the ILS in a 40kt. cross wind
and having a shoot out over your shoulder,at the same time trying to drink a cup of tea without spilling it all over the asassin?

The best way to avoid these problems is for the Captain to take a bomb or handgun on board on every flight. Think about it----- what are the chances of their being TWO bombs (or hand guns) on board?
Over to you staticians.

FPG.

[WhatsaLizad?]

Delightful scene is it not? Going down the ILS in a 40kt. cross wind and having a shoot out over your shoulder,at the same time trying to drink a cup of tea without spilling it all over the asassin?



Delightful scene is it not? Going down the ILS in a 40kt. cross wind at the same time trying to drink a cup of tea without spilling it all over the asassin?


Lets have a PPrune poll.
Which scenario would the group prefer to be in out of the two above?

Red or Blue?

[Earl]

Thats why Bruce Willis should fly.
Think about the movie rights, we could all be rich.
But if I spilt my tea and burnt myself, Being the good American that I am I would have to sue the F/a for serving it to me too hot as the woman with Macdonalds did.

[Apollo101]

Does this mean that all those skymarshalls will be out of a job???
And if they are still taking to the skys, what sort of contingency is in place to prevent a captain from accidentally shooting a marshall that is trying to stop an assasin?

This just boggles my mind. Should Mcdonalds employees be trained as lawyers in case of accidentally being sued over spilled coffee?:{

[amanoffewwords]

What happens if an aircraft flown by an armed pilot gets successfully hijacked? Will the authorities/airline/airport concerned (i.e. lawyers) blame the pilot for not using his/her gun to foil it - and thus automatically absolve anybody else who should have done their bit to stop the perps boarding in the first place?

[knobbygb]

How many people honestly believe that the next attempt at a major attack will be a 9/11 copycat complete with 'storming of cockpits'? The options for causing just as much carnage by other methods are virtually limitless - the chances are it won't even involve the use of aircraft next time. If it does, it'll be somthing completley different; how about an inside-job performed by a captain brought-up and groomed for the cause over his entire life perhaps? An Egypt Air style (alleged) crash? How far is it from the EWR ILS to downtown NY - 20 seconds? He could even use his shiny new weapon to ensure the f/o counldn't intervene. Far-fetched - sure! but so was 9/11.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't believe this fight can ever be won. We've all got just as much chance of dying now as we did before, but now we have lost (thrown-away) our freedom too! After reading 11 pages of discussion on this matter, I'm now even more convinced of this than I was before.

[gohogs]

knobbygb,

What if the "groomed captain" is taken out by the armed FO? FOs will be packing heat as well.

We can do what ifs all day.

Fact, the Federal Flight Deck Officer program is a done deal. Get used to first officers and captains being armed.

[WhatsaLizad?]

"Does this mean that all those skymarshalls will be out of a job???"

No, but it would be a last line of defense if the marshall failed to stop an attack.



"And if they are still taking to the skys, what sort of contingency is in place to prevent a captain from accidentally shooting a marshall that is trying to stop an assasin?"

I would suspect training and procedures best left off a public forum.



"Will the authorities/airline/airport concerned (i.e. lawyers) blame the pilot for not using his/her gun to foil it...? "

I believe as the pilots will be considered Federal Officers and are absolved of liability in performance of defense. Being an idiot outside this duty may not protect said pilot though from lawsuits.




"How many people honestly believe that the next attempt at a major attack will be a 9/11 copycat complete with 'storming of cockpits'?"


You would have to be an idiot to believe the Islamic fundelmentalist scum aren't still thinking of an 9/11 style attack. It was horribly successful. They liked the results.

knobbygb, anyone with the slightest cell of intelligence can only look at the 1983 Bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut. It was also a horribly successful attack. Now knobbygb, in 1984, would you also state "who would honestly believe the next attack would be with a copycat truck bomb?"



"how about an inside-job performed by a captain brought-up and groomed for the cause over his entire life perhaps? An Egypt Air style (alleged) crash?"


What if? What if? What if?
How do you face the fear by getting out of bed in the morning?Your "what if?" can happen with a gun, or without a gun. It is irrelevent to this debate.



"I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't believe this fight can ever be won."


Maybe not. But then again you should never quit a fight in the first round. Personally I thing a couple things need to be done and one has started already. First, pull out of Saudi Arabia (already happening). They don't like us? I don't like them. Block them from the US while we're at it.
Second, push the Palestinian/Isreal issue to resolution. Since the Isrealis have started to scream bloody murder, I think the posturing and back channel pressuring has begun.
Third, if the first two are successful, much of the extraneous noise will be cut out and those hard core bastards will still exist, except it will be easier to weed them out. Then we continue what has already started. Kill those that can't be arrested or are of little value alive. Give many more a secret trip to Gitmo and dump them quietly in the Caribbean sea when through with them. Develope a excellent intel program to indentify instigators at the mosques. For the radical ones preaching death and mayhem for the US, run them over with a range rover while they cross a street. This method does open up a can of worms if used against simple dissent against the US or some US corporate interest locally.

After awhile if successful you end up like German FW190 pilots in March of 1945. Not very many of them, not trained well and easy to pick off.

Ok,

Let's try this again.

Which scenario of my Red and Blue quotes does the group prefer?

[cargo boy]

Looks like WhatsaLizad?'s got it all sussed. :rolleyes: Can you get any more rednecked than that? :yuk:

Shouldn't there be a minimum IQ requrement before allowing that kind of post? Just hope the FFDO program has enough screening to prevent that kind of mentality but after seeing the results of the TSA I wouldn't hold my breath.:*

[WhatsaLizad?]

Relax Cargo boy. My comments are reserved for only the very worst of a nasty bunch. As I mentioned, the problem would be the abuse of such a program for reasons other than pure national security.

What is your suggestion? I'd love to hear it. The problem is that our adversary wants complete and total submission.

[nurjio]

"GlueBall for President" - you are spot on pal!

Can I be your campaign manager?

[gohogs]

nurjio,

GlueBall assumes that aircraft destruction is the terrorist mission.

Taking control of the cockpit and using the jet as a weapon has proven to have maximum effect.

I agree, terrorists may attempt to shoot down or blow a jet out of the sky but, preventing cockpit breach will eliminate the use of the jet as a guided missile.

Why not cover all the bases?

[Apollo101]

I would suspect training and procedures best left off a public forum.

I would suspect that fare paying passangers best left off an aircraft with a tired and armed pilot.

We might as well be training skymarshalls to fly!:confused:

[batty]

I guess they would still be confiscating tweezers at STN. :}

[gohogs]

Apollo101,

One more reason not to arm the pilots. They may be tired!!!

How do you feel about a tired skymarshal?

[Metro man]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/10/01/elal-usat.htm#more

If we all had this sort of security ,we wouldn't need to be armed.Dream on ;)

[Paterbrat]

It would be a personal observation and complete guess, but I believe the ratio of ex-service airline pilots may well be higher in the US than in most other countries. These individuals are weapon trained, and probably not averse to using them in a reasonably competant manner. The culture and gun laws in the country also ensures that many more who are civilians probably own and are completely familiar with handguns and why they will probably be most receptive to the idea. I acknowledge the fact that many however do not.

All airline pilots however should by now be aware that they may well be obliged to take casualties aft of the armoured door in the event of another hijacking by terrorists in order to prevent the taking of their plane for the use in an even larger atrocity. The liklehood of suicide terrorists using acts of extreme violence to coerce the crew into co-operating is 100%. They have no compunction in killing that is their aim and the sooner everybody realises it the safer we will all be. The various governments have already taken the step of instituting shoot down policies, in acknowledgement of this new reality.

Your hostesses and cabin crew will be the first target, they are fellow crew members, known to the pilots and the threat of their death will be most effective in attempted coercion. Hijackers of this type have been trained to maximise shock and terror, it is among their arsenel of weapons and they want to incapacitate the pax numb them into inaction. Violent and bloody death will have that effect.

Low velocity rounds tailored for maximum tissue damage and minimum chance of puncturing the pressure vessel will probably be rounds of choice for cockpit weapons. The weapon may well be of a breakdown type with the Captain carring an essential portion such as a smart trigger componant mached to him, ie not his hand on the weapon it doesn't fire. It will probably be in a secure safe in the cockpit. The Captain already posseses the means to kill everybody on board he doesn't need a weapon to do it for the psyco/gung ho/cowboy thought crowd

Whether we like it or not the phenomenon of terrorist action in the air has escalated. These killers actively train how to best achieve their aim, they are looking for the weak spots in society's armour. They will exploit any chinks and are totaly ruthless. We have had warning after warning. Example after example. There should be little doubt in anybodies mind that these people can, and will, strike again. They are in well used words 'armed and dangerous'. It is here, it is now, and we would be well advised to take a good hard realistic look at our options. Not every hijacking will be of this type, however there should be a realistic acknowlegement of it's possibility

The passengers on the flight that attempted to overcome the 9/11 terrorist hijackers were armed with nothing but their will to try to do something with their bare hands, it wasn't enough. But they in the last few minutes had realised that they were going to die anyway. The hijacking and crash of the Ethiopean 757 was well prior to 9/11 and the pilot crash landed while being phsicaly attacked. There is a strong likelehood of repeat attempts including the potentialy more difficult to control scenarion of SA shoulder mounted missiles and which no pistol aboard will help, but even thateventuality is already being assessed by the US government. The cost is horrendous the alternative is cessation of air travel. There is already a multiple airline ban on airtravel to Kenya for this very reason. It is here it is happeneing now

There are so many things about a flight upon which our lives already depend, I for one, do not think that the introduction of a properly supervised, suitable new technology self defensive weapon, to the cockpit crew, with some training and proper procedures, can do anything but be a small layer of additional protection to this new menace we face on a worldwide basis.

[luchtzak]

I believe it's useless to arm pilots. We have allready armed cockpitdorrs, they should concentrate on something else.

greetings,

luchtzak

[PAXboy]

I have followed the whole thread with interest. Metro man raised a point that I have been waiting for:
"The cockpit door seems to be the big factor in all this ,so let's do away with it. Weld a big piece of steel from one side of the aircraft to the other , that would require a cutting tourch to get through ,bit difficult to get one past security. Have a letter box system for passing meals through. Crew to enter and leave via emergency exits. Access to the flight deck impossible from the cabin, ever. Problem solved."

We then got folks saying what about the toilet? Well, they can have one their side of the bulkhead. Food is through a double doored single access hatch as suggested.

The problem is that, doing so will take more space out of the cabin and then less room for all those lovely pax that you are all so desperate to protect! Placing a full bulkhead between the FD and cabin is the only way to prevent access.

However ... the next attempts at serious terrorism are unlikley to be aircraft. There are ships and trains and all sorts of fun and games they can have. Each event will cause more stable doors to be shut after the horse has gone.

Yes, there will be some attempts at a/c hi-jacking but I doubt if the big boys will bother for a while.

Guns on the flight deck? No. Not the answer.

[WhatsaLizad?]

"However ... the next attempts at serious terrorism are unlikley to be aircraft. There are ships and trains and all sorts of fun and games they can have"


"Yes, there will be some attempts at a/c hi-jacking but I doubt if the big boys will bother for a while."


PAXboy,

Sounds great. But how does your logic reconcile the fact that large terrorist truck bombings have not decreased after the 1983 US Marine Beirut bombing.

I suppose in 1984 you thought they wouldn't do any more large truck bombings in the future. Go ahead, make yourself feel better.

A question for the anti-gun crowd; How many have seen any banks converting their bank vault doors to the current design of reinforced cockpit doors? Surely they would be lighter and easier to open and close , and they must be just as strong and secure.

[PAXboy]

Truck bombs will continue because they are easy! You can prepare them in a warehouse that you control and then drive them where you require. If you meet a road block that discovers the bomb - you can detonate it early. The driver is in control of the truck at all times.

By contrast, the a/c is beyond their control at all times. The hijacker has to first gain control of the a/c.

For an aircraft, if there is proper screening of the pax, their luggage, the servicing staff and there is no access to the flight deck, then you have covered as many bases as you can.

Banks are not changing their vault doors because they already exist. Over many years they have taken them as far as they reasonably can to counteract the threat. They also know that money can be insured against loss - human lives can be insured against loss but people are rather more concerned about losing people than losing money.

Besides, most financial theft these days takes place at small banks and shops that are not so protected. Once again, it is a judgement between cost of the safe and cost of defending it. In a bank or shop - anyone can walk in and demand money with a gun. They will probably get some of it too, in order to save lives. Comparing banks of money and aircraft of people is not an even comparison. Unless you think that people can be replaced just like printing more money? The big financial theft is electronic.

Next?

[VFE]

Some folks seem to be forgetting that a tiny sharp object is still likely to get through airport security no matter how tight the screening surely? I mean, are we going to take our security measures to the stage of strip searching before being allowed to take a seat on board an aircraft? One can never be 100% safe just from increased airport security. It comes down to money at the end of the day like it always has done. Increased security at the airport means longer getting through security, delays, increased costs for the airline and the authorities and ultimately less passengers and less airlines in operation.

I must admit I haven't read all of this thread as it's 12 pages long! But I have read a few posts from the last couple of pages and some in between and in my view Earl had some good points as do the anti-gun side obviously.

I believe after talking to pilots in the US about this very issue in some depth that having pilots carry some form of self defence weapon has to be a good idea as a deterent against hijacking by terrorist organisations.

If the terrorists know that they'll get a bullet in the head as soon as they enter the flight deck before they have time to achieve another 911 then would they bother hijacking another aircraft ever again? Would seem very pointless to me but then again who knows how their heads work.

An armed pilot sat behind the flight deck door flying the aircraft has in the unlikely event that all security measures have failed, the last chance, end of the chain, buck stops here card in his hand - a gun. The fact that 99.9999% of flights he/she would never even need to get it out of it's holster is enough for me to realise that the arguments over the safety of having it aboard are for the most part redundant. One has to point out the bleedin' obvious here and say that the guys flying the AA flights on 911 would have wanted one would they not? Sorry to put it so blunt.

It really is a blunt deterent/message against having some nutter forcing their way into the flight deck and take control of the aircraft. To look the other way and shout "no guns please, we're British" to me sounds like some form of denial is going on.

Changes most definately need to be made to security in the airports first, I would not deny that for one second. These improvements need to be made now. But at the end of the day the responsibility for a flight will, as it always has done, land at the Captains feet.

It would sound a good idea to make it a Captain decision whether to carry a gun or not but if they're to be stored in a locked safe in the cockpit then this isn't possible is it?

VFE.

[S76Heavy]

If terrorists are willing to sacrifice their lives for their cause by crashing an A/C on purpose, a gun will not stop them. They will simply assign one, two, perhaps three of their number to take the first rounds as they break their way into the cockpit, and the terrorist pilot will use their bodies as shields.
In the ensuing melee they are likely to get hold of a/the gun, or incapacitate the cockpit crew in another way, and nothing will have been gained. Don't forget, these are dedicated peolpe we're dealing with.

No, the real security measures will have to be taken on the ground and in the factory. And yes, it will cost the airline industry dearly. But perhaps it is time for a radical shake up, just like the ocean liners experienced after WW2, when the long range aircraft started taking over their business over the Atlantic..

[VFE]

They will simply assign one, two, perhaps three of their number to take the first rounds as they break their way into the cockpit, and the terrorist pilot will use their bodies as shields.

I think we're back to Die Hard with Bruce Willis territory now aren't we? If it's a B737 then the main terrorist ain't gonna be able to get past the bodies to enter the cockpit!

Think about it.

VFE.

[Paterbrat]

Well paxboy it appear your casual dismissal has been rather rudely disproved. Three armed hijackers caught yesterday attempting a 9/11 scenario. Glad your in the back,maybe you can talk them out of doing anything.

Welding doors shut and crating alternative entrances is hugely costly and probably unworkable for the present fleets.

It's here, it's now, and they will try it again. Sooner we grasp that and decide how to best deal with it the more likely it is that we will be able to keep the industry going.

[PAXboy]

Paterbrat: Since they were stopped in the terminal building - glad that ground staff worked so well - we do not know what they might have done.

They might have been discovered before departure by another means.
They might have been capable of flying the machine.
They might not have been able to fly and planning an 'old fashioned' hijack and hostage.
They might have planned to simply crash the machine, rather than into a specific target.

We will never know what they had in mind or what they would have done or what resistence they might have met from crew and pax. It is impossible to say whether they would have succeeded or not. Under questioning, they have the chance to brag about what they were going to do and make out it was a really major event. We do not know and will never find the truth as we shall only hear information that governements want us to hear, since they now control these men.

I did not say that there would not be attempts. I said that there would be:
Yes, there will be some attempts at a/c hi-jacking but I doubt if the big boys will bother for a while.
We do not know if they were 'professionals' such as the 9/11 men or amateurs that have had a good idea and going off on their own without much planning.

However, the fact that they got caught for the (reported) simple reason of acting suspiciously, leads me to think that they were not the professional sort who succeeded so spectacularly on 9/11 and to whom I was referring.

So, I don't think that you can claim that a 'casual dismissal' that I did not make has been confounded. As you can see from my words, I specifically said that there would be more amateur attacks on a/c. Sadly, I was proved correct all to soon.

[WhatsaLizad?]

PAXboy,

If the Monty Python group ever starts a new TV series, I will be more than happy to highly recommend you as a writer.



By the way
Not one response to my earlier challenge of which scenario would one choose, the red or blue.

Too much mindless posturing to sooth ones own political beliefs.

[PAXboy]

WhatsaLizad?: There are clear instructions for all participants of PPRuNe, which is to discuss the subject and not impugn the person themselves, no matter how much you dislike what they are saying.

1) I made an observation.
2) You said that it had been disproved.
3) I pointed out what I had actually said, showing that I had said something different to your assertion. This demonstrated that I had not been 'disproved'
4) You insult me.

That is not how things are done in PPRuNe.

[Paterbrat]

Just arrived in this evening. Our security source at the airport indicated that it was in fact the intention to do a number, despite what is now being claimed, and protestations to the contrary. It is being downplayed heavily by the authorities.

I am slightly taken aback at the overturning of the Stanstead hijackers sentences, not a good message to send. When is a hijack not a hijack ?????

Mike J I beg to differ there have been numerous incidents of incursions into the cockpit. In the past it was the thinking that one co-operated with the hijackers. The rules have changed and we may well have a situation where you would like something more than a cup of tea to protect yourself with. I certainly would. Your Wyatt Earp comment would seem to be a bit of the kettle calling the pot black?!

[Manwell]

The general response of most governments to the Sept 11 attack seems to indicate that they're trying to milk this situation for all it's worth. I'm not surprised that someone would think of arming pilots, after all, this idea would be from the same people who decided that confiscating knitting needles and nail files would result in greater aircraft security.

If I were given the choice between the possibility of a terrorist hijacking and the absolute certainty of the madness that is being forced upon us by our own over-controlling authorities, ladies and gents-put me down for terrorist action. At least I've got a bloody good chance of not ever having to deal with them, and even if I did, the pain would be quite brief. With all the stupidity being thrust upon us in the name of our safety, there is no end, and there is no escape! And worse still, we're paying for it, whether it is in money or inconvenience or loss of freedom. And we'll pay for it regardless of the effectiveness of any proposal.
The quote "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees" seems somehow appropriate.

I suppose I don't buy the line that is being forced down our throats. Sorry, but I just don't think that something as big as Sept 11 will happen every day of the week unless we blast the snot out of every disgruntled Mossie on the planet and confiscate knitting needles from pregnant mums. In fact, it is just possible that blasting them will only stir them up further. Now who would have thought that those crazy ******s would react that way? I know that the idea is far-fetched but you just can't trust those loonies to behave like us civilised folk. We'd never react like that, would we?

I know, how about spending more of our money on hair-brained schemes that do little more than give more power to people who are ill-equipped to wield it while causing honest taxpayers to hate terrorists even more because of the drama they are putting them through for no good reason? You know, that idea just might get the nod.

Beware of Bureaucrats promising to look after your well-being!

[Paterbrat]

The general respons of most responsible Governments, MANWELL has been to urgently consider the ways in which to prevent other similar catastrophies, rather than 'to milk the situation'

Both a knitting needle and a nailfile could certaily inflict serious injury in the wrong hands.

The madness of extremism is presently loose amongst us and since you would seem to be somewhat slower than most if you haven't realised it already, one may excuse your confusion as to whom might have your wellbeing most at heart.

There will be many who would accept your right to 'die on your feet' also many who would rather not join you in your desire to apparently go quite so willingly. 'put me down for terrorist action'.

This thread is after all simply a solicitation of various ways in which it might be possible to keep the travelling public travelling, and those who are employed to do it, in gainful employment.

If the bureaurocrats were not actively looking for our well being they have no purpouse and we would be demanding their dismissal.

[Manwell]

Well, you are quick Paterbrat, I am a bit slow. In fact, I'm very slow when it comes to changing perceptions developed over a life time.

When governments and bureaucrats start behaving in manners contradictory to their established patterns then I'll consider changing. I don't see any real hurry to change you see.

Perhaps you feel the need to overreact to the terrorist threat but I still think that the possibility of becoming a victim is very slight, and as Chuck Yeager once said "If I can't do anything about it, I don't worry about it", or words to that effect.

Of course you could say that you can do something about it, and you'd be right, but it's probably not the sort of thing that you would think of doing. You can't extinguish hate with more hate, mate. And if someone hates you, hating them back seldom has the desired effect.

As someone else mentioned, terrorism doesn't have to confine itself to aviation. Open your eyes and see the big picture, if someone really hates us then there are literally thousands of ways for them to demonstrate that hate. P*ssing off pax in the name of security is a sure way to alienate the good guys as well!

Has the thought occurred to you that a good part of the reason for the global downturn in air travel may have something to do with the fact that pax are being treated like criminals when they try to board an aircraft?

[Paterbrat]

No. More likely due to the fact that most of us are perhaps a little aprehensive about dying!

[Paterbrat]

Mike Jenvey your comment that ' Manwell has hit the nail on the head' puzzles me???
Manwell as far as I can make out does not want to ' P*ss the pax off in the name of security' and in the words of Chuck Yeager '..if I can't do anything about it I won't worry about it' !!!
'...the pain will be quite brief'
His choice between 'government action and terrorist action, was terrorist action.' Manwell's slowness/ inability to change his lifetime's reactions and perceptions is not the way to react to a dynamic and constantly evolving threat situation.

Inaction inertia and complacency will not ease the concerns of a traveling public or encourage bums back onto seats. It is instead a sad demonstration of complete and pathetic apathy in the face of a very real threat facing us all, and is not even the suggestion of a solution.

Sadly the reality of missile attacks are with us, and have been for some time, Joshua Nkomo proved that. All it takes is the willingness to step outside the normal bounds of civilised society, and we have had ample proof that there are many who will. It would seem that countermeasures for this eventuality may well be yet another cost factor that will squeeze the market yet further.

[Ignition Override]

The idea of an accesible handgun on the FO's flightbag (because I would not want the headaches involved...) seems to me to be a Catch-22 situation. If it can be grabbed in one second, then where is it kept at the next airport-in a box that fits into a flightbag? If the bag stays in the cockpit as wander around, looking for processed or even unprocessed food in a US airport (!), where does he put the verdammten gun before he leaves the plane? We wear no uniform coats from May until September, except for the high-profile widebody crewmembers (and those who, ahem, want to look like one...). If the guy in the cockpit goes to the lav enroute, can he/she quickly lock it up when the Lead FA calls and says "the restroom is open", as I await the secret signal for the pilot's return entry? Where will the d****d gun be put (in Ops) on a layover? If every Ops agent knows the secret combination, then won't some of these get stolen, or will the number be changed every week? If a gun is stolen from company property, are replacements paid for by TSA or the airline?

In a nutshell, the idea of a crewmember keeping one while on duty might be a royal pain in the ass, and make our flightbags luggage tempting targets for a thief. A convicted burglar claimed that most US burglars look first for a pistol, and then jewelry (in which room do women keep most jewelry?! Only one guess is allowed. Many women [or men?] are clueless about how to hang on to it; let's keep it where it can be quickly found and dropped into a pillowcase...if the electric cables to your house get pulled OUT, your old security system might not function...).:E :8

[Paterbrat]

Existing technology is capable of producing a removable trigger mechanism which can be quickly slotted into the weapon. You carry the trigger mechanism, small and light, the weapon remains in a box in the cockpit. Box can be key (similar to cockpit door), or combination changed by maintainance on a scheduled basis and the combination issued to the Capt in ops prior to flight. Weapon is useless without trigger. I.O. You may now blithley wander on your search for fodder without having to pack heat. Weapon only assembled at Capt's discretion.

Nothing is foolproof. We cannot even prevent CFIT in a perfectly good machine so there will always be ways round any preventative measure. It is simply a small step towards taking care of one element of a problem facing us that is presently of concern to many, and may afford the cockpit crew some small measure of controlling an unpleasant situation getting many times worse.

[Paterbrat]

There will be those amongst us who will belong to 'the horse has bolted' brigade, others who will only become believers when the apparition which appeared in the cockpit is only too unpleasantly real, and yet others who however reluctantly, acknowledge that once more we are faced with trying to look for ways to cope with yet one more additional problem in our chosen profession.
I am prepared to bet that had Wilbur turned to Orville and said ' now we have to start working on airspeed indicator/altimeter/ wheels/brakes' Orville may well have been a tad sceptical but also that he may well even have asked him why? and then followed that with how shall we begin? rather than telling him 'we probably won't ever need them!.
Terrorists in todays world pose us a multitude of questions moral, ethical and practical, it is up to us to find the answers, and saying it probably will not happen again won't hack it. These people are lethal, death is their aim, that is the point of their being what they are. Yes guns are dangerous, so is flying and so are the new fanatical hijackers.

[corsair]

This debate is all very interesting, pros, cons, quid pro quo, QED.

All bloody marvellous.

But pointless anyway. Quite simply outside the USA pilots will not be armed. End of story.
In the USA with all it's enthusiasm for guns some will, in fact are being armed. But it will be a minority whatever happens. It won't last though. With locked armoured cockpit doors, passengers not willing to die for Allah and the relative difficulty in getting weapons on the aircraft. The 911 scenario will never happen again.

It's time to move the debate on and consider the next real threat, which is of course SAM missiles and bombs in the luggage.

One or other I suspect before the year is out.

[Metro man]

If we all had the sort of security EL AL has there probably wouldn't be anymore successful hijackings. Note that Richard Reid the shoe bomber flew to Israel on EL AL ,assuming it wasn't because he likes Kosher food we can assume it was a dry run for an attack.But having had his shoes searched at check in and being seated next to a large fit man with a bulge in his jacket (read skymarshall) he realised he was wasting his time and decided to try another airline ,and almost succeeded.

However if this sort of security was introduced we wouldn't need a terrorist attack ,it would destroy the industry by itself.

A three hour check in may be acceptable once a year for a long haul flight ,but not for frequent fliers (read high yield ,full fare tickets).High speed trains ,driving ,video conferencing or not going would boom ,aircraft would sit idle and crews would be laid off.

EL AL are able to profile their passengers by ethnic origin to decide who gets increased attention ,other airlines can't. They can rely on Jewish passengers supporting them even if the check in procedure takes longer.

They only operate around 40 flights per day vs +/- 2400 for a large US carrier.

Imagine the terminals and roads to the airports with people taking three hours to get through ,absolute chaos.

I haven't even tried to work out the cost ,but if it is US$90 million for 40 flights a day, six days a week what would it be across the whole industry ,even allowing for economies of scale ,and who pays ?

We can't and won't have this level of security for all airlines .Nearly two years on we still don't even have reinforced doors on all cockpits.

All we are going to get is a solution that politicians can point to and say "Look we are doing something." And if it is obvious to the public , like confiscating nail clippers ,so much better.

I suggest the following:

1. Ideally the armoured cockpit door should be locked from the inside before the passengers board and never opened until after they have disembarked. This is impractical though ,food ,toilet visits crew changes on long haul flights come to mind. Double airlock type doors as discussed earlier would be needed.

2. A skymarshall reserve be created. We won't have enough full time marshalls for every flight or be able to afford them. The right sort of people such as police or military could could volunteer as skymarshalls and undergo the same vetting procedures, training and recurrency as regular skymarshalls. Shouldn't be too hard for an army training sargent to get through. They would not be paid but allowed free travel in return for guard duties. Some runs would obviously be more popular than others so incentives could be offered eg. do a Warsaw trip in winter before a Madrid in summer.

This would free up the full time marshalls for the less popular runs ,or higher risk ones were a marshall would be needed everytime.This would greatly increase the number of marshalls available at little extra cost. The guard on your outbound flight could be an armed police officer visiting his mother for the weekend ,on your return leg it could be an army officer going to a conference.

3.Arm the pilots just incase:hmm:

PS Note hijack attempt on Qantas aircraft yesterday.

[Paterbrat]

Corsair the words '...never hapen again!' have been heard before. And would you believe, it generaly has.

[D.Lamination]

http://borgman.enquirer.com/img/daily/2002/05/050302borgman600x383.gif

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

Thomas, a single bullet is unlikely to depressurize the aircraft: the pressurisation system works on the principle of controlled leaks, rather than sealing the air in: the outflow valves would close a little, the cabin pressure wouldn't change much (although passengers seated near the hole might notice a whistling noise.
I was fascinated by your assertion that a 9mm has more stopping power than a .44": nope! Sure, the 9mm may have a higher muzzle velocity, but the considerably heavier bullet fired by the .44 makes up for that. And if the hijacker also has a firearm? Well, you're not really any worse off, are you?

[gohogs]

NOW HEAR THIS...NOW HEAR THIS...

Arming pilots is a done deal. The hair brained ideas may now stop.

Seal the pilots in with little food ports and toilets, get real!!

I'm in phase two of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program and will be protecting the flight deck with a gun (oh my auntie Em!!) by july, compared to protecting the flight deck with crash ax in june.

I know, I should not be involved in protecting the flight deck. I should just sit there and fly the jet like a good little pilot even as my throat is being cut by the cockpit intruders. I mean if I don't fly the jet, as the cockpit is being breached to take over the jet to use it as a guided missile, something bad may happen.

Whateverrrrr....

[Paterbrat]

Looks like somebody thought it was worth considering.

[OFBSLF]

I use airpistols and other airweapons, as well as being quite skilled with firearms, and a pistol is not a "point and shoot" weapon. Its hard to shoot a pistol accurately without:
a. Standing up
b. Getting sightss in line
c. straight arms
d being still

A pilot in a cockpit is

a. sitting down twisting round
b. this would make it mhard to see the sights
c.strained arms
d. The assailant would try and stop the pilot.
e. What would happen if the assailant had a gun? a firefight would be awful.I'm a firearms instructor certified by the Massachusetts State Police. I've had about 160 hours of firearms training, including shooting while seated. I disagree with much of what you have written.

First, it is quite easy to shoot accurately while sitting. In fact, it is harder to shoot accurately while standing than it is while shooting, simply because when you are standing, your body sways more than when you are seated.

Second, there is no need to have your arms straight. There are three main two-handed positions taught in the US these days a) isosceles, b) Chapman, and c) Weaver. In the isosceles position both arms are extended and the elbows not quite locked. In the Chapman position, the strong arm is extended and the support arm is bent, with the elbow pointed towards the ground. In the Weaver position, both arms are bent, with the strong arm pushing and the weak arm pulling. Stand up and get in an isosceles position, aiming straight out in front of you. Now, without moving your feet, rotate your body so that you are aiming 90 degrees towards your support side (left, for most of us). Your arms are now pretty naturally in a Chapman position. Keep rotating around until you are aiming to the rear and you are now in a Weaver position. There are quite a few learned trainers who argue that Weaver is superior to iso and Chapman. So your argument that both arms must be extended is quite simply false. Besides, you can always shoot with one hand.

Third, no one is still during a gunfight. Gunfights are not the same as target shooting. The bad guy moves and the good guy moves. Does that make it harder to hit the target? Sure does. That doesn't make it impossible.

Fourth, you can shoot while twisting around in a seat. Take your air pistol, sit down in an upright chair, now rotate your body around. You should be able to get into a decent Weaver position facing to the rear if you allow your hips to come off the cushion.

Fifth, cockpits are not big places. How far is it from the seat to the cockpit door? Not more than 10 feet I suspect, and in most cases much less than that. The hijacker must come through the cockpit doorway so the pilot knows where the attack will come from. There is a reason why doorways are termed "fatal funnels." This is an incredibly easy shot to take. It does not require Olympic skill.
the assailant would try and stop the pilotThat's the whole reason for shooting him, is it not?e. What would happen if the assailant had a gun? a firefight would be awful.This is the most illogical statement I have every seen. You mean that it would be better in such circumstances if the pilot was unarmed? If the hijacker has a gun and the pilots are unarmed, then we have 9/11 all over again, don't we? That would mean most likely everyone on the plane dies and quite possibly many more on the ground. Isn't that awful, too? If the pilots are armed, then they (and the pax on board and people on the ground) have a better chance, don't they?

As for the 9mm vs. .44 argument, get real. I know of no US law enforcement agency that carries either .44 Special or .44 Magnum. The US armed pilots are being issued semi-automatic pistols -- specifically Glocks chambered in .40 S&W. The .40 S&W round is somewhat more powerful than 9mm. Either will work if the shooter does his part. Either will fail if the shooter misses.

[turbspeed]

A very interesting topic and discoveries in deed! Most of us outside US hope and pray that these type of measures to secure and protect the flight deck will work on the actual intent and purposes. Things always happen for a reason but after the last hijack attempt on Qantas, I believe ANYTHING can just happen at anywhere, anytime! It doesn't have to be due to long term political suppression, religion, insanity or even intoxication state....just pure anything! All the best to all the pilots with GUNS!

[OFBSLF]

Thomas: I'm glad you are open-minded enough to try what I suggested. You are quite a gentlemen to change your mind in a public forum.

turbspeed: I hope and pray that the flight deck officers will never need to use their guns. And if they do, I hope and pray that they are able to prevail.

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

Thomas, I'd just like to add my agreement with OFBSLF; arithmetic errors are something we can all make, your willingness to accept yours (and check again!) speaks highly of you.
IMHO it's entirely reasonable to have reservations about the armed-pilots idea. It's not a cure-all, there are inherent risks, but (again IMHO) the odds are better with armed pilots than without.

[OFBSLF]

IMHO it's entirely reasonable to have reservations about the armed-pilots idea. It's not a cure-all, there are inherent risks, but (again IMHO) the odds are better with armed pilots than without.Agreed. It's not without risks. But nothing ever is.

[ShotOne]

well I realise we're not so used to guns on the Europeaon side of the Atlantic but some of the "anti" arguments don't hold water. Yes we want security to begin outside the aircraft...but we have already accepted this won't always happen by fitting kevlar flight deck doors etc. Having done this, what's so wrong about arming some pilots as a last line of defence?

[STC]

USAF transport pilots have been carrying guns for years as anti hijacking procedures.
Not one accidental discharge of a firearm ever.
Know all about it, done it for years.


How can this be verified? Do you think the military is going to publicize "friendly fire" in the cockpit?

The hijacker must come through the cockpit doorway so the pilot knows where the attack will come from. There is a reason why doorways are termed "fatal funnels." This is an incredibly easy shot to take. It does not require Olympic skill.

You forgot to mention a couple of things. The pilots are normally facing the same direction as the guys breaking through the doorway. Therefore, they not only need to turn around, they have to get thier weapon ready. I assume the pilot's wouldn't have their gun in hand at all times. If someone comes crashing through the "fatal tunnel" of a cockpit they have a disctinct advantage. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

I have always argued that arming pilots is a bad idea. It places a firearm in an area that should be completely free of lethal weapons. (Please don't start telling me that ANYTHING including a toothpick can be a lethal weapon)

My main argument with respect to arming pilots is based on crime statistics in the US. The majority of victims of violent crime in the US including assault with a firearm, are committed by a person known to the victim. Furthermore, there is an unsettling amount of people who are killed or injured by their own firearm. This statistic comprises people who accidently shoot themselves and people who are shot by an intruder or aquaintance.

These very real statistics don't factor in the assailant's profession but I would hazard a guess that a good cross section of society would include everything from doctors, lawyers, policemen, and pilots as well as career criminals, drug abusers and rapists.

For instance. The police chief of Tacoma shot his wife last month in front of his children. And how about that Egypt Air pilot who decided to kill everyone on the airplane. Hard to believe...but true.

Anyway, I have no reason to believe that these statistics would be any different for guns in cockpits. Some day, in the near future, there will be an incident where a shot is fired in the airplane or a gun will go missing. Hopefully nobody will be hurt. but instant public outrage will see an end to armed pilots. There is a good statistical possibility that it will happen within a year.

I for one would like to know if the crew is armed. I don't want to fly on an airplane with a gun on board.

So what's the alternative? Maintain and continue developing ways to screen passengers and potential weapons. Keep the knives, guns, bats, etc off airplans totally. Accept the fact that occasionally someone will make it through and cause a disturbance that hopefully will be mitigated by the security measures. This is the logical way to do things rather than increase the risk of danger by arming pilots.

[gohogs]

STC,

Someone may on occasion make it through??? There will be security measures to deal with someone getting through on occasion???

It's called a armed pilot and I'm not talking crash ax. How about that security measure???

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

STC, it's already been said on here that arming the flight deck crew won't cure everything. However, we're getting armoured flight decks anyway: at the very least these should slow down a hijacker long enough for one pilot to draw his weapon, unstrap, turn around, and be ready for him: then we're back into the "fatal funnel" described above.
It's a last resort; as with all last resorts it is hopefully never going to arise. As I've said before: I don't want to carry a gun to work- but I think it would be safer for me, the rest of the crew and our pax if I do.

[OFBSLF]

The pilots are normally facing the same direction as the guys breaking through the doorway. Therefore, they not only need to turn around, they have to get thier weapon ready. I assume the pilot's wouldn't have their gun in hand at all times. If someone comes crashing through the "fatal tunnel" of a cockpit they have a disctinct advantage. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.STC: With the armored doors, it will take some time for the hijackers to break down the door. A minimum of 30 seconds I'd guess. Anyone with a modicum of training can draw a gun from a holster, turn and hit that target within 2-3 seconds. I base this estimate on my training (at SigArms Academy, Smith & Wesson Academy, and others) and also based on timing at competition. If the guns are kept in a lockbox with a pushbutton combination, maybe add a couple seconds to that.

Either way, by the time the hijackers break through the door, the armed pilot will already have his gun in his hand and be facing the door. When the door bursts open, the pilot will be ready to fire.

Try this: put your cellphone a holster on belt. How long does it take you to remove the cellphone from its holster and twist around in your chair to face behind you? A second or two at most?Some day, in the near future, there will be an incident where a shot is fired in the airplane or a gun will go missing.From the early 70s to mid 80s, many US airline pilots routinely carried handguns in the cockpit. The doom and gloom that you predict never happened.

[STC]

Someone may on occasion make it through??? There will be security measures to deal with someone getting through on occasion???

If pilots have guns, then someone will make it through on EVERY flight. That's my point.

The replies about the re-enforced door are a little misinformed in my opinion.

I won't go into details, but if you are familiar with the applicable standards, you would quickly realize that the door can be broken down quite quickly if you put a little thought into it. Furthermore, even though the door is re-enforced the cockpit crew could be injured. (Again, I won't go into details)

There are also a few other ways to quickly get through the door that I am aware of but hopefully, these flaws will be less and less common as the designs are reviewed and fixed.

Another factor is psychological impact. Will pilots be able to stay in the cockpit if they know people in the back are being executed? It doesn't even have to be a gun. How about a knife? Will they just sit in the cockpit or be drawn out? Will the first person they shoot at be a terrorist or a human shield whose body gets pushed towards the pilot as he emerges from the cockpit?

[cargo boy]

Having flown with these new armoured doors I am positive that it would take more than just 30 seconds to break through one unless you were armed with some 'plastique' and knew where to place it. However, there are serious security flaws in with the system which I won't go into detail on here but suffice it to say that the classic opportunity to rush the flight deck will still be during feeding/watering time for the pilots.

Now, I'm just playing devils advocate here as I don't hold a definite opinion one way or another whether pilots should be armed or not but, for all those gung-ho, pro-arming pilot types out there, the most likely scenario I can envisage is the well trained terrorist making a grab for a cabin crew member as they are entering the F/D and using that crew member as a human shield. There would likely be no prior warning and the shock tactic as well as forcing any pilot who was quick enough to access their weapon and have it cocked with one in the breech during those one or two seconds would have to be a very 'ard man indeed if he were to let off a few rounds into his colleague before the terrorist and any accomplices had overpowered the crew and taken control.

I'm still not convinced that arming pilots is the way to go. The odds of having an attack on your aircraft are infinitesimal. As we have seen recently, the more likely scenario of a deranged individual attempting to storm the F/D is soon sorted with the help of pax and well trained cabin crew. Until the relevant authorities get their acts together and put into place serious measures to prevent deranged grannies, armed with nail clippers and shaved chopsticks frem getting on board in the first place we will have this groundswell of gung-ho, wannabe policemen pilots going for the arming option.

Obviously there is little faith in the current measures at most airports where the check-in agent asks the usual questions and a bunch of middle aged suits with a weeks training on how to frisk granny if the metal detector goes off. Can you blame the pro-gun proponents wanting to arm pilots with the current joke that passes for airport security?

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

Will the first person they shoot at be a terrorist or a human shield whose body gets pushed towards the pilot as he emerges from the cockpit?
STC , the only people who assume the armed pilot will leave the flight deck in this discussion are those arguing against guns. The only purpose in arming pilots is to defend the flight deck, preventing the aircraft being turned into a missile. True, the odds are infinitesimal, but being struck by lightning twice in the space of five days (some times ago) dented my faith in those kind of odds!
cargo boy , your scenario (the flight deck being rushed at feeding time) is the biggest problem. However, some of the extra equipment being fitted to allow the flight deck crew to see who is at the door, and near it, should help prevent this. In addition, the proposed door locking system proposed by ATR (I think, the article in Flight International was some time ago) would make it impossible for anyone to override the flight deck door locks as long as either pilot wanted to stop them- without, however, stopping the cabin crew getting in in the event of crew incapacitation.

[gohogs]

STC,

You have no clue. You say a terrorist will take a cabin crewmember hostage and tell the cockpit "open the door or else!!" We learned on Sept 11th that means all on board will die including...INCLUDING...the hostage cabin crewmember. One more time STC...listen carefully...ALL WILL DIE.

The cockpit has strict orders to not open the cockpit door, even if the life of a passenger or cabin crewmember is threatened.

Now for the test question STC...hope you were paying attention.

Why will the cockpit door not be opened to a terrorist, even with the life of passengers and cabin crew at risk?

Sorry STC...times up. BECAUSE ALL WILL DIE IF THE COCKPIT IS TAKEN OVER!!! And...AND...many on the ground will die as well.

The armed cockpit will be a layer of protection in case the cockpit is breached. The door is a big improvement and will give the armed pilot time to get in place to kill the intruder.

As far as a passenger shield taking the first few rounds, that is no differnet than taking the first few hacks by the crash ax.

Your concern is the cockpit door being opened and a armed pilot attempt to save the passengers or crew with the gun. How about a cockpit crewmember doing the same with a crash ax? Same thing...all dead.

It's not rocket science. If someone attempts to breach the cockpit, the pilot, given time by the new door, will get in position and kill the terrorist. If not, all will die for certain.

Terrorists have no need for a gun, box cutters have proven very effective. Don't think they can't get them through security.

I can't understand why you oppose the armed cockpit as a last line of defense.

Your concerns are minor to events like Sept 11.

duuhh....

[STC]

Terrorists have no need for a gun, box cutters have proven very effective. Don't think they can't get them through security.

That's my point. You can't guarantee that every pilot has the nerves of steel that Clint Eastwood does in the movies.

Some yahoo in the back with box cutters may draw a pilot out of the cockpit. Are you suggesting that EVERY pilot will do exactly what he/she is told in this instant? Hell some can't follows SOPS at the best of times.

Drawing the pilot out with guns a-blazing will give the terrorist a chance to nab the gun.

We could go over these scenarios ad-nauseum but they won't convince me that its a good idea to arm pilots simply because of the statistics I quoted earlier. People most often are shot by people they know and people are sometimes shot by their own weapons. The chances of the average passenger being on a hijacked flight is much more remote than getting shot and killed by someone they know. Put the gun on the airplane, and you have now exposed everyone to that risk.

If you have no guns on board, there is a chance the airplane will be hijacked. An extremely remote chance. Put a gun on every airplane, and now you have a chance that SOMEONE will be shot. Even better odds than being hijacked simply because you added a lethal weapon to a situation where there was none before.

I don't have a clue? Maybe not. Let's wait 6 months and see....

Which countries in the world have the highest incident of violent crime? Sorry gohogs. Too late. You're already 10 times more likely to be shot than I am simply for living in the US wich has lax firearm laws. Duhhhh....

[Anti-ice]

Give the gun to the cabin crew!

No more gold cards 'demanding'an upgrade.
No more gargantuan wheelie bags/60kg strollers
No more 'attitude' from pax who believe they are superior.
No more taking 5 drinks every time a bar cart passes.
No more demanding your coat is hung or suitcarrier stowed.
No more mobile phone use on taxi/inflight.
No more derisory looks when asked to switch off their laptops.
No more 'i'm a new parent, i'm precious' .
No more complaints over the lousy chicken sandwich.
No more scowls on boarding , they might even say hello.
No more drunken / abusive behaviour.
No more tutting when the captain says an ATC slot delay of17mins
No more leaving the washroom in a state.
No more handing you full sickbags.
No more total disregard for the safety briefing.
No more flightcrew grassing you for not giving them 'First' meals:)
No more newF/O's trying it onwith every blonde gorgeous hostie:)
No more fellow cabin crew being lazy during the flight:)

GREAT

Well, it could make life a little easier the wrong side of the F/D door !

Seriously though, as a last line of defence ,and with v strict procedures in use , could it not be the final deterrent??

[Paterbrat]

I suppose STC it could be explained another way. The type of terrorist that this measure is adressing does not want to kill himself/herself, that could be easily done in their own bathroom with their boxcutter. They do not simply want to kill a few passengers, they could do that in the back, they want access to to cockpit.
He or she will kill or incapacitate the flight crew, they will have basic flying training, they will probably have a rudimentary idea of how to program a specific way point into the nav system because they wishes to utilise the plane and everybody in it as a huge cruise missile.
Their mission is actualy quite complex. Yes the odds have been reduced enormously, forwarned is forearmed the threat still exists we know that. Or perhaps you still believe it cannot happen to you. No the threat has not gone away!
Your assumption that it is just some 'yahoo in the back with a boxcutter' is a gross underestimation of the type of threat now around and a dangerous frame of mind to have. No matter how twisted the logic, these people undergo rigorous training and some will be very dedicated to accomplishing their mission and the sooner people like you begin to take them seriously the safer we all will be.

[STC]

Paterbrat,

Just out of curiosity, what do you suppose the odds of being on a hijacked aircraft is? How about being on a hijacked aircraft that originates in North American or Europe? How about a aircraft that originates in Europe or North American where the hijacker has an elaborate plan to bring down the entire aircraft into a strategic target?

What are the odds?

Now...what are the odds of you being physically assaulted while walking through New York's central park at night?

How about being in a car accident? How about dying from a snake bite or being hit by lightening? How about the flu? Actually, your likelihood of dying of these things are huge compared to the odds that the victims of 9/11 suffered. Why aren't we out slaughtering snakes or increasing lightning hazard awareness? Or making flu shots mandatory?

It's because of the publics strange facination with everything related to aviation and the FAA's typical knee-jerk reaction to public pressure.

Certainly, security is a requirment when it comes to public transportation of any sort. The lessons of 9/11 should be that security should be a higher priority. Not that we should rise as an industry and become a bunch of vigilantes.

[Winstun]

STC, you are a fool. Even a very few more instances of hijackers downing airliners is a few too much. Would you like to explain those odds to the tens of thousands of children, spouses, relatives and friends of victims on 9/11? And of various other terorrist attacks since and to come. Now is not the time to be complacent.

Most of us Aussie pilots would like to see tasers, rather than guns as standard flightdeck equipment. There could be a safety activation feature requiring a flight specific discreet code entry. The code (similar to sqwak) would be assigned pre-flight. Should the perpetrators ever make it past the pax and the flightdeck door, activate your taser, give them a zap, and once down let the more physically capable pax take them down the back and finish them off. :ok:

[Paterbrat]

STC to consider steps that would increase security and adress a specific new type of threat that has altered and effected our industry in such a dramatic fashion can hardly be equated with your somewhat melodramatic implication that an attempt is being made for the industry to "become a bunch of vigalantes".

I find your attitude towards the pilots in the profession, lacking in apreciation of the profesionalism and resposibility required and demonstrated on a daily basis by hundreds of thousands of flight deck crews around the world.

Your anti-gun attitude is obvious, your posts seem more a kneejerk reaction than a considered response. Your quoting odds of simple assault while walking through the park and dying of various other misfortunes simplistic and rather remote from the problem. None of the examples quoted by you has had a fraction of the impact that the type of assault that we are considering protection against, had on the airline industry.

If you have not yet grasped the implications of how that one day has effected the airline profession worldwide, you have had your mind closed. The sophistication, methods, objectives and ruthlessness of the threat today is many orders of magnitude more hazardous than anything faced before. It deserves careful sober and thorough consideration of all aspects. Simply quoting some meaningless statistics and suggesting that we simply leave it to other sectors to cope is in my opinion a poor way to even begin considering the problem.

[gohogs]

STC is focused on chicken crap. GUNS!! GUNS!!

Thousands killed Sept 11th...you do remember Sept 11th STC??

Had the cockpit been armed with guns and training on Sept 11th, the box cutters would have lost.

What's the joke about bringing a knife to a gun fight?

I'd bet if STC where sitting in the cabin as terrorists batter on the cockpit door, STC would be hoping the pilots are in position, gun in hand to defend the cockpit...if not STC is a fool.

Or perhaps STC would be thinking "gee, I hope the pilot does not shoot a passenger defending the cockpit."

It's a new world since Sept 11th. I'll be armed in july.

[Bally Heck]

Why are so many Americans blind to the effects of firearms. In the year 2000, 28663 deaths (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control) were caused by firearm related causes. Ten times the number of fatalities on September 11th 2001.

Typical US response to reduce fatalities.....lets have more guns:{

Does the apparent glamour of guns make you so blind???

[gohogs]

Bally Heck,

Arming the cockpit is not about glamour. It's about preventing cockpit takeover.

In July, when you board my jet, you'll have a extra "layer of protection."

No glamour...just protection...simple....:ok:

[Bally Heck]

An old friend of mine used to be a policeman in the UK, and volunteered for firearm training. During the lecture from the psychologist, they were told that they were all unsuitable candidates for firearms training, (althought that didn't stop the training proceeding)

When asked why they were unsuitable candidates to be gun toting cops, the psychologist told them it was because "you want to carry them".

Fortunately for me gohogs, it is very unlikely that I shall have occasion to fly on an aircraft with Wyatt Earp at the controls.

[gohogs]

Bally Heck,

You'll never know Ol' Wyatt is at the controls. You are not allowed to know.

Only thing I can figure is, you'll be riding the bus.

As to the psychologist crap...well lets just leave it at that.;)

[Paterbrat]

There are certain buzz words which immediately cue one to the state of mind. Vigilantes. Wyatt Earp. Gun crime. Cowboys.
To anyone who has not done so in an ongoing scenario, guns when required to be carried or available do quickly lose their glamour. They are tools in much the same way as an aircraft, a hammer, a rake. They are utilised in a certain way and if any are misused they can all cause fatality. The idea is to adress a specific danger and not to create a bigger one. specific calibres types of weapon and bullet loads can be easily tailored to provide a specific tool for a specific task ie protection of the flight deck. The idea of missile decoys and anti-missile equipment is now being considered, items vastly more costly and complex for ground based threats, why should it be so emotive to consider the threat within.

The idea of killing or having to defend oneself, is to many not only unpalatable but until now probably been unthinkable. The actions of some rather extreme fanatics may just require a change of attitude. Sadly the odds of an event of this nature have increased considerably whether anybody likes it or not. The psychologist was probably right however I see that there are still armed policeman available. Why?

[gohogs]

Tripower445,

I'm aware of the FFDO requirements. Wish things were different. I'm afraid if we turn our backs because of the "hoops" the program will never get off the ground.

Willing to do what I have to for the layer of protection.:hmm:

[Tripower455]

I'm afraid if we turn our backs because of the "hoops" the program will never get off the ground.

At the risk of sounding argumentative..........

If we DO turn our backs on this program, and tell congress why, the program will change. If we submit to this nonsense (the same way we've done for drug/alcohol testing after flying, passenger screening because a gate agent committed mass murder etc.......) it will not get better, and it will be a very limited and ineffective program.

The pilots in the first class should have walked out en-masse when the SOP was officially introduced. Maybe the second class will be more inclined to walk out, since they, unlike the first class, aren't getting paid to be there.

There are a few Representatives that are really upset over the way the tsA has implemented (fouled up!) this program. So much so that there will likely be some closed sessions to "discuss" it. It's the only hope we have of getting a workable program, since the tsA has made it clear that it doesn't want us armed. It seems that they are in favor of stun guns though :rolleyes: (if it gets to the point where a pilot need a stun gun, he really needs a firearm.......)

If it wasn't going to cost me $6-7k of my own money (trip pull, hotel, transport and food), I might consider doing it and then never carrying the gun. As part of the general harassment associated with the program, the tsA requires ffdos to fax a copy of their schedule every month, and indicate which flights the ffdo will or won't be carrying on. I would never carry it, and forward a copy of the schedule to select members of congress letting them know exactly WHY I wasn't carrying it.

[gohogs]

Tripower445,

I agree, the program needs work. In time I think a lot of the flaws will be worked out. I'm willing to deal with the down side and begin defending the cockpit.

It will take time=GOVERNMENT.:ugh:

[Tripower455]

In time I think a lot of the flaws will be worked out.

Keep in mind that the flaws were purposely placed in the program, to dissuade participation. If they get even a small level of participation, then the tsA can say that the program is working, and that they are following the will of Congress. The only hope of it ever changing is if Congress applie pressure.

If the pilot group accepts the program, a lot of congress' motivation to change it will be thrown out the window (look what happened with the mandatory flight crew "security" screening.....ALPA said "be patient, it will get better".......well, it's been 15 years, and I'm still waiting).

Once again, we have the power to effect positive change, but won't use it. You'll be carrying that 15 lbs of box etc, for the rest of your career (when you could have had it easier.....)

[gohogs]

Tripower455,

We can ill afford to refuse arming ourselves. If we do not sign on for the program I fear the TSA will say the pilots are not interested.

With all the flaws it beats the hell out of what we had.:hmm:

[Paterbrat]

What I would hope to see is perhaps a two piece item that is a completely non standard calibre. The round should be a low velocity high impact type for instant incapacitation. It should be purpouse built for utility cheapness and designed in a manner that would make it unsuitable for use oustide the limited scope of it's anticipated area of use ie the cockpit. One section which is small and convenient for carriage can be issued to the pilot. The other part of the weapon is left on the flightdeck. You reach the flight deck you assemble the weapon. End of flight you retrieve your section.
Flare pistols are routinely carried in life rafts, this weapon is no more, or less lethal. Some flare pistols are in fact made principaly of plastic and fire a small cartridge similar to that of a small shotgun shell, and before we leap off down that tangent I am not advocating using a flare to ignite would be hijackers though the thought is a satisfying one.
We are not looking for the 'Peacemaker' or turning flight deck crews into 'Dirty Harry's'.
There exists a new hazard and with a reasonable ammount of thought, comparitively little money and some common sense, a reaonable solution should not be impossible to achieve that does not create a bigger hazard or involve huge ammounts of training, money, emotion and red tape

[gohogs]

Paterbrat,

The "piece" left in the cockpit would require the airlines involvement. They do not want to get involved.

How do you deal with the the missing piece? Will the airline have pieces in stock? Will it be a grounding item? Who maintains the piece?

Won't work...to complex. :(

[NoMuff2Tuff]

Having served in the Armed Forces and Police for many years, the only person I've seen shot were by negligence on the part of the bearer. The idea of placing firearms onto flights is crazy! Training is the key to safe useage of a gun and I can't think of commercial pilots giving up more time for training.

[Tripower455]

The "piece" left in the cockpit would require the airlines involvement. They do not want to get involved.

They are involved. When you deadhead, you give custody of the weapon over to a new hire ramper. This issue alone has many of the airlines up in arms, as they don't want to be responsible for the inevitable loss of the gun, which is sure to happen. I wonder if the tsA will take responsibility for the loss of the weapon due to their idiotic procedures?

We can ill afford to refuse arming ourselves.

Agreed!

If we do not sign on for the program I fear the TSA will say the pilots are not interested.


GOOD! Then congress will want to know WHY we aren't interested. Signing on indicates that we are OK with the unworkable program.

The way the program is set up will discourage many if not most pilots from participating. (Heck, I am all for arming pilots and would volunteer in a heartbeat if it was actually a workable program.) Not a very big deterrent if a small % are armed.

The folks at the tsA designed this program to fail and to get pilots in trouble. (period. dot. end.) They are treating this program as if it were a gift to pilots. The ironic thing is that it will be the only effective measure that the tsA has taken to counter another 9/11 type incident. Too bad not enough pilots will participate to make it work!


Gohogs, we are on the same side of this issue!

[Paterbrat]

Since the airline already hands over a vastly more complex and costly item to the Captain on every flight I am amazed at the fuss you are making over one more item of flight deck equipment. The airlines are involved already with the problem whether they want it or not. Tripower you obviously do not read the submissions very well, since you have a trigger mechanism only it is as dangerous as a whizwheel. The other section is useless without the trigger. You hand over nothing to anybody, the trigger mechanism remains in your possesion, a harmless small light part. Upon reaching the cockpit as part of your preflight procedures assemble the equipment and place it in it's assigned position ready should it be required. End of flight dissasemble and stow. Trainning required is minimal, you are not going to be shooting a gnats eye out at fifty paces.
It is dangerous, so is a plane with 400 odd souls on board, life for that matter involves a degree of risk. This problem can certainly be as difficult and problamatical as anyone chooses to make it, but it certainly does not need be as complex or dangerous as some people are making it out to be.

[Tripower455]

Tripower you obviously do not read the submissions very well, since you have a trigger mechanism only it is as dangerous as a whizwheel.

It seems that you aren't too well versed in reading comprehension either, since I have not commented on any of your posts........

The program that I refer to in my posts to gohogs IS IN PLACE. It is not conjecture, it is fact. There are pilots flying around (not many yet) as we speak, armed.

My heartburn is not with the fact that they are armed, it is with the ridiculous operating procedures that the tsA has saddled the program with designed to limit participation and get the individual ffdos in trouble. They are not designed with the safe disposition of the fiream in mind. They remind me of a Monty Python sketch, and the situation might be funny if it weren't such a serious issue........

[Paterbrat]

My appologies Tripower a thought you were refering to the 'piece' as opposed to a complete weapon which I agree will pose far more issues and would seem to complicate the issue rather than be of reassurance.

[Tripower455]

My appologies Tripower a thought you were refering to the 'piece' as opposed to a complete weapon which I agree will pose far more issues and would seem to complicate the issue rather than be of reassurance.


Actually, I feel that the weapon itself is not the issue at all. It's the manner of carry and disposition with which the tsA has saddled the program.

I see little logic in vetting, training and authorizing a person to carry and be responsible for a firearm, then forcing that person to surrender the firearm to numerous untrained, un-vetted and unauthorized people, in the "secure" area.

It flies in the face of several centuries of law enforcement experience

[STC]

If you appear to have an "anti-gun" stance on this board, it seems that you are instantly labeled a "fool" or worse by the pro-gun forces.

I'm not surprised. This bullying behaviour that is nothing more than an attempt to intimidate is directly in line with the gun culture mentality.

To those with such "closed minds" I say stop with the silly name calling and try to stick to the topic.

I don't care whether or not the direct victims of 9/11 care to consider the statistics or not. They aren't exactly prime candidates to consider when you want an objective opinion.

The hard facts are that statistically speaking, placing a gun in the cockpit over a long period of time will result in more deaths than terrorism.

Now, go ahead and aim your "internet gun" at me and call me a fool or whatever. It just solidifies my theory that gun nuts feel an overwhelming need to have a lethal weapon at their instant disposal to quell their paranoid fantasies no doubt ingrained by the self destructive gun culture they've been exposed to.

Isn't that latest Steven Segall flick great....


:rolleyes:

[Earl]

The program needs alot of work.
The problem I agree is government.
Anyone that has went through the US lately an has gone through the TSA security procedures as a crew member has to know what kind of idiots we are dealing with here.
Where did they come from, ex burger flippers at the local burger king.
I am totally for the program an have been from the begining.
Is this a case of the high school drop out trying to rebel at the educated worker.
Hope not but it sure seems to be.

[Paterbrat]

STC To have an anti-gun stance is not in itself foolish. That, is in fact a very healthy state of affairs.
Having carried a gun for many years one ceases to imbue it with magical powers and treat it for the inanimate object it is. I simply would contestyour 'fact/statistic that placing a gun in a cockpit ... will result in more deaths than terrorism.
The 'long time' was rather open ended but with over three thousand deaths in 9/11 I would say that accidental discharges will have quite a bit of catching up to do.
As to the emotive paranoid culture there's another of those buzzwords coming... Steve Seagal. Boy you really are pushing those buttons.
It definitely is not an overwhelming need. It is simply a recognition that there is a new threat/danger to consider and whether there are reasonable cost effective safe methods of adressing it. I have rather carelessly found myself in the pro-gun side but it is a problem that should be adressed and is not going to dissapear because people like you do not like guns and simply want the problem to go somewhere else.

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

Mike, STC, you're absolutely right in that guns are dangerous if not treated with respect. I do not think you are fools in disagreeing with their carriage- I do think you're missing the point slightly in the risks involved.
I make no claim to be an expert on firearm deaths, but (perhaps someone with access to the relevant statistics can comment?) I believe most deaths by firearm happen in the process of a felony. The next most common causes, would (I'm guessing here) be by suicide (and the Silkair event has, sadly, shown that airline pilots don't need guns to commit suicide) and by accidents in the handling of guns. Proper training can almost entirely prevent those kind of accidents; it is usually untrained handling that causes accidental discharge.

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

Thanks for the link Mike, it's very useful: however, IMHO it backs my argument a bit... you're right, even 3% is a tragedy, but I remain convinced that proper training can prevent such tragic accidents from happening to armed flight deck crew. For instance, between a third and a quarter of all accidents happened to children or teenagers- an excellent argument for keeping firearms secure and away from minors, but irrelevant to this discussion. Is there a similar link which can say how many of the adults killed accidentally were killed by trained personnel, and how many in hunting accidents, drunken misadventures and the like?
I may be naive, but I retain my belief that trained professional aircrew can be trained in the use of firearms, and will treat their carriage as professionally as their other duties.

[Tripower455]

It seems that TSA have submitted a report (supposedly confidential!) to Congress that said “…electric stun weapons can contribute to aviation security…” & “….given the right plan & the right details, stun weapons can be used on commercial aircraft.”

....and a Mini Cooper CAN win the Indy 500 (if all the other more suitable cars break down).........

If it gets to the point where a pilot armed with taser, stun gun etc. NEEDS to use it, he needs a more effective weapon. Might as well start with the crash axe, since that's right where you will be when the taser doesn't work.......

Are the Air Marshalls going to be issued tasers as well? Since they are in the cabin, their firearms are readily accessible to the bad guys and can be used to commandeer the airplane. If I had the choice between being shot with a .357 Sig or an electronic toy, I'd choose the toy..........


Firearms statistics in the USA - this link may be of help. Yes, most were either homicide or suicide, but about 3% were “unintentional.” Even 0.001% chance of “unintentional” shooting in the flight deck is too high!!


How many of these unintentional shootings involved federal leos?

CBFO is correct. These statistics are irrelevent to the discussion at hand. In the hands of a trained, responsible individual, a firearm is no more dangerous than....... an airplane, car, boat motorcycle, swimming pool, lawn mower etc.

[Tripower455]

Sorry, if you want to refer to safety, then the handgun is the more dangerous of the 2 choices (& neither of the choices are particularly good)!

Which is exactly why it is the more effective choice. If it is needed to thwart a hijacking, the "safer" item isn't the safest choice......!


Neither of them should be allowed on the flight deck.

But firearms are OK in the cabin, as long as pilots aren't the ones carrying them? The number of people that are allowed to carry guns on airliners is staggering (many with no "need" imho). At least on the flight deck, the weapon will be behind a locked door, where it is least likely to be used to commandeer tha airplane.

Unfortunately, quoting statistics (or unlike “comparibles”) isn’t going to strengthen the gun case, regardless of how/why guns were unintentionally fired. There is no statistical data-base (yet) for “shots fired negligently in the flight deck” and obviously, you can’t call a trauma team for those “Whoops, sorry, I didn’t mean for my .40” to go off” awkward cockpit moments.

There are hundreds of years worth of statistics re: leos (law enforcement officers) and firearms. FFDOs ARE trained leos. Guns do not "go off" by themselves when carried in the proper manner, any more than fire handles get accidentally pulled in flight.

However, if you want to debate the accessibility options of the gun or the taser, then I would suggest that the taser would be less liable to accidental “discharge.”

Why would a taser be less likely to accidentally discharge? For sure it will be less likely to incapacitate a determined hijacker.

To remind you - pilots are fallible, even after thorough & repetitive training, we still have too many CFIT incidences. So, even after thorough & repetitive training on handguns, pilots will, undoubtedly, make mistakes with equally fatal consequences.

OK, maybe pilots shouldn't be allowed to fly airplanes? Just how carrying a firearm will contribute to cfit isn't quite clear to me...... ;)

CFIT generally kills all on board. Even in the unlikely event of an AD, the chances of killing or even injuring someone are extremely remote.......

Spending money on arming pilots is treating the symptom, not the cause. Better screening of pax (& support elements such as catering, cleaning, etc) will reduce the already minimal risk of hijacking.

Minimal risk? It HAS happened, recently, to a number of airliners (does 9/11 ring a bell?). While I agree that better screening will help (I am still waiting for it, btw.....), it can not keep a determined hijacker off an airplane. One way or another they will figure out how to get on board, and into the cockpit.

Arming pilots is a high-profile and very political answer, unfortunately, it’s not the right answer to the problem.

Actually, the tsA is the high profile, political answer (all show, no go). Armed pilots provide a definitive last line of defense prior to the sidewinder.

[WhatsaLizad?]

The anti-pilot-gun crowd here should be pleased with the latest actions of the TSA.

First, after spending millions on training facilities in the US state of Georgia, they have decided to move the training program to New Mexico after more millions are spent to build facilities there along with more delays.

Second, at least 100 of my fellow pilots in my company alone have received a rejection notification email after taking a psychological test , and an interview with a designated pyschologist.
The email states that the applicant has been removed from consideration for weapons training due to the availability of "more qualified volunteers", and may reapply after a minimum of one year.

Sounds reasonable, except in that the group of pilots not considered "qualified", and have received rejection notices are a former US Navy Seal, a former US Marshal and a former FBI Agent.

[Tripower455]

Sounds reasonable, except in that the group of pilots not considered "qualified", and have received rejection notices are a former US Navy Seal, a former US Marshal and a former FBI Agent.


I recently flew with one of the 4 guys that were booted from the first ffdo class, and he was a customs and dea agent for years before coming to the airlines..........gotta admire the world class empire building going on at the tsA!

[Paterbrat]

Whilst having sympathy with Mike Jenvey's obvious, and laudable desire to keep guns or stun weapons off the flight deck because it is 'dangerous', I cannot help but cast a weather eye to the dedicated 'professionals' out there who, unhappily and for reasons best know only to themselves are going to dedicate their lives to comandeering a plane full of passengers and use it to create a massive and very destructive point.
They will use all their power and ingenuity to achieve this and at some stage one/some of them may succeed. Without going into statistics which are reasonably malleable instruments in the right hands, we can take Mike's approach and leave it to the various layers of security already in place or the problem can be looked into and various solutions considered and proposed.
It does sound as though in the US the problem is being adressed. Whether it is going to be successful or not, remains to be seen, BUT, at least the problem is being studied and something is being attempted.
Doubt will have been created in the minds of whoever is approaching that cockpit door that there may be something lethal behind it.
It may only be a small beginning, but to my mind something is better than nothing Mike.

[skidcanuck]

Many interesting points of view - hopefully the subject will never have to come into play in the real world.

[lead zeppelin]

This issue hasn't been in the news much lately - where does it stand?

[Sick Squid]

Maybe the reason it hasn't been in the news is that there has been no natural movement on it. Perhaps when there is something further to report, then the thread should be revisited. Before then, will we really see anything more than re-hashing of the... extensive... arguments that precede this post? I think not.

By all means revitalise a thread when something new is there to debate. But please... not just because you are bored of an evening.

[Loadwarrior]

Alot of good points that we all have to consider.....but I think that if some group of terrorists resort to trying to take control of an aircraft again, they would surely last about 2 minutes before the rest of the pax beat them into their next sorry lives. I for one would not hesitate to administer discipline if I was in the back end.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I'm essentially anti gun in cockpit...although I did carry concealed for many years while working/living in one of those less than civilised 3rd world places.

I can see an argument that a well trained individual has time, while the security door is being battered down, to draw a bead on said door.

Yes the list of motivations for battering down the security door is a very short list.

Yes it would be an easy shot...how many shots would be a different matter..example Mr Cohen some pages back shot 7 times and still defeated the terrorist. Witness the loonies that went on the rampage in Florida years back...how many times was one of them hit before he finally succumbed to blood loss and feinted, having killed how many LEOs?

.40 ballistics would help this...unlike 9mm that goes through and then keeps going through other people/things while doing relatively little damage... in the first instance anyway.

If you had several similarly motivated/drugged up/high on adrenaline or religous ferver loonie terrorists lined up at the cockpit door it's going to take a lot of shooting to stop them all.

By the time they get to the door I believe, in this post 9/11 world, that a significant % of the pax will have jumped them...or else a significant % will have been butchered in a most graphic way to ensure the rest remain seated.

In the same way a cockpit is a relatively easily defended space so is the forward galley from the terrorist perspective.

The preceeding arguments would seem to suggest I support arming pilots...I do not.

When you see the laughably stupid TSA response to being tasked with the implementation it's not an unreasonable stance.

When I carried very few people knew.

If, and it's a mighty big IF from my perspective, guns are to be carried by aircrew then the weapon is carried in a suitable concealment holster (preference of carrier) and remains holstered where ever he goes until such time as he is relieved of all professional duties. The weapon is then locked in a suitable gunsafe in either his home or his o/n hotel room. Participating airlines MIGHT need to look at requiring upgraded safes in HOTAC but probably not as alerting HOTAC staff that weapons may be stored in house is NOT a good idea...for obvious reasons.

None of this BS handling the weapon multitudinous times per sector...safing it and loading it each time it changes location or changes hands in the case of handing over to other staff...that's how accidents happen...and thefts.

Particularly a Glock...no safety catch...police forces world wide who use Glocks have had NUMEROUS accidental discharges and wounds in feet etc...bloody stupid choice if that is the choice!!!


It goes, cocked and locked, into the holster when dressing for work and gets locked in a safe prior to beer call...in between it never see the light of day unless it's going to be used.

A simple means of identification when clearing terminal security so that it doesn't set off the metal detectors every bloody time too. Simple means aircrew being cleared separately from PAX, like at LHR, and that job being done by people with an IQ over 12 (and suitable training to be able to intereract with aircrew while not pissing them off)....wearer has a security card or the approval is imprinted within his/her normal ID card and shows up a code when swiped through a reader for instance.

Letting a Govt department like TSA, who are demonstably not a repository of the national brains trust, over complicate it to such a deadly dangerous and stupid extent is rediculous.

Chances of Govt not insisting that the last paragraph is the ONLY way aircrew can carry?...ZIP.

Therefore I'm against aircrew carrying weapons.

[Loose rivets]

Jay Leno a few moments ago.

Marshals have been found to have been drinking etc. etc while on duty. And (more than one implied) have lost their weapons. Drugs were mentioned, but due to the nature of the program, I don't know how seriously. They got suspended on pay. As Mr Leno commented, isn't that called a vacation

[MasterBates]

Let´s bring back the dreaded toenail-clippers. I´ll tackle them bit by bit with that!
:p

[Flightmech]

Why are cargo pilots being allowed to carry guns as part of the Federal Flight Deck Officer programme. As my employer has the reinforced cockpit doors and still refuses to allow its employees to jumpseat, why do they need guns?? To protect them from each other or in case an express package shows "attitude"? Sorry to sound a little sarcastic but i have already read two reports of the gun being in places it shouldn't be at block-in. (Both during a block-turn back for mx). Dont get me wrong, pax jets maybe but freighters with no jumpseaters...the mind boggles.

[Paterbrat]

Very sadly it appears that the point is being made very bloodily in Russia. Two aircraft, an incident in Moscow and now the school massacre . There were guns on the scene pretty soon after the last horror show started but when you have zealots who are determined to make a final exit and take as many others with them as they can there is not a lot that can be done. With fanatics such as are roaming around now it is going to be difficult whatever measure are taken. It appears that we may have to give up some personal freedoms that were taken for granted, the security is going to become tighter and it is going to inconvenience and upset many, but it appears the other side is taking no prisoners.

[lead zeppelin]

Sick Squid

I was simply curious as to what the status was; as a non-airline pilot, I wanted to know if firearms in the cockpit was widespread now, or not being done. I felt this thread was the place to ask, as opposed to starting a new thread and having them end up merged anyway.

The pprune homepage says "The forums are moderated by a team of over 60 volunteers who are involved in the business and have some speciality knowledge of the subject area their forum covers. Our aim is to keep the content relevant and to stop the few troublemakers who are unable to learn 'netiquette' from turning some threads into flame wars."

I did not offer any hostile words or opinions (i.e. "flame war"), but merely had an interest in a very "relevant" aviation topic. Just because you are tired of a topic should not prevent others from having discussions. That is the whole purpose of pprune.

If being a moderator is too laborious, then stop moderating, but don't bite my head off for asking a question - that is NOT what a moderator is for.

[MercenaryAli]

I think we are all getting a little paranoid about guns!!

Since the Dumblane affair, Mister Blair and his sorry excuse for a government "knee jerked" and passed laws banning most law abiding citizens from owning or posseing handguns.

Has this reduced the number of "firearms offences" in the UK?

Answer - NO.

Has it reduced the number of legally and responibly held firearms and taken away the "right" of a citizen to protect himself?

Answer - YES

Can the police protect "Mr Average" ?

Answer - unlikely as they spend most of their time in cars or doing paperwork whilst the Liberal and completely out of touch judiciary release most of the offenders back onto the streets.

FACT - There are more firearms crimes committed now than ever before in UK, criminals/terrorists have no problem obtaining weapons and they routinely carry and are willing to use them.

At least if, as a pilot, I was given proper training and a weapon perhaps, just perhaps I would have a chance to save my crew, my passengers and my aircraft. Otherwise why don't we just "Roll Over" and let evil have it's way.

As a final point, whilst in the military I flew on operations with a loaded automatic in a shoulder holster both in Europe and in the Middle East and no! suprise surprise I never shot myself, my co-pilot my loadmaster nor any passengers either intentionally or by mistake!!

Drastic times require drastic action!

[darrylj]

sky news article 15/12/2004:




http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13264601,00.html



:)

[BOAC]

darrylj -you may wish to look at a number of other threads on this topic and I am expecting this post to be merged with one of them. Here's one that ran a bit! (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=87525&highlight=armed+pilots)

[Tripower455]

was simply curious as to what the status was; as a non-airline pilot, I wanted to know if firearms in the cockpit was widespread now, or not being done.

To answer your question...........

It is fairly widespread, and the program has been going for over 18 months now. Lots of FFDOs carrying guns, with more being trained every day, with NO problems whatsoever, just as I've predicted. ;)