Should airline pilots be armed???
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't fancy my own crew shooting me as they get up!
Tazars would be very beneficial to my efis system should they go the wrong way.
Ground security is the answer. Stuff the delay it causes.
If you have to check in 2 hours prior to a domestic flight, so be it.
p.s no hand luggage and no 2 litre bottles of accelerant (booze) allowed in the cabin!!
Tazars would be very beneficial to my efis system should they go the wrong way.
Ground security is the answer. Stuff the delay it causes.
If you have to check in 2 hours prior to a domestic flight, so be it.
p.s no hand luggage and no 2 litre bottles of accelerant (booze) allowed in the cabin!!
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's pretty clear now that anyone wanting to take your aircraft away from you is not going to ask you to take him anywhere other than straight to hell.
It's a hard ask, but if that is going to be the ultimate result, then the risk of death by taking them on then or a certainty later is moot.
Arm and train the crew, lock them in, and if they have a bomb and detonate it so be it.
At the least the ability for them to use the aircraft for a much higher death rate and destruction is removed.
It is not certain but it looks like the Penn flight crew or pax decided their course of action was the least worst result. Heroes all.
Not tasers, but a real killing weapon, a risk of decomp maybe but "explosive" decomp is not that big a risk even for large calibre weapons.
Of course all of this begs the question of security BEFORE they get on your aircraft in the first place.
They can invent sniffers that can tell you that the seat you occupied was previously occupied by someone with drugs.
They can MRI you and tell you how much plaque you have in your heart.
They sure as hell can catch a "box cutter"/Stanley Knife or a pound or two of Semtex.
Then it will not be necessary to make the aforementioned decisions.
It's a hard ask, but if that is going to be the ultimate result, then the risk of death by taking them on then or a certainty later is moot.
Arm and train the crew, lock them in, and if they have a bomb and detonate it so be it.
At the least the ability for them to use the aircraft for a much higher death rate and destruction is removed.
It is not certain but it looks like the Penn flight crew or pax decided their course of action was the least worst result. Heroes all.
Not tasers, but a real killing weapon, a risk of decomp maybe but "explosive" decomp is not that big a risk even for large calibre weapons.
Of course all of this begs the question of security BEFORE they get on your aircraft in the first place.
They can invent sniffers that can tell you that the seat you occupied was previously occupied by someone with drugs.
They can MRI you and tell you how much plaque you have in your heart.
They sure as hell can catch a "box cutter"/Stanley Knife or a pound or two of Semtex.
Then it will not be necessary to make the aforementioned decisions.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with Gaunty on this one. The authorities have to take stronger steps to prevent weapons being bought onto aircraft.
If this means checkin an additional 1/2 hour or more prior to departure to enable baggage, etc searches, then so be it. I would certainly be quite comfortable with that.
Arming the crew only gives the hijacker potentially more firepower.
Be sure you do your oxy drill before you fire off your mace or capsicum spray in a confined space.....
The first place to start is security screening/enforcement. Sydney is a joke. If you want to look at a sheltered workshop security system, come to KSA. All contracted to private firms ($$), whose employees look like they couldn't run 25m without having a coronary! But they did have the money to do the 1 week course sponsored by Centrelink. (IMHO), SACL and the government doesn't take this seriously as they probably think it'll never happen in our sleepy backwater....
I've never seen more than 2 APS goons on the Domestic ramp ever. Surely this is incorrect?
The answer is more thorough screening. But that will cost money. I bet it don't happen too soon
I think it was Anderson that said YSSY airport is on high alert. Nice reassuring words, for there has been no apparent change in the number of security personnel or increased checking airside or in terminals.
Good one, minister.....
If this means checkin an additional 1/2 hour or more prior to departure to enable baggage, etc searches, then so be it. I would certainly be quite comfortable with that.
Arming the crew only gives the hijacker potentially more firepower.
Be sure you do your oxy drill before you fire off your mace or capsicum spray in a confined space.....
The first place to start is security screening/enforcement. Sydney is a joke. If you want to look at a sheltered workshop security system, come to KSA. All contracted to private firms ($$), whose employees look like they couldn't run 25m without having a coronary! But they did have the money to do the 1 week course sponsored by Centrelink. (IMHO), SACL and the government doesn't take this seriously as they probably think it'll never happen in our sleepy backwater....
I've never seen more than 2 APS goons on the Domestic ramp ever. Surely this is incorrect?
The answer is more thorough screening. But that will cost money. I bet it don't happen too soon
I think it was Anderson that said YSSY airport is on high alert. Nice reassuring words, for there has been no apparent change in the number of security personnel or increased checking airside or in terminals.
Good one, minister.....
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Gate 69
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just don't carry any pax.
Seriously. Imagine if these four aircraft were A380s or 744s. The extra size, weight, fuel and pax in these aircraft would have made things far worse. If it is possible for this disaster to be any worse.
As for the carriage of firearms by crew. No. These people (for want of a better word), have no problem with killing themselves for their cause. So if one of them dies attempting to get into the cockpit, the others will be right behind, and they will get the firearms of the crew.
Pilots are trained to fly. Not to defend the cockpit. So have the cockpit door locked. Have the door/doorway lined with bullet resistant material. It doesn't take much to stop a small round with a low velocity. The type fired by weapons most likely to be able to get past security. Have the pilots trained, that no matter what, don't let them into the cockpit. A couple of hundred people is a terrible loss. A few thousand? No words come close.
Another thing is to have highly trained (NB: not the usual thickhead security gaurd) plain clothes, armed, "marshals" on board, say 60-70% of flights. Like the CRW guys, using 9mm soft rounds, so it goes into the terrorist, but doesn't come out. Thus less risk of rounds going through the fuselage.
But the best way the avoid this (NB: I didn't say stop, as it would be impossible), is to open every piece of baggage. Inspect clothing being worn, especially if there are many layers, coats, etc. Not allow any carry-on. Redesign aircraft so that each section is physically separate, so the whole aircraft can't be taken over.
Cost? What cost would you put on the lives of the 266 pax and perhaps thousands on the ground. Not to mention the cost to rebuild the WTC (which I think they shouldn't. Put a memorial park there) and repair the Pentagon
Extra Time? Oh no, is an extra 45-60min that bad? You probably waste five times that amount watching cr@p TV per week.
What I, like you, saw on the news is the most terrible thing I have ever seen. I don't want to watch a replay in a few years time. Something has to be done.
Seriously. Imagine if these four aircraft were A380s or 744s. The extra size, weight, fuel and pax in these aircraft would have made things far worse. If it is possible for this disaster to be any worse.
As for the carriage of firearms by crew. No. These people (for want of a better word), have no problem with killing themselves for their cause. So if one of them dies attempting to get into the cockpit, the others will be right behind, and they will get the firearms of the crew.
Pilots are trained to fly. Not to defend the cockpit. So have the cockpit door locked. Have the door/doorway lined with bullet resistant material. It doesn't take much to stop a small round with a low velocity. The type fired by weapons most likely to be able to get past security. Have the pilots trained, that no matter what, don't let them into the cockpit. A couple of hundred people is a terrible loss. A few thousand? No words come close.
Another thing is to have highly trained (NB: not the usual thickhead security gaurd) plain clothes, armed, "marshals" on board, say 60-70% of flights. Like the CRW guys, using 9mm soft rounds, so it goes into the terrorist, but doesn't come out. Thus less risk of rounds going through the fuselage.
But the best way the avoid this (NB: I didn't say stop, as it would be impossible), is to open every piece of baggage. Inspect clothing being worn, especially if there are many layers, coats, etc. Not allow any carry-on. Redesign aircraft so that each section is physically separate, so the whole aircraft can't be taken over.
Cost? What cost would you put on the lives of the 266 pax and perhaps thousands on the ground. Not to mention the cost to rebuild the WTC (which I think they shouldn't. Put a memorial park there) and repair the Pentagon
Extra Time? Oh no, is an extra 45-60min that bad? You probably waste five times that amount watching cr@p TV per week.
What I, like you, saw on the news is the most terrible thing I have ever seen. I don't want to watch a replay in a few years time. Something has to be done.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: australia
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd rather have a gun for instantaneous results. If it was generally known that pilots were armed, a potential hijacker would then try to bring equal force with them & run a bigger risk of being detected compared to someone with a small plastic handled knife.
These guys obviously realised they might be caught if they tried to get firearms through security thus alerting all airport security around the country. Of course there are other ways to get guns onto aircraft & it really is up to the imagination & determination of people involved. They chose the easier option & unbelievably succeeded.
On the other hand, by arming pilots are we
admitting that we just can't keep them firstly off the aircraft & secondly out of the Cockpit ?
[ 13 September 2001: Message edited by: shocka ]
These guys obviously realised they might be caught if they tried to get firearms through security thus alerting all airport security around the country. Of course there are other ways to get guns onto aircraft & it really is up to the imagination & determination of people involved. They chose the easier option & unbelievably succeeded.
On the other hand, by arming pilots are we
admitting that we just can't keep them firstly off the aircraft & secondly out of the Cockpit ?
[ 13 September 2001: Message edited by: shocka ]
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once read a "crash comic" article about a DC3 in the Philipines. Captain & FO had a blue on the flight deck, Captain gets so worked up pulls out a gun and plugs FO, then goes back & plugs a few pax before crashing plane.
Another thing about guns is the intended target. In gun deaths in the US the usual victim is a member of the owner's family. Is this want you want?
NO GUNS IN AIRCRAFT HELD BY AMATEURS
I think the barrier to communication method favoured by banks is more relevant. Armoured, locked bulkhead between cabin & flight deck. Once panic button in cabin pushed by cabin crew no communication possible with flight deck (intercom severed, bulkhead soundproof). The flight crew get an alarm, and react as if subject to illegal interference (even though they know no details )immediately.
Even a Hollywood version of a crazed towell-head with hand grenade would be a bit dumb to do anything if it will not affect the progress of the flight.
Another thing about guns is the intended target. In gun deaths in the US the usual victim is a member of the owner's family. Is this want you want?
NO GUNS IN AIRCRAFT HELD BY AMATEURS I think the barrier to communication method favoured by banks is more relevant. Armoured, locked bulkhead between cabin & flight deck. Once panic button in cabin pushed by cabin crew no communication possible with flight deck (intercom severed, bulkhead soundproof). The flight crew get an alarm, and react as if subject to illegal interference (even though they know no details )immediately.
Even a Hollywood version of a crazed towell-head with hand grenade would be a bit dumb to do anything if it will not affect the progress of the flight.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have Air Marshals on all flights not just on 70% or randomly, and in uniform. They can not only be used to prevent hijackers but secure disruptive passengers and deal with air-rage.
As with guns in the cockpit, no need if you marshals on board.
-------
I have to also agree that the cockpit door should not be opened in the event an aircaft is hijacked and should be made from material that can not be penetrated by force. Maybe if potential hijackers know that airlines do not open the cockpit door under any circumstance they may not hijack the aircraft in the first place.
As with guns in the cockpit, no need if you marshals on board.
-------
I have to also agree that the cockpit door should not be opened in the event an aircaft is hijacked and should be made from material that can not be penetrated by force. Maybe if potential hijackers know that airlines do not open the cockpit door under any circumstance they may not hijack the aircraft in the first place.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: A land of sweeping planes
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, pilots should not be armed.
Its the pilot's job to fly the aircraft, not act as a last line of defense in the absence of effective airside barrier security and cabin security.
Perhaps the ultimate cost savings in security is to buy the tech crew a $2000 pistol each instead of investing in a layered defense of effective expensive barrier security and overt plus covert armed guards in the cabin.
Pilots in most cases would not have time available to maintain the skill level necessary to use the weapon effectively. Its a weapon no different from a sword.
Currently, security costs are beancounter items and therefore meet only the basic (inadequate) requirements.
Legislation for a minimum standard of numbers, selection, training, recurrent training and rotation and PAY is needed so that airside/cabin security defenses become effective and are a career proposition.
That would also allow the physical security function to be contained within one dedicated organisation.
Not surprisingly, this is the same thing that happened with Police forces a few years ago.
The absence of this concept leaves barrier security, in the US at least, at the pay and career prospects level of a McDonalds worker.
A one hour checkin for an effective search ? Can someone list credible disadvantages of that ?
Its the pilot's job to fly the aircraft, not act as a last line of defense in the absence of effective airside barrier security and cabin security.
Perhaps the ultimate cost savings in security is to buy the tech crew a $2000 pistol each instead of investing in a layered defense of effective expensive barrier security and overt plus covert armed guards in the cabin.
Pilots in most cases would not have time available to maintain the skill level necessary to use the weapon effectively. Its a weapon no different from a sword.
Currently, security costs are beancounter items and therefore meet only the basic (inadequate) requirements.
Legislation for a minimum standard of numbers, selection, training, recurrent training and rotation and PAY is needed so that airside/cabin security defenses become effective and are a career proposition.
That would also allow the physical security function to be contained within one dedicated organisation.
Not surprisingly, this is the same thing that happened with Police forces a few years ago.
The absence of this concept leaves barrier security, in the US at least, at the pay and career prospects level of a McDonalds worker.
A one hour checkin for an effective search ? Can someone list credible disadvantages of that ?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm for no. I know 'ConAir' is hollywood but it's the same priciple, NO-ONE carries onboard. I'm all for more delays, I have no problem with arriving for flights earlier for greater security. And as was previously mentioned REAL security not toughs.
Actually thinking about it now I am shocked at security standards, during an overseas trip we carried a film bag (contructed of lead foil) thus rendering the film inside invisible to x-rays, and anything else inside the bag for that matter. I was amased given that I knew that you couldn't see inside the bag that time and time again it WASN'T stopped and asked to be opened. We only got asked to open it twice (Canada and NZ). And quizzed about the contents once (UK). In a trip that amassed around 80 hours of flight time over 15 or so flights!!
Also I'm for no cabin bags outside of laptops (inspected) and maybe a kids backpack. Last time I checked discman's and the like fitted into your coat pocket. Maybe we can introduce a system of airlines providing cabin bags that people could pack essentials into and then check the rest in!!
Don't know weather I read it here or in another forum but the FAA without ID walking around on the ramp waiting to be asked for ID also a good idea to. It'll help promote and educate crews to look out for people without ID on the ramp (only as strong as the weakest link, remember).
These will be testing and changing times. Although there will always be someway some how that they'll get onboard, remember unfortunately people will always be able to be bought!! Hopefully we can change aviation security for the better, and all of this is for greater than naught.
Actually thinking about it now I am shocked at security standards, during an overseas trip we carried a film bag (contructed of lead foil) thus rendering the film inside invisible to x-rays, and anything else inside the bag for that matter. I was amased given that I knew that you couldn't see inside the bag that time and time again it WASN'T stopped and asked to be opened. We only got asked to open it twice (Canada and NZ). And quizzed about the contents once (UK). In a trip that amassed around 80 hours of flight time over 15 or so flights!!
Also I'm for no cabin bags outside of laptops (inspected) and maybe a kids backpack. Last time I checked discman's and the like fitted into your coat pocket. Maybe we can introduce a system of airlines providing cabin bags that people could pack essentials into and then check the rest in!!
Don't know weather I read it here or in another forum but the FAA without ID walking around on the ramp waiting to be asked for ID also a good idea to. It'll help promote and educate crews to look out for people without ID on the ramp (only as strong as the weakest link, remember).
These will be testing and changing times. Although there will always be someway some how that they'll get onboard, remember unfortunately people will always be able to be bought!! Hopefully we can change aviation security for the better, and all of this is for greater than naught.
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nam security checks are pretty damn thorough and no one is crazey enough to want to get caught here carrying weapons on board. Last moron I heard who tried it is still doing 30.
On certain flights we do the commander has access to a .38 located at close quarters. Only think is, if I ever have to blow someones brains out I have to have a bloodey good reason why. And yeh the ensueing paperwork is a nightmare!
On certain flights we do the commander has access to a .38 located at close quarters. Only think is, if I ever have to blow someones brains out I have to have a bloodey good reason why. And yeh the ensueing paperwork is a nightmare!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: australia
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The now defunct Ansett Australia once routinely armed their L 188 Electra Pilots with a 38 calibre revolver ! Fact !
However this was not a hijacking precaution as such, the firearm was a necessary item of equipment at the time to deal with beserk
horses. (L 188 fr8tr)& (Yes it was used once)
However this was not a hijacking precaution as such, the firearm was a necessary item of equipment at the time to deal with beserk
horses. (L 188 fr8tr)& (Yes it was used once)
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think thats right too Shocka. I met the Wombats a lot in CNS and they told me. The .38 bullet was designed to revolve pitch-wise, go through the horses head and break up in his brain. Supposed to be humane. We have the same ordnance. Not for humane purposes but so the bullet doesnt pass through and hit something else.
