Guns in Cockpits
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can hear the knees popping from here!
I have yet to hear of a problem caused by pilots having guns on the flight deck from the many many years it was done in the US and other places in the world. And I have heard of a few cases when having a gun prevented mischief.
I have yet to hear of a problem caused by pilots having guns on the flight deck from the many many years it was done in the US and other places in the world. And I have heard of a few cases when having a gun prevented mischief.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Asia
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The extreme measure of allowing guns to carried in flight decks is an over reaction to a one of a kind occurance. Sep 11 is the only time an aircraft has been hijacked and crashed into buildings. The carriage of firearms in aircraft will introduce more problems than they will solve.
Typical US response - you disenfranchise most of the world then when they finally bite back you just add more weapons to the situation.
Typical US response - you disenfranchise most of the world then when they finally bite back you just add more weapons to the situation.
Typical US response - you disenfranchise most of the world then when they finally bite back you just add more weapons to the situation.
"bite back"? How you little pathectic rectal ticks rationalize the current world situation is unbelievable. It wasn't a "bite" on September 11 or in Bali, it was a slaughter of innocent, defensless people. The only thing these jackals will understand is a brutal 7th century response from a 21st century society. If that includes a swine fellatating jihadist getting several .40 cal rounds in the face while attempting to breach a cockpit, so be it.
The term "disenfranschise" to me means parking ones tanks and soldiers uninvited in another country and installing a colonial goverment. To some weasels here it means building a McDonalds (full of locals of course), buying a 737 and having a crap US Television show on channel 3. The second example is much less intrusive, but it still gives many groups around the world to blame the US for their problems instead of their own societies that are based on bribery, graft, corruption, nepotism and other tribal crap.
OhBehave, you can return to wallowing in your own national impotence.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hugh Jarse: Your post is at odds with your signature. Some tough talk about not living on your knees?
OhBehave: Actually, it wasn't the first time... I believe the first was, like, 40 or 50 years ago, also in NY City but the Empire State Building.
OhBehave: Actually, it wasn't the first time... I believe the first was, like, 40 or 50 years ago, also in NY City but the Empire State Building.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Sydney
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a predicament?
There are many good arguements for having guns issued to cockpit crews and equally as many good arguements for not doing so but, THE MOST POSITIVE ARGUEMENT FOR NOT ISSUING GUNS TO AIRCREW is the second post on this thread - the gung-ho, shoot em all dead attitude of SHAABLAAM; (a junior Qantas captain.) I say; with flip-dick attitudes like that around; we are better off not adding yet another lethal weapon on board. Let's hang back just a tad and see if the sky marshall concept is effective before we allow untrained, unprepared and for the most part, unwilling personnel to become armed and dangerous.
There are many good arguements for having guns issued to cockpit crews and equally as many good arguements for not doing so but, THE MOST POSITIVE ARGUEMENT FOR NOT ISSUING GUNS TO AIRCREW is the second post on this thread - the gung-ho, shoot em all dead attitude of SHAABLAAM; (a junior Qantas captain.) I say; with flip-dick attitudes like that around; we are better off not adding yet another lethal weapon on board. Let's hang back just a tad and see if the sky marshall concept is effective before we allow untrained, unprepared and for the most part, unwilling personnel to become armed and dangerous.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waterops,
my signature is how I feel about employees being shafted by large companies and taking a stand. The line was originally penned by Rob Hirst, Jim Moginie and Peter Garrett of Midnight Oil back in 1982. Their intent was probably different to my interpretation but it is a valid statement nonetheless.
It's nothing to do with the idiotic notion of arming tech crews when more effective and safer means AT THE GATE are available.
my signature is how I feel about employees being shafted by large companies and taking a stand. The line was originally penned by Rob Hirst, Jim Moginie and Peter Garrett of Midnight Oil back in 1982. Their intent was probably different to my interpretation but it is a valid statement nonetheless.
It's nothing to do with the idiotic notion of arming tech crews when more effective and safer means AT THE GATE are available.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jarse mate, your right about preventing the disease to begin with rather than looking for a cure: Start at the GATE. But terrorists (islamic or not) are quite surprisingley smart especialy if theyve done a little homework in aviation security matters.
My mobs policy (and that of the commie government) is that armed tech crew is the last line of defence in any hijacking for whatever purpose the hijacker intends. As I said Ive never fired a shot in anger but if push comes to shove then my aircraft, pax and crew come first. Hijackers are waaaay down the food chain. We are fully trained in all aspects of the Stockholm syndrome etc and how to think in defensive terms and respond timely but aggressively if the sh!t ever hit the fan. I dont know about Shablaam and what the White Rat's policy is, but theres a HELL of a lot more to arming tech crew than just packing him some heat one day and saying "here flyboy, use this anytime you need to blow away them f**king terrorists!"
While the possibility still exists (esp copy-catters), it has to be remembered that these al-qaeda bastards do not repeat their actions using the same method more than once. Using commercial aircraft as guided missiles, for these pr!cks anyway, is a done deal. Other methods such as a ship/yacht or train hijacking and ramming the same at full throttle into a civilian-rich target such as the Fremantle shopping wharf in Perth (esp if a yacht was pre-loaded with high explosives) would be just as deadly as any aircraft when you think about it.
My mobs policy (and that of the commie government) is that armed tech crew is the last line of defence in any hijacking for whatever purpose the hijacker intends. As I said Ive never fired a shot in anger but if push comes to shove then my aircraft, pax and crew come first. Hijackers are waaaay down the food chain. We are fully trained in all aspects of the Stockholm syndrome etc and how to think in defensive terms and respond timely but aggressively if the sh!t ever hit the fan. I dont know about Shablaam and what the White Rat's policy is, but theres a HELL of a lot more to arming tech crew than just packing him some heat one day and saying "here flyboy, use this anytime you need to blow away them f**king terrorists!"
While the possibility still exists (esp copy-catters), it has to be remembered that these al-qaeda bastards do not repeat their actions using the same method more than once. Using commercial aircraft as guided missiles, for these pr!cks anyway, is a done deal. Other methods such as a ship/yacht or train hijacking and ramming the same at full throttle into a civilian-rich target such as the Fremantle shopping wharf in Perth (esp if a yacht was pre-loaded with high explosives) would be just as deadly as any aircraft when you think about it.
Last edited by Slasher; 27th Oct 2002 at 23:53.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waterops,
Wasn't hitting that building an accident? Perhaps we're talking about different incidents, although you don't say it was intentional, so maybe it is the same.
My only recollection is that of a B25 taking off and turning the wrong way in fog and slamming into the Empire State building. It stood though.
Slasher,
Are you going to be supported by your company and the law if you pop somebody? I'd want it written in the management's blood I think. The only managements I've worked for seem to be good at saying they'll support you until it is actually required.
Wasn't hitting that building an accident? Perhaps we're talking about different incidents, although you don't say it was intentional, so maybe it is the same.
My only recollection is that of a B25 taking off and turning the wrong way in fog and slamming into the Empire State building. It stood though.
Slasher,
Are you going to be supported by your company and the law if you pop somebody? I'd want it written in the management's blood I think. The only managements I've worked for seem to be good at saying they'll support you until it is actually required.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Classified
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Quote Captain Sitting Duck:
posted 6th September 2002 11:00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Captain Sitting Duck
-------------------------------
"If hijackers are able to force themselves into the cockpit, all that pilots have to prevent the plane from being turned into a cruise missile is a crash ax, a flashlight and a flight manual."
Maybe we should take a leaf from out of the Russians book and put them to sleep with the Flight Manual? It works for me (The Flight Manual insomnia cure that is)
Seriously tho-
Guns in the cockpit are a really bad idea for many reasons.
Just look at the simple statistic Americans own the most guns to "protect themselves" yet suffer the most gun deaths. As a rule the more guns you have around the more deaths you will have.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Asia
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatsalizad,
"It wasn't a "bite" on September 11 or in Bali, it was a slaughter of innocent, defensless people."
You are right. It was.
Unfortunately your government has been directly and indirectly responsible for the slaughter of millions of innocent civilians the world over for 50 years.
Until the US government makes better foreign policy decisions, there will be countless numbers of people cueing up to attack the US as "blowback" for the pain caused by the land of the free.
Open your eyes son.
"It wasn't a "bite" on September 11 or in Bali, it was a slaughter of innocent, defensless people."
You are right. It was.
Unfortunately your government has been directly and indirectly responsible for the slaughter of millions of innocent civilians the world over for 50 years.
Until the US government makes better foreign policy decisions, there will be countless numbers of people cueing up to attack the US as "blowback" for the pain caused by the land of the free.
Open your eyes son.
