Guns in Cockpits
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wanna Be Up There...
Age: 53
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Guns in Cockpits
I just read in the Courier Mail that the Americans have just passed a law to allow "specially deputised" captains to carry guns and use lethal force during flight.
I have 2 questions.
1. Are they nuts?
2. Does anyone think they would have the ability to shoot someone? Would shooting them be the right decision? Remember the naked guy trying to get into the cockpit a few weeks ago?
Okay there are more than 2 questions, so shoot me.
I have 2 questions.
1. Are they nuts?
2. Does anyone think they would have the ability to shoot someone? Would shooting them be the right decision? Remember the naked guy trying to get into the cockpit a few weeks ago?
Okay there are more than 2 questions, so shoot me.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Nulla
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guns on the flight deck----NO
Would I be-able to shoot someone?-----YES.
It would obviously depend on the situation. You bring up the naked guy, well he was obviously a bit disturbed but a terrorist, a bloke carrying an AK or MP5 yeah no worries if it was going to aid everyones and my own safety. Without question. The only thing is 1 hand gun in a pressurised a/c and more than 1 terrorist onboard. You don't really have a chance. The only real time of use would be on the ground somewhere and possibly only in an assist situ as the boys come rolling in with their flashbangs,,,,YEAH what fun.....
O yes in answer to the first question, are the Yanks nuts?-----YES
They always have been.
Would I be-able to shoot someone?-----YES.
It would obviously depend on the situation. You bring up the naked guy, well he was obviously a bit disturbed but a terrorist, a bloke carrying an AK or MP5 yeah no worries if it was going to aid everyones and my own safety. Without question. The only thing is 1 hand gun in a pressurised a/c and more than 1 terrorist onboard. You don't really have a chance. The only real time of use would be on the ground somewhere and possibly only in an assist situ as the boys come rolling in with their flashbangs,,,,YEAH what fun.....
O yes in answer to the first question, are the Yanks nuts?-----YES
They always have been.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not a great fan of guns, but you have to ask the question of whether things may have turned out differently on the 11th Sept last year had the crews on the affected A/C been armed?
However, the Septics seem to be a gun-crazed lot. They own guns like we own mobile phones.
Don't forget that not so long ago they used nuclear proliferation as a DETERRENT to all out nuclear war.
Dickheads............
However, the Septics seem to be a gun-crazed lot. They own guns like we own mobile phones.
Don't forget that not so long ago they used nuclear proliferation as a DETERRENT to all out nuclear war.
Dickheads............
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Sitting Duck
-------------------------------
"If hijackers are able to force themselves into the cockpit, all that pilots have to prevent the plane from being turned into a cruise missile is a crash ax, a flashlight and a flight manual."
That's what David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association had to say while endorsing pilots carrying guns in the cockpit. Oh, now I feel safe.
I say, give the pilot an "armed seat." If the cockpit door is broken open, the pilot pushes a button and the back of the seat would let go with a fatal blast, killing the terrorist SOB.
Never mind that thousands of lives are at risk from air terrorism. John Magaw, undersecretary of transportation security, with Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta hiding behind him, told a senate committee that pilots don't need guns. In fact, Magaw said he decided they will not have them.
I repeat what I said last September: If pilots are denied this one last chance to save lives, they should strike. Now. There's no requirement they sacrifice their lives for their job.
Remember, the same government refusing guns for pilots has decided that if a terrorist does get into the cockpit, the government will order the plane shot down, killing everyone!
Please explain where it says on my ticket that when I board the flight, I put my life in the hands of a Washington bureaucrat with his finger on the "fire" button.
I hope intrepid trial lawyers are loading their legal ammo for the lawsuits with Magaw's name on them the next time a plane is hijacked.
And there will be a next time if you listen to Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al. It's one doomsday headline after another from these men telling us it's not if, just when, and we can't prevent it.
They speak for the government. But it's the primary job of government to protect citizens, first within our borders and then beyond.
The warnings we're getting, with all the gloom and doom of Armageddon, is that when this apocalypse happens, it will be here, on our home turf.
OK. If that is the case, then what's wrong with taking all means to protect ourselves?
How safe are we?
Despite all the hoo haa, ever since Sept. 11, people have gotten past airline security with guns, knives, swords and all other kinds of possible weapons.
Bolstered with their new importance as "government employees," airport security workers feel free to search people arbitrarily, practice rudeness, get too personal with body searches, waste time on the wrong people and manhandle personal belongings.
Airport employment checks across the country have shown high numbers of employees who weren't American citizens, lied on their applications, used false ID's and had criminal records. These were people doing security checks and maintenance people with access to planes. Any of them could hide a weapon or bomb onboard, if that was their intent.
They should have been fired, but no! Excuses were found. As for citizenship, it's in the works now to speed up legalizing them. Wait a minute! Why the special treatment?
Just what is the line between us and terrorists who may try to pull another hijacking horror similar to 9-11?
If you listen to the administration … Well, if you listen to the administration, what you hear is that "we just don't know."
So what's the problem with Magaw and Mineta?
You have a plane filled with people, cargo and fuel and flying at high altitude and speed. Terrorists take over. It doesn't matter whether they have box cutters, guns, bombs or nail clippers. At some point, they get into the cockpit.
If they get that far, clearly the rest of the people in the plane couldn't stop them. At that moment, life and death are in balance between the terrorist at the door and the pilots.
What do they do? According to the guys safe on the ground and protected by armed security people – "just fly the plane."
Are those pilots – educated, trained, experienced, responsible and with a desire to live to get home to their families – able to defend themselves and the hundreds whose lives they have in their hands?
No. Because John Magaw has decided – no guns.
It makes as much sense as police without guns or a disarmed Secret Service. In fact, it makes as much sense as telling citizens they can't defend their homes with a gun.
It's not about stopping terrorism – it's about guns and the attempt to disarm all Americans. It shows how little value bureaucrats put on our lives and how pitiful is the war on terrorism.
written by Barbara Simpson, "The Babe in the Bunker" of WorldNetDaily.com
-------------------------------
"If hijackers are able to force themselves into the cockpit, all that pilots have to prevent the plane from being turned into a cruise missile is a crash ax, a flashlight and a flight manual."
That's what David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association had to say while endorsing pilots carrying guns in the cockpit. Oh, now I feel safe.
I say, give the pilot an "armed seat." If the cockpit door is broken open, the pilot pushes a button and the back of the seat would let go with a fatal blast, killing the terrorist SOB.
Never mind that thousands of lives are at risk from air terrorism. John Magaw, undersecretary of transportation security, with Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta hiding behind him, told a senate committee that pilots don't need guns. In fact, Magaw said he decided they will not have them.
I repeat what I said last September: If pilots are denied this one last chance to save lives, they should strike. Now. There's no requirement they sacrifice their lives for their job.
Remember, the same government refusing guns for pilots has decided that if a terrorist does get into the cockpit, the government will order the plane shot down, killing everyone!
Please explain where it says on my ticket that when I board the flight, I put my life in the hands of a Washington bureaucrat with his finger on the "fire" button.
I hope intrepid trial lawyers are loading their legal ammo for the lawsuits with Magaw's name on them the next time a plane is hijacked.
And there will be a next time if you listen to Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al. It's one doomsday headline after another from these men telling us it's not if, just when, and we can't prevent it.
They speak for the government. But it's the primary job of government to protect citizens, first within our borders and then beyond.
The warnings we're getting, with all the gloom and doom of Armageddon, is that when this apocalypse happens, it will be here, on our home turf.
OK. If that is the case, then what's wrong with taking all means to protect ourselves?
How safe are we?
Despite all the hoo haa, ever since Sept. 11, people have gotten past airline security with guns, knives, swords and all other kinds of possible weapons.
Bolstered with their new importance as "government employees," airport security workers feel free to search people arbitrarily, practice rudeness, get too personal with body searches, waste time on the wrong people and manhandle personal belongings.
Airport employment checks across the country have shown high numbers of employees who weren't American citizens, lied on their applications, used false ID's and had criminal records. These were people doing security checks and maintenance people with access to planes. Any of them could hide a weapon or bomb onboard, if that was their intent.
They should have been fired, but no! Excuses were found. As for citizenship, it's in the works now to speed up legalizing them. Wait a minute! Why the special treatment?
Just what is the line between us and terrorists who may try to pull another hijacking horror similar to 9-11?
If you listen to the administration … Well, if you listen to the administration, what you hear is that "we just don't know."
So what's the problem with Magaw and Mineta?
You have a plane filled with people, cargo and fuel and flying at high altitude and speed. Terrorists take over. It doesn't matter whether they have box cutters, guns, bombs or nail clippers. At some point, they get into the cockpit.
If they get that far, clearly the rest of the people in the plane couldn't stop them. At that moment, life and death are in balance between the terrorist at the door and the pilots.
What do they do? According to the guys safe on the ground and protected by armed security people – "just fly the plane."
Are those pilots – educated, trained, experienced, responsible and with a desire to live to get home to their families – able to defend themselves and the hundreds whose lives they have in their hands?
No. Because John Magaw has decided – no guns.
It makes as much sense as police without guns or a disarmed Secret Service. In fact, it makes as much sense as telling citizens they can't defend their homes with a gun.
It's not about stopping terrorism – it's about guns and the attempt to disarm all Americans. It shows how little value bureaucrats put on our lives and how pitiful is the war on terrorism.
written by Barbara Simpson, "The Babe in the Bunker" of WorldNetDaily.com
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Telopea Street
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q1. Yes, they are nuts, although it could be stated more charitably as neurosis.
Q2. Yes, anyone can shoot anyone if they feel their life to be in danger. Shooting attackers would be the right decision if the 'deputised' crew member was within his/her legal and ballistic parameters.
Despite the naked bloke being armed with a Mutton Gun, shooting him would probably be incorrect.
The idea of arming cabin/tech crew so that they can act as a defending or deterring force is about as bright as cross training them as an operating theatre team just in case a pax needs an on the spot triple bypass at FL370.
The idea of arming crews implies that the company cannot/will not afford to pay for a dedicated plainclothes armed security team sitting on cabin seats. They would be far more effective a force than easily identified armed crew members who would have their hands full with their primary tasks.
The whole idea smacks of Humphrey Bogart (etc) flying along in his DC3 wearing a .45 cal pistol.
ed. (sp)
Q2. Yes, anyone can shoot anyone if they feel their life to be in danger. Shooting attackers would be the right decision if the 'deputised' crew member was within his/her legal and ballistic parameters.
Despite the naked bloke being armed with a Mutton Gun, shooting him would probably be incorrect.
The idea of arming cabin/tech crew so that they can act as a defending or deterring force is about as bright as cross training them as an operating theatre team just in case a pax needs an on the spot triple bypass at FL370.
The idea of arming crews implies that the company cannot/will not afford to pay for a dedicated plainclothes armed security team sitting on cabin seats. They would be far more effective a force than easily identified armed crew members who would have their hands full with their primary tasks.
The whole idea smacks of Humphrey Bogart (etc) flying along in his DC3 wearing a .45 cal pistol.
ed. (sp)
Last edited by Kev Rivkin; 7th Sep 2002 at 09:18.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got to agree with the majority of responses on this one.
1 Gun in the cockpit is 1 Gun too many.
Have had occassion to carry pistols whilst on flying duty and can assure you it creates multitude of problems:
1.To remain qualified and legal in its use you must be trained and practice regularly. Another quaterly qaulification.
2.Pistol must remain under lock and key or on the person at all times...this gets to be a real pain.
3.After flight pistol must be secured and responsibility transferred.
4.Ammo must be kept separate from weapon unless at high degree of readiness. If pistol is loaded it now becomes even more headaches due to handling discipline and increased risk.
5.Unless said pilot is to be on flightdeck 100% of time you will need 2 qualified pilots.
6.The practicalities of using a gun in a cockpit are scary:Its near impossible to jump to the firing position with the gun at "ACTION"state , loaded and cocked from a seated,harnessed position in a cramped cockpit. Arny Swarzenegger fine ...real pilots no chance.
7.Even with regular training it was not unknown for pilots in the RAAF to accidentally discharge a round when handling pistols.
8.Pistol can easily end up in the wrong persons hands in hijack situation.
Am all for proactive solutions to this new era of air threat but give me a solid door with no passenger access any day.
1 Gun in the cockpit is 1 Gun too many.
Have had occassion to carry pistols whilst on flying duty and can assure you it creates multitude of problems:
1.To remain qualified and legal in its use you must be trained and practice regularly. Another quaterly qaulification.
2.Pistol must remain under lock and key or on the person at all times...this gets to be a real pain.
3.After flight pistol must be secured and responsibility transferred.
4.Ammo must be kept separate from weapon unless at high degree of readiness. If pistol is loaded it now becomes even more headaches due to handling discipline and increased risk.
5.Unless said pilot is to be on flightdeck 100% of time you will need 2 qualified pilots.
6.The practicalities of using a gun in a cockpit are scary:Its near impossible to jump to the firing position with the gun at "ACTION"state , loaded and cocked from a seated,harnessed position in a cramped cockpit. Arny Swarzenegger fine ...real pilots no chance.
7.Even with regular training it was not unknown for pilots in the RAAF to accidentally discharge a round when handling pistols.
8.Pistol can easily end up in the wrong persons hands in hijack situation.
Am all for proactive solutions to this new era of air threat but give me a solid door with no passenger access any day.
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are alternatives to guns in the cockpit.
April 1994, Fedex Fl 705, DC10 Hijack.
A disgruntled employee deadheaded on this flight with the intention of hijacking, disabling the crew to achieve that, and then intended to do a kamakaze into Fedex's HQ Building to indicate his disappointment with his employer.
The details of how the crew, despite massive injuries, subdued the hijacker, regained control and the ensuing overweight, overspeed single pilot landing make interesting reading.
The captain's head injuries were such that he now can no longer fly, but he is able to speak to and educate others on his experience.
The flt Engineer also suffered serious wounds, as did the F/O.
Try searching the web on this or read the book "Hijacked" by David Hirschman.
Briefly, the engineer was battered almost unconscious first, ( he had noticed the CVR cb tripped and had reset it a couple of times).
The Captain was next to be attacked (hammer blows to the skull) and at that stage the F/O threw the DC10 into some abrupt manoeuvres including neg G and sudden rolls that threw the assailant to the floor.
The F/E, badly injured, restrained him long enough for the F/O to get out of his seat and over power him. Whilst the assailant was secured the critically injured Captain maintained control until lapsing into unconsciousness and the F/O diverted for an emergency landing at the closest field, arranging for police and medical help to be in attendance.
The aircraft suffered structual damage as a result of the flight manoeuvres and that was a factor in the higher landing speeds required, but landed safely.
I don't think a gun could have helped the crew in this circumstance, the element of surprise was in the hijacker's favour and he had injured all crew members quickly, incl the F/O.
I still feel that something can be learned from the F/O's quick thinking in desperate circumstances and acting in a way that the hijacker did not anticipate.
April 1994, Fedex Fl 705, DC10 Hijack.
A disgruntled employee deadheaded on this flight with the intention of hijacking, disabling the crew to achieve that, and then intended to do a kamakaze into Fedex's HQ Building to indicate his disappointment with his employer.
The details of how the crew, despite massive injuries, subdued the hijacker, regained control and the ensuing overweight, overspeed single pilot landing make interesting reading.
The captain's head injuries were such that he now can no longer fly, but he is able to speak to and educate others on his experience.
The flt Engineer also suffered serious wounds, as did the F/O.
Try searching the web on this or read the book "Hijacked" by David Hirschman.
Briefly, the engineer was battered almost unconscious first, ( he had noticed the CVR cb tripped and had reset it a couple of times).
The Captain was next to be attacked (hammer blows to the skull) and at that stage the F/O threw the DC10 into some abrupt manoeuvres including neg G and sudden rolls that threw the assailant to the floor.
The F/E, badly injured, restrained him long enough for the F/O to get out of his seat and over power him. Whilst the assailant was secured the critically injured Captain maintained control until lapsing into unconsciousness and the F/O diverted for an emergency landing at the closest field, arranging for police and medical help to be in attendance.
The aircraft suffered structual damage as a result of the flight manoeuvres and that was a factor in the higher landing speeds required, but landed safely.
I don't think a gun could have helped the crew in this circumstance, the element of surprise was in the hijacker's favour and he had injured all crew members quickly, incl the F/O.
I still feel that something can be learned from the F/O's quick thinking in desperate circumstances and acting in a way that the hijacker did not anticipate.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 73
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see it now.....a shoot out in the flight deck between the crew and the hijackers. People would be hiding behind panels/seats and bullets would be flying every where....... just like the movies. What a load of American guano! 
On a lighter side with regards to the nude fellow, I remember a story of a very large muscular American on a trans atlantic flight who apparently was going around the cabin nude being a real pest to female pax.
The cabin crew could not control him and nobody wanted to get in his way because of his size. The Flight Engineer was sent down to sort him out with a CO2 fire extinguisher, for those who don't know C02 ext. they have a large discharge horn, make a hell of a noise and leave a deposit of what looks like ice crystals. Well a shot of this and the nude guy became quite controlable!!!
On a lighter side with regards to the nude fellow, I remember a story of a very large muscular American on a trans atlantic flight who apparently was going around the cabin nude being a real pest to female pax.
The cabin crew could not control him and nobody wanted to get in his way because of his size. The Flight Engineer was sent down to sort him out with a CO2 fire extinguisher, for those who don't know C02 ext. they have a large discharge horn, make a hell of a noise and leave a deposit of what looks like ice crystals. Well a shot of this and the nude guy became quite controlable!!!
Last edited by Offchocks; 11th Sep 2002 at 05:35.
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our mob has for years carried .38 pistols in our 737s on certain routes and right where I can easiley get it. Training was extremeley thorough and a competancy check is necessary every 12 months.
Havent fired a round in anger yet but its a nice secure feeling its there if I ever have to use it.
Havent fired a round in anger yet but its a nice secure feeling its there if I ever have to use it.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The nearest white sandy beach
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If pilots wanted to kill a hijacker, all they'd have to do is start talking about 89, the hijacker would immediately suicide.
Pardon the digression.. back to our regular scheduled programming...
SG
Pardon the digression.. back to our regular scheduled programming...
SG
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Offshore somewhere ...
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY CREW MEMBERS
Should flight crew be armed?
Would I shoot 'harmless naked guy' if faced with a cockpit 'invasion'?
Would I sleep well at night?
YES .... YES .... YES
I am not a fan of firearms, I find them deeply concerning but until a more suitable option is 'approved' go with the deadly force and to hell with the poor 'harmless' sad fellow who forgot (or decided not) to take his medication.
Any day you kiss your kids goodnight is a good day gents.
Would I shoot 'harmless naked guy' if faced with a cockpit 'invasion'?
Would I sleep well at night?
YES .... YES .... YES
I am not a fan of firearms, I find them deeply concerning but until a more suitable option is 'approved' go with the deadly force and to hell with the poor 'harmless' sad fellow who forgot (or decided not) to take his medication.
Any day you kiss your kids goodnight is a good day gents.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Improve Gate security
Chinook, I might sound over simplistic here, but wouldn't it be easier to just make it harder to get through security at the gate?
It's kinda like all the air rage that's put down to alcohol consumption....This is a daily occurence but airlines continue to serve alcohol. I don't know any western airline that DOES NOT, yet it's always left to the crew to deal with the inadequacies of the system.
Or, you could relate it to speeding fines. Government says "We'll up the fines, etc". Does speeding reduce? NO.
The government simply increases it's revenue.
NO GUNS. You don't pay me enough to do so.
It's kinda like all the air rage that's put down to alcohol consumption....This is a daily occurence but airlines continue to serve alcohol. I don't know any western airline that DOES NOT, yet it's always left to the crew to deal with the inadequacies of the system.
Or, you could relate it to speeding fines. Government says "We'll up the fines, etc". Does speeding reduce? NO.
The government simply increases it's revenue.
NO GUNS. You don't pay me enough to do so.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are options other than guns.
OK capsicum spray is not on as all aboard would probably end up suffering the effects once the a/c has spread it all around.
Taser guns are one option. They send out 2 electrically connected darts that then discharge a non-lethal disabling charge which would then give you enough time to restrain the guy.
This is not suggested for the benefit of the hijacker/streaker/pain in the ass concerned but for everyone else on board.
1. A gun in the cockpit, either on the pilot or on the aircraft, would be the first target of the potential hijacker. Why smuggle a weapon through security, when all you have to do is steal the one that is already on board.
2. An electrical dart won’t depressurize the aeroplane.
3. If you miss the baddy, and hit Mrs. Smith in 1A, she won’t be happy about an electric shock of several thousand volts, but she would be positively pissed about a 38 slug between the eyes.
There are other options as well. A company called Metal Storm produces a pistol that can only be used by the owner and can be designed to deliver ordnance that is more airliner friendly. Not sure about the details of this one a mate was telling about an article he had read somewhere.
I don’t think I like the idea of sky marshals either I’m afraid. The IQ of some of the rock apes employed by some of the security firms around this country are less than their shoe sizes. I think I prefer not having Whyat Earp with an itchy trigger finger down the back.
OK capsicum spray is not on as all aboard would probably end up suffering the effects once the a/c has spread it all around.
Taser guns are one option. They send out 2 electrically connected darts that then discharge a non-lethal disabling charge which would then give you enough time to restrain the guy.
This is not suggested for the benefit of the hijacker/streaker/pain in the ass concerned but for everyone else on board.
1. A gun in the cockpit, either on the pilot or on the aircraft, would be the first target of the potential hijacker. Why smuggle a weapon through security, when all you have to do is steal the one that is already on board.
2. An electrical dart won’t depressurize the aeroplane.
3. If you miss the baddy, and hit Mrs. Smith in 1A, she won’t be happy about an electric shock of several thousand volts, but she would be positively pissed about a 38 slug between the eyes.
There are other options as well. A company called Metal Storm produces a pistol that can only be used by the owner and can be designed to deliver ordnance that is more airliner friendly. Not sure about the details of this one a mate was telling about an article he had read somewhere.
I don’t think I like the idea of sky marshals either I’m afraid. The IQ of some of the rock apes employed by some of the security firms around this country are less than their shoe sizes. I think I prefer not having Whyat Earp with an itchy trigger finger down the back.
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer a few pvt mssgs I recieved on the subject
* no I cant answer on how we are taught to aim and shoot a hijacker/terrorist and where the gun is and on what routes we carry them on. Youll understand thats strictley Company security info!
* The bullets themselves are hollow and designed to break up into small pieces on impacting the hijacker/terrorist. What comes (if anything) out the back of his/her body or head is only guts. Our aiming rules minimise this possibility anyway
* Engagement rules are VERY VERY strict! No we cant go poppin someone just because hes drunk and wants to open the door at 35000 feet! Six stipulated "events" need to be clearley satisfyed before we are authorised to start blowin away people. Nearest I ever got to was only 3 events.
* Yes certain cockpit doors have ALWAYS been bullet-proof. Score one for commie paranoia.
* no I cant answer on how we are taught to aim and shoot a hijacker/terrorist and where the gun is and on what routes we carry them on. Youll understand thats strictley Company security info!
* The bullets themselves are hollow and designed to break up into small pieces on impacting the hijacker/terrorist. What comes (if anything) out the back of his/her body or head is only guts. Our aiming rules minimise this possibility anyway
* Engagement rules are VERY VERY strict! No we cant go poppin someone just because hes drunk and wants to open the door at 35000 feet! Six stipulated "events" need to be clearley satisfyed before we are authorised to start blowin away people. Nearest I ever got to was only 3 events.
* Yes certain cockpit doors have ALWAYS been bullet-proof. Score one for commie paranoia.
)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a simple way to stop terroists from getting onto the flight deck. Make it a separate compartment, with access only when the aircraft is on the ground through a separate hatch.
Or if you don't want to go that far, install 2 strong doors, bullet proof, with a security camera on the outer one. Someone wants access (eg hostie with food) then the outer door is opened from the flightdeck, the inner door, cannot be opened until the outer door is shut an secure. So if someone else is seen going into the compartment (between the inner and outer doors),with the hostie, then implement the security procedure. (I don't know what this could be, maybe the taser thing or even depressurisation of the compartment)
The compartment can then be used as a holding cell until landing at the nearest point. (In the case of the camera being disabled, then you just don't let anyone in).
Ok sounds a bit over the top, but IMHO it sounds a HELL of a lot better than carrying a firearm of ANY kind on an aircraft.
Or if you don't want to go that far, install 2 strong doors, bullet proof, with a security camera on the outer one. Someone wants access (eg hostie with food) then the outer door is opened from the flightdeck, the inner door, cannot be opened until the outer door is shut an secure. So if someone else is seen going into the compartment (between the inner and outer doors),with the hostie, then implement the security procedure. (I don't know what this could be, maybe the taser thing or even depressurisation of the compartment)
The compartment can then be used as a holding cell until landing at the nearest point. (In the case of the camera being disabled, then you just don't let anyone in).
Ok sounds a bit over the top, but IMHO it sounds a HELL of a lot better than carrying a firearm of ANY kind on an aircraft.