BA Pilots to have stun Guns !!!!!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DouglasD, I'll tell you where all the bleeding heart liberals are - they're marching in London, protesting about the military action in Afghanistan, that's where.
Thinks, didn't see them marching in protest at the terrorist action in NY just after it happened - or did I miss it?
Personally, I would like to see the flt deck AND the cabin staff equipped with stun guns. That would sort out both the terrorist AND the rage incidents in 1 fell swoop
[ 13 October 2001: Message edited by: FJJP ]
Thinks, didn't see them marching in protest at the terrorist action in NY just after it happened - or did I miss it?
Personally, I would like to see the flt deck AND the cabin staff equipped with stun guns. That would sort out both the terrorist AND the rage incidents in 1 fell swoop
[ 13 October 2001: Message edited by: FJJP ]
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Bechuanaland
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steep Approach and bral
To answer your query:
quote below is from: http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimat...1&t=015742&p=4
Managing Editor ASW asked Airbus two weeks ago and was told he'd not be given an answer. The exact same question was copied from the Pprune Tech Forum and asked on Bluecoat. It then went strangely quiet there also. The answer (by judicious inference) is that they would be a very bad idea.
To answer your query:
quote below is from: http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimat...1&t=015742&p=4
Managing Editor ASW asked Airbus two weeks ago and was told he'd not be given an answer. The exact same question was copied from the Pprune Tech Forum and asked on Bluecoat. It then went strangely quiet there also. The answer (by judicious inference) is that they would be a very bad idea.
ask Airbus about stun guns and TASERS and their potential impact ON their FBW aircraft.
I've asked (but not yet gotten an answer from) an electrical engineer who first raised with me the question of the dubious practise (for weight-saving) of using the fuselage as an earth return medium in airliner electrics. In my view it's likely a given that the low-amp high-voltage TASER stun gun would be quite disruptive to sensitive electronics if they were to come in contact with the fuselage skin or any other (which means all) bonded component. Given that 100% bonding is always required in airframe metallic structures, it's hard to predict any definite effect on a particular system - but I would guess that a post-TASER FBW Airbus would be a markedly different proposition to a pre-TASERed one - and the variations wouldn't be along the lines that any of the Airbus systems designers had in mind. Prof Elaine Scarry (of TWA800 theories) could have a field day postulating with the EMI, HIRF and EMP of that proposition.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that you would trip flight-control computers and fry CPU's. LED's (light emitting diodes), LCD's (Liquid Crystal Displays) would be lost permanently so that the actual status of systems would be indeterminate. Pilot's VDU's would probably be lost and basically the "glass" of a glass cockpit would become a dark and empty vessel. Solenoids and relays, being not as sensitive to voltage, would likely continue to do their duty. So you might well end up with a perfectly running vehicle, status unknown due to screen and indicator outages - but with no flight control anyway. That's just my best guess and you'd certainly need that opinion verified by someone who knew what they were talking about.
I've asked (but not yet gotten an answer from) an electrical engineer who first raised with me the question of the dubious practise (for weight-saving) of using the fuselage as an earth return medium in airliner electrics. In my view it's likely a given that the low-amp high-voltage TASER stun gun would be quite disruptive to sensitive electronics if they were to come in contact with the fuselage skin or any other (which means all) bonded component. Given that 100% bonding is always required in airframe metallic structures, it's hard to predict any definite effect on a particular system - but I would guess that a post-TASER FBW Airbus would be a markedly different proposition to a pre-TASERed one - and the variations wouldn't be along the lines that any of the Airbus systems designers had in mind. Prof Elaine Scarry (of TWA800 theories) could have a field day postulating with the EMI, HIRF and EMP of that proposition.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that you would trip flight-control computers and fry CPU's. LED's (light emitting diodes), LCD's (Liquid Crystal Displays) would be lost permanently so that the actual status of systems would be indeterminate. Pilot's VDU's would probably be lost and basically the "glass" of a glass cockpit would become a dark and empty vessel. Solenoids and relays, being not as sensitive to voltage, would likely continue to do their duty. So you might well end up with a perfectly running vehicle, status unknown due to screen and indicator outages - but with no flight control anyway. That's just my best guess and you'd certainly need that opinion verified by someone who knew what they were talking about.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right Bral, they need to be stopped before getting on the airplane. The problem is, that is not a 100% solution. Sometime, somewhere, they will get through. Then what? There needs to be LAYERS of defense.
1. The US needs to control it's borders. It need to severely restrict access from those countries and societies that are hostile. Those who overstay VISAs should be thrown out NEVER to return. Canada needs to control it's borders and it's anything-goes immigration if it wants retain free access to the US.
1. Entrance into the secure airport area. Limit carry-on baggage severely so that it can be x-rayed and hand checked quickly. Checked luggage, x-rayed and perhaps decompressed, a la El Al.
2. The ticket counter. Pax screening. Profiling (dirty word, but, face it, it's middle-eastern/Pakistani/Indonesean/or Phillipino islamic males without accompanied families that are your most likely threat). PC should not come at the cost of lives. Interpol check. Personal interview and screening similar to what some Intl Euro/UK airlines do now. As a condition of carriage, no persons with histories of paranoid psychosis should be allowed on an aircraft. Sorry, you don't have a right to have a tizzy on my aircraft just because you forgot your medication. Airlines should be allowed to maintain a "blacklist" of louts who have caused serious inflight disturbances. These measure would only affect a minicule fraction of people (with the possible exception of UK footballers), but make air travel much more tolerable for the VAST majority.
3. Air marshalls on aircraft.
4. Flight attendants and pilots trained for the new threat.
5. Cabin monitoring devices for the flight deck crew.
6. Cockpit alerting devices for all cabin crew.
7. Hardened cockpit doors.
8. Lethal last-ditch cockpit defense. An automatic pistol with frangible ammunition for cockpit crew, stored as aircraft equipment in quick reaction safes at each pilot position.
It's never just one defense. By the time a terrorist makes it through the cockpit door, if he's met with two shots in the chest and one in the head, that leaves enough for 4 of his buddies, before the Captain has to use his pistol. Without exception, we can NEVER again allow the command of the aircraft to be relinquished. With the above layers, I think we could say we've done as much as humanly possible to defend the aircraft. While some may object to some provisions, I submit that they'd think differently if they were on-board one of the target aircraft on 11 Sep.
[ 14 October 2001: Message edited by: Roadtrip ]
1. The US needs to control it's borders. It need to severely restrict access from those countries and societies that are hostile. Those who overstay VISAs should be thrown out NEVER to return. Canada needs to control it's borders and it's anything-goes immigration if it wants retain free access to the US.
1. Entrance into the secure airport area. Limit carry-on baggage severely so that it can be x-rayed and hand checked quickly. Checked luggage, x-rayed and perhaps decompressed, a la El Al.
2. The ticket counter. Pax screening. Profiling (dirty word, but, face it, it's middle-eastern/Pakistani/Indonesean/or Phillipino islamic males without accompanied families that are your most likely threat). PC should not come at the cost of lives. Interpol check. Personal interview and screening similar to what some Intl Euro/UK airlines do now. As a condition of carriage, no persons with histories of paranoid psychosis should be allowed on an aircraft. Sorry, you don't have a right to have a tizzy on my aircraft just because you forgot your medication. Airlines should be allowed to maintain a "blacklist" of louts who have caused serious inflight disturbances. These measure would only affect a minicule fraction of people (with the possible exception of UK footballers), but make air travel much more tolerable for the VAST majority.
3. Air marshalls on aircraft.
4. Flight attendants and pilots trained for the new threat.
5. Cabin monitoring devices for the flight deck crew.
6. Cockpit alerting devices for all cabin crew.
7. Hardened cockpit doors.
8. Lethal last-ditch cockpit defense. An automatic pistol with frangible ammunition for cockpit crew, stored as aircraft equipment in quick reaction safes at each pilot position.
It's never just one defense. By the time a terrorist makes it through the cockpit door, if he's met with two shots in the chest and one in the head, that leaves enough for 4 of his buddies, before the Captain has to use his pistol. Without exception, we can NEVER again allow the command of the aircraft to be relinquished. With the above layers, I think we could say we've done as much as humanly possible to defend the aircraft. While some may object to some provisions, I submit that they'd think differently if they were on-board one of the target aircraft on 11 Sep.
[ 14 October 2001: Message edited by: Roadtrip ]
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: yes
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Profiling and pax screening is neccessary, after all most potential hijackers will be of a middle eastern appearance. Quite easy to spot really. As for those who cry racism, tough. I'm Irish and like most Irish accompanied males not wearing a suit, I've been searched and questioned many times on UK /Ireland routes. Thanks to the activities of some of my less civilized countrymen. I don't mind too much. Other nationalities need to get used to the idea too and get over their highly developed sensitivities.
On another point I'm still wary of arming pilots with handguns. It might work but there are complications. One scenario is the overreaction to a drunken passenger. Shoot him dead and will manslaughter charges follow?
Then there's the conventional hijack scenario, 'take me to X', which is easily the most likely next situation. A gun battle with the pilots doesn't bear thinking about.
Personally though, I don't believe they can realistically duplicate that the 9/11 attack. It took a lot of training and money to get those b******s to the level where they could actually hit something. That would be hard to do again.
A secure cockpit door is really the best option, if they can't get in they can't take over.
I have to say though, I believe they have shot their bolt. I don't see how they can survive the the pressure on them now. There will be more terrorist attacks but not on the same scale. I think we'll see the sort of low level terrorism we have come to know and love in Europe for years but no more. The current treatment of Afghanistan is an object lesson for other countries in the area.
On another point I'm still wary of arming pilots with handguns. It might work but there are complications. One scenario is the overreaction to a drunken passenger. Shoot him dead and will manslaughter charges follow?
Then there's the conventional hijack scenario, 'take me to X', which is easily the most likely next situation. A gun battle with the pilots doesn't bear thinking about.
Personally though, I don't believe they can realistically duplicate that the 9/11 attack. It took a lot of training and money to get those b******s to the level where they could actually hit something. That would be hard to do again.
A secure cockpit door is really the best option, if they can't get in they can't take over.
I have to say though, I believe they have shot their bolt. I don't see how they can survive the the pressure on them now. There will be more terrorist attacks but not on the same scale. I think we'll see the sort of low level terrorism we have come to know and love in Europe for years but no more. The current treatment of Afghanistan is an object lesson for other countries in the area.
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with you Tripower and Roadtrip. All thispussyfooting around with improved screening procedures to identify passngers who pose a threat is all very well, but when are the Authorities going to recognise that a weapon of last resort will have to be allowed. Will a 747 have to crash into Westminster, (preferrably when the House is sitting to debate foxhunting) before our Government and others realise that if a suicide attack is to be thwarted, then risks will have to be taken. What price the risk to the travelling public, when the fighter has locked on to us with his Sidewinder. Those are the lengths the Governments are prepared to go to, yet they effect a liberal-left knee jerk as soon as you mention guns in the cockpit.
If the 747 is boring in towards your house where your wife and family are living, will you want the pilot to have a degree in psychology and a sweetly reasonable demeanour, or a semi-automatic pistol.
If the 747 is boring in towards your house where your wife and family are living, will you want the pilot to have a degree in psychology and a sweetly reasonable demeanour, or a semi-automatic pistol.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is all very interesting.
GUVNOR! Step forward & do your bit for aviation. Unchain yourself from your sweaty keyboard and volunteer to DERA for Stun gun trials!
I'm sure there will be plenty of voulunteers to pull the trigger...
GUVNOR! Step forward & do your bit for aviation. Unchain yourself from your sweaty keyboard and volunteer to DERA for Stun gun trials!
I'm sure there will be plenty of voulunteers to pull the trigger...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought:
Was the Egyptair 767 crash an Al-Qaeda training flight? Perhaps intended to see how difficult it may be to regain control of a 767 from the fanatic who had just put it into a crash dive?
The CVR tape contained an awful lot if "im sh'allah" (and I apologise for mis-spelling that).
Discuss.........
Was the Egyptair 767 crash an Al-Qaeda training flight? Perhaps intended to see how difficult it may be to regain control of a 767 from the fanatic who had just put it into a crash dive?
The CVR tape contained an awful lot if "im sh'allah" (and I apologise for mis-spelling that).
Discuss.........
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steepclimb -
You're not reading carefully. Armed pilots are for cockpit defense ONLY. NOT for dealing with drunk pax, louts, or idiots, UNLESS they try to break through the cockpit door, then two shots to the torso and one to the head.
As far as the law goes, at least we'll be alive to show up in court.
You're not reading carefully. Armed pilots are for cockpit defense ONLY. NOT for dealing with drunk pax, louts, or idiots, UNLESS they try to break through the cockpit door, then two shots to the torso and one to the head.
As far as the law goes, at least we'll be alive to show up in court.
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Techman wrote on the previous page;
"Sure dont want to be the pax, who in dire need of a leak, tries the wrong door."
Funny enough, that's actually happened with me a couple of months ago. No, the cockpit door was not locked. Usually any cabin crew that wishes to enter will give a 'knock knock' first. One day during the cruise we hear the door suddenly open. The Captain and I look back and are staring at this elderly gentleman who is giving us the same confused expression back. He says nothing and then retreats and closes the door!
The forward toilet is just outside the cockpit but he must have not been able to understand "Authorised Personnel Only" written in bold red with the No Entry sign on the cockpit door. The Leading Attendant must have been busy with meal service and not noticed him go for the wrong door.
"Sure dont want to be the pax, who in dire need of a leak, tries the wrong door."
Funny enough, that's actually happened with me a couple of months ago. No, the cockpit door was not locked. Usually any cabin crew that wishes to enter will give a 'knock knock' first. One day during the cruise we hear the door suddenly open. The Captain and I look back and are staring at this elderly gentleman who is giving us the same confused expression back. He says nothing and then retreats and closes the door!
The forward toilet is just outside the cockpit but he must have not been able to understand "Authorised Personnel Only" written in bold red with the No Entry sign on the cockpit door. The Leading Attendant must have been busy with meal service and not noticed him go for the wrong door.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: yes
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Two in the chest and one in the head'.
Roadtrip, that stuff only happens in movies and possibly with highly trained special forces soldiers.
Pilots are in neither. Try imagining the fraught and highly emotional athmosphere during some form of disturbance, with a drunk/hijacker/mentally deranged individual hammering on the cockpit door. Would you be calm enough to tell the difference and calm enough to ACCURATELY aim and fire a handgun in the cramped confines of a flightdeck without hesitation, knowing that you are about to kill another human being.
That's the reality we would face.
I've had training and current experience with firearms, but I wouldn't be confident.
It's easy to talk sitting here safe at our terminals. There is far too much macho posturing going on.
I still maintain that a locked and barred cockpit door is the best option. Sure a gun would be a good back up, but keeping them out is the best.
Are EL AL pilots armed? If the Israelis never needed to resort to it why should anyone else.
Roadtrip, that stuff only happens in movies and possibly with highly trained special forces soldiers.
Pilots are in neither. Try imagining the fraught and highly emotional athmosphere during some form of disturbance, with a drunk/hijacker/mentally deranged individual hammering on the cockpit door. Would you be calm enough to tell the difference and calm enough to ACCURATELY aim and fire a handgun in the cramped confines of a flightdeck without hesitation, knowing that you are about to kill another human being.
That's the reality we would face.
I've had training and current experience with firearms, but I wouldn't be confident.
It's easy to talk sitting here safe at our terminals. There is far too much macho posturing going on.
I still maintain that a locked and barred cockpit door is the best option. Sure a gun would be a good back up, but keeping them out is the best.
Are EL AL pilots armed? If the Israelis never needed to resort to it why should anyone else.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're still not reading Steepclimb. You need to go back and read, at least, all my posts on this subject. But, if you want to continue to mis-state my position, I guess I can't stop you.
One of the primary parts is not to be surprised. That's what cabin monitoring CCTV, etc and hardened cockpit doors are for -- to give enough time for the pilots to recognize a bad situation developing, form a hasty plan, and execute it, if necessary.
As far as WHO breaks down a cockpit door, that is immaterial. ANYONE who attempts for forceably breach a cockpit door much be considered a suicidal terrorist. To do any less is an deriliction of your responsibility.
Last ditch lethal defense of the cockpit is just that - last-ditch and means behind a hardened cockpit door that can at least give me 10-30 seconds (and hopefully several hours), so as to make lethal force unnecessary. BUT, if the door fails for whatever reason, we CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES RELINQUISH COMMAND OF THE AIRCRAFT. CAN AND WILL I KILL SOMEONE TO PREVENT THAT? ABSOLUTELY. If you don't have the stomach for that, then in light of the current world situation, you need to find another profession so potentially thousands more don't get killed to satisfy your selfish sensibilities.
Can I hit a someone in the chest from 5 feet away. YES . . . . even if I'm excited.
[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: Roadtrip ]
One of the primary parts is not to be surprised. That's what cabin monitoring CCTV, etc and hardened cockpit doors are for -- to give enough time for the pilots to recognize a bad situation developing, form a hasty plan, and execute it, if necessary.
As far as WHO breaks down a cockpit door, that is immaterial. ANYONE who attempts for forceably breach a cockpit door much be considered a suicidal terrorist. To do any less is an deriliction of your responsibility.
Last ditch lethal defense of the cockpit is just that - last-ditch and means behind a hardened cockpit door that can at least give me 10-30 seconds (and hopefully several hours), so as to make lethal force unnecessary. BUT, if the door fails for whatever reason, we CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES RELINQUISH COMMAND OF THE AIRCRAFT. CAN AND WILL I KILL SOMEONE TO PREVENT THAT? ABSOLUTELY. If you don't have the stomach for that, then in light of the current world situation, you need to find another profession so potentially thousands more don't get killed to satisfy your selfish sensibilities.
Can I hit a someone in the chest from 5 feet away. YES . . . . even if I'm excited.
[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: Roadtrip ]
Moderator
Can I hit a someone in the chest from 5 feet away. YES . . . . even if I'm excited.
[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: Tripower455 ]
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Philadelphia (UK expat)
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roadtrip
Have you ever done it? If not, how do you know?
Forget your target shooting ability, which I'm sure is superb. No one knows how they're going to respond in a situation like this - I don't care how macho you think you are. That's why soldiers spend so much time practising - so that it becomes second nature to them and they don't have to think about it. Have you had special forces training? If not, then I don't think you should be so confident.
I think you're confusing a natural desire to take your anger out on some terorist who comes barging into your cockpit with an actual ability to do so.
Just entertain the possibility for a moment that you are wrong, and at the critical moment, you hesitate. You have just multiplied the danger to your passengers and God knows how many people on the ground a hundred times. You had better be damn sure of yourself if you're going to take that kind of risk.
[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: Covenant ]
Can I hit a someone in the chest from 5 feet away. YES . . . . even if I'm excited
Forget your target shooting ability, which I'm sure is superb. No one knows how they're going to respond in a situation like this - I don't care how macho you think you are. That's why soldiers spend so much time practising - so that it becomes second nature to them and they don't have to think about it. Have you had special forces training? If not, then I don't think you should be so confident.
I think you're confusing a natural desire to take your anger out on some terorist who comes barging into your cockpit with an actual ability to do so.
Just entertain the possibility for a moment that you are wrong, and at the critical moment, you hesitate. You have just multiplied the danger to your passengers and God knows how many people on the ground a hundred times. You had better be damn sure of yourself if you're going to take that kind of risk.
[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: Covenant ]
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Best seat in the house
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be honest now!
How many of us would not be tempted to "stun" the odd dispatcher/handling Agent/Caterer/abusive passenger/crew member... etc After a long day I would prefer a water pistol, far more fun, and only damage is their pride
How many of us would not be tempted to "stun" the odd dispatcher/handling Agent/Caterer/abusive passenger/crew member... etc After a long day I would prefer a water pistol, far more fun, and only damage is their pride
Moderator
Just entertain the possibility for a moment that you are wrong, and at the critical moment, you hesitate. You have just multiplied the danger to your passengers and God knows how many people on the ground a hundred times. You had better be damn sure of yourself if you're going to take that kind of risk.
I will put this in VERY SIMPLE TERMS.........
If the terrorist gets into the cockpit (however remote the chance, with all of the enhanced security
! ), the ONLY reasonable chance that I have of preventing him from taking command of the aircraft is with a repeating firearm. Dumping the cabin, dangerous aerobatics etc. are much less effective (even if you had time to pull the pax O2 breakers, don the masks, dump the cabin and wait for it to decomress!). Many more people will be injured when I try to "G" the terr. off his feet! How many people actually WEAR their seatbelts in the aircraft?Once the terrorist has the airplane, the passengers (and God who knows how many office workers) are now 1000% more risk than if Mr. Terrorist is lying on the galley floor.
The argument that we aren't "special forces" is even MORE ridiculous........A firearm is a SIMPLE TOOL! Much simpler than almost any system that we deal with on the airplane, and a lot simpler to use EFFECTIVELY in the cockpit than the crash axe or stun gun! The tactics required to use one safely in this instance are not very complicated. There is a VERY small area that Mr. Terrorist must pass through in order to take MY airplane from me. With the PROPER weapon, it is really not that big a deal to hit a man sized target from 5 feet away. There is a company that makes laser sights that fit into the recoil spring guides of semi auto pistols. It is simply a matter of pulling the gun from it's holster, hitting the switch (which is part of the takedown lever, on the Glocks), placing the red dot on Mr. Terrorist's chest, and pulling the trigger. This process will require about HALF the training needed to deal with a V-1 cut. If you are worried about the weapon being taken away, there are devices that make it impossible for anyone but the wearer of a special ring to fire the weapon.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Over The Hills And Far Away
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that there are some who just can't wait to demonstrate their superior skills in the use of handguns.
As somebody probably already have stated, there are three lines of defense, 1. prevent the hijacker from boarding, 2. prevent the hijacker from entering the cockpit and 3. prevent the highjacker from taking over the controls.
If the hijacker manages to board a flight, it will be very easy to prevent him/her or them from gaining access the cockpit.
It does not take a lot of time, effort or money to design, manufactur and install a cockpitdoor, that could only be breached from the outside if explosives were used.
So point no 2 and 3 should be seen as one.
But of course that does nothing for ones ego.
As somebody probably already have stated, there are three lines of defense, 1. prevent the hijacker from boarding, 2. prevent the hijacker from entering the cockpit and 3. prevent the highjacker from taking over the controls.
If the hijacker manages to board a flight, it will be very easy to prevent him/her or them from gaining access the cockpit.
It does not take a lot of time, effort or money to design, manufactur and install a cockpitdoor, that could only be breached from the outside if explosives were used.
So point no 2 and 3 should be seen as one.
But of course that does nothing for ones ego.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Philadelphia (UK expat)
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tripower
You're wrong. I have thought this through very carefully. It is you who have failed to think it through. You think that possession of a firearm will make you invincible. You think that the only training you need to use a weapon against someone is purely mechanical. I'm not saying that guns are complicated pieces of equipment, I'm saying that I don't trust you, or anyone else who hasn't had years of experience, to use the gun properly and effectively in a situation where my life depends on it.
To use an analogy, the equivalent is to suppose that simply understanding how to use the flight controls means that you will know exactly what to do and when to do it when something unexpected happens to your aircraft. No. You learn that by long hours of training and experience, so that when you lose an engine during take-off roll, or experience a strong sidewind gust on short finals, you immediately take the right action; you've done it so many times (even of only on the simulator) that it is second nature. In a similar way, close-quarter combat with firearms is not something that anyone has a natural ability for; it requires long continuous and ongoing training.
Besides all that, you also fail to grasp the practicalities of your scenario. No authority will countenance the existence of a loaded (round in chamber), unsafe weapon just hanging around in the cockpit. Not the law-enforcement and certainly not the FAA. So, if you do happen to get your wish, you will probably have some kind of handgun, with a full magazine, safely locked in a cupboard with the chamber empty and the safety catch on. There is absolutely no guarantee whatosever that you will have either the time or the presence of mind to make that weapon useful before Mr Terrorist gets to you and gets possession of it.
It seems completely ludicrous to me that we should be spending so much resources on making sure that absolutely nothing of any shape or form whatsoever that even slightly resembles a weapon - even dinner knives - gets on an aeroplane, and then go and plant a handgun with ammunition right there on the plane where everyone knows it's going to be! It's so stupid it makes my head spin.
[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: Covenant ]
You're wrong. I have thought this through very carefully. It is you who have failed to think it through. You think that possession of a firearm will make you invincible. You think that the only training you need to use a weapon against someone is purely mechanical. I'm not saying that guns are complicated pieces of equipment, I'm saying that I don't trust you, or anyone else who hasn't had years of experience, to use the gun properly and effectively in a situation where my life depends on it.
To use an analogy, the equivalent is to suppose that simply understanding how to use the flight controls means that you will know exactly what to do and when to do it when something unexpected happens to your aircraft. No. You learn that by long hours of training and experience, so that when you lose an engine during take-off roll, or experience a strong sidewind gust on short finals, you immediately take the right action; you've done it so many times (even of only on the simulator) that it is second nature. In a similar way, close-quarter combat with firearms is not something that anyone has a natural ability for; it requires long continuous and ongoing training.
Besides all that, you also fail to grasp the practicalities of your scenario. No authority will countenance the existence of a loaded (round in chamber), unsafe weapon just hanging around in the cockpit. Not the law-enforcement and certainly not the FAA. So, if you do happen to get your wish, you will probably have some kind of handgun, with a full magazine, safely locked in a cupboard with the chamber empty and the safety catch on. There is absolutely no guarantee whatosever that you will have either the time or the presence of mind to make that weapon useful before Mr Terrorist gets to you and gets possession of it.
It seems completely ludicrous to me that we should be spending so much resources on making sure that absolutely nothing of any shape or form whatsoever that even slightly resembles a weapon - even dinner knives - gets on an aeroplane, and then go and plant a handgun with ammunition right there on the plane where everyone knows it's going to be! It's so stupid it makes my head spin.
[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: Covenant ]
Moderator
It seems to me that there are some who just can't wait to demonstrate their superior skills in the use of handguns.
I have been authorized to carry a handgun in public for almost 20 years. My "ego" has never made me "demonstrate my superior skills with a handgun". I can tell you, FROM FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE, that effectively using one in daily life requires much more training, judgement and mindset than would be required in the cockpit. I volunteer to be the "bad guy" in tactical simulations for the local PD. We fire "simunition" from real guns. We do MANY different tactical exercises, and I can tell you, that sitting in a car has many more tactical pitfalls than sitting in a cockpit. There have been as many dead cops in these scenarios as dead bad guys.
There is ONLY ONE SCENARIO WHERE A GUN WOULD BE USED in the airplane!!!! It is not there to calm angry drunks. It is not there to settle disputes among the cabin crew. It is not there to bolster anyones "ego" and most importantly, right now it is NOT THERE TO PROTECT AGAINST HIJACKERS! The single most effective measure that we could have taken immediately after 9/11, to prevent this from happening again, would be to arm any pilots that had prior military or law enforcement training. As soon as the details could be worked out, train and arm the civilians that choose to do so.
Real cockpit doors are years away, and as far as security goes, the exact same folks that LET THESE GUYS ON THE AIRCRAFT are still on the job, only with a fat raise! Right now we are sitting ducks.
As somebody probably already have stated, there are three lines of defense, 1. prevent the hijacker from boarding, 2. prevent the hijacker from entering the cockpit and 3. prevent the highjacker from taking over the controls.
If the hijacker manages to board a flight, it will be very easy to prevent him/her or them from gaining access the cockpit.
It does not take a lot of time, effort or money to design, manufactur and install a cockpitdoor, that could only be breached from the outside if explosives were used.
It does not take a lot of time, effort or money to design, manufactur and install a cockpitdoor, that could only be breached from the outside if explosives were used.
No matter what we do prior to boarding the aircraft, they will find a way into the cockpit. That is what they do!
So point no 2 and 3 should be seen as one.
But of course that does nothing for ones ego.
But of course that does nothing for ones ego.
Ego and practicality are NOT one and the same.
Say, for example, some terr got by your super door, and your family were in the back of the plane, and were headed for the office building that you worked in. Would you want the pilot of that aircraft to have a last ditch weapon, or would you be comforted knowing that your family was blown up by a sidewinder fired by a "friendly" fighter (assuming that they got there in time.....if not, then you wouldn't have any TIME for comfort, since you'd likely be lost too.) so as not to compromise your principles?
Arming pilots with stun guns is the perfect example of eyewash over practicality. It might help some pilot's ego to have this "weapon" in the cockpit. However, when looked at in a PRACTICAL light, it is worse than nothing. It is a contact weapon. Using a stun gun effectively against ONE attacker, when you are standing up facing him requires infinitely more training than simply using a laser sighted pistol while sitting in the seat. When seated, a stun gun will merely be taken away from you. The crash axe is much more effective than a stun gun (It is lethal, IF used correctly), but has the same limitations (you need to be facing the attacker, standing up to have any chance of using it effectively!)
The bottom line is: If the powers that be really want to prevent civilian airliners from becoming cruise missiles, they need to arm pilots as a last resort.