ALPA to Ask for Cockpit Guns - CNN
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Anchorage,Alaska, USA
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I was reading AVIATTER'S comments my mind was racing for a reply, But it looks like TRIPOWER455 pretty much sumed it up perfectly, Thank you!!! It was exactly what I was thinking!!!!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
We are focusing too much on the terrorists that want to take control of our aircraft and use them as a missile. What about the other possibilities?
Are you going to sit behind your nice armoured cockpit door while these people do something which will cause loss of the aircraft and passengers? (Possibilities not mentionable in print). All the armour in the World will not protect you from the 35,000 foot fall. At some point you may have to decide "If I do not do something we are all certainly going to die, so therefore I am going back to try and DO SOMETHING to prevent the otherwise inevitable". To do anything useful you need to possess superior force. If anyone objects to the carriage of firearms or is afraid of their own capability to use a firearm no-one is going to force them to so. Somehow, threatening a terrorist that you will have a policeman meet the aircraft on arrival at the gate just does not seem to cut it.
ARM THE PILOTS
____________________________
It's not the falling that hurts etc. etc.
Are you going to sit behind your nice armoured cockpit door while these people do something which will cause loss of the aircraft and passengers? (Possibilities not mentionable in print). All the armour in the World will not protect you from the 35,000 foot fall. At some point you may have to decide "If I do not do something we are all certainly going to die, so therefore I am going back to try and DO SOMETHING to prevent the otherwise inevitable". To do anything useful you need to possess superior force. If anyone objects to the carriage of firearms or is afraid of their own capability to use a firearm no-one is going to force them to so. Somehow, threatening a terrorist that you will have a policeman meet the aircraft on arrival at the gate just does not seem to cut it.
ARM THE PILOTS
____________________________
It's not the falling that hurts etc. etc.
If nothing else, a gun on the flight deck will solve any CRM conflicts.
Guest
Posts: n/a
What about some type of quick acting gas that can be set off in the cockpit which disables all in the cabin.
Reinforce the cockpit door so that it takes time to enter, at the first sign of trouble the pilots don oxygen masks and hit the switch.
I know it would be traumatic for PAX, yet i think they would rather wake up from that then the possible alternatives.
Reinforce the cockpit door so that it takes time to enter, at the first sign of trouble the pilots don oxygen masks and hit the switch.
I know it would be traumatic for PAX, yet i think they would rather wake up from that then the possible alternatives.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and the next brilliant idea for the "last line of defense" will be that you wear those guns in a belt...
Congratulations, but this is insane folks. Execpt that CRM implication maybe..
Congratulations, but this is insane folks. Execpt that CRM implication maybe..
Guns are NOT the answer, if you have them on board you have saved the terrorist/hijacker his most difficult job, getting a weapon on board.
What the US pilot associations need to do is ensure proper security is enforced at US Airports, i keep hearing that even since the events of the 11th September, it is still appalling at most airports. Our US cousins should see what its like over here, very7 tight..
What the US pilot associations need to do is ensure proper security is enforced at US Airports, i keep hearing that even since the events of the 11th September, it is still appalling at most airports. Our US cousins should see what its like over here, very7 tight..
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because a few lunatics commit an insane act does not mean the world has gone insane.Guns on the flight deck?.It sadly seems to be a groundswell of opinion from the good ole Yoo-ess who are shouting for this.Just as the Americans are incapable or unwilling to examine the reasons why they are so hated by some they are blind to this insane love affair with guns they seem to have.Anyone who has ever picked up a firearm will concede that they have a strange and compelling attraction.They feel good at a instinctive level and we want one.Unfortunately a few people then start dreaming up tenuous arguments for actualy being allowed to carry one.Ditching your float plane in Alaska and being attacked by a bear is probably about the closest thing to a good reason you will get.Wipping out your Glock and whuppin' Abdul's ass is really just insane "yee har!" good ole boy fantasy and is the type of stuff that many outside the US find a bit scary.I dont want to start a Yank bashing thread but I'm afraid the time has come for you guys to do some serious navel gazing and figure out just why some people hate you to the extent that they commit these insane acts.Stop trotting out rhetoric about them hating freedom and democracy etc and wake up to the real and tangible grievacies that many people have.If you remove these reasons you will really have tackled terrorism.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However practical a gun in cockpit sounds it is not the answer. Re-enforced doors, video cameras and the like are the way to go. The amount of initial and ongoing weapons training involved would be huge. Remember you are teaching the trainee how to KILL not just how to shoot and weapons safety.A well constructed Kevlar door, lock and bulkhead sealing off the cockpit will stop even a galley cart rammed at it. Plenty of time to carry out procedures to incapacitate the hijackers and passengers.
I must agree whole-heartly with Homer etc. Yes Americans have been savagely attacked and our simpathy should be with them but there are underlying causes why these people hate and fear Americans, and it has little to do with how free and democratic America is.
[ 25 September 2001: Message edited by: Qflte ]
I must agree whole-heartly with Homer etc. Yes Americans have been savagely attacked and our simpathy should be with them but there are underlying causes why these people hate and fear Americans, and it has little to do with how free and democratic America is.
[ 25 September 2001: Message edited by: Qflte ]
Moderator
Tripower455,
You are wrong!! Read my statement. People killed by guns in their own homes are more likely to have been killed by their own gun than one that an intruder brought with them. Check your facts!!
You are wrong!! Read my statement. People killed by guns in their own homes are more likely to have been killed by their own gun than one that an intruder brought with them. Check your facts!!
Give me a relevant source for your facts. You are simply misinformed.
And this does have reference to the cockpit. Do you really think that two pilots are going to be able to keep control of that weapon when their are five or more terrorists on the plane. Give me a break.
Just because a few lunatics commit an insane act does not mean the world has gone insane.Guns on the flight deck?.
It sadly seems to be a groundswell of opinion from the good ole Yoo-ess who are shouting for this.
Just as the Americans are incapable or unwilling to examine the reasons why they are so hated by some they are blind to this insane love affair with guns they seem to have.
Anyone who has ever picked up a firearm will concede that they have a strange and compelling attraction.
They feel good at a instinctive level and we want one.
Unfortunately a few people then start dreaming up tenuous arguments for actualy being allowed to carry one.
Ditching your float plane in Alaska and being attacked by a bear is probably about the closest thing to a good reason you will get.Wipping out your Glock and whuppin' Abdul's ass is really just insane "yee har!" good ole boy fantasy and is the type of stuff that many outside the US find a bit scary.
I dont want to start a Yank bashing thread but I'm afraid the time has come for you guys to do some serious navel gazing and figure out just why some people hate you to the extent that they commit these insane acts.
Stop trotting out rhetoric about them hating freedom and democracy etc and wake up to the real and tangible grievacies that many people have.If you remove these reasons you will really have tackled terrorism.
We CAN be accused of being short sighted when we sent arms to the Afghani's........It seems that the Taliban has no problem biting the hand that fed it. Our mistake was that we projected HUMAN emotions and logic on a bunch of animals.
If you are even remotely suggesting that those animals were even SLIGHTLY justified in commandeering 4 civilian airliners and KILLING 5000+ of MY fellow CIVILIAN countymen, then you are, with all DUE respect, AN IDIOT! What "tangible grievances" could a bunch of religious zealots have with 5000 stockbrokers and secretaries.......PLEASE!
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: LTN
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tripower
You are clearly an ***** - hope you enjoy being dumb or did you take all those quotes out of context on purpose.
Whatever - could you let us know what airline you fly for so that I can ensure that I NEVER end up sitting on a plane you are in the cockpit of ?
[ 25 September 2001: Message edited by: bobtoldmetodoit ]
You are clearly an ***** - hope you enjoy being dumb or did you take all those quotes out of context on purpose.
Whatever - could you let us know what airline you fly for so that I can ensure that I NEVER end up sitting on a plane you are in the cockpit of ?
[ 25 September 2001: Message edited by: bobtoldmetodoit ]
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys guys..(and ladies..)
I think some of you are getting too over-focused on some aspects of this issue.
Let's make some attempt to encourage our authorities to work out a plan of action rather than get over-emotional about the opinions about guns and weapons.
First..do we have an international security crisis here...YES
Are we trying to prevent ourselves from being killed by suicide hijackers..YES.
Ok..so..some people want guns, some want marshal, some want zappers, some want the cabin crew to be armed, some want armed doors, and others want pepper spray..others want to do nothing and rely on the ground staff to keep us alive. Each suggestion has very strong opinion both in favour and also against....and for good reason. Now let's stop for a minute and look into the history of aviation. Has it ever been safe? Didn't people protest both for and against virtually every safety measure that's ever been pioneered in flying, including the introduction of Glass cockpits..."Not real instrument flying, " they said. "It'll cause eyesight problems, cataracts etc"
"Fly-by-wire?...must be dangerous...not in full control.."
And the introduction of CRM invited cries of, "It'll never work, it's no use...you won't catch ME doing that..." etc.
Now we have a new debate. And while people are still working to improve every other aspect of aviation that's ever been tried, this is one that will continually be amended, and it's not going to be as simple as merely "arming pilots" or whatever.
Pepper sprays, electronic stun guns are things I have no knowledge of, but there must be ways of activating such defences via devices on the cabin side of the (locked) cockpit door to intruders trying to get in (as seen by pilots via small camera in appropriate cabin location.)
Guns in cockpit? Well, without getting into the "Rambo" and "last resort" aspects of the argument,the fact is that it's possible to regulate ammunition such that it would have man-flattening ability ability without peircing the aircraft skin. (Ok, perhaps windows should be strengthened)
And as for leaving gun as part of flight-deck equipment...personally I believe (as an ex-gun owner prior to the British Ban) a handgun should "fit" it's owner for best results as we all have different sizes and shapes of hand etc. Then each owner would be responsible for making damn sure they never leave it in cockpit. This was part of the responsibility for gun owners when they were legal.
Ok, so not everyone wants to own a gun, and perhaps some characters (even professionals) would be not of "suitable character" to own such things, so nobody should be forced to have them if they don't want.
Also, what security measures would work well in one aircraft probably wouldn't work so well in the confined spaces/layout of another aircraft. And let's not forget our single-crew colleagues who are no less responsible just because they fly small but-hijackable aircraft like crop dusters, training aircraft, survay aircraft etc.operating out of smaller airfields which don't have the security screening capabilities of larger airports.
So what are we going to do?
Well, somehow the authorities and airlines will have to agree on a minimum security level per airline/operation/aircraft type, and allow the airlines and their pilots some sort of flexibility about what sort of defence technique they'd like to employ.
Pilots would be able to carry with them a choice of security measures...perhaps a combination of those already mentioned.
Nobody needs to know what that combination is. So a would-be hijacker doesn't know that on any one flight there may be a Captain with gun, an armoured door, a co-pilot with spray, a steward with a zapper, and probably a marshal (or other airline employee) on board with another device, or a blackbelt in Ramboism. Perhaps a combination of all.
So does the hijacker carry a gas mask, or a bullet proof vest,or a gun, or an electrically insulated space-suit, or metal cutters, or all of the above?
It's really going to be a pain for hijackers to plan an attack with any guarantee of success.
As for the gus debate. Some people are under the impression that only qualified ex-military people are appropriate to carry them. What a load of utter nonsense.!!!!
Have individual applicants properly vetted by police, insist upon proper training, not just in use, but in all aspects of gun safety, regular recurrent training, etc and stop trying to tell me that we aren't responsible people. Remember that the general idea here is not to actually play at "Rambo tough guy" and shoot people, but to creat a deterrent. If a professional hijacker still manages to get into the cockpit and get that gun of me for the purpose of a suicide dive, then I was going to die anyway!
And let's not use the tragedy of the Dunblane be an excuse to say that "one nutter will manage to get a licence like the guy who shot the kids". Let the police learn from that lesson to impose more stringent vetting. It was already known that he was a weirdo but our laws at that time weren't sufficient to stop him. This is different. And this time we're talking about educated responsible individuals.
I have myself been in a situation where I've used my semi-automatic pistol for a life-threatening paction of self-defence. I'm NOT Rambo-tough-guy...never tried to be. And I wasn't all cool and unafraid like the actors in the movies. I was absolutely f***ing terrified and trembling for about 2 hours afterwards, but I had been given military and police training for the situation...one which had a happy ending with nobody getting hurt. It's not just a question of becoming John Wayne...like flying, even these situations have procedures. And in my moment of need, my gun was a huge comfort to me, one which at the time I would have paid any amount of money for.
So please folks, let's treat this debate with an open-mind. I don't want to see aircrews suddenly being given all sorts of equipment without rigorous training. But treated sensibly, and distributed sensibly, this might save a lot of lives.
May all your landings be intentional.
I think some of you are getting too over-focused on some aspects of this issue.
Let's make some attempt to encourage our authorities to work out a plan of action rather than get over-emotional about the opinions about guns and weapons.
First..do we have an international security crisis here...YES
Are we trying to prevent ourselves from being killed by suicide hijackers..YES.
Ok..so..some people want guns, some want marshal, some want zappers, some want the cabin crew to be armed, some want armed doors, and others want pepper spray..others want to do nothing and rely on the ground staff to keep us alive. Each suggestion has very strong opinion both in favour and also against....and for good reason. Now let's stop for a minute and look into the history of aviation. Has it ever been safe? Didn't people protest both for and against virtually every safety measure that's ever been pioneered in flying, including the introduction of Glass cockpits..."Not real instrument flying, " they said. "It'll cause eyesight problems, cataracts etc"
"Fly-by-wire?...must be dangerous...not in full control.."
And the introduction of CRM invited cries of, "It'll never work, it's no use...you won't catch ME doing that..." etc.
Now we have a new debate. And while people are still working to improve every other aspect of aviation that's ever been tried, this is one that will continually be amended, and it's not going to be as simple as merely "arming pilots" or whatever.
Pepper sprays, electronic stun guns are things I have no knowledge of, but there must be ways of activating such defences via devices on the cabin side of the (locked) cockpit door to intruders trying to get in (as seen by pilots via small camera in appropriate cabin location.)
Guns in cockpit? Well, without getting into the "Rambo" and "last resort" aspects of the argument,the fact is that it's possible to regulate ammunition such that it would have man-flattening ability ability without peircing the aircraft skin. (Ok, perhaps windows should be strengthened)
And as for leaving gun as part of flight-deck equipment...personally I believe (as an ex-gun owner prior to the British Ban) a handgun should "fit" it's owner for best results as we all have different sizes and shapes of hand etc. Then each owner would be responsible for making damn sure they never leave it in cockpit. This was part of the responsibility for gun owners when they were legal.
Ok, so not everyone wants to own a gun, and perhaps some characters (even professionals) would be not of "suitable character" to own such things, so nobody should be forced to have them if they don't want.
Also, what security measures would work well in one aircraft probably wouldn't work so well in the confined spaces/layout of another aircraft. And let's not forget our single-crew colleagues who are no less responsible just because they fly small but-hijackable aircraft like crop dusters, training aircraft, survay aircraft etc.operating out of smaller airfields which don't have the security screening capabilities of larger airports.
So what are we going to do?
Well, somehow the authorities and airlines will have to agree on a minimum security level per airline/operation/aircraft type, and allow the airlines and their pilots some sort of flexibility about what sort of defence technique they'd like to employ.
Pilots would be able to carry with them a choice of security measures...perhaps a combination of those already mentioned.
Nobody needs to know what that combination is. So a would-be hijacker doesn't know that on any one flight there may be a Captain with gun, an armoured door, a co-pilot with spray, a steward with a zapper, and probably a marshal (or other airline employee) on board with another device, or a blackbelt in Ramboism. Perhaps a combination of all.
So does the hijacker carry a gas mask, or a bullet proof vest,or a gun, or an electrically insulated space-suit, or metal cutters, or all of the above?
It's really going to be a pain for hijackers to plan an attack with any guarantee of success.
As for the gus debate. Some people are under the impression that only qualified ex-military people are appropriate to carry them. What a load of utter nonsense.!!!!
Have individual applicants properly vetted by police, insist upon proper training, not just in use, but in all aspects of gun safety, regular recurrent training, etc and stop trying to tell me that we aren't responsible people. Remember that the general idea here is not to actually play at "Rambo tough guy" and shoot people, but to creat a deterrent. If a professional hijacker still manages to get into the cockpit and get that gun of me for the purpose of a suicide dive, then I was going to die anyway!
And let's not use the tragedy of the Dunblane be an excuse to say that "one nutter will manage to get a licence like the guy who shot the kids". Let the police learn from that lesson to impose more stringent vetting. It was already known that he was a weirdo but our laws at that time weren't sufficient to stop him. This is different. And this time we're talking about educated responsible individuals.
I have myself been in a situation where I've used my semi-automatic pistol for a life-threatening paction of self-defence. I'm NOT Rambo-tough-guy...never tried to be. And I wasn't all cool and unafraid like the actors in the movies. I was absolutely f***ing terrified and trembling for about 2 hours afterwards, but I had been given military and police training for the situation...one which had a happy ending with nobody getting hurt. It's not just a question of becoming John Wayne...like flying, even these situations have procedures. And in my moment of need, my gun was a huge comfort to me, one which at the time I would have paid any amount of money for.
So please folks, let's treat this debate with an open-mind. I don't want to see aircrews suddenly being given all sorts of equipment without rigorous training. But treated sensibly, and distributed sensibly, this might save a lot of lives.
May all your landings be intentional.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviatr:
That's simply incorrect. What you are probably referring to is the article by Arthur Kellerman, claiming that a person was 43 times more likely to be killed by a gun in their home than to use that gun to kill an intruder. In particular, he said that: "for every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides and 37 suicides involving firearms."
That study itself has been greatly criticized in the academic world, and Kellerman himself has admitted it is flawed in that: "Studies such as ours do not include cases in which intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm...." Kellerman has since issued a followup paper, reducing the odds to 4:1, but still hasn't addressed many of his critics.
Regardless of how you feel about the Kellerman study as a whole, it never discussed disarming. In fact, if you check the US FBI Uniform Crime Reports, you will see that the safest way to respond to an attempted armed robbery is to draw your own gun. Persons who did so were less likely to die or be injured than those who complied or tried to fight without a weapon.
I've studied handgun retention and disarming, using a system taught to many US police officers. Disarming is certainly a threat, but it is quite risky (to the person attempting the disarm) and can be countered.
OFBSLF
Massachusetts State Police Certified Firearms Safety Instructor
That's simply incorrect. What you are probably referring to is the article by Arthur Kellerman, claiming that a person was 43 times more likely to be killed by a gun in their home than to use that gun to kill an intruder. In particular, he said that: "for every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides and 37 suicides involving firearms."
That study itself has been greatly criticized in the academic world, and Kellerman himself has admitted it is flawed in that: "Studies such as ours do not include cases in which intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm...." Kellerman has since issued a followup paper, reducing the odds to 4:1, but still hasn't addressed many of his critics.
Regardless of how you feel about the Kellerman study as a whole, it never discussed disarming. In fact, if you check the US FBI Uniform Crime Reports, you will see that the safest way to respond to an attempted armed robbery is to draw your own gun. Persons who did so were less likely to die or be injured than those who complied or tried to fight without a weapon.
I've studied handgun retention and disarming, using a system taught to many US police officers. Disarming is certainly a threat, but it is quite risky (to the person attempting the disarm) and can be countered.
OFBSLF
Massachusetts State Police Certified Firearms Safety Instructor
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding OC (pepper) spray and stun guns, sorry but I don't think they're practical. OC spray takes some time to work and a determined individual can fight through it. A small percentage aren't effected by it at all. A bigger concern is that discharging OC spray in the aircraft would effect everyone on board. The pilots had better get their masks on. I have been trained in the use of OC spray and have experienced it myself. OC spray is meant to be used at a distance (5-15 feet or so, depending on the type). It's not much use when grappling with a knife wielding attacker.
Stun guns just aren't very effective. They have to be held onto the person for a number of seconds (hard to do when the terrorist is slicing away at you with box cutter). I've been hit with a stun gun during training and wasn't very impressed.
OFBLSF
Stun guns just aren't very effective. They have to be held onto the person for a number of seconds (hard to do when the terrorist is slicing away at you with box cutter). I've been hit with a stun gun during training and wasn't very impressed.
OFBLSF
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OFBLSF
Thanks for comment there..
Like I said, I've never had any experience with sprays or stunners, but it's good to get comments from guys like yourself who actually know a bit about what we're talking about here.
Thanks for comment there..
Like I said, I've never had any experience with sprays or stunners, but it's good to get comments from guys like yourself who actually know a bit about what we're talking about here.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots are busy enough flying airplanes. To make pilots an extension of law enforcement is impractical reality.
There are larger implications about gun toting pilots: How and where to store loaded weapons in hotels during layovers; how to carry loaded weapons in transport to and from hotels; pilots with loaded guns in foreign countries, what are the legal implications? For armed pilots to carry loaded guns between airports and hotels in foreign countries will require bilateral Interpol agreements.
I doubt that this cowboy pilot mentality will be accepted by U.S. lawmakers, nor by the international community.
Yes, I am one airline pilot who believes that the answer is: Reinforced cockpit bulkheads with steel doors, heavy locks and revised inflight security training. Closed circuit video camera in front of cockpit door. New passenger awarness would include a taylored preflight security briefing for them as well. Since Sept 11th the mind set of passenger awareness has changed. It's highly unlikely now that passengers would sit idle during any air rage or hijack attempt.
There are larger implications about gun toting pilots: How and where to store loaded weapons in hotels during layovers; how to carry loaded weapons in transport to and from hotels; pilots with loaded guns in foreign countries, what are the legal implications? For armed pilots to carry loaded guns between airports and hotels in foreign countries will require bilateral Interpol agreements.
I doubt that this cowboy pilot mentality will be accepted by U.S. lawmakers, nor by the international community.
Yes, I am one airline pilot who believes that the answer is: Reinforced cockpit bulkheads with steel doors, heavy locks and revised inflight security training. Closed circuit video camera in front of cockpit door. New passenger awarness would include a taylored preflight security briefing for them as well. Since Sept 11th the mind set of passenger awareness has changed. It's highly unlikely now that passengers would sit idle during any air rage or hijack attempt.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I spent a large number of years in the real wild, wild west - Africa, and throughout that time I carried my SIG P226 24/7 and depending on what I was doing would have one or other of my weapons - an HK53, MP5K and a Sites Spectre - on or close to me most of the time.
In the mid 80s, Nigeria - where we were nominally based - was effectively lawless. As a Nigerian flagged airline, we could not get credit for fuel, handling, landing etc and that, coupled with our habit of buying our own (usually perishable) cargoes for return flights meant that our crews would be carrying very large sums of money. The local 'rogues' were well aware of this, and as a result our crews along with those of other airlines were targetted.
I was personally involved in a couple of firefights which I can assure anyone who has never had the experience of being under fire is definitely something you want to have on your 'must miss' list. In addition, to know that you have taken someone's life perhaps microseconds ahead of them taking yours is a gutwrenching experience.
In order to remain competent with my firearms, I must have spent thousands of dollars on many tens of thousands of rounds on target practice at least twice a week. Practicing as well being able to draw my SIG in a variety of situations and positions. Stripping and cleaning all of the weapons on a daily basis. Driving around town with my SIG under my thigh, and the MP5 on the seat next to me, covered by a newspaper.
Having a firearm is a whole different way of life. It's not something that you can simply have as a piece of kit; an item on a checklist: "Cabin secure; seatbelts on; S&W 38s loaded and safety on..." - it's a mindset. In order to be fully effective, you need to be carrying 24/7 so that you feel naked without it and of course that's just not practical here in the UK (or most other places) for your average airline pilot.
And think of the paperwork. We had piles and piles of the stuff - consents from the Nigerian CAA; special customs forms, declarations, licences ... Add to that the practice and training time, and your worldload has increased substantially.
For what it's worth, the majority of pilots I know don't have - in my opinion - the capability to deliberately draw down on and kill another human being. (And that's a compliment, by the way).
No. Flight crews need to concentrate on getting the aircraft down safely in a situation from behind the safety of an armoured door (which with Kevlar and other ballistic nylons is not something which would add huge amounts of weight - we're not talking six inch armour plate here!); and let professionals deal with the inflight security.
In the mid 80s, Nigeria - where we were nominally based - was effectively lawless. As a Nigerian flagged airline, we could not get credit for fuel, handling, landing etc and that, coupled with our habit of buying our own (usually perishable) cargoes for return flights meant that our crews would be carrying very large sums of money. The local 'rogues' were well aware of this, and as a result our crews along with those of other airlines were targetted.
I was personally involved in a couple of firefights which I can assure anyone who has never had the experience of being under fire is definitely something you want to have on your 'must miss' list. In addition, to know that you have taken someone's life perhaps microseconds ahead of them taking yours is a gutwrenching experience.
In order to remain competent with my firearms, I must have spent thousands of dollars on many tens of thousands of rounds on target practice at least twice a week. Practicing as well being able to draw my SIG in a variety of situations and positions. Stripping and cleaning all of the weapons on a daily basis. Driving around town with my SIG under my thigh, and the MP5 on the seat next to me, covered by a newspaper.
Having a firearm is a whole different way of life. It's not something that you can simply have as a piece of kit; an item on a checklist: "Cabin secure; seatbelts on; S&W 38s loaded and safety on..." - it's a mindset. In order to be fully effective, you need to be carrying 24/7 so that you feel naked without it and of course that's just not practical here in the UK (or most other places) for your average airline pilot.
And think of the paperwork. We had piles and piles of the stuff - consents from the Nigerian CAA; special customs forms, declarations, licences ... Add to that the practice and training time, and your worldload has increased substantially.
For what it's worth, the majority of pilots I know don't have - in my opinion - the capability to deliberately draw down on and kill another human being. (And that's a compliment, by the way).
No. Flight crews need to concentrate on getting the aircraft down safely in a situation from behind the safety of an armoured door (which with Kevlar and other ballistic nylons is not something which would add huge amounts of weight - we're not talking six inch armour plate here!); and let professionals deal with the inflight security.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glueball...we're not talking about "gun-toting pilots". We're talking about professionals with professional training. And as professionals, we should be capable of accepting the practical and responsibility aspects of professional training. As a professional, I don't want to simply rely on passengers trying to do something about a situation.
And Guvnor...I appreciate the compliment...and I pretty much agree with what you're saying, but I think both of you are trying to tar all pilots with the same brush that we're only good at flying aeroplanes and not capable of doing anything with a gun. Yet, a young boy can leave school tomorrow and join the army to be almost instantly trained to carry a gun..!?!
I agree that this situation is far from ideal, and I absolutely cringe at the idea of pilots )or anyone) being put in charge of a gun as a compulsory measure. But can't you both accept that some of us professional people are actually capable and responsible.
Guvnor,..I also accept you comment about carrying a gun as a different way of life. Absolutely correct!! When I went on shooting competitions, I had my double shoulder-holster with both guns firmly tucked out of sight until I got to the range. If i stayed overnight for a comp, the guns would NEVER be anywhere except tucked firmly under my armpits. And if I had to leave my B&B accom to get a bite to eat somewhere, going into bars and drinking simply wasn't an option, either from a legal point of view or a common sense one.
And guns would be unloaded until I got to the firing point on the range. I know I speak on behalf af all other members of the shooting clubs I went to.
Like I think I said, this is an option worth considering, but lets keep it a bit more open-minded without the "gun-toting" and "let's just leave security to someone else who knows what they're doing" attitudes.
And Guvnor...I appreciate the compliment...and I pretty much agree with what you're saying, but I think both of you are trying to tar all pilots with the same brush that we're only good at flying aeroplanes and not capable of doing anything with a gun. Yet, a young boy can leave school tomorrow and join the army to be almost instantly trained to carry a gun..!?!
I agree that this situation is far from ideal, and I absolutely cringe at the idea of pilots )or anyone) being put in charge of a gun as a compulsory measure. But can't you both accept that some of us professional people are actually capable and responsible.
Guvnor,..I also accept you comment about carrying a gun as a different way of life. Absolutely correct!! When I went on shooting competitions, I had my double shoulder-holster with both guns firmly tucked out of sight until I got to the range. If i stayed overnight for a comp, the guns would NEVER be anywhere except tucked firmly under my armpits. And if I had to leave my B&B accom to get a bite to eat somewhere, going into bars and drinking simply wasn't an option, either from a legal point of view or a common sense one.
And guns would be unloaded until I got to the firing point on the range. I know I speak on behalf af all other members of the shooting clubs I went to.
Like I think I said, this is an option worth considering, but lets keep it a bit more open-minded without the "gun-toting" and "let's just leave security to someone else who knows what they're doing" attitudes.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: YVR/Pacific Rim
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/25/national/25SECU.html
"You'd have to have a tremendous amount of screening and training before I'd ever want to ride as a passenger on an airplane where the pilot was armed," said a senior crash investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board. The investigator, a former commercial airline pilot, added, "Some of these guys are the type that'd be quick to anger without a good basis for it."
Straight from the horses mouth.
"You'd have to have a tremendous amount of screening and training before I'd ever want to ride as a passenger on an airplane where the pilot was armed," said a senior crash investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board. The investigator, a former commercial airline pilot, added, "Some of these guys are the type that'd be quick to anger without a good basis for it."
Straight from the horses mouth.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Scotland
Age: 71
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is sad to see Yank and Brit Bashing in this forum when for once our politicians seem to have got it right and Blair has given Bush our total support in any forthcoming action. I for one am totally behind this and consider our whole way of life depends on a zero tolerance mind set towards known terrorists. Even if, in the short term, further atrocities have to be endured either side of the Atlantic. I have a military background and have carried a pistol in the cockpit. I have also seen an accidental discharge and I know the squadron adj used to keep a supply of rounds in the goodies bag which prevented many a Court Martial for a "lost round". I like to think we were very professional pilots who could fly as well as anyone. However as regards handling weapons, with our 6 monthly 30 rounds practice we were p......ng into wind as regards professional gun handlers. I always used to say the only use for my Browning was to use it on myself before capture and torture. (hopefully I wouldn't have missed!). Guns on civilian airliners will be a total unmitigated disaster. I am aware that the American right to bear arms is extremely emotive but please guys listen to others who have a different viewpoint.
Happy flying
Happy flying