ALPA to Ask for Cockpit Guns - CNN
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Warwickshire
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about a gun containing a captive bolt, similar to ones approved for the air carriage of live-stock. It'll recoil only a foot at maximum, so as not compromise the aircraft structure, but would certainly be a deterrent to any would-be invaider?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Scotty:
I am a professional with a wide body strapped to my a$$ flying international, staying in different hotels in many different countries. Now tell me about foreign laws covering the carriage of concealed weapons; tell me where to check my loaded gun for safety at out stations? With the hotel Front Desk clerk? Or do I keep my gun when I go out to eat at a restaurant, drink at a pub in a foreign country? Just think about the logistics of gun safety, gun accountability 24 hours a day when I'm on trips, living out of my suitcase two or three weeks outside USA. Would people in Scottland mind having armed Bahamian, Canadian, Pakistani, Indian, Egyptian, Dutch, Nigerian, Russian, Sudanese, Brasilian, Indonesian airline pilots walking the streets of Glasgow...? Get a grip on reality.
I am a professional with a wide body strapped to my a$$ flying international, staying in different hotels in many different countries. Now tell me about foreign laws covering the carriage of concealed weapons; tell me where to check my loaded gun for safety at out stations? With the hotel Front Desk clerk? Or do I keep my gun when I go out to eat at a restaurant, drink at a pub in a foreign country? Just think about the logistics of gun safety, gun accountability 24 hours a day when I'm on trips, living out of my suitcase two or three weeks outside USA. Would people in Scottland mind having armed Bahamian, Canadian, Pakistani, Indian, Egyptian, Dutch, Nigerian, Russian, Sudanese, Brasilian, Indonesian airline pilots walking the streets of Glasgow...? Get a grip on reality.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: London
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The practicalities are for "others" to work out. N' est-ce pas?
The problem is two fold:
1 Is the arming of aircrew a practical deterrant to terrorists...
2 Do the fare paying public (gawd bless 'em) want armed crew or not?
Question number 2 is REALLY what our jobs depend upon! - I would suggest.
The problem is two fold:
1 Is the arming of aircrew a practical deterrant to terrorists...
2 Do the fare paying public (gawd bless 'em) want armed crew or not?
Question number 2 is REALLY what our jobs depend upon! - I would suggest.
Moderator
You are clearly an ***** - hope you enjoy being dumb or did you take all those quotes out of context on purpose.
Seeing as I sit in these aircraft MANY hours a day, I feel that I am entitled to my opinion, and I'm qualified to speak on the subject.....I fail to understand this irrational fear of inaminate objects.....
You are clearly an (whatever it is you called me....)
Grow up......
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys...no need to get emotional about this...I didn't for a second suggest that such implementation would be easy. And glueball..I entirely agree about not wanting foreign nationals being let lose in our streets with guns because they're nightstopping here...
And although I might not give the impression, I actually agree with the point of view that guns are a really bad idea.
But perhaps we're being a little bit selfish with the debate. Nutters of the world have suddenly realised that hijacking and crashing is somthing they might like to consider= we're all targets basically. And we have a responsibility not just to ourselves, but to every working citizen doing their jobs 37000 feet beneath us.
Perhaps an over-dramatic statement, but it could be argued that every time we fly we put peoples lives at risk on the ground.
We all have a duty to cause them no harm, and participate in trying to help the authorities and governments to find a solution which we can work with. Whatever problems are associated with any new idea, let's all try to figure out how they can be overcome before ridiculing them.
The world seems to be uniting with Bush, so perhaps the relevant aviation authorities/police/security services can get their act together and be co-ordinated enough to provide the facilities for aircrews to deposit weaponry with police/security on arrival at whatever airport they nighstop at.
It wouldn't happen overnight, and not every airport in every country would be as forthcoming or advisable perhaps.
Also I'm not suggesting that every pilot must be armed.In fact, something makes me really dislike that idea.
But there are so many very strong opinions on both sides of this debate, and all I hope is that all concerned can make some sort of effort to consider the problems on both sides..and at least make an effort to figure out what better solution there is to crashing.
Many comments about this that I've heard or read seem to be basing the idea that there will "likely" be probably 5 or 6 hijackers, therefore too much for one man and one gun to tackle. But, at the risk of being accused of being a scaremonger, I can't help thinking that there must be a few maniacs out there with a grudge against the world who would like to commit suicide and cause some havoc at the same time. (Remember the Dunblane shooter)And recent events in the news have made them look at aviation for their sick death-wish.
I don't want to be on one side or the other of this debate. But it's all to easy to reject new ideas rather than face the challenges of trying to find ways of making them work(especially in the face of strong opinionism).
I have enjoyed shooting targets, and I don't personally have a problem about carrying a gun, as I've done so many times.
I understand and respect why many people hate them.
I will not criticise anyone for wishing to have no involvement with such items, so long as they don't criticise me for wanting to save my life, my passengers, my crew, and a few thousand people beneath when nobody seems to be convinced of any other defense method at a time when all of us know that there are huge gaps in international aviation security.
We have to do something, and cries of "That won't work" and "I don't like that idea" are useless at this stage.
Meantime, happy landings folks.
And although I might not give the impression, I actually agree with the point of view that guns are a really bad idea.
But perhaps we're being a little bit selfish with the debate. Nutters of the world have suddenly realised that hijacking and crashing is somthing they might like to consider= we're all targets basically. And we have a responsibility not just to ourselves, but to every working citizen doing their jobs 37000 feet beneath us.
Perhaps an over-dramatic statement, but it could be argued that every time we fly we put peoples lives at risk on the ground.
We all have a duty to cause them no harm, and participate in trying to help the authorities and governments to find a solution which we can work with. Whatever problems are associated with any new idea, let's all try to figure out how they can be overcome before ridiculing them.
The world seems to be uniting with Bush, so perhaps the relevant aviation authorities/police/security services can get their act together and be co-ordinated enough to provide the facilities for aircrews to deposit weaponry with police/security on arrival at whatever airport they nighstop at.
It wouldn't happen overnight, and not every airport in every country would be as forthcoming or advisable perhaps.
Also I'm not suggesting that every pilot must be armed.In fact, something makes me really dislike that idea.
But there are so many very strong opinions on both sides of this debate, and all I hope is that all concerned can make some sort of effort to consider the problems on both sides..and at least make an effort to figure out what better solution there is to crashing.
Many comments about this that I've heard or read seem to be basing the idea that there will "likely" be probably 5 or 6 hijackers, therefore too much for one man and one gun to tackle. But, at the risk of being accused of being a scaremonger, I can't help thinking that there must be a few maniacs out there with a grudge against the world who would like to commit suicide and cause some havoc at the same time. (Remember the Dunblane shooter)And recent events in the news have made them look at aviation for their sick death-wish.
I don't want to be on one side or the other of this debate. But it's all to easy to reject new ideas rather than face the challenges of trying to find ways of making them work(especially in the face of strong opinionism).
I have enjoyed shooting targets, and I don't personally have a problem about carrying a gun, as I've done so many times.
I understand and respect why many people hate them.
I will not criticise anyone for wishing to have no involvement with such items, so long as they don't criticise me for wanting to save my life, my passengers, my crew, and a few thousand people beneath when nobody seems to be convinced of any other defense method at a time when all of us know that there are huge gaps in international aviation security.
We have to do something, and cries of "That won't work" and "I don't like that idea" are useless at this stage.
Meantime, happy landings folks.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep guys..I have to agree with Tripower's comments ....regardless if we agree or not, the only way to jointly fight terrorists to to listen to other peoples opinions.
Only then can we build a better picture of all the different reasons for and against whateber we talk about.
And if we don't like 'em , we simply agree to disagree.
Keep the comments coming tripower...
Oh guys..just one little piece of scaremongering (sorry)...but if hijackers can smuggle bombsand automatic weapons into an airliners, couldn't they also smuggle an electric angle-grinder to cut through the reinforced bolted double-locked armour-plated cockpit door ?
"Oh shut up Scotty" did I hear you groan?
Only then can we build a better picture of all the different reasons for and against whateber we talk about.
And if we don't like 'em , we simply agree to disagree.
Keep the comments coming tripower...
Oh guys..just one little piece of scaremongering (sorry)...but if hijackers can smuggle bombsand automatic weapons into an airliners, couldn't they also smuggle an electric angle-grinder to cut through the reinforced bolted double-locked armour-plated cockpit door ?
"Oh shut up Scotty" did I hear you groan?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just to throw some grist to the mill here ...
Given that these terrorist groups are all rather well funded, what's to stop them buying a cheap B747 - ostensibly for some iffy charter operation based in, oh, let's say SHJ - and then fly it with theior own crews into whatever buildings they want without having to go through the whole hijack process in the first place?
Lowers the potential casualty numbers slightly - but you'd have a far higher chance of success!
Given that these terrorist groups are all rather well funded, what's to stop them buying a cheap B747 - ostensibly for some iffy charter operation based in, oh, let's say SHJ - and then fly it with theior own crews into whatever buildings they want without having to go through the whole hijack process in the first place?
Lowers the potential casualty numbers slightly - but you'd have a far higher chance of success!
Guv,
Thats the scariest scenario of all, considering there are numerous operators around the world who are real "iffy" including one outfit who wants to donate 747 SP's to Sadam!! Makes you think .
Thats the scariest scenario of all, considering there are numerous operators around the world who are real "iffy" including one outfit who wants to donate 747 SP's to Sadam!! Makes you think .
Guest
Posts: n/a
NG_Kaptain - you might think I'm talking about that certain iffy operation which is based in SHJ and has gone through a remarkable collection of flags of convenience in its time (including latterly Sudan which has close ties to one Osama bin Laden) - but I couldn't possibly comment! 
BTW, what about the military guys? What do they do with their sidearms in foreign ports, I dont think thats ever been an issue?
Like it has been said lately "We live in intersting times".
Like it has been said lately "We live in intersting times".
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the answer is respirators for the flightcrew, behind reinforced doors.
Cabin fitted with system to issue incapacitating nerve agent into a/c. Flightcrew (FO or Capt) can then secure the hijackers (handcuffs/anklecuffs) before recycling a/c with clean air and everyone wakes up??
Surely this is a better idea than issuing guns - how many airline pilots would have the capability to shoot 4 or 5 hijackers without damaging the a/c or injuring an innocent passenger??
PFO
Cabin fitted with system to issue incapacitating nerve agent into a/c. Flightcrew (FO or Capt) can then secure the hijackers (handcuffs/anklecuffs) before recycling a/c with clean air and everyone wakes up??
Surely this is a better idea than issuing guns - how many airline pilots would have the capability to shoot 4 or 5 hijackers without damaging the a/c or injuring an innocent passenger??
PFO
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any firearms should remain as aircraft equipment, locked in a quick access/limited access safe at each pilot position, never to be removed except by the armourers or in an emergency.
If one goes missing, you have a BFI (big f*****g investigation), but it's not like it's a nuclear weapon. If one does go missing, you've got a bigger security problem than just a missing firearm.
"Unmitigated disaster?" What do you call the events of 11 Sept, when the crews had NO chance of self defense?
I find arguements against arming flightdeck crews witless, phobic, based on false assumptions, illogical, or disingenous. Without exception, ALL civilians I have talked to in the US strongly support arming aircrews and many were shocked when they found out pilots WEREN'T armed. There is, however, a strong cultural difference between the American psyche of rugged individualism and other cultures. If the UK and Euros don't want to arm their pilots for last ditch defense of the airplane, DON'T!
If one goes missing, you have a BFI (big f*****g investigation), but it's not like it's a nuclear weapon. If one does go missing, you've got a bigger security problem than just a missing firearm.
"Unmitigated disaster?" What do you call the events of 11 Sept, when the crews had NO chance of self defense?
I find arguements against arming flightdeck crews witless, phobic, based on false assumptions, illogical, or disingenous. Without exception, ALL civilians I have talked to in the US strongly support arming aircrews and many were shocked when they found out pilots WEREN'T armed. There is, however, a strong cultural difference between the American psyche of rugged individualism and other cultures. If the UK and Euros don't want to arm their pilots for last ditch defense of the airplane, DON'T!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Around
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone tell me this,
What happens when the first edgy pilot shoots someone who exhibited many of the signs air crew use to pinpoint suspected terrorists, etc., but were actually just very nervous of flying?
If anybody thinks it won't happen, they are sadly mistaken.
Guns in the cockpit won't deter someone who is on a suicide mission, especially if there are four or five others to back him or her up.
Tripower455,
You are right in saying that the pilots of these flights had no chance, but do you think they would have enough time to pull the gun if four or five terrorists suddenly burst into the cockpit without warning?
I still think that by removing the doors between the cockpit and the rest of the plane you avoid many problems (although I agree it could be a logistical nightmare). Eventually people will realize that they can't use the plane as a guided missile because they can't kill the pilots. Yes they may blow up the plane, but guys like the hijackers of Sept. 11th were going to do that anyway. At least 6000 innocent people won't die in a single incident.
aviatter
PS Tripower455 is not ignorant or anything else, he is simply stating his opinion, and although I may disagree with him I do respect his arguments and so should everyone else.
What happens when the first edgy pilot shoots someone who exhibited many of the signs air crew use to pinpoint suspected terrorists, etc., but were actually just very nervous of flying?
If anybody thinks it won't happen, they are sadly mistaken.
Guns in the cockpit won't deter someone who is on a suicide mission, especially if there are four or five others to back him or her up.
Tripower455,
You are right in saying that the pilots of these flights had no chance, but do you think they would have enough time to pull the gun if four or five terrorists suddenly burst into the cockpit without warning?
I still think that by removing the doors between the cockpit and the rest of the plane you avoid many problems (although I agree it could be a logistical nightmare). Eventually people will realize that they can't use the plane as a guided missile because they can't kill the pilots. Yes they may blow up the plane, but guys like the hijackers of Sept. 11th were going to do that anyway. At least 6000 innocent people won't die in a single incident.
aviatter
PS Tripower455 is not ignorant or anything else, he is simply stating his opinion, and although I may disagree with him I do respect his arguments and so should everyone else.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: California, USA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those interested in the FACTS, the arming of qualified and willing pilots is but one of the recommendations from ALPA's Captain Duane Woerth.
His testimony (quite interesting and detailed) is at
http://www.alpa.org/
Look half way down the page - click on his testimony
His testimony (quite interesting and detailed) is at
http://www.alpa.org/
Look half way down the page - click on his testimony
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there's a gun in the cabin of the aircraft, whether it's held by a pilot, a skymarshall, or Bruce Willis, I personally will be catching the next unarmed flight or taking the train. (And where I live, taking the train is regarded as an "extreme sport")
What a silly idea! Hollywood has much more to answer for than I previously thought.
What a silly idea! Hollywood has much more to answer for than I previously thought.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The basis of many of these posts is that we are attempting to stop anyone using our aircraft as a cruise missile.
WAKE UP YOU DUMMIES! Our job is to look after the safety of our passengers and crew. Despite recent events that responsibility has not been taken from us!!!!
Ths idea of locking the reinforced cockpit door so that the terrorists can slash and burn at will is disgusting. Any solution to the terrorist problem must include our best efforts to defeat ALL types of terrorist acts.
WAKE UP YOU DUMMIES! Our job is to look after the safety of our passengers and crew. Despite recent events that responsibility has not been taken from us!!!!
Ths idea of locking the reinforced cockpit door so that the terrorists can slash and burn at will is disgusting. Any solution to the terrorist problem must include our best efforts to defeat ALL types of terrorist acts.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Scotland
Age: 70
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roadtrip,
I did not wish to downgrade what happened on the 11th of September. If my post gave that impression then I apologise. What happened was probably the most shocking event I have witnessed during my "not so innocent life". However, I want the world to return to normal, I do not want to worry about my daughter visiting London or my son visiting New York. To my simple mind this can be achieved by our politicians using dialogue and military firepower if necessary. Any action will have my total support even if we have to endure hardships in the short term. I respect that you may well be a very able and competent gun handler. Unfortunately (or in my viewpoint fortunately) most of us on this side of the Atlantic are not. I would suspect that very many of your fellow countrymen also lack the skills required to be responsible for a firearm in the cockpit. I am not against the idea of cockpit security but there must be a better way than the Bruce Willis mentality.
I haven't posted a message to this effect but my very sincere condolences to your countrymen and all others who were caught up in this dreadful cowardly act.
I did not wish to downgrade what happened on the 11th of September. If my post gave that impression then I apologise. What happened was probably the most shocking event I have witnessed during my "not so innocent life". However, I want the world to return to normal, I do not want to worry about my daughter visiting London or my son visiting New York. To my simple mind this can be achieved by our politicians using dialogue and military firepower if necessary. Any action will have my total support even if we have to endure hardships in the short term. I respect that you may well be a very able and competent gun handler. Unfortunately (or in my viewpoint fortunately) most of us on this side of the Atlantic are not. I would suspect that very many of your fellow countrymen also lack the skills required to be responsible for a firearm in the cockpit. I am not against the idea of cockpit security but there must be a better way than the Bruce Willis mentality.
I haven't posted a message to this effect but my very sincere condolences to your countrymen and all others who were caught up in this dreadful cowardly act.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carrying a gun may be OK in the US but what happens when you are the driver of a flight inbound to the UK (or any other country where firearms are illegal)?
You aren't police/military/etc so once you land you are just another person and shouldn't have it. Maybe therefore they will be forced to look at stun guns, etc as an alternative for transtlantic flights anyway.
Julian.
You aren't police/military/etc so once you land you are just another person and shouldn't have it. Maybe therefore they will be forced to look at stun guns, etc as an alternative for transtlantic flights anyway.
Julian.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sunny Med.
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't want to be on a flight with an armed Yank & a Socialist Pommy up in front! 
Come on you guys, these horrific events have changed our Life. So let's be rational - luckily the Politicians are doing just that this time round ! Some kind of gas that can be sprayed in the cabin sounds more reasonable than GUNS in the cockpit !!
And will we get a loo in front of the TITANIUM/KEVLAR/TIG WELDED reinforced super cockpit door ?
GOD HELP US ALL !
Come on you guys, these horrific events have changed our Life. So let's be rational - luckily the Politicians are doing just that this time round ! Some kind of gas that can be sprayed in the cabin sounds more reasonable than GUNS in the cockpit !! And will we get a loo in front of the TITANIUM/KEVLAR/TIG WELDED reinforced super cockpit door ?
GOD HELP US ALL !