ALPA to Ask for Cockpit Guns - CNN
Guest
Posts: n/a
You got it Roadtrip.
The truth is that when our leaders say they are going to protect our cities from aircraft flown by terrorists they really mean they are going to protect Washington DC from these people. Anything else is a bonus. Which is the only airport in the US that has not reopened? Should it not be safe to re-open National Airport since we have all of these marvellous new security measures in place? Does it not make you think that our leaders do not have quite as much faith in the security measures as they would have us believe? (Does not matter, National should have been closed years ago but it was to convenient for our leaders on Friday night). Which city has continuous fighter patrols overhead, day and night? You can say that our leaders shuld be protected but this is a little bit like Orwell's Animal Farm. "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
Sixteen days after the disaster and all I have on the aircraft to protect myself is the point of a ball-point pen! Whoops, perhaps I should not have said that. Next thing is they will take away my ball-point pen and make me use a felt-tip marker!!!!
The politicians are fooling themselves. If I wanted to hijack a fully loaded aircraft to ram into the White House I would choose a heavy jet out of Dulles. Full of fuel and the element of surprise. If I chose Friday night it might also contain a few of the politicians who object to pilots being armed. Of course, they would be very relieved when the missile hit that the aircraft never made it to the White House. But, as they say, bang goes another promising political career. Fate plays funny tricks.
As it is, the comment I made earlier still stands. My primary resonsibility and duty is to the passengers and crew members who walked onto my aircraft at the departure station. If I can protect them on my flights then I will have automatically protected those on the ground. As a last ditch tool in a desperate situation give me something better than a felt-tip to use.
[ 28 September 2001: Message edited by: BOING ]
The truth is that when our leaders say they are going to protect our cities from aircraft flown by terrorists they really mean they are going to protect Washington DC from these people. Anything else is a bonus. Which is the only airport in the US that has not reopened? Should it not be safe to re-open National Airport since we have all of these marvellous new security measures in place? Does it not make you think that our leaders do not have quite as much faith in the security measures as they would have us believe? (Does not matter, National should have been closed years ago but it was to convenient for our leaders on Friday night). Which city has continuous fighter patrols overhead, day and night? You can say that our leaders shuld be protected but this is a little bit like Orwell's Animal Farm. "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
Sixteen days after the disaster and all I have on the aircraft to protect myself is the point of a ball-point pen! Whoops, perhaps I should not have said that. Next thing is they will take away my ball-point pen and make me use a felt-tip marker!!!!
The politicians are fooling themselves. If I wanted to hijack a fully loaded aircraft to ram into the White House I would choose a heavy jet out of Dulles. Full of fuel and the element of surprise. If I chose Friday night it might also contain a few of the politicians who object to pilots being armed. Of course, they would be very relieved when the missile hit that the aircraft never made it to the White House. But, as they say, bang goes another promising political career. Fate plays funny tricks.
As it is, the comment I made earlier still stands. My primary resonsibility and duty is to the passengers and crew members who walked onto my aircraft at the departure station. If I can protect them on my flights then I will have automatically protected those on the ground. As a last ditch tool in a desperate situation give me something better than a felt-tip to use.
[ 28 September 2001: Message edited by: BOING ]
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Bechuanaland
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ask Airbus about stun guns(TAZERS) 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 could have a field day postulating with the EMI 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.
.
click link
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 could have a field day postulating with the EMI 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.
.
click link
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't you "GET" it??? This new form of terrorist has committed himself to DEATH, regardless of the outcome. He won't be "deterred." Even if he's unsuccessful in the hijack, he still generates fear among the public. The only way to deal with these guys is to KILL THEM before they KILL YOU (and 6,000 other moms, pops, and kids) Get out of your PC mindset thinking that technology will save you. Help yes, save NO.
Bush's plan for "remote controlled" aircraft is laughable. While technologically feasible, the COST of doing so would be so astronomical as to be completely impractical - especially for aircraft not purpose built aircraft. The suicidal terrorist is not just going to sit there and let the airplane land itself, so he can be caught! He's going to physically destroy the airplane by cutting wire bundles, starting a fire, etc. etc.
There's stupendous amounts of non-critical thinking going on right now, egged on by a agenda'd media. All shaded by political correctness, adversion to lethal force, and outright stupidity. The terrorists' cells are probably laughing at our unwilliness to use lethal force to stop a hijacking as well as the rest of our PC mindset.
The gullibility, political correctness, technical stupidity, and naivity of most non-aviation professional people, AND some aviation people (including the FAA) is truely bizarre and could untimately cause an imposion of the whole industry.
Pathetic.
Bush's plan for "remote controlled" aircraft is laughable. While technologically feasible, the COST of doing so would be so astronomical as to be completely impractical - especially for aircraft not purpose built aircraft. The suicidal terrorist is not just going to sit there and let the airplane land itself, so he can be caught! He's going to physically destroy the airplane by cutting wire bundles, starting a fire, etc. etc.
There's stupendous amounts of non-critical thinking going on right now, egged on by a agenda'd media. All shaded by political correctness, adversion to lethal force, and outright stupidity. The terrorists' cells are probably laughing at our unwilliness to use lethal force to stop a hijacking as well as the rest of our PC mindset.
The gullibility, political correctness, technical stupidity, and naivity of most non-aviation professional people, AND some aviation people (including the FAA) is truely bizarre and could untimately cause an imposion of the whole industry.
Pathetic.
Nunc est bibendum
Roadtrip, a couple of years back when a moron hijacked a JAL flight with a knife and ordered the F/O off the flight deck and then offed the skipper I made the decision that I would fight back if I was being ordered away from my post.
The assumption with that was that he wanted to do something which he didn't think I was capable of doing. The only think I'm not capable of doing deliberately is pranging the aeroplane.
Basically, I'm prepared to slug it out to save my ship and ultimately myself. Flight deck door security isn't the issue here, that has been discussed elsewhere, the decision to fight back isn't the decision here. The decision is whether when someone barges through the door, I have enough time to 1. Get to the firearm (I assume it is in a seale box, otherwise a loony can just take me on in the terminal) 2. get it out of the (lockwired?) box, acquire the target and pull the trigger.
Knowing the 767 pretty well, I'd be long gone before I even got to it. Even if it wasn't lockwired, I doubt that I'd be able to acquire my firearm and then aim a shot a centre body mass. I may get it just in time for him to be standing behind me and grappling over my shoulder with me for control of it.
OK, now you say that we have better cockpit security and that they can't get in. In that case, why do I now need a firearm.
With current doors on airliners you wouldn't have time to get bring the firearm to bear before you get overcome. With future and more secure doors, will you ever need to get the firearm out?
This isn't about being anti 'lethal force' although that should be about 'reasonable force' (and it may just be that in a particular situation 'reasonable' and 'lethal' become one and the same), it is about the stupidity of wanting to carry a firearm on the flight deck.
I've carried a gun as part of my former job, I wouldn't want to have one with me on the flight deck with the current ease of access. Just gives some idiot even more incentive to take me on.
I've got batons, a crash axe, a 3.5kg fire extinguisher. If I can't take him out with one of those, chances are a gun isn't going to be much help either!
The assumption with that was that he wanted to do something which he didn't think I was capable of doing. The only think I'm not capable of doing deliberately is pranging the aeroplane.
Basically, I'm prepared to slug it out to save my ship and ultimately myself. Flight deck door security isn't the issue here, that has been discussed elsewhere, the decision to fight back isn't the decision here. The decision is whether when someone barges through the door, I have enough time to 1. Get to the firearm (I assume it is in a seale box, otherwise a loony can just take me on in the terminal) 2. get it out of the (lockwired?) box, acquire the target and pull the trigger.
Knowing the 767 pretty well, I'd be long gone before I even got to it. Even if it wasn't lockwired, I doubt that I'd be able to acquire my firearm and then aim a shot a centre body mass. I may get it just in time for him to be standing behind me and grappling over my shoulder with me for control of it.
OK, now you say that we have better cockpit security and that they can't get in. In that case, why do I now need a firearm.
With current doors on airliners you wouldn't have time to get bring the firearm to bear before you get overcome. With future and more secure doors, will you ever need to get the firearm out?
This isn't about being anti 'lethal force' although that should be about 'reasonable force' (and it may just be that in a particular situation 'reasonable' and 'lethal' become one and the same), it is about the stupidity of wanting to carry a firearm on the flight deck.
I've carried a gun as part of my former job, I wouldn't want to have one with me on the flight deck with the current ease of access. Just gives some idiot even more incentive to take me on.
I've got batons, a crash axe, a 3.5kg fire extinguisher. If I can't take him out with one of those, chances are a gun isn't going to be much help either!
Moderator
Roadtrip,
THANK YOU for so eloquently describing EXACTLY what is happening regarding this issue......You saved me about 1/2 hour of typing....
I owe you a beer if we ever meet!
THANK YOU for so eloquently describing EXACTLY what is happening regarding this issue......You saved me about 1/2 hour of typing....
I owe you a beer if we ever meet!
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dagger Dirk
Your request for information on the stun gun subject matter made by you has been forwarded to a high tech forum for some experienced reasoned input.
I have been struck by lightening on many different a/c types with no known ill effects, however I find the stun gun subject matter interesting in light of the September 11 tragic events. Can its use affect the a/c? I don't know..
Hopefully Airbus has an opinion and will provide an answer.
Your request for information on the stun gun subject matter made by you has been forwarded to a high tech forum for some experienced reasoned input.
I have been struck by lightening on many different a/c types with no known ill effects, however I find the stun gun subject matter interesting in light of the September 11 tragic events. Can its use affect the a/c? I don't know..
Hopefully Airbus has an opinion and will provide an answer.
Paxing All Over The World
Tan, no need to wait for Airbu's opinion, it's always the pilots fault. 
Lightning is outside the airframe and said frame is designed to handle it.
Stun guns are inside the flight deck and may be knocked from the pilot's hand and touch equipment whilst operating or holding latent charge.
[ 28 September 2001: Message edited by: PAXboy ]
Lightning is outside the airframe and said frame is designed to handle it.
Stun guns are inside the flight deck and may be knocked from the pilot's hand and touch equipment whilst operating or holding latent charge.
[ 28 September 2001: Message edited by: PAXboy ]
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi PAXboy
If only life was only so simple....And yes, Airbus does have that reputation...
I have had a blue streak down the aircraft aisle during a lightening strike, so I'm not too sure about your assertion that's its only an airframe event.
If only life was only so simple....And yes, Airbus does have that reputation...
I have had a blue streak down the aircraft aisle during a lightening strike, so I'm not too sure about your assertion that's its only an airframe event.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roadtrip:
Are you a domestic only pilot? Because you haven't addressed the international logistics and legal implications of supposedly armed pilots who fly outside USA.
Exactly how is that supposed to work? I'm just curious because I'm international and I haven't flown domestic USA in 5 years. What would pilots do with their guns in foreign countries? Turn them over to the hotel desk clerk? Park them under the mattresses? Carry them around? Surrender them to foreign station agents at the airport? Surrender them to foreign airport police? Would armed pilots in foreign countries require multiple concealed weapon permits?
And what about bilateral agreements of armed foreign air carrier pilots on USA layovers? For example, would you mind having armed airline pilots from "Third World" countries, stroll about your neighborhood?
Not trying to be clever or funny, just thinking more globally....
Are you a domestic only pilot? Because you haven't addressed the international logistics and legal implications of supposedly armed pilots who fly outside USA.
Exactly how is that supposed to work? I'm just curious because I'm international and I haven't flown domestic USA in 5 years. What would pilots do with their guns in foreign countries? Turn them over to the hotel desk clerk? Park them under the mattresses? Carry them around? Surrender them to foreign station agents at the airport? Surrender them to foreign airport police? Would armed pilots in foreign countries require multiple concealed weapon permits?
And what about bilateral agreements of armed foreign air carrier pilots on USA layovers? For example, would you mind having armed airline pilots from "Third World" countries, stroll about your neighborhood?
Not trying to be clever or funny, just thinking more globally....
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Throttlemonkey said:
"If your going put guns on the flight deck they must be signiture guns only operable by the owner, this technolog exists and has done for some time."
Nope, it does not. Several US manufacturers have and still are doing R&D towards this goal. But none of them have a workable system yet. Some have demonstrated prototypes, but even in the most benign circumstances (demonstrating them to the press at a conference), they failed miserably.
One entrepreneur who make fingerprint recognition hardware claims he can build it into a gun. But he has not shown a working model. And it would have to recognize either hand, from either pilot. It would have to work when the hands are sweaty, dirty, and bloody. After being dropped or kicked across the cockpit. For those of us that live in cold climates, how would it recognize your fingerprint while you are wearing gloves? Not an easy task.
Given how gun manufacturers in the US are being sued like crazy, they'd love to be able to sell such a gun. None of them due, because no one has made one that works reliably.
The only working system available now is the MagnaTrigger conversion done by Rick Devoid in New Hampshire. http://www.tarnhelm.com/magna-trigge...ty/magna1.html
He can only install it on revolvers. As a one man shop, he certainly couldn't convert enough to arm a lot of pilots quickly. It works by requiring the shooter to wear magnetic rings (on both hands).
The other "technology" available are manual locks built in to the gun, either a combination lock (available from Taurus) or a key lock (available from Hechler & Koch). These types of locking devices cannot be unlocked quickly. In fact, the H&K device can only be unlocked when the magazine is removed from the gun. The Taurus lock has the awful feature that it could easily be bumped into being locked. That would really suck if you were just about to shoot a terrorist...
These types of locks can not be unlocked when a terrorist is breaking down the cockpit door. They could only be used to secure the gun when not on the aircraft. But there are many ways to do that effectively (trigger lock, lock cables, lock boxes, gun safes, etc).
Personally, I unlocked my H&K, put the key back in box, and left it that way. My security for my H&K (and other guns) is a large safe.
OFBSLF
Firearms Instructor Certified by Massachusetts State Police
"If your going put guns on the flight deck they must be signiture guns only operable by the owner, this technolog exists and has done for some time."
Nope, it does not. Several US manufacturers have and still are doing R&D towards this goal. But none of them have a workable system yet. Some have demonstrated prototypes, but even in the most benign circumstances (demonstrating them to the press at a conference), they failed miserably.
One entrepreneur who make fingerprint recognition hardware claims he can build it into a gun. But he has not shown a working model. And it would have to recognize either hand, from either pilot. It would have to work when the hands are sweaty, dirty, and bloody. After being dropped or kicked across the cockpit. For those of us that live in cold climates, how would it recognize your fingerprint while you are wearing gloves? Not an easy task.
Given how gun manufacturers in the US are being sued like crazy, they'd love to be able to sell such a gun. None of them due, because no one has made one that works reliably.
The only working system available now is the MagnaTrigger conversion done by Rick Devoid in New Hampshire. http://www.tarnhelm.com/magna-trigge...ty/magna1.html
He can only install it on revolvers. As a one man shop, he certainly couldn't convert enough to arm a lot of pilots quickly. It works by requiring the shooter to wear magnetic rings (on both hands).
The other "technology" available are manual locks built in to the gun, either a combination lock (available from Taurus) or a key lock (available from Hechler & Koch). These types of locking devices cannot be unlocked quickly. In fact, the H&K device can only be unlocked when the magazine is removed from the gun. The Taurus lock has the awful feature that it could easily be bumped into being locked. That would really suck if you were just about to shoot a terrorist...
These types of locks can not be unlocked when a terrorist is breaking down the cockpit door. They could only be used to secure the gun when not on the aircraft. But there are many ways to do that effectively (trigger lock, lock cables, lock boxes, gun safes, etc).
Personally, I unlocked my H&K, put the key back in box, and left it that way. My security for my H&K (and other guns) is a large safe.
OFBSLF
Firearms Instructor Certified by Massachusetts State Police
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glueball:
Currently, US sky marshals travel on overseas flights to foreign countries. They are armed. So those details for armed pilots can be worked out through bilateral agreements, just as they must have been for armed US sky marshals.
OFBSLF
Currently, US sky marshals travel on overseas flights to foreign countries. They are armed. So those details for armed pilots can be worked out through bilateral agreements, just as they must have been for armed US sky marshals.
OFBSLF
