US bid to enable arming of US pilots on all flights
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From a UK-centric perspective, how would it work with a pilot arriving with a handgun, would he have to check it in with security and leave it at the airport until his outbound flight, given the restrictions on handguns in the UK?
Last edited by Airbubba; 11th Feb 2007 at 15:18.
"Besides as has been said many times before, the hijack an airliner and fly it into a building scenario is pretty much of a non runner these days. The terrorists have moved on. I'm sure something equally diabolic is being plotted somewhere. The gun thing is a red herring frankly.
"
"
A simple observation would be that the use of truck bombs has not seemed to decline after years of use. Easier to carry off than an air attack, but still popular.
Intel has shown that repeated probes have been made since 9/11. This of course discounts the majority of events where hysterics were involved.
A few links with video on the training:
(one has to sit through some short ads first)
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?...d/3032619/&fg=
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2824198
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=646e34f9-8374-49b1-89c8-07866f17940f&f=05&fg=email
(one has to sit through some short ads first)
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?...d/3032619/&fg=
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2824198
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=646e34f9-8374-49b1-89c8-07866f17940f&f=05&fg=email
An armed society is a polite society.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In other words....
US 35 ... UK 1
As "polite" societies go, I rather agree.
But a lot of this is "domestic violence" and "gang warfare" in the US, so not fully relevant.
What's the "score" on killing innocent bystanders ? Both in the US, where somebody mentally disturbed got wiped out, and in the UK, where somebody panicked and got killed for his troubles.... ARE there any statistics ?
And, more relevant, what's the "score" on confirmed terrorists ?
They're probably laughing their heads off.... (100ml in the UK, 90ml in the US...) while working out their next ploy.
The discussion about arming pilots makes some sense.... but mostly it's like fighting the last war, once again.
US 35 ... UK 1
As "polite" societies go, I rather agree.
But a lot of this is "domestic violence" and "gang warfare" in the US, so not fully relevant.
What's the "score" on killing innocent bystanders ? Both in the US, where somebody mentally disturbed got wiped out, and in the UK, where somebody panicked and got killed for his troubles.... ARE there any statistics ?
And, more relevant, what's the "score" on confirmed terrorists ?
They're probably laughing their heads off.... (100ml in the UK, 90ml in the US...) while working out their next ploy.
The discussion about arming pilots makes some sense.... but mostly it's like fighting the last war, once again.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is bordering on eviction to the Jet Blast forum where anyone with an opinion will soon destroy any remaining fragments of sensible discussion and render the thread just one more interminable 'hamster wheel' of repetitive, opposing views with no content of any nutritional value for open minds. Sigh 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pistols on the FD
A short story.
Several years ago when this idea came up in the USA, I was listening to a senior Uxx Captain venting his views on a local radio station.
His opinion was classic...he needed the gun to keep the bad guys at bay.
OK, fair enough, as far as it goes.
The interviewer then asked...'ah Captain, suppose that you and the First Officer have a serious disagreement, what will you do then?'
The Captain replied....'I would shoot the SOB.'
I do believe he was quite serious, and the interview ended PDQ.
Pistols on the FD?
Bad idea.
The OK Corral needs to be kept firmly on the ground.
Several years ago when this idea came up in the USA, I was listening to a senior Uxx Captain venting his views on a local radio station.
His opinion was classic...he needed the gun to keep the bad guys at bay.
OK, fair enough, as far as it goes.
The interviewer then asked...'ah Captain, suppose that you and the First Officer have a serious disagreement, what will you do then?'
The Captain replied....'I would shoot the SOB.'
I do believe he was quite serious, and the interview ended PDQ.
Pistols on the FD?
Bad idea.
The OK Corral needs to be kept firmly on the ground.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Southern California (KVCV)
Age: 35
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The interviewer then asked...'ah Captain, suppose that you and the First Officer have a serious disagreement, what will you do then?'
The Captain replied....'I would shoot the SOB.'
The Captain replied....'I would shoot the SOB.'
The question I would ask those opposed is:
Is despite all the current (current being the key word) layers, should the flight deck be breached will you fight to stop the plane from being taken over? I would hope the answer is yes. I know I would and I'd rather do it with a weapon I'm trained to use, and not the standard "I'll get the ax out and.."
411
What do you think the chances are that of the thousands of possible combinations of pairings that an armed pilot has argued with another crew member? No one has been shot. Your argument is based off of some sensationalist interview and your bias against the FFDO program. No empirical data to support it.
Is despite all the current (current being the key word) layers, should the flight deck be breached will you fight to stop the plane from being taken over? I would hope the answer is yes. I know I would and I'd rather do it with a weapon I'm trained to use, and not the standard "I'll get the ax out and.."
411
What do you think the chances are that of the thousands of possible combinations of pairings that an armed pilot has argued with another crew member? No one has been shot. Your argument is based off of some sensationalist interview and your bias against the FFDO program. No empirical data to support it.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny's right. The issue is - FFDO's carrying their weapons to international destinations. The FFDO program is in place and will be around for a while, at least. Maybe it won't be necessary someday. Dig out the old threads from the 2003-2004 timeframe if you want more navel-contemplation.
I can tell you what the answer to the FFDO's will be, in the EU anyway - a big ol' NO....
I can tell you what the answer to the FFDO's will be, in the EU anyway - a big ol' NO....
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got it, move the cockpit bulkhead rearwards by 4 feet, cockpit now has room for it's own toilet and microwave oven - no need for the door EVER to be opened whilst passengers aboard. Make the cockpit door air tight. Bit of something kicks off down the back - give them all the gas - they all wake up once on the ground, no harm done!
OK the last bit might not work, but what about the toilet and oven in the cockpit??
OK the last bit might not work, but what about the toilet and oven in the cockpit??
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Corrona,
I'm working on the gadget that will release sarun in the cockpit as soon as you operate the microwave.
Just give me some time.
Of course, the toilet has potential, as well.
Oh, sh!t.....
I'm working on the gadget that will release sarun in the cockpit as soon as you operate the microwave.
Just give me some time.
Of course, the toilet has potential, as well.
Oh, sh!t.....
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Queensland, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, one reason that occurs is that every "legal" gun on board an aircraft is one that could potentially be grabbed by a determined hijacker or "nutcase". Not that I fancy any kind of brawl at altitude, but I fancy my chances more against a boxcutter (or whatever new device they find a way of smuggling) than I do against a gun and, in hand-to-hand combat, guns ARE sometimes fumbled and picked up.
I also agree fully with the idea expressed earlier that all this is fighting the PREVIOUS terrorist attacks. I don't know what the next ones will be...but they'll be something new.
Bobbsy
I also agree fully with the idea expressed earlier that all this is fighting the PREVIOUS terrorist attacks. I don't know what the next ones will be...but they'll be something new.
Bobbsy
The last pilots that had to fight off attackers with box cutters didn't fare well.
The FFDO program is a well structured program that emphasizes weapons handling and for a lack of better terms, hand to hand combat. Pilots don't simply apply and receive a weapon and badge. There is recurrent training as well.
Could a weapon be dropped, of course. Do I still think the advantage lies with the FFDO who is properly trained and equipped, yes. There are few absolutes in the world such as a guarantee of no dropped weapons. You may be killed in your theoretical fight with the box cutter armed hijackers just the way the pilots on 9/11 did. Any other tool you have you might fancy as helpful such as the ax, extinguisher, etc., could be dropped and then used by hijackers. You could simply be overwhelmed by the volume of attackers. You might fancy a fair fight with one hijacker, what about 4 or 5? I want a force multiplier if that happens. I commuted on a RJ not long ago, the two pilots were small females. I don't expect they would fancy a one on one fight with a hijacker armed with a box cutter as the better of the two scenarios against the likes of the attackers we saw 9/11.
At least I know with a FFDO that they have trained extensively for a fight on the flightdeck. This is more than others who have not completed it nor received formal training and have only an armchair idea of what they are going to do once that door comes open.
Yup, I could drop the gun as you say, but I believe the odds are in my favor (and yours if you're in the cabin) should the door be breached with an armed pilot on the other side as opposed to one who hasn't received any training nor has practiced for that exact scenario.
The FFDO program is a well structured program that emphasizes weapons handling and for a lack of better terms, hand to hand combat. Pilots don't simply apply and receive a weapon and badge. There is recurrent training as well.
Could a weapon be dropped, of course. Do I still think the advantage lies with the FFDO who is properly trained and equipped, yes. There are few absolutes in the world such as a guarantee of no dropped weapons. You may be killed in your theoretical fight with the box cutter armed hijackers just the way the pilots on 9/11 did. Any other tool you have you might fancy as helpful such as the ax, extinguisher, etc., could be dropped and then used by hijackers. You could simply be overwhelmed by the volume of attackers. You might fancy a fair fight with one hijacker, what about 4 or 5? I want a force multiplier if that happens. I commuted on a RJ not long ago, the two pilots were small females. I don't expect they would fancy a one on one fight with a hijacker armed with a box cutter as the better of the two scenarios against the likes of the attackers we saw 9/11.
At least I know with a FFDO that they have trained extensively for a fight on the flightdeck. This is more than others who have not completed it nor received formal training and have only an armchair idea of what they are going to do once that door comes open.
Yup, I could drop the gun as you say, but I believe the odds are in my favor (and yours if you're in the cabin) should the door be breached with an armed pilot on the other side as opposed to one who hasn't received any training nor has practiced for that exact scenario.
"Well, one reason that occurs is that every "legal" gun on board an aircraft is one that could potentially be grabbed by a determined hijacker or "nutcase"
Okay, true given a failure to secure the weapon.
I would ask you to elaborate in the event the cockpit door is rushed after opening.
1. Aircraft #1. Has at least 1 armed pilot. Pilot responds according to to training.
2. Aircraft #2. Both pilots are unarmed.
I would like to hear some reasoned logical responses why example #2 is a much better way to go. It is also understood that being armed with a handgun has it's own limitations in stopping a determined human (s), but what I find fascinating is the total submission to failure exhibited by many regarding this subject. It is always the armed pilot who will drop the gun, shoot out windows, control lines and other crewmembers rather than attempted hijackers. If there is failure of door security, how is it that being unarmed is a better way to go? There is the repeated thought of wanting the pilots to fly the airplane instead of shooting, but who here could concentrate on piloting with unwelcome intruders in the cockpit?
I would add a request to keep on subject per DP's post. I would also note that a weapon is redundant in the event a isolated, armored bulkhead is available for lav and galley needs of the pilots. Until that day comes, I welcome rational thoughts on why this last layer of defense isn't needed.
Thank you.
Okay, true given a failure to secure the weapon.
I would ask you to elaborate in the event the cockpit door is rushed after opening.
1. Aircraft #1. Has at least 1 armed pilot. Pilot responds according to to training.
2. Aircraft #2. Both pilots are unarmed.
I would like to hear some reasoned logical responses why example #2 is a much better way to go. It is also understood that being armed with a handgun has it's own limitations in stopping a determined human (s), but what I find fascinating is the total submission to failure exhibited by many regarding this subject. It is always the armed pilot who will drop the gun, shoot out windows, control lines and other crewmembers rather than attempted hijackers. If there is failure of door security, how is it that being unarmed is a better way to go? There is the repeated thought of wanting the pilots to fly the airplane instead of shooting, but who here could concentrate on piloting with unwelcome intruders in the cockpit?
I would add a request to keep on subject per DP's post. I would also note that a weapon is redundant in the event a isolated, armored bulkhead is available for lav and galley needs of the pilots. Until that day comes, I welcome rational thoughts on why this last layer of defense isn't needed.
Thank you.
Bit of something kicks off down the back - give them all the gas - they all wake up once on the ground, no harm done!
Gas that can safely put people to sleep then allow them to wake up, just like in the movies is exactly that - Hollywood fiction.
No such gas exists. This is why it takes a small team of professionals to keep you in that intermediate area between life and death when having an operation.
Guns in the cockpit and elsewhere
A surprising percentage of the policemen killed every year are killed with their own weapons. This is consistent from year to year so having your weapon turned against you is a definite possibility. Same issues with homeowners, a large number of homeowners killed each year by intruders are killed with their own weapons.
Any weapons expert will tell you of the 12 foot rule. This basically says man with a knife has the advantage of the man with a gun if he is within 12 feet.
Personally I think it makes a lot more sense to train the cabin crew to resist and better yet organize the passengers in the event of an attack.
Anyone remember Thunderball? Wouldn’t take that much to sub a freighter crew at an outstation.
20driver
Any weapons expert will tell you of the 12 foot rule. This basically says man with a knife has the advantage of the man with a gun if he is within 12 feet.
Personally I think it makes a lot more sense to train the cabin crew to resist and better yet organize the passengers in the event of an attack.
Anyone remember Thunderball? Wouldn’t take that much to sub a freighter crew at an outstation.
20driver
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WhatsaLizad? . . .There is the repeated thought of wanting the pilots to fly the airplane instead of shooting, but who here could concentrate on piloting with unwelcome intruders in the cockpit?
