US bid to enable arming of US pilots on all flights
". . In fact, I am waiting for a nut case just like you to make it into my cockpit. 
"
"
20driver,
Those items are in my thoughts also. A cockpit door shouldn't be open with a standing passenger under that distance. There are enough internet videos of "benign" people attacking a police officer for his weapon within a close distance.
Agreed that cabin crew training should be addressed on the subject.
I agree that a well trained cabin crew is a good thing. It however should be but one part of a layered defense. That said, and not meaning to sound sexist, a majority of the cabin crew are females. Many selected (at least when hired) because they were below certain physical thresholds.
Glueball
My goal is to do my best to ensure a safe landing. Trading the possibility of an in-flight breakup for a hijacking isn't my idea of winning. I don't know all the technical details (nor am I making judgment) of the AA Airbus crash in New York, but a maneuver from an encounter a lot more common than a hijacking (again whether executed properly or not or if manufacturer negligence) contributed to the crash.
What makes you think your going to have anymore time to do your maneuvering than I would to pull my weapon? A 150-200 pound object flying through the cockpit, alive or not is has its own dangers.
Glueball
My goal is to do my best to ensure a safe landing. Trading the possibility of an in-flight breakup for a hijacking isn't my idea of winning. I don't know all the technical details (nor am I making judgment) of the AA Airbus crash in New York, but a maneuver from an encounter a lot more common than a hijacking (again whether executed properly or not or if manufacturer negligence) contributed to the crash.
What makes you think your going to have anymore time to do your maneuvering than I would to pull my weapon? A 150-200 pound object flying through the cockpit, alive or not is has its own dangers.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the first thing that you would feel is weightlessness as you'd bounce off the ceiling after a negative G maneuver;
This is not a good debate. No one is going to change their minds. It's something you feel in your gut or you don't. Either you want some totally self-directed method of defending yourself in a life-or-death situation, or you don't - you are content to leave defense of self to others. I can't manufacture that instinct in others. They can't take it out of me.
This debate goes to the very differences in our nations. Hamster wheel, here we come.
There have been a few deranged individuals who have attempted to access the cockpit since 9/11. The one who got farthest stuck his head through a blowout panel only to get it whacked with the ax
I believe more than one has suffocated from the weight of the several SLF who piled on top of him.
The more fortunate were plasticuffed to a seat after being all subdued by the SLF.
Instead of guns, my preference would be for a double door where the interlock allows only one door to open at any time to prevent a rushing attack as opposed to today's food cart tactic.
My big problem with guns in the cockpit is that today the SLF are quick to pile on top of anybody attempting anything untoward. They will be much less so inclined if the cockpit door flies open and one of the crew happens to shoot an SLF who has come to assistance
In the case of freighters where there's a potential of a hijacker hidden in a container, I can see a need for guns.
I believe more than one has suffocated from the weight of the several SLF who piled on top of him.
The more fortunate were plasticuffed to a seat after being all subdued by the SLF.
Instead of guns, my preference would be for a double door where the interlock allows only one door to open at any time to prevent a rushing attack as opposed to today's food cart tactic.
My big problem with guns in the cockpit is that today the SLF are quick to pile on top of anybody attempting anything untoward. They will be much less so inclined if the cockpit door flies open and one of the crew happens to shoot an SLF who has come to assistance
In the case of freighters where there's a potential of a hijacker hidden in a container, I can see a need for guns.
All these ideas about separate entrances (including separate lav/galley) double doors, etc are in the future. Perhaps they are viable options, but for today's flight they don't exist. Armed pilots do. I'm not content to fly on waiting for these modifications when I fly again in 3 days.
While I view deranged, mentally challenged individuals trying to get on the flight deck as a threat I don't see them in the same light as a determined group of hijackers. The SLF might deal with one guy who has a mental episode and tries to make it up front. My faith that they will successfully deal with a group of determined, practiced, and armed individuals who goal is to die is considerably less.
"My big problem with guns in the cockpit is that today the SLF are quick to pile on top of anybody attempting anything untoward. They will be much less so inclined if the cockpit door flies open and one of the crew happens to shoot an SLF who has come to assistance"
And you're not going to try and stick the ax in the SLF's head when the door flies open and someone you don't know rushes the door, no matter how well intentioned? Just because you occupy a seat up front doesn't make you an expert in identifying a bad guy from a good one instantaneously. You must assume anyone breaching the door as a hijacker.
Huck has it right. no one going to change anyones mind. Perhaps the next set of hijackers might however.
While I view deranged, mentally challenged individuals trying to get on the flight deck as a threat I don't see them in the same light as a determined group of hijackers. The SLF might deal with one guy who has a mental episode and tries to make it up front. My faith that they will successfully deal with a group of determined, practiced, and armed individuals who goal is to die is considerably less.
"My big problem with guns in the cockpit is that today the SLF are quick to pile on top of anybody attempting anything untoward. They will be much less so inclined if the cockpit door flies open and one of the crew happens to shoot an SLF who has come to assistance"
And you're not going to try and stick the ax in the SLF's head when the door flies open and someone you don't know rushes the door, no matter how well intentioned? Just because you occupy a seat up front doesn't make you an expert in identifying a bad guy from a good one instantaneously. You must assume anyone breaching the door as a hijacker.
Huck has it right. no one going to change anyones mind. Perhaps the next set of hijackers might however.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sussex and Asia
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we all go down the George W Bush scheme of things then forget flying anywhere!
Would arming American teachers stop the regular bloodshed we see on tv in yet another USA school seige? I don't think so. The USA has social problems in their society that do not belong in the rest of the world.
Gun and aircraft do not go together.
I have avoided US airlines since Lockerbie.
Would arming American teachers stop the regular bloodshed we see on tv in yet another USA school seige? I don't think so. The USA has social problems in their society that do not belong in the rest of the world.
Gun and aircraft do not go together.
I have avoided US airlines since Lockerbie.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in the hills
Age: 68
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I would like to know is whether as a professional Pilot I will have the option to be armed or not. If I choose not to be armed will I also have the right to choose to fly with a co-pilot or F/E who are also not armed?
Basically I think that this idea seems to indicate a movement where we have to be armed. If that is where this is going to take us I don't think I want to be involved in it any more!
Basically I think that this idea seems to indicate a movement where we have to be armed. If that is where this is going to take us I don't think I want to be involved in it any more!
Cabin crew as a defence
A recent flight I was on had a rather clever and effective defence step. Whenever the flight deck door was to open they pulled a beverage cart across the single aisle with the FA on the cockpit side.
Simple steps like this make a lot of sense to me. If is ever gets to a gunfight in the cockpit odds are all is lost.
I'm not so much against the armed crew idea as I'm against the false sense assurance it will provide in certain quarters. This is all too typical of the head in the sand approach to security that most countries have adopted. Lots of show, little substance. This is a complex and dynamic problem. Armed crew are an emotional and cheap way out.
20driver
Simple steps like this make a lot of sense to me. If is ever gets to a gunfight in the cockpit odds are all is lost.
I'm not so much against the armed crew idea as I'm against the false sense assurance it will provide in certain quarters. This is all too typical of the head in the sand approach to security that most countries have adopted. Lots of show, little substance. This is a complex and dynamic problem. Armed crew are an emotional and cheap way out.
20driver
[QUOTE]A recent flight I was on had a rather clever and effective defence step. Whenever the flight deck door was to open they pulled a beverage cart across the single aisle with the FA on the cockpit side.
Simple steps like this make a lot of sense to me. If is ever gets to a gunfight in the cockpit odds are all is lost.
I'm not so much against the armed crew idea as I'm against the false sense assurance it will provide in certain quarters. [/QUOTE]
Agreed that it is a false sense of security. Even though I support a trained, armed pilot, it should be noted that this defense layer comes with faults and isn't perfect. It is well known public knowledge of the limitations handguns have in stopping a motivated human. I have two relatives working in a couple of the worst areas in the US for gang shootings. One a paramedic, the other a police officer. The numbers of walking/talking individuals carrying several new handgun bullet holes are surprising. Some may drop dead in the ER, but many are capable of fighting long enough for a inflight situation.
It's just another layer of security. Imperfect? Yes, but until aircraft have seperate, secure galley/lav facilities, I will support it.
[QUOTE]"I have avoided US airlines since Lockerbie."[/QUOTE]
In addition to US airlines, UTA and Air India, one might guess you could add Aeroflot, Korean Air, Avianca, Cubana and on.
Thanks
Simple steps like this make a lot of sense to me. If is ever gets to a gunfight in the cockpit odds are all is lost.
I'm not so much against the armed crew idea as I'm against the false sense assurance it will provide in certain quarters. [/QUOTE]
Agreed that it is a false sense of security. Even though I support a trained, armed pilot, it should be noted that this defense layer comes with faults and isn't perfect. It is well known public knowledge of the limitations handguns have in stopping a motivated human. I have two relatives working in a couple of the worst areas in the US for gang shootings. One a paramedic, the other a police officer. The numbers of walking/talking individuals carrying several new handgun bullet holes are surprising. Some may drop dead in the ER, but many are capable of fighting long enough for a inflight situation.
It's just another layer of security. Imperfect? Yes, but until aircraft have seperate, secure galley/lav facilities, I will support it.
[QUOTE]"I have avoided US airlines since Lockerbie."[/QUOTE]
In addition to US airlines, UTA and Air India, one might guess you could add Aeroflot, Korean Air, Avianca, Cubana and on.
Thanks
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....I have argued this point on previous posts.....I would agree with the sentiments from both sides,and are of the opinion that guns dont have a place in the cockpit.The other so-called "weapons"...crash axe,flare gun are all weapons but they have an obvious purpose,a defined purpose .....
For those of us who are part of the FFDO programme,will tell you it is one of the best training phases you will go through,the roles are defined ,the rules of engagement are defined.I do not argue that things can and will go wrong,but with training and understanding,just like our normal cockpit duties,we can hopefully avoid catasrophic situations.
We all have a choice,I have a choice,I dont knock anyone who is against this policy of arming pilots or having armed individuals on board,it has been going on for many years on many airlines,and the statistics speak for themselves.
I flew the morning of 911(just like many of you)KLAS-KJFK....diverted into KDTW....these things you never forget.I,m not sure arming pilots is the best solution,but it is "one" of the best we have currently,hopefully that will change.Just trying to put my best foot forward and be part of a better solution.
And for those of you who knock the FFDO(armed pilots) programme,....unless youve been through the programme,your bias is unfounded.....PB
For those of us who are part of the FFDO programme,will tell you it is one of the best training phases you will go through,the roles are defined ,the rules of engagement are defined.I do not argue that things can and will go wrong,but with training and understanding,just like our normal cockpit duties,we can hopefully avoid catasrophic situations.
We all have a choice,I have a choice,I dont knock anyone who is against this policy of arming pilots or having armed individuals on board,it has been going on for many years on many airlines,and the statistics speak for themselves.
I flew the morning of 911(just like many of you)KLAS-KJFK....diverted into KDTW....these things you never forget.I,m not sure arming pilots is the best solution,but it is "one" of the best we have currently,hopefully that will change.Just trying to put my best foot forward and be part of a better solution.
And for those of you who knock the FFDO(armed pilots) programme,....unless youve been through the programme,your bias is unfounded.....PB
My big problem with guns in the cockpit is that today the SLF are quick to pile on top of anybody attempting anything untoward. They will be much less so inclined if the cockpit door flies open and one of the crew happens to shoot an SLF who has come to assistance
Certainly if anybody forcibly comes through the door in the other direction, I'm quite in favor of whatever weapon that can neutralise the threat without endangering the a/c.
Lets not forget that the SLF overwhelmed a well organised team of box-cutter armed hijackers aboard UA 93 and did at least prevent use of the a/c against a target in Washington.
With the current doors, the hijackers face great difficulty gaining control of the cockpit before the SLF get to them.
In the land of Quarter Pounders and Super Sized Portions, the human wave attack can be highly effective
"WestCoast, the scenario I have in mind is a commotion in the back and the flight crew opening the door to shoot who"
Let me assure you, that will not happen. We don't open the door in the situation you speak of, this is rule number one. The tenant of anti hijacking security post 9/11 is that the door remains closed if there are any problems. This being true if the crew is armed or not.
The area of responsibility for FFDO's is the flight deck and nothing else. One of the briefing items during the crew brief many add is that the F/A's are on their own should something happen, something they already know. The FFDO's job if there is a disturbance to protect the pilot flying. Keeping the door closed is the primary way of doing so, should the door be breached, then the weapon takes over.
Let me assure you, that will not happen. We don't open the door in the situation you speak of, this is rule number one. The tenant of anti hijacking security post 9/11 is that the door remains closed if there are any problems. This being true if the crew is armed or not.
The area of responsibility for FFDO's is the flight deck and nothing else. One of the briefing items during the crew brief many add is that the F/A's are on their own should something happen, something they already know. The FFDO's job if there is a disturbance to protect the pilot flying. Keeping the door closed is the primary way of doing so, should the door be breached, then the weapon takes over.
"Lets not forget that the SLF overwhelmed a well organised team of box-cutter armed hijackers aboard UA 93"
Yes, and the passengers and crew died. Certainly they stopped the aircraft from being used as a weapon, my goal is to never let them in the cockpit to begin with and try and save the lives of those onboard. Sorry, UA 93 was inspirational, but it wasn't any type of success for those onboard.
"With the current doors, the hijackers face great difficulty gaining control of the cockpit before the SLF get to them"
I don't mean to be demeaning, but what is your experience with the door? Its my experience as an airline pilot who deals with the re-enforced door that you are putting much stock in something that is but one part of a layered defense. It is not the end all.
Heard of the maginot line?
"before the SLF get to them"
What if the SLF are being mowed down by a weapon? The doors are bullet proof for a reason, that being the possibility that weapons can make it on board. You want to be the third SLF that runs forward when the previous two are gutted by the attackers? Perhaps you will, or worse perhaps you won't. I'm not prepared to rely on the sketchy, unpredictable human responses as a viable deterrent or solution.
Yes, and the passengers and crew died. Certainly they stopped the aircraft from being used as a weapon, my goal is to never let them in the cockpit to begin with and try and save the lives of those onboard. Sorry, UA 93 was inspirational, but it wasn't any type of success for those onboard.
"With the current doors, the hijackers face great difficulty gaining control of the cockpit before the SLF get to them"
I don't mean to be demeaning, but what is your experience with the door? Its my experience as an airline pilot who deals with the re-enforced door that you are putting much stock in something that is but one part of a layered defense. It is not the end all.
Heard of the maginot line?
"before the SLF get to them"
What if the SLF are being mowed down by a weapon? The doors are bullet proof for a reason, that being the possibility that weapons can make it on board. You want to be the third SLF that runs forward when the previous two are gutted by the attackers? Perhaps you will, or worse perhaps you won't. I'm not prepared to rely on the sketchy, unpredictable human responses as a viable deterrent or solution.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.S. East Cost and Europe (travelling too much, and at home in both)
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF here with a question on the procedures before and after the flight. I do not have a problem with guns on the flight deck per se - but can somebody enlighten me how they get there/are removed? Without disclosing anything dangerous of course.
I keep on wondering whether the real danger in a program like this could be in the terminal, not on the plane. At the moment, there are essentially no guns after security. In airports where I have seen armed patrols of folks in police uniform (Frankfurt had this as long as I can remember, with pretty hefty firepower, not just a sidearm), I think they are not allowed back there. And if they are, they are in teams of at least 2 (if I remember correctly).
How does this work with the armed Pilot? I assume s/he is not just happily walking out of the cockpit packing a gun in the pilot case. But could s/he be overpowered at the gate by an angry passenger who just snapped because a flight is 3 hours late? This scenario is much more likely than a planned hijack IMHO - stuff like this seems to happen a lot these days (or we hear about it a lot thanks to the media)
Thanks for the enlightement.
I keep on wondering whether the real danger in a program like this could be in the terminal, not on the plane. At the moment, there are essentially no guns after security. In airports where I have seen armed patrols of folks in police uniform (Frankfurt had this as long as I can remember, with pretty hefty firepower, not just a sidearm), I think they are not allowed back there. And if they are, they are in teams of at least 2 (if I remember correctly).
How does this work with the armed Pilot? I assume s/he is not just happily walking out of the cockpit packing a gun in the pilot case. But could s/he be overpowered at the gate by an angry passenger who just snapped because a flight is 3 hours late? This scenario is much more likely than a planned hijack IMHO - stuff like this seems to happen a lot these days (or we hear about it a lot thanks to the media)
Thanks for the enlightement.
UA 93 crashed because the hijackers were allowed to gain entry to the cockpit.
As the SLF beat their way in, the hijackers choose crashing the plane over imminent defeat.
Agreed that no barrier is impregnable, but post 9/11 the chances of this happening have gone waaaay down as the bad guys have to get past the food cart and beat down the door with whatever thay have managed to smuggle aboard before the SLF get to them.
Your average SLF with his wife and kids aboard will not be sitting on his hands.
And I don't see concentrations of ME-ancestry young men sitting together in business class any more.
As the SLF beat their way in, the hijackers choose crashing the plane over imminent defeat.
Agreed that no barrier is impregnable, but post 9/11 the chances of this happening have gone waaaay down as the bad guys have to get past the food cart and beat down the door with whatever thay have managed to smuggle aboard before the SLF get to them.
Your average SLF with his wife and kids aboard will not be sitting on his hands.
And I don't see concentrations of ME-ancestry young men sitting together in business class any more.
I keep re-reading my posts to make sure I'm not saying things I shouldn't.
I'd rather not say much except to say your worries are covered by FFDO policy and training.
I'd rather not say much except to say your worries are covered by FFDO policy and training.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: EGSS
Age: 62
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a 'limey'. I do not understand the concept of arming people to deter violence.
I have enjoyed 20 years in commercial aviation without an incident more serious than bad coffee except in simulation.
Having said that, we now have armed response as a regular occurence in the uk and I despair at the escalation of global terror.
My door is now reinforced and a new button on the console locks it and I feel sure "check for suspect slf" will come onto the aftertakeoff checklist possibly between positive climb and gear up so that we at least get a chance to pass the beacon.
On a more serious note...I do not need a gun to protect my flightdeck, but you definately need one to convince me to release control and the bullet would have to enter my scull to make me.
I have enjoyed 20 years in commercial aviation without an incident more serious than bad coffee except in simulation.
Having said that, we now have armed response as a regular occurence in the uk and I despair at the escalation of global terror.
My door is now reinforced and a new button on the console locks it and I feel sure "check for suspect slf" will come onto the aftertakeoff checklist possibly between positive climb and gear up so that we at least get a chance to pass the beacon.
On a more serious note...I do not need a gun to protect my flightdeck, but you definately need one to convince me to release control and the bullet would have to enter my scull to make me.
"but post 9/11 the chances of this happening have gone waaaay down"
How do you as SLF know this? Why are thousands airline pilots who intimately know the security procedures post 9/11 still worried about it? I promise you carrying a weapon is a pain in the butt, I get no thrill from it. Its done because of a previously manifested threat to security of the aircraft and the belief that it will at least be tried again.
"And I don't see concentrations of ME-ancestry young men sitting together in business class any more"
There is nothing to stop them from doing so if that's how they arrange to buy the tickets. Don't be profiling now, not allowed.
It comes down to your belief that you think the SLF will in mass rush an attacker with a gun or other weapon. I don't have the same degree of trust in human nature, especially when faced with extreme threat that they will do as you have predicted. I've seen people under stress in tenious situations while in the military, they don't always act as predicted.
"Your average SLF with his wife and kids aboard will not be sitting on his hands"
Again, can you absolutely predict you will be the third guy to rush the hijacker with the gun after he has killed the two ahead of you who tried? What if God forbid he has your wife or one of your children and has a gun to their head screaming for everyone to sit back or else. You may then be the one who tries to stop any do gooders as it may harm a loved one. A million different scenarios and as many differing human reactions.
How do you as SLF know this? Why are thousands airline pilots who intimately know the security procedures post 9/11 still worried about it? I promise you carrying a weapon is a pain in the butt, I get no thrill from it. Its done because of a previously manifested threat to security of the aircraft and the belief that it will at least be tried again.
"And I don't see concentrations of ME-ancestry young men sitting together in business class any more"
There is nothing to stop them from doing so if that's how they arrange to buy the tickets. Don't be profiling now, not allowed.
It comes down to your belief that you think the SLF will in mass rush an attacker with a gun or other weapon. I don't have the same degree of trust in human nature, especially when faced with extreme threat that they will do as you have predicted. I've seen people under stress in tenious situations while in the military, they don't always act as predicted.
"Your average SLF with his wife and kids aboard will not be sitting on his hands"
Again, can you absolutely predict you will be the third guy to rush the hijacker with the gun after he has killed the two ahead of you who tried? What if God forbid he has your wife or one of your children and has a gun to their head screaming for everyone to sit back or else. You may then be the one who tries to stop any do gooders as it may harm a loved one. A million different scenarios and as many differing human reactions.