US bid to enable arming of US pilots on all flights
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: u.k.
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
us bid to enable arming of pilots on all flights
Concerning cockpit doors,the main problem with them is that they are opened for food,beverage & toilet breaks,putting a catering trolley across the door with a couple of flight attendants standing guard (which only a few airlines do anyway) will not stop determined hijackers.The only secure but uneconomic solution is to copy El Al,who have an airlock twin door system,perhaps this should be insisted on for new build a/c.In the meantime if properly trained & carefully screened pilots wish to arm themselves,I for one am. happy with that
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: No one's home...
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I noted in an earlier post, one of the safest flights I ever flew had about 28 weapons on board. FBI, FFDO, law enforcement officers.
As for the increasing violence and the possibility of a cockpit breach, 1) it is what it is and 2) because it is what it is, the probability, albeit it remote, has increased. With a weapon, you may defeat the threat. Without it, you are toast. The guys coming in the door are probably going to be well trained, possibly jazzed on chemicals and the first one or two are willing to take a bullet to gain control. Can you take on 3-5 guys with your physical skills? Mr. x caliber may be a good friend to help in a bad situation.
As for the increasing violence and the possibility of a cockpit breach, 1) it is what it is and 2) because it is what it is, the probability, albeit it remote, has increased. With a weapon, you may defeat the threat. Without it, you are toast. The guys coming in the door are probably going to be well trained, possibly jazzed on chemicals and the first one or two are willing to take a bullet to gain control. Can you take on 3-5 guys with your physical skills? Mr. x caliber may be a good friend to help in a bad situation.
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.
The new reality is that if the hijackers gain control, everybody aboard dies; so, we now see that the SLF do jump anybody with disruptive behavior and have also triggered offloading of SLF who raise suspicions.
The previous sheep-like behavior is no longer with us; so, yes any hijack attempt may require serious weaponry and a well drilled team to overcome the SLF. And how will they all get enough of that past the security checks?
Guns in the cockpit can serve as a last line of defence and deterrent, but even without the guns, the current measures make other avenues more easily achievable than trying to take over an a/c with SLF aboard.
As has been mentioned so many times, El Al does it right. Between the double doors and air marshals, there's been no serious attempts. Of course there's always the odd disturbed individual, but they don't get very far and provide a bit of practice
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 44N 63W
Age: 55
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What good is a loaded gun in the cockpit when the suicidal terrorist is putting his bomb together in the aft toilet..... 
so he can martyr himself? Even if he told the cabin crew what he was doing, would a captain leave the flight deck with his firearm? Kind of defeats the whole purpose of locked cockpit doors.... and security screening for weapons!
In principal it seems like a good idea.... in practice I think you'll find it will be unworkable! Bear in mind, the vast majorities of hijackings... yes even post 9/11, have been resolved peacefully. I think governments and boeing/airbus would be better served placing CCTV throughout the entire aircraft and not just outside the cockpit door. How many hijackings recently have occured where the hijacker has blagged his way into the cockpit with the threat of blowing up the plane or his mates killing passengers, only to find that once in the cockpit, he's alone and unarmed and wants to go to a 3rd country. I think full CCTV coverage and locked doors would prevent that without the need of a mexican standoff on the flight deck.
XV
so he can martyr himself? Even if he told the cabin crew what he was doing, would a captain leave the flight deck with his firearm? Kind of defeats the whole purpose of locked cockpit doors.... and security screening for weapons! In principal it seems like a good idea.... in practice I think you'll find it will be unworkable! Bear in mind, the vast majorities of hijackings... yes even post 9/11, have been resolved peacefully. I think governments and boeing/airbus would be better served placing CCTV throughout the entire aircraft and not just outside the cockpit door. How many hijackings recently have occured where the hijacker has blagged his way into the cockpit with the threat of blowing up the plane or his mates killing passengers, only to find that once in the cockpit, he's alone and unarmed and wants to go to a 3rd country. I think full CCTV coverage and locked doors would prevent that without the need of a mexican standoff on the flight deck.
XV
"El Al does it right"
That's all good and well. I support developing technology to the point that armed pilots can be a thing of the past. I fly in about 40 something hours from now.
We will agree to disagree. With what you have posted here you are that simply posturing for the argument or harbor an unrealistic opinion of human nature and cohesiveness operating under a level of stress likely never approached before. I can tell you as SLF twice a week (to and from work, I don't live where domiciled) I don't have many plans of being the first, second or third guy running forward. I don't know if there's law enforcement, air marshals or FFDO's getting ready to act.
What if your traveling on a small regional aircraft with only a handful of able bodied passengers? The 9/11 flight were picked for their light loads, the same could happen again. All of the superheroes you rely on are dead from the 16 round 9MM one of the baddies is carrying.
I can't help but notice quite a change in the opinion:
"WestCoast, the scenario I have in mind is a commotion in the back and the flight crew opening the door to shoot who"
After that scenario is ruled out, then:
Certainly if anybody forcibly comes through the door in the other direction, I'm quite in favor of whatever weapon that can neutralize the threat without endangering the a/c.
"Whatever weapon" would include an armed pilot.
Its only later on, and after contradicting yourself through your posts, you appear to spoil for an argument.
I'm not here for that so carry on.
That's all good and well. I support developing technology to the point that armed pilots can be a thing of the past. I fly in about 40 something hours from now.
We will agree to disagree. With what you have posted here you are that simply posturing for the argument or harbor an unrealistic opinion of human nature and cohesiveness operating under a level of stress likely never approached before. I can tell you as SLF twice a week (to and from work, I don't live where domiciled) I don't have many plans of being the first, second or third guy running forward. I don't know if there's law enforcement, air marshals or FFDO's getting ready to act.
What if your traveling on a small regional aircraft with only a handful of able bodied passengers? The 9/11 flight were picked for their light loads, the same could happen again. All of the superheroes you rely on are dead from the 16 round 9MM one of the baddies is carrying.
I can't help but notice quite a change in the opinion:
"WestCoast, the scenario I have in mind is a commotion in the back and the flight crew opening the door to shoot who"
After that scenario is ruled out, then:
Certainly if anybody forcibly comes through the door in the other direction, I'm quite in favor of whatever weapon that can neutralize the threat without endangering the a/c.
"Whatever weapon" would include an armed pilot.
Its only later on, and after contradicting yourself through your posts, you appear to spoil for an argument.
I'm not here for that so carry on.
Left Seat 747
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Malaysia
Age: 80
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will never be allowed - unfortunately
I fly internationally for a cargo airplane. I would like to be able to carry a gun in my flight bag, after receiving specific training of course, but it will never be allowed during the time I have left to fly. I rarely fly in and out of the US and my other deistinations certainly won't allow guns in the aircraft (China, UAE, etc) but I do want to say the following to the people in this forum that think it is a bad idea.
If any of you ever actually find yourself in a situation where terrorists are bashing away at your cockpit door, trying to knock it down, I bet you will wish you had a gun in your flight bag.
If any of you ever actually find yourself in a situation where terrorists are bashing away at your cockpit door, trying to knock it down, I bet you will wish you had a gun in your flight bag.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sooner the better
For years I have been total opposed to any gun being let on to an aircraft but five years of stupidity from the DfT and airport security (all unable to set a common standard even within the same group of companys) has convinced me that the only way this profession will get respect and not have to undergo a bunch of stupid pointless and ever changing "security checks" is to be armed.
This is a big turn around for me as for years I have apposed guns and gun culture and would seek to see all guns banned (except sporting guns) and stiff penaltys for owning non licenced firearms.
It says a lot when the people who are responsable for keeping guns off aircraft have driven me to want to have a gun just to avoid these so called security checks.
This is a big turn around for me as for years I have apposed guns and gun culture and would seek to see all guns banned (except sporting guns) and stiff penaltys for owning non licenced firearms.
It says a lot when the people who are responsable for keeping guns off aircraft have driven me to want to have a gun just to avoid these so called security checks.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 961
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
guns, guns, guns!!!
swapContent('firstHeader','applyHeader');By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY
For the first time, the U.S. government is asking foreign countries to allow pilots to carry guns in the cockpit when they fly overseas.
The Homeland Security Department, working with the State Department, is trying to expand a 4-year-old program that allows thousands of pilots to carry guns on domestic flights.
"It's obvious that there's a threat internationally," said Conan Bruce, spokesman for the Federal Air Marshals Service, which runs the armed-pilots program. "We want to work toward having (armed pilots) be able to perform their duties on international flights."
Some countries may block U.S. efforts because they don't want guns on airplanes, even if they're carried by trained pilots who have been sworn as law officers.
"Sweden would rather not see any weapons aboard airplanes," said Michael Mohr, homeland security liaison at the Swedish Embassy in Washington. "There's a concern about arms and very sensitive equipment inside airplanes."
Nations can prohibit armed air marshals on U.S. flights to their countries. Some, including Sweden, have resisted U.S. efforts to have them put their own armed officers on U.S.-bound flights. Thousands of U.S. air marshals fly as passengers on domestic and international flights.
Armed pilots, known as flight deck officers, carry guns only in the cockpit. No pilot has fired a gun in a plane, Bruce said. The Transportation Security Administration allows handguns of varied calibers, including .357, .40 and .45, and 9mm.
The effort to expand the armed-pilots program comes amid criticism that it is falling short of its potential. A Homeland Security report released last month said the program needs improvement, and some policies "may have dissuaded pilots from participating."
"More needs to be accomplished to maximize the use of" armed pilots, the report concludes.
Congress cut $11.5 million from the last two budget requests for armed pilots because the program didn't spend all its money. Bruce said costs have fluctuated depending on pilot availability for one week of training.
Federal Flight Deck Officers Association Chairman Jim Krauss said the U.S. push for guns on international flights will help enlist more pilots in the program. "We certainly would see a lot more participation," he said.
About 8% of flights originating in the USA are to international destinations.
Members of Congress have proposed numerous bills since 2004 that would require the administration to work with countries to allow armed pilots, and to take other steps to improve the program.
David Mackett, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance, which advocates for armed pilots, said his group wants to see lifted a policy requiring them to keep guns in a lockbox except when they're in a cockpit. "We have thousands of pilots who are routinely riding in the cabin (as passengers) and could serve as the last line of defense," Mackett said. He said other law enforcement officers carry guns on board planes.
Bruce said improvements are planned in response to pilot concerns. Armed pilots will get badges this year to replace ID cards. Regional training sites will open to make pilot recertification more convenient.
Aviation security consultant Rich Roth said some pilots "feel better" carrying guns, but he doubts they could thwart a hijacker. "If you're sitting in the flight deck and they get through, you have no time to do anything with a weapon," Roth said.
Posted 2/7/2007 10:33 PM ET
For the first time, the U.S. government is asking foreign countries to allow pilots to carry guns in the cockpit when they fly overseas.
The Homeland Security Department, working with the State Department, is trying to expand a 4-year-old program that allows thousands of pilots to carry guns on domestic flights.
"It's obvious that there's a threat internationally," said Conan Bruce, spokesman for the Federal Air Marshals Service, which runs the armed-pilots program. "We want to work toward having (armed pilots) be able to perform their duties on international flights."
Some countries may block U.S. efforts because they don't want guns on airplanes, even if they're carried by trained pilots who have been sworn as law officers.
"Sweden would rather not see any weapons aboard airplanes," said Michael Mohr, homeland security liaison at the Swedish Embassy in Washington. "There's a concern about arms and very sensitive equipment inside airplanes."
Nations can prohibit armed air marshals on U.S. flights to their countries. Some, including Sweden, have resisted U.S. efforts to have them put their own armed officers on U.S.-bound flights. Thousands of U.S. air marshals fly as passengers on domestic and international flights.
Armed pilots, known as flight deck officers, carry guns only in the cockpit. No pilot has fired a gun in a plane, Bruce said. The Transportation Security Administration allows handguns of varied calibers, including .357, .40 and .45, and 9mm.
The effort to expand the armed-pilots program comes amid criticism that it is falling short of its potential. A Homeland Security report released last month said the program needs improvement, and some policies "may have dissuaded pilots from participating."
"More needs to be accomplished to maximize the use of" armed pilots, the report concludes.
Congress cut $11.5 million from the last two budget requests for armed pilots because the program didn't spend all its money. Bruce said costs have fluctuated depending on pilot availability for one week of training.
Federal Flight Deck Officers Association Chairman Jim Krauss said the U.S. push for guns on international flights will help enlist more pilots in the program. "We certainly would see a lot more participation," he said.
About 8% of flights originating in the USA are to international destinations.
Members of Congress have proposed numerous bills since 2004 that would require the administration to work with countries to allow armed pilots, and to take other steps to improve the program.
David Mackett, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance, which advocates for armed pilots, said his group wants to see lifted a policy requiring them to keep guns in a lockbox except when they're in a cockpit. "We have thousands of pilots who are routinely riding in the cabin (as passengers) and could serve as the last line of defense," Mackett said. He said other law enforcement officers carry guns on board planes.
Bruce said improvements are planned in response to pilot concerns. Armed pilots will get badges this year to replace ID cards. Regional training sites will open to make pilot recertification more convenient.
Aviation security consultant Rich Roth said some pilots "feel better" carrying guns, but he doubts they could thwart a hijacker. "If you're sitting in the flight deck and they get through, you have no time to do anything with a weapon," Roth said.
Posted 2/7/2007 10:33 PM ET
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
p7lotOn 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.
How many of the pilots in previous hijackings have willingly given up the a/c? How many did on 9/11? How many will in the future? Probably none.
Trust me, terrorists will willingly trade a bullet in your head for control of the a/c. You might not even be given the chance to protest so there will be no need to worry about being convinced.
How many of the pilots in previous hijackings have willingly given up the a/c? How many did on 9/11? How many will in the future? Probably none.
Trust me, terrorists will willingly trade a bullet in your head for control of the a/c. You might not even be given the chance to protest so there will be no need to worry about being convinced.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Before September 2001, it was SOP to comply with hijackers' demands. That's now changed. Every discussion about whether pilots should be armed must take that into account, as well as the hypothetical question about what would have happened in September 2001 if the current SOP (do not allow anyone onto the flight deck; do not give up control to hijackers) had already been in force.
Please forgive if this has been suggested, haven't read the entire thread, how about tasers rather than guns? (Or as well as.)
Although as an occasional SLF I'm more than happy if the flight crew are armed.
Although as an occasional SLF I'm more than happy if the flight crew are armed.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guns not required ...as the last attempted hijacking was thwarted when the Air Mauritius pilot had slammed the brakes, accelerated and slammed the brakes again; the hijacker with two pistols lost his balance and his pistols and was promptly jumped and held down by 20 passengers. 
It had been mentioned before also that certain maneuvers in flight, a negative G pitch followed by a positive G pitch, would get any hijacker off his feet and an opportunity for concerned passengers to immobilize the hijacker.
It had been mentioned before also that certain maneuvers in flight, a negative G pitch followed by a positive G pitch, would get any hijacker off his feet and an opportunity for concerned passengers to immobilize the hijacker.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's all do a little experiment, shall we?
Next time we're in the sim, ask for 5 minutes from the instructor. Put the plane in normal cruise, at a normal cruise speed, weight and flight level.
Disconnect the autopilot and execute the type of maneuvers you think would result in fighting off a cockpit attack. See how quick you get into either buffet or the shaker. I predict that at about 1.5 G you're going to buffet the wings....
The FFDO's have received many hours of intense training to do what they would do in this situation. What you're talking about Glueball is more of a John Wayne response.....
Next time we're in the sim, ask for 5 minutes from the instructor. Put the plane in normal cruise, at a normal cruise speed, weight and flight level.
Disconnect the autopilot and execute the type of maneuvers you think would result in fighting off a cockpit attack. See how quick you get into either buffet or the shaker. I predict that at about 1.5 G you're going to buffet the wings....
The FFDO's have received many hours of intense training to do what they would do in this situation. What you're talking about Glueball is more of a John Wayne response.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
John Wayne response?
Try this. At normal cruise. Straight and level. Disconnect the autopilot, pull the speed brakes and push forward at the same time. it's a hard push for zero G, and you'll want to close the thrust levers too. anyway, no need for a light push on the pedals but if you can slow as well as fall, then a light touch will produce enough yaw to get your flying friend over your shoulder to start a slow tumble. Alternatively in a smaller craft a quick pull on his legs will be ideal.
Only needs a second of this then a smart but not too firm pull back to lift the nose. Don't be frightened of buffet, it's there for a purpose and you can feel it and just keep it lighter rather than heavier.
Once the nose is up, look over your shoulder and see how the vertical pile driving has helped your visitor with his comfort.
It isn't hard, not too stress inducing on any certified airframe and by keeping the G small you can achieve quite a destabilising effect for non-strapped down folk.
I'd do it if I had to, no question. Once he's down, I'll use the fire axe on him too, again, without any hesitation.
Try this. At normal cruise. Straight and level. Disconnect the autopilot, pull the speed brakes and push forward at the same time. it's a hard push for zero G, and you'll want to close the thrust levers too. anyway, no need for a light push on the pedals but if you can slow as well as fall, then a light touch will produce enough yaw to get your flying friend over your shoulder to start a slow tumble. Alternatively in a smaller craft a quick pull on his legs will be ideal.
Only needs a second of this then a smart but not too firm pull back to lift the nose. Don't be frightened of buffet, it's there for a purpose and you can feel it and just keep it lighter rather than heavier.
Once the nose is up, look over your shoulder and see how the vertical pile driving has helped your visitor with his comfort.
It isn't hard, not too stress inducing on any certified airframe and by keeping the G small you can achieve quite a destabilising effect for non-strapped down folk.
I'd do it if I had to, no question. Once he's down, I'll use the fire axe on him too, again, without any hesitation.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huck ...Amerijet at FLL used to give weightlessness rides in a 727 to interested persons for a fee. The negative G maneuver doesn't need to be aprupt for you to be off your feet and weightless, neither does a positive G maneuver need to be violent in order for your feet to buckle at the knees and sink to the floor.
The simulator does not provide true maneuvering fidelity.
There have been many inflight reports where occupants have been thrown about the cabin during only moderate turbulance encounters.
You don't need to be a test pilot to induce structurally safe ocillations about the pitch axis in order to get people off their feet.
The simulator does not provide true maneuvering fidelity.
There have been many inflight reports where occupants have been thrown about the cabin during only moderate turbulance encounters.
You don't need to be a test pilot to induce structurally safe ocillations about the pitch axis in order to get people off their feet.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I-FORD . . . ocillation about the pitch axis does not involve the use of rudder. Rudder should never be used in flight, except for crosswind landings, or when you have an engine failure.
Conceivably, a captain of a transport category jet has a fair amount of handling experience, enough to effect a measued pitch change without ripping the elevators off.
The captain also has emergency authority to take whatever actions necessary in the interests of survival and safety. . . .because no training, no checklist and no SOP can address all emergency situations. That's when experience, judgement and survival instinct have to kick in.
Conceivably, a captain of a transport category jet has a fair amount of handling experience, enough to effect a measued pitch change without ripping the elevators off.
The captain also has emergency authority to take whatever actions necessary in the interests of survival and safety. . . .because no training, no checklist and no SOP can address all emergency situations. That's when experience, judgement and survival instinct have to kick in.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sussex and Asia
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the USA was so great at sorting out situations that the rest of us non Yanks were not I guess we would not have North Korea Vietnam and Iraq.
Guns and the USA spell disaster. Where else in the world do you get shopping mall and school masacres? El Al is a tiny airline. I suspect if we all had to fly like that no one would go anywhere.
Let us get this in to context. It is easier and generates more publicity (with more people dead) to explode a bomb on the London or New York subway than on an aircraft.
So do we arm all metro staff?
Guns and the USA spell disaster. Where else in the world do you get shopping mall and school masacres? El Al is a tiny airline. I suspect if we all had to fly like that no one would go anywhere.
Let us get this in to context. It is easier and generates more publicity (with more people dead) to explode a bomb on the London or New York subway than on an aircraft.
So do we arm all metro staff?
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guns and the USA spell disaster.
At least be a gentleman and add "since 1945" to your statement, above. Otherwise you shall feel the sharp end of my keyboard.....
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Estonia
Age: 73
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One more argument in favor of armed pilots. We all know that some states already have in force legislation allowing to shut down hijacked civil aircraft in certain circumstances. Generally if they might be a threat to populated areas or objects of high importance. Which means you have a good chance to get a missile into the engine if guys on the ground are not convinced that crew still have control over the flight path (or if your destination is no in the middle of Sakhara desert).
So the only chance for people on board to survive is to keep cockpit clean, and gun in skilled hands can help this a lot.
Aerobatics could help, of course, but some of your passengers may not survive it either.
For some reason I never could get a list of those states. I know about India, Czech Republic, Estonia and US and, probably, Russia. Anyone know about the others?
So the only chance for people on board to survive is to keep cockpit clean, and gun in skilled hands can help this a lot.
Aerobatics could help, of course, but some of your passengers may not survive it either.
For some reason I never could get a list of those states. I know about India, Czech Republic, Estonia and US and, probably, Russia. Anyone know about the others?