US bid to enable arming of US pilots on all flights

[Stoic]

Hi West Coast. That was a joke.

I shall decline your instruction to study, but I will also exercise my choice to avoid airlines which carry guns in the cockpit.

Regards

S

[West Coast]

Hope you know which ones do and which ones don't. There's only one way to find out for sure, trying breaking through the door.

[paull]

So that's how to get a gun on the plane!

I'm a statistician, and whenever teaching conditional probability I just love that one about always carrying a bomb with you on a plane because the chances of there being two bombs on the same plane is so statistically small....... . Hell yeh, the more guns we can get on a plane the better!

Still now I know how to get a gun on there- I just need a flight crew uniform and some fake id and the gun goes through security no problem.
Or, next time I am sitting down the back next to the captain flying out to meet his plane, do I have a quick rifle through his flight bag for the pistol?

As SLF, I reckon that on about 30% of flights I would have a good chance of strolling into the cockpit without any fuss, quite apart from the published info on how to get them to unlock.

Lets focus on not letting terrorists on planes rather than than just hassling everybody. My favourite was the explosive sniffing machines at LHR, that would stop them - oh, unless they were travelling Club in which case the FastTrack went straight round it, but then, rough types don't travel Club! All we are doing with airport security is wasting time and money for the sole purpose of making people feel more confident so as not to hurt the business, but it is the security delays that are hurting the business! Anyone who seriously thinks about it will find a way around any established security procedure.

[dougcs]

"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."

P7lot, you could find yourself faced with the latter thereby disproving the former.

If you are aware of the holes in airport security you should then acknowledge that you cannot keep determined, organized, and armed terrorists off the plane. A cockpit secured with a hardened door and protected by an armed pilot offers an increased ability to proactively deny the use of the aircraft as a WMD.

After 9/11 the temptation is too great for terrorism to resist trying to repeat that global attention getting feat again. Control of the cockpit is the focus and after all the airport security fails it is the secure and armed cockpit that keeps the plane from being used in this way again.

[boofhead]

Airport security

The ease with which guns were smuggled aboarda flight from Florida to PR shows how useless and stupid the efforts to control the passengers and crew have become. Stop the nonsense now and disband the TSA and the other equivalents around the world. They do not work, cannot work, and have never in the history of aviation stopped any terrorist. Normal pre-911 security is all that is required.
[URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/08/national/main2546410.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2546410"]

[barit1]

The best security is to recognize that ground-based security is more-or-less ineffective and often a joke.

Therefore airborne security (armed crew and/or sky marshals) is required.

[fox niner]

Aaaaaahhhh yes.

The difference between the USA and Europe.

Suppose an armed US cockpit crew lands in the EU, and the doors are then opened after landing, they will instantly be committing a criminal act.

Namely, carrying a firearm while not entitled to do so.

No guns on planes. Are they completely nuts?

I guess Hollywood can make a cool movie out of this. "Guns on a Plane" the sequel to "Snakes on a Plane"

[AirRabbit]

Who needs guns? When faced with a homicide/suicide type individual we can just "Pull a Neville" negotiate "Peace in our time"! Worked for the Brits.

With all due respect, I don't think my British colleagues have a corner on THAT particular market. We here in the US seem to have a whole Congress full of those who believe that it is the "politically correct" thing to do to sit down with your enemy, enter into a gentlemanly discourse, and find out why he is our enemy. From there it is thought to be rather easy to find a way to make that issue "go away" and, thereby, make your enemy your bosom buddy. Life is good. Everyone has his price - and the US can afford to pay any price to ensure that life is good for everyone everywhere. Of course, to buy into this logic, we have to forget that such actions have yet to work in the real world, but, what-the-hey ... what is there to loose? I call it the "Polly-Anna-Funeral" syndrome. The only thing that is more tragically funny is the “I’ll-fix-you” syndrome. That is where an argumentative person loads and cocks a firearm, aims it at his own head, with his finger gingerly pulling on the trigger, and says, “If you don’t do what I want, I’ll fix you!” And the only reason that this IS more funny is that you and I would be around after the fact to actually laugh.

[warwicks]

Onboard security is NOT the way forward. Giving somebody on an aircraft a weapon is a sure way to cause problems.

Crew will constantly be on edge not knowing if there is a gun on their flight. There is no failsafe recruitment programme that can guarantee that everyone employed as a sky marshall will be in sound mind and body all of the time! Therefore making sure that they cannot be overpowered and lose their weapon or use the weapon for a reason where it is not required.
Was there not recently an episode where somebody was shot at a US airport (and this person was found to be completely law abiding) and in the UK the S.American gentleman shot in a tube station (again completely law abiding). These things happened due to hightened sensitivity and therefore people being a little "trigger happy". These were supposed to be highly trained people and look what happend- is there anyone willing to guarantee this wont happen on aircraft?

I certainly do not want to work on board an aircraft where somebody has so much power and is allowed to remain anonymous and I do not wish to be a passenger.

What are other people's thoughts?

[Tarq57]

What are other people's thoughts?

As an occasional SLF who normally works in a nice safe tower, where not many of my colleagues are truly nuts, and in a country where hijackings/acts of terrorism are/have been fairly unlikely (touch wood), I'm all for armed sky marshals. And armed flight crew, too. If they want that.

[AirRabbit]

Onboard security is NOT the way forward. Giving somebody on an aircraft a weapon is a sure way to cause problems.
Crew will constantly be on edge not knowing if there is a gun on their flight. There is no failsafe recruitment programme that can guarantee that everyone employed as a sky marshall will be in sound mind and body all of the time! Therefore making sure that they cannot be overpowered and lose their weapon or use the weapon for a reason where it is not required.
Was there not recently an episode where somebody was shot at a US airport (and this person was found to be completely law abiding) and in the UK the S.American gentleman shot in a tube station (again completely law abiding). These things happened due to hightened sensitivity and therefore people being a little "trigger happy". These were supposed to be highly trained people and look what happend- is there anyone willing to guarantee this wont happen on aircraft?
I certainly do not want to work on board an aircraft where somebody has so much power and is allowed to remain anonymous and I do not wish to be a passenger.

Well, actually, at least in the US, there is never anyone on board the aircraft with a weapon were the flight crew do not only know about who it is, the flight crew usually meets and talks with the person, and they always know the seat in which that passenger is seated. Additionally, to the best of their ability, the crew advises all other armed passengers aboard, where everyone with a weapon is seated. For some time now, the US has had a Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program, where a flight crewmember, on his own time and at his own expense, receives training from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in New Mexico under contract with the US Transportation Security Administration on how to defend his/her aircraft in the event of an attempted hijacking. There is a lot of information available, but I won’t go into any of it here, for obvious reasons – however, suffice it to say that believing “on board” security won’t work, is like talking about the inadvisability of sending a man to the moon. As the current saying goes, “been there – done that;” past tense, DONE that.

Oh, and about that “law abiding gentleman” who was shot at a US airport … that person was acting more than a little suspicious throughout the boarding process. He got quite belligerent. He wouldn’t take his seat. He was extremely vocal, bordering on violent. After many attempts to calm him down (unsuccessfully, by the way) he grabbed his carry on bag, placed his hand inside the bag, got out of his seat and began running forward toward the cockpit, yelling something in a language other than English. A Federal Air Marshal on board identified himself, ordered the man to stop, but he kept running toward the front with his hand inside his carry-on bag. According to witnesses, when the man stopped at the front of the aircraft, turned, and made motions like he was hurriedly trying to either pull something from inside the bag or pull something inside the bag, the Marshal shot him. Unfortunately, later it was determined that this passenger had been on medication and had refused to take it that day. Apparently he was panicked about flying and changed his mind, wanting off the airplane. No one knows what he was reaching for inside his bag. It was an unfortunate circumstance – and I’m sure the Marshal felt terrible about the whole thing. But, had that been an attempted bombing, and the Marshal took no action and a bomb had been detonated at the front entry door, that Marshal would have been crucified for NOT shooting him – and everyone acknowledges that fact. Law enforcement officers are hired, they are paid, and they are trained to fire their weapons when necessary. I do not understand when an officer does use his weapon and someone dies, some people find it necessary to call that officer “trigger happy.” Most officers are not trained for, nor would they necessarily be interested in, shooting the gun out of the bad guys hand. The real world does not operate like television or the movies. They don’t refer to it as deadly force for grins.