Pardon the Loud Noise, Captain...
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ. USA
Age: 56
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read this idiots column.
He thinks he is a journalist. He should be no more than a poster here.
http://www.concierge.com/cntraveler/...-your-sea.html
He thinks he is a journalist. He should be no more than a poster here.
http://www.concierge.com/cntraveler/...-your-sea.html
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sixandthreeland
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the prime aim is a detterent then it would be safer to tell everyone that there are guns on the flight deck, but actually there are not! Just do not have them. may be
)
)
I would have been happy to have a big sharp knife in every seat back after 9/11 but in hind sight I see the whole world is propagating too many traveling whackos.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MMMMmmm funny how the US people were terrorized into biological warfare and being told of Anthrax coming through the post, and then all of those white powder envelopes came through the post causing mass hysteria, and non of them were Anthrax!!! And they never seem to have happened since
Same in the UK. Funny old thing the only two countries!
What is going on???? A lot more than meets the eye! (Tanks at Heathrow!!)
Scaremongering!!
Same in the UK. Funny old thing the only two countries!What is going on???? A lot more than meets the eye! (Tanks at Heathrow!!)
Scaremongering!!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was the first negligent/accidental discharge in flight. There was an AD in training not long ago (it was an instructor) due to the new holster/lock procedure. You need to be very careful that the lock is not placed ahead of the trigger, which should be no problem if you have followed procedures.
The problem is that FFDOs are handling the weapon (holstered or not) a lot more than they should. The correct protocol would be the same for FFDOs as they are for other armed LEOs on board.
This is a deterrent program. The mindset has changed - no longer will the flightdeck be a target for terrorists. It is also cheap for the government. FFDOs pay for their own training (at the government's facility) and pay for their own range time and self defense training, outside of the periodic requal sessions.
The problem is that FFDOs are handling the weapon (holstered or not) a lot more than they should. The correct protocol would be the same for FFDOs as they are for other armed LEOs on board.
This is a deterrent program. The mindset has changed - no longer will the flightdeck be a target for terrorists. It is also cheap for the government. FFDOs pay for their own training (at the government's facility) and pay for their own range time and self defense training, outside of the periodic requal sessions.
Shoot first ask questions later....
Most of the pro gun posters can't see past pulling the trigger!
Given that a (handgun) bullet proof vest can easily be disguised and concealed in hand baggage, the first shot would have to be to the head.
I'm told this is not easy, even at close quarters.
or maybe the bomb sniffing machines can be tuned to detect Kevlar?
Mickjoebill
Given that a (handgun) bullet proof vest can easily be disguised and concealed in hand baggage, the first shot would have to be to the head.
I'm told this is not easy, even at close quarters.
or maybe the bomb sniffing machines can be tuned to detect Kevlar?
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sixandthreeland
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the pro gun posters can't see past pulling the trigger!
Given that a (handgun) bullet proof vest can easily be disguised and concealed in hand baggage, the first shot would have to be to the head.
I'm told this is not easy, even at close quarters.
or maybe the bomb sniffing machines can be tuned to detect Kevlar?
Given that a (handgun) bullet proof vest can easily be disguised and concealed in hand baggage, the first shot would have to be to the head.
I'm told this is not easy, even at close quarters.
or maybe the bomb sniffing machines can be tuned to detect Kevlar?
If your cockpit door gets attacked from the cabin and gives way to reveal a terrorist wearing a bullet proof vest, are you going to prefer (at THAT moment) to be armed or unarmed?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vienna
Age: 40
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Though I spend a lot of time with my US-american colleagues who I highly respect, I never understood that passion for guns among other things.
As I never got the idea of a "pre-" and "post-911-world".
It usually doesn´t make sense to discuss these issues, as its just a difference in culture there is perhaps no definite right or wrong.
I certainly don´t want to fuel any anti-american clichés, but there is certainly another perception of some things in the rest of the world.
However, I sincerely dont believe that armed pilots make flying any safer but the opposite.
Talking of armed societies, how many people safed their lifes because of being armed, and how many got killed for no reason?
Call me a scared European butthead, but a Cpt to my left, waving his gun around in the preflight would make me feel VERY uncomfortable for the rest of the flight.
I was trained on handling weapons in my military service (my country still seems to enjoy obliging its boys to play war for some reason), but I´m glad I got rid of them and I can´t think of any place more inappropriate for them than the flight deck of an aircraft.
As I never got the idea of a "pre-" and "post-911-world".
It usually doesn´t make sense to discuss these issues, as its just a difference in culture there is perhaps no definite right or wrong.
I certainly don´t want to fuel any anti-american clichés, but there is certainly another perception of some things in the rest of the world.
However, I sincerely dont believe that armed pilots make flying any safer but the opposite.
Talking of armed societies, how many people safed their lifes because of being armed, and how many got killed for no reason?
Call me a scared European butthead, but a Cpt to my left, waving his gun around in the preflight would make me feel VERY uncomfortable for the rest of the flight.
I was trained on handling weapons in my military service (my country still seems to enjoy obliging its boys to play war for some reason), but I´m glad I got rid of them and I can´t think of any place more inappropriate for them than the flight deck of an aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SW tip of Europe
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This being my first message on the board, greetings to everyone!
My two cents, with all due respect towards different opinions:
The possibility of an accidental discharge of a loaded firearm is always there, even for highly trained firearms users. This problem shoudn`t be addressed from that point of view. The only way to keep it from happening on a flight deck is, IMHO, simply to keep firearms out of it.
(And, yes, most modern handguns will not go off even if you throw them on the floor! On the other hand, if you start fiddling with it…)
Pilots are not police officers or sky marshals. No matter how you try to train them in using a gun, the fact is they will never be neither. Their job is to run the flight and fly the aircraft safely and I would think that would enough of a workload by itself.
Besides, flight decks are probably the worst places on an aircraft to start discharging a firearm, whatever the circumstances. And pilots, once aboard, are far too valuable people to risk getting involved in a firefight, for obvious reasons.
And if the idea is to have them storm out of the flight deck, guns blazing, in the middle of a crisis, then I must have got something wrong, somewhere along the line: I thought that the idea of armouring cockpit doors, in the first place, was that no access to the cockpit could be possible in case of a crisis onboard…that was why they kept it shut!
Oh…one other thing: now I know where to get a gun on an aircraft. No bother to try and spot the sky marshal…
More FFDOs than sky marshals?…A bit worrying, isn`t it?
Cheers!
My two cents, with all due respect towards different opinions:
The possibility of an accidental discharge of a loaded firearm is always there, even for highly trained firearms users. This problem shoudn`t be addressed from that point of view. The only way to keep it from happening on a flight deck is, IMHO, simply to keep firearms out of it.
(And, yes, most modern handguns will not go off even if you throw them on the floor! On the other hand, if you start fiddling with it…)
Pilots are not police officers or sky marshals. No matter how you try to train them in using a gun, the fact is they will never be neither. Their job is to run the flight and fly the aircraft safely and I would think that would enough of a workload by itself.
Besides, flight decks are probably the worst places on an aircraft to start discharging a firearm, whatever the circumstances. And pilots, once aboard, are far too valuable people to risk getting involved in a firefight, for obvious reasons.
And if the idea is to have them storm out of the flight deck, guns blazing, in the middle of a crisis, then I must have got something wrong, somewhere along the line: I thought that the idea of armouring cockpit doors, in the first place, was that no access to the cockpit could be possible in case of a crisis onboard…that was why they kept it shut!
Oh…one other thing: now I know where to get a gun on an aircraft. No bother to try and spot the sky marshal…
More FFDOs than sky marshals?…A bit worrying, isn`t it?
Cheers!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sixandthreeland
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can´t think of any place more inappropriate for them than the flight deck of an aircraft.
A bar, an elementary school, a wedding...
If you want to consider what's inappropriate then consider that a REALLY inappropriate place to accomodate a few suicidal terrorists is on an airliner. Then, perhaps a secure cockpit door shielding an armed pilot may be a reasonable proposition to such an extreme threat.
(Of course, you remember that we are talking about the threat of thousands of deaths from just one hijacked airliner.)
Is 9/11 the most successful terrorist attack by far in the minds of the modern terrorist and as such, their inspiration? Of course.
Regarding the understood threat, is maintaining control of the cockpit the undebatable goal of the civilized world? Obviously.
Is it still possible to circumvent security screening? Of course.
Between the points where (fallible) security screening attempts to keep the threat off of the aircraft and an order is given to shoot the aircraft down, there is nothing (without a gun). Knowing that screening can be beaten I prefer an intermediate option to a missile up my pipe.
Last edited by Jaxon; 30th Mar 2008 at 15:49.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sixandthreeland
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if the idea is to have them storm out of the flight deck, guns blazing, in the middle of a crisis, then I must have got something wrong,
That's correct, you got it as wrong as could be.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Though I spend a lot of time with my US-american colleagues who I highly respect, I never understood that passion for guns among other things.
As I never got the idea of a "pre-" and "post-911-world".
It usually doesn´t make sense to discuss these issues, as its just a difference in culture there is perhaps no definite right or wrong.
I certainly don´t want to fuel any anti-american clichés, but there is certainly another perception of some things in the rest of the world.
posted by :
Today 10:03Avionero
However, I sincerely dont believe that armed pilots make flying any safer but the opposite.
Talking of armed societies, how many people safed their lifes because of being armed, and how many got killed for no reason?
Call me a scared European butthead, but a Cpt to my left, waving his gun around in the preflight would make me feel VERY uncomfortable for the rest of the flight.
I was trained on handling weapons in my military service (my country still seems to enjoy obliging its boys to play war for some reason), but I´m glad I got rid of them and I can´t think of any place more inappropriate for them than the flight deck of an aircraft.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. No one's 'waving' gun around. The round exited one of the safest places in the cockpit. Yes, there was a ND, but the gun was pointing in the safest direction, which is a pillar of good gun control. I've flown with dozens of FFDO's, and have never had to correct them on their gun control(ie safe pointing of gun while 'safeing').
2. Glad you got rid of your gun? Cultural difference. 25% of U.S. supposedly own firearms(hunters, ex military, police, included). Many of us saw no need either, until we went to friends memorial services in September 2001. No funerals because there were no bodies. First person killed, all <100 lbs of her, was a friend. When you get a bullseye drawn on your back you might have a change of opinion.
3. More inappropriate place than a cockpit? Between the cultural differences, and the targets drawn on our backs, I'm not sure we'll ever agree on this.
4. U.S. citizens have to be briefed about security in foreign countries, including European countries. They're often shocked to see police/soldiers walking around the airport or terminal with submachine guns. Same with seeing police in cities, or at border crossings, 'armed to the teeth' in their opinion.
So we have folks from a 'gun crazy' nation that have to be briefed on what's 'normal' in 'safe'(limited gun ownership) countries???
As I never got the idea of a "pre-" and "post-911-world".
It usually doesn´t make sense to discuss these issues, as its just a difference in culture there is perhaps no definite right or wrong.
I certainly don´t want to fuel any anti-american clichés, but there is certainly another perception of some things in the rest of the world.
posted by :
Today 10:03Avionero
However, I sincerely dont believe that armed pilots make flying any safer but the opposite.
Talking of armed societies, how many people safed their lifes because of being armed, and how many got killed for no reason?
Call me a scared European butthead, but a Cpt to my left, waving his gun around in the preflight would make me feel VERY uncomfortable for the rest of the flight.
I was trained on handling weapons in my military service (my country still seems to enjoy obliging its boys to play war for some reason), but I´m glad I got rid of them and I can´t think of any place more inappropriate for them than the flight deck of an aircraft.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. No one's 'waving' gun around. The round exited one of the safest places in the cockpit. Yes, there was a ND, but the gun was pointing in the safest direction, which is a pillar of good gun control. I've flown with dozens of FFDO's, and have never had to correct them on their gun control(ie safe pointing of gun while 'safeing').
2. Glad you got rid of your gun? Cultural difference. 25% of U.S. supposedly own firearms(hunters, ex military, police, included). Many of us saw no need either, until we went to friends memorial services in September 2001. No funerals because there were no bodies. First person killed, all <100 lbs of her, was a friend. When you get a bullseye drawn on your back you might have a change of opinion.
3. More inappropriate place than a cockpit? Between the cultural differences, and the targets drawn on our backs, I'm not sure we'll ever agree on this.
4. U.S. citizens have to be briefed about security in foreign countries, including European countries. They're often shocked to see police/soldiers walking around the airport or terminal with submachine guns. Same with seeing police in cities, or at border crossings, 'armed to the teeth' in their opinion.
So we have folks from a 'gun crazy' nation that have to be briefed on what's 'normal' in 'safe'(limited gun ownership) countries???
Last edited by misd-agin; 30th Mar 2008 at 15:40. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaxon . . . Are you living in the past, or what?
...As if in the post 9/11 world it were still probable for any wannabe hijacker to successfully storm the armored cockpit door, attempt to breach it and attempt to enter the cockpit . . . without concerned passengers and cabin crew bouncing on the hijacker(s)?
Trying to be an aerial cop and a pilot simultaneously makes you a mediocre cop and a mediocre pilot!
...As if in the post 9/11 world it were still probable for any wannabe hijacker to successfully storm the armored cockpit door, attempt to breach it and attempt to enter the cockpit . . . without concerned passengers and cabin crew bouncing on the hijacker(s)?
Trying to be an aerial cop and a pilot simultaneously makes you a mediocre cop and a mediocre pilot!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thank You MisdAgain
Gun owners are citizens. The Gunless are Subjects. Yank.
A deranged and terminated Flight Attendant walked by security onto a commuter flight in California some time ago (pre 9/11). Halfway through the Flight, he entered the Cockpit, shot both pilots in the head, then himself. The Aircraft nosed into the Ground from 10000 feet. Neither pilot was armed.
A deranged and terminated Flight Attendant walked by security onto a commuter flight in California some time ago (pre 9/11). Halfway through the Flight, he entered the Cockpit, shot both pilots in the head, then himself. The Aircraft nosed into the Ground from 10000 feet. Neither pilot was armed.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sixandthreeland
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glueball, are you living in a world of denial or just one with no imagination?
Can you not contemplate the possibility of a passenger cabin being somehow controlled yet again - even if the post 9/11 passenger isn't as likely to just sit still?
Do you consider the reinforced door to be impenetrable?
Am I living in the past? That question makes no sense. I've make a clear trail of logic for you to follow based specifically on the here and now, how about trying to challenge my assertion that security screening is flawed and a missile shootdown needs a firm proactive measure in front of it?
Can you not contemplate the possibility of a passenger cabin being somehow controlled yet again - even if the post 9/11 passenger isn't as likely to just sit still?
Do you consider the reinforced door to be impenetrable?
Am I living in the past? That question makes no sense. I've make a clear trail of logic for you to follow based specifically on the here and now, how about trying to challenge my assertion that security screening is flawed and a missile shootdown needs a firm proactive measure in front of it?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glueball -
This is where we just disagree. You're assuming that there is zero chance of gaining cockpit access prior to passenger intervention. What happens if you're wrong? Jason wouldn't have the option of being a pilot in the scenario then. He'd have the choice of defending himself with his pen, paper flight plan, or styrofoam cup against folks that have entered the cockpit with criminal or perhaps murderous intentions. Piloting is out the window.
There was a risk analysis undertaken prior to starting the FFDO program. Any program has pros and cons. The folks in favor of the FFDO program understand people disagree with the program. Oh well.
This is where we just disagree. You're assuming that there is zero chance of gaining cockpit access prior to passenger intervention. What happens if you're wrong? Jason wouldn't have the option of being a pilot in the scenario then. He'd have the choice of defending himself with his pen, paper flight plan, or styrofoam cup against folks that have entered the cockpit with criminal or perhaps murderous intentions. Piloting is out the window.
There was a risk analysis undertaken prior to starting the FFDO program. Any program has pros and cons. The folks in favor of the FFDO program understand people disagree with the program. Oh well.
I believe that one pistol aboard the FD will prevent the rare double failure,i.e a cabin breech and a door breech--- provided that the unwanted discharge of a sidearm is unlikely---in order to be unlikely---the arm is best stored in a quick release cache near to the pilot---
but in light of this recent incident, I'm now of the belief that a thorough review of firearms procedure be undertaken---and I'm eagerly reading the opinions of the others here on this matter---so I don't yet have a firm opinion the more poster who respond the more confused I am
I do however have an opinion regarding firearms choice
Obviously the only acceptable weapon choice would be--- especially for an inexperienced shooter is a DAO [double action only] semi-automatic--or better yet a DA revolver---because semi's require greater care and maintenance as well as the greater difficulty in inspecting for chambered rounds--a revolver in almost unjammable as you can simply fire though a bad round---whereas the ejection and chambering mechanism relies on gas pressure for breech blowback---in a revolver it's a mechanical process---not so sensitive to inconsistencies between round lots---
a revolver can chamber extremely powerful rounds---without extreme wear to the mechanism---and unjacketed rounds reduce probability of of ricochet and aircraft penetration--and of course aim for the head and neck if you feel the intruder is protected by armor
due to the main disadvantage--of lesser firepower---perhaps the 'non-shooting pilot' should be on standby with the crash axe in absolute defense on the FD!
if my great grandmother knew how to not have an accidental discharge wither per colt police revolver then neither should anyone trained in some fancy school
but in light of this recent incident, I'm now of the belief that a thorough review of firearms procedure be undertaken---and I'm eagerly reading the opinions of the others here on this matter---so I don't yet have a firm opinion the more poster who respond the more confused I am
I do however have an opinion regarding firearms choice
Obviously the only acceptable weapon choice would be--- especially for an inexperienced shooter is a DAO [double action only] semi-automatic--or better yet a DA revolver---because semi's require greater care and maintenance as well as the greater difficulty in inspecting for chambered rounds--a revolver in almost unjammable as you can simply fire though a bad round---whereas the ejection and chambering mechanism relies on gas pressure for breech blowback---in a revolver it's a mechanical process---not so sensitive to inconsistencies between round lots---
a revolver can chamber extremely powerful rounds---without extreme wear to the mechanism---and unjacketed rounds reduce probability of of ricochet and aircraft penetration--and of course aim for the head and neck if you feel the intruder is protected by armor
due to the main disadvantage--of lesser firepower---perhaps the 'non-shooting pilot' should be on standby with the crash axe in absolute defense on the FD!
if my great grandmother knew how to not have an accidental discharge wither per colt police revolver then neither should anyone trained in some fancy school