Pardon the Loud Noise, Captain...
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SW tip of Europe
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
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.
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 2001
Location: Subic Bay, Zambales, Philippines
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOME PILOTS BLAME TSA FOR COCKPIT GUNFIRE
The Airline Pilot Security Alliance (APSA) Thursday released a statement saying that TSA weapons handling rules are to blame for the accidental discharge of a pilot's firearm while in the cockpit of a flying US Airways jet last weekend. The APSA pointed specifically to the TSA's requirement for pilots to remove the guns from their person, lock them and carry them "off-body" when off the flight deck. The group quotes an unidentified federal flight deck officer who said the pilot involved was preparing for landing and was trying to remove his gun and secure it when "the padlock depressed the trigger." Personal responsibility aside, the rules may force some pilots to handle their guns ten times each day and that much gun play is "a recipe for disaster," according to David Mackett, president of the APSA. APSA's press release concluded with one pilot's opinion that Congress take a look at how the program is operated, and the suggestion that pilots should follow the same procedures applied to federal air marshals.
The Airline Pilot Security Alliance (APSA) Thursday released a statement saying that TSA weapons handling rules are to blame for the accidental discharge of a pilot's firearm while in the cockpit of a flying US Airways jet last weekend. The APSA pointed specifically to the TSA's requirement for pilots to remove the guns from their person, lock them and carry them "off-body" when off the flight deck. The group quotes an unidentified federal flight deck officer who said the pilot involved was preparing for landing and was trying to remove his gun and secure it when "the padlock depressed the trigger." Personal responsibility aside, the rules may force some pilots to handle their guns ten times each day and that much gun play is "a recipe for disaster," according to David Mackett, president of the APSA. APSA's press release concluded with one pilot's opinion that Congress take a look at how the program is operated, and the suggestion that pilots should follow the same procedures applied to federal air marshals.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toprotectandserve
Probationary PPRuNer
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SW tip of Europe
Posts: 2
Oh, sorry, then...so the concept is that the pilots should start firing from inside the flight deck, is it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's keep this between you and me since we're not supposed to talk abou tit publically -
The plan is for the pilots to leave the cockpit, allow the terrorists to enter the cockpit, and then for the pilots to try and shot their way back into the cockpit.
On a more serious note -
scenario #1 - terrorists in cockpit - do you support the pilots firing from inside the cockpit?
scenario #2 - terrorists attempting to access cockpit while cockpit door is open - do you support pilots shooting from cockpit or do you insist that pilots what for terrorists to actually enter the cockpit prior to their firing?
scenario #2A - if you advocate only firing once terrorists are in the cockpit have you ever done any defensive training? How far is cockpit door from your seat? If there are 4, 6, 8 or more terrorists, with volunteer 'bullet catchers', how many shots do you think you could fire if your personal standard was 'no shots until the first guy enters the cockpit'?
"Toprotectandserve"? How about filling us in on the genesis of your screen name?
Probationary PPRuNer
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SW tip of Europe
Posts: 2
Oh, sorry, then...so the concept is that the pilots should start firing from inside the flight deck, is it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's keep this between you and me since we're not supposed to talk abou tit publically -
The plan is for the pilots to leave the cockpit, allow the terrorists to enter the cockpit, and then for the pilots to try and shot their way back into the cockpit.
On a more serious note -
scenario #1 - terrorists in cockpit - do you support the pilots firing from inside the cockpit?
scenario #2 - terrorists attempting to access cockpit while cockpit door is open - do you support pilots shooting from cockpit or do you insist that pilots what for terrorists to actually enter the cockpit prior to their firing?
scenario #2A - if you advocate only firing once terrorists are in the cockpit have you ever done any defensive training? How far is cockpit door from your seat? If there are 4, 6, 8 or more terrorists, with volunteer 'bullet catchers', how many shots do you think you could fire if your personal standard was 'no shots until the first guy enters the cockpit'?
"Toprotectandserve"? How about filling us in on the genesis of your screen name?
Last edited by misd-agin; 30th Mar 2008 at 21:42. Reason: spelling
Guest
Posts: n/a
RedHawk .44
We cannot allow our last defense of the Aircraft to be at the Gate. We cannot. Neither can we allow the Line to be at the Cockpit door. Any ruthless and suicidal jerk will at least think of his demise in logistical terms were he to believe firepower of this sort is his destiny. Denial of reality begs disaster.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northern Europe
Age: 45
Posts: 152
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We cannot allow our last defense of the Aircraft to be at the Gate. We cannot. Neither can we allow the Line to be at the Cockpit door. Any ruthless and suicidal jerk will at least think of his demise in logistical terms were he to believe firepower of this sort is his destiny. Denial of reality begs disaster.
Guns on the flightdeck have not, and will not solve anything...
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SW tip of Europe
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I`m sorry misd-agin...you seem to have got it wrong. So let me put it a bit more clearly:
I AM NOT in favour of pilots firing from within the flight deck...
I AM NOT in favour of pilots firing outside the flight deck...
Actually I AM NOT in favour of pilots firing guns anywhere on board an airliner AT ALL. And that`s because I AM NOT in favour of having armed pilots on board a commercial aircraft.
Come to it, I AM NOT in favour of having firearms on board a commercial aircraft except, perhaps, in very specific high-threat situations. And even then, always in the hands of rigourously selected and specifically trained personnel. No rent-a-cops, no walk-the-beat plod, not even SWAT trained
officers...
And YES, I do have firearms training...
And YES, I do carry a firearm on every working day...
And YES, my nick will give you a good clue why...
Cheers!
I AM NOT in favour of pilots firing from within the flight deck...
I AM NOT in favour of pilots firing outside the flight deck...
Actually I AM NOT in favour of pilots firing guns anywhere on board an airliner AT ALL. And that`s because I AM NOT in favour of having armed pilots on board a commercial aircraft.
Come to it, I AM NOT in favour of having firearms on board a commercial aircraft except, perhaps, in very specific high-threat situations. And even then, always in the hands of rigourously selected and specifically trained personnel. No rent-a-cops, no walk-the-beat plod, not even SWAT trained
officers...
And YES, I do have firearms training...
And YES, I do carry a firearm on every working day...
And YES, my nick will give you a good clue why...
Cheers!
Last edited by Toprotectandserve; 31st Mar 2008 at 09:10. Reason: mistake in adress
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sixandthreeland
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a load of bull... Keep up that paranoid obsession, and you'll end up just as bad as the ones you want to keep out...
Guns on the flightdeck have not, and will not solve anything...
Guns on the flightdeck have not, and will not solve anything...
Why is it that the more proactive group on this issue presents a logical rationale for responding to a known threat and all the nay sayers can do is come up with either of full on case of "head in the sand" denial of the continuing threat or an ignorant stereotyping to use to try to discredit a nationality?
Security screening
Hardened door
Armed officers in the cabin
Armed and deputized pilots in the cockpit
Each of these solutions are completely reasonable responses to the threat. It seems to me to only to be a matter of debate as to the effectiveness and necessity of each.
Denying the existance of the threat is just plain stupid and insulting the proponents of one obvious response is just plain unhelpful.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toprotectandserve -
Hey, I think every FFDO in the U.S. is in agreement with you about no gunfire onboard aircraft. They do like having that option should the foolproof
protective layovers ever fail. When needed I think they'll overcome any desire to preserve their hearing and willing trade potential hearing damage in favor of maintaining control of the aircraft in a desperate situation.
You mention 'specfic threat'. Since civil aviation, especially involving U.S. carriers, is targeted that's enough of a specific threat for the authorities in the U.S. to authorize the FFDO program.
The attempt at maintaining aircraft security is multi-faceted. Obviously there's disagree about what is, or isn't, reasonable policy. In the U.S., and several other countries, the side in favor of more armed individuals has the upper hand after debate was heard from both sides of the arguement.
Hey, I think every FFDO in the U.S. is in agreement with you about no gunfire onboard aircraft. They do like having that option should the foolproof
protective layovers ever fail. When needed I think they'll overcome any desire to preserve their hearing and willing trade potential hearing damage in favor of maintaining control of the aircraft in a desperate situation.You mention 'specfic threat'. Since civil aviation, especially involving U.S. carriers, is targeted that's enough of a specific threat for the authorities in the U.S. to authorize the FFDO program.
The attempt at maintaining aircraft security is multi-faceted. Obviously there's disagree about what is, or isn't, reasonable policy. In the U.S., and several other countries, the side in favor of more armed individuals has the upper hand after debate was heard from both sides of the arguement.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting debate this, based more on emotions and cultural background than on looking at facts, IMHO of course 
1. If someone began trying to penetrate the cockpit door, would I do my damndest (sp?) to "rattle" his cage even if this risked injuries to pax and FA? Of course. This may or may not work well enough to stop the penetration.
2. If someone still penetrated the door to the cockpit, would I like to have something to defend myself with? Sure, I´m only human with a will to avoid injury and stay alive! It will perhaps make me feel better during my everyday life, but I am not safer having such an option. Having a weapon in the cockpit will not stop a determined attack.
3. If/when entry has been made by determined terrorists I doubt they´d be dumb enough to only send a few people in there. Anyone thinking that a brutal fight in such a small area allows the precision shooting required to instantly kill or incapacitate ONE assailant is simply living in a world made up from Hollywood films. People when shot, depending on what they´re hit with, don´t just fall over and die. If in doubt, check with the soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan or your local piloce officer. Being pumped up with adrenaline and drugs means that you´re very, very hard to stop.
3. Hey, there are lot´s of cases of Cubans and such hijacking planes! Yes, there has always been and will always be people that for various reasons try to hijack airplanes but AFAIK no similar program has been started in the US prior to 9/11. See below for my take on why.
4. Out of bullets or, more likely, having the gun, whatever type, wrangled from my hands and we´re back to the same situation as never having had a gun there in the first place.
Conclusion: Having a weapon almost only serves as a morale booster for the individual carrying and for some PAX (most don´t know about it, some of those that do think it´s good and others don´t). It simply does no change for the outcome of determined terrorists. Can it make a difference when it comes to one or two "nutcases"? Yes maybe, but again the reason for this programme is not to combat that very old problem. I´m not saying that the reason for the programme is to trick people into feeling safe but that´s the end result.
In the end, the only way to prevent someone from taking control of the airplane is to make entry to the cockpit impossible.
1. If someone began trying to penetrate the cockpit door, would I do my damndest (sp?) to "rattle" his cage even if this risked injuries to pax and FA? Of course. This may or may not work well enough to stop the penetration.
2. If someone still penetrated the door to the cockpit, would I like to have something to defend myself with? Sure, I´m only human with a will to avoid injury and stay alive! It will perhaps make me feel better during my everyday life, but I am not safer having such an option. Having a weapon in the cockpit will not stop a determined attack.
3. If/when entry has been made by determined terrorists I doubt they´d be dumb enough to only send a few people in there. Anyone thinking that a brutal fight in such a small area allows the precision shooting required to instantly kill or incapacitate ONE assailant is simply living in a world made up from Hollywood films.
People when shot, depending on what they´re hit with, don´t just fall over and die. If in doubt, check with the soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan or your local piloce officer. Being pumped up with adrenaline and drugs means that you´re very, very hard to stop.3. Hey, there are lot´s of cases of Cubans and such hijacking planes! Yes, there has always been and will always be people that for various reasons try to hijack airplanes but AFAIK no similar program has been started in the US prior to 9/11. See below for my take on why.
4. Out of bullets or, more likely, having the gun, whatever type, wrangled from my hands and we´re back to the same situation as never having had a gun there in the first place.
Conclusion: Having a weapon almost only serves as a morale booster for the individual carrying and for some PAX (most don´t know about it, some of those that do think it´s good and others don´t). It simply does no change for the outcome of determined terrorists. Can it make a difference when it comes to one or two "nutcases"? Yes maybe, but again the reason for this programme is not to combat that very old problem. I´m not saying that the reason for the programme is to trick people into feeling safe but that´s the end result.
In the end, the only way to prevent someone from taking control of the airplane is to make entry to the cockpit impossible.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: hades
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greetings all,
without entering into the pros and cons it is very apparent this topic generates significant interest from all involved.
There has been much argument about the hows and whys of how the weapon came to discharge. Like others here I too am familiar with the H&K and Glock range of products and each have multiple safeties as redundancy. The accepted position is that something had to make the weapon discharge.Be it a finger, or manipulation of the weapon during storage procedures, the discharge of the round is the last action in a series of events that allowed it to happen.
Whilst it is easy to apportion blame on the actions of the individual handling the weapon (and he may have to accept some liability), it is the final event in a chain of errors or faulty systems that allowed it to occur.
Most, if not all of you, are familiar with the human factors approach used in accident investigation. This is no different. An examination of the agency policies adopted, training and refresher systems, the procedures for carrying and rendering the weapon safe, the method of securing the weapon in a holster by way of a trigger lock (that may have inherant risks in installation), safe weapon storage on the aircraft, other human factors issues, the list goes on for ever.
Be it bending 400 tonnes of metal, or letting a stray round go, the outcome is usually the result of a series of risks, many that probably weren't properly assessed or treated, lining up to allow the incident. Or in the simple explanation, the holes in the Swiss cheese lined up.
Don't let the value of a potentially effective security programme be lost because of one incident. This incident should stand alone as an incident. We don't cancel other aviation activities based on a single incident or accident, we modify systems as required to improve safe work practices. One Unintentional discharge should not having any relevance to a debate on the benefits/risks of FFDO's.
Ppruners are the first to scream our collective heads off when the industry is maligned by the media over perceived poor or biased reporting. This is no different. Be reasonable in how you interpret the facts as we know them, and remember that safety cultures are rarely improved by lynching people publicly. Examine the entire issue and move on. I suspect a full and thorough investigation would reveal a systemic failure of training, equipment selection and operation policy, rather than one individual being left to carry the can.
Returns space to pro gun/anti gun lobby to continue to slug out!
without entering into the pros and cons it is very apparent this topic generates significant interest from all involved.
There has been much argument about the hows and whys of how the weapon came to discharge. Like others here I too am familiar with the H&K and Glock range of products and each have multiple safeties as redundancy. The accepted position is that something had to make the weapon discharge.Be it a finger, or manipulation of the weapon during storage procedures, the discharge of the round is the last action in a series of events that allowed it to happen.
Whilst it is easy to apportion blame on the actions of the individual handling the weapon (and he may have to accept some liability), it is the final event in a chain of errors or faulty systems that allowed it to occur.
Most, if not all of you, are familiar with the human factors approach used in accident investigation. This is no different. An examination of the agency policies adopted, training and refresher systems, the procedures for carrying and rendering the weapon safe, the method of securing the weapon in a holster by way of a trigger lock (that may have inherant risks in installation), safe weapon storage on the aircraft, other human factors issues, the list goes on for ever.
Be it bending 400 tonnes of metal, or letting a stray round go, the outcome is usually the result of a series of risks, many that probably weren't properly assessed or treated, lining up to allow the incident. Or in the simple explanation, the holes in the Swiss cheese lined up.
Don't let the value of a potentially effective security programme be lost because of one incident. This incident should stand alone as an incident. We don't cancel other aviation activities based on a single incident or accident, we modify systems as required to improve safe work practices. One Unintentional discharge should not having any relevance to a debate on the benefits/risks of FFDO's.
Ppruners are the first to scream our collective heads off when the industry is maligned by the media over perceived poor or biased reporting. This is no different. Be reasonable in how you interpret the facts as we know them, and remember that safety cultures are rarely improved by lynching people publicly. Examine the entire issue and move on. I suspect a full and thorough investigation would reveal a systemic failure of training, equipment selection and operation policy, rather than one individual being left to carry the can.
Returns space to pro gun/anti gun lobby to continue to slug out!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your probability of getting hit by lightning is greater than getting hit by a terrorist. Imagine that. But doomsday believers always outnumber the skeptics.
Meanwhile, the hyper terrorist paranoia fed by the Bush administration has taken on a life of its own. It's a destructive absurdity. Just last week a team of buffons at the TSA had insisted that a woman must remove her jewelry on her nipples [with a pair of pliers] if she wanted to get through the screening process and make her flight. Other outrageousness included a woman having to taste her own bottled milk for her baby; denied boarding for another couple because their baby's name was on the TSA's "no fly" list. One shoe bomber: But millions of travellers are still having to take off their shoes, including 12 year olds, all across the USA. Anybody with a "one-way" ticket in USA is automatically suspect and herded into "secondary inspection." Plastic cutlery on all flights into USA . . . Pax data and flight itinerary, including credit card info of purchased tickets is all having to be forked over to the "Dept of Homeland Security" for all pax arriving in USA. Foreign visitors will soon have prints of all ten of their fingers [instead of only 2] cached in Big Brother's computer forever, including mug shots.
Meanwhile, the hyper terrorist paranoia fed by the Bush administration has taken on a life of its own. It's a destructive absurdity. Just last week a team of buffons at the TSA had insisted that a woman must remove her jewelry on her nipples [with a pair of pliers] if she wanted to get through the screening process and make her flight. Other outrageousness included a woman having to taste her own bottled milk for her baby; denied boarding for another couple because their baby's name was on the TSA's "no fly" list. One shoe bomber: But millions of travellers are still having to take off their shoes, including 12 year olds, all across the USA. Anybody with a "one-way" ticket in USA is automatically suspect and herded into "secondary inspection." Plastic cutlery on all flights into USA . . . Pax data and flight itinerary, including credit card info of purchased tickets is all having to be forked over to the "Dept of Homeland Security" for all pax arriving in USA. Foreign visitors will soon have prints of all ten of their fingers [instead of only 2] cached in Big Brother's computer forever, including mug shots.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We know how bad the TSA is.
We deal with them every day.
The FFDO program, however, is something different - it is in our hands. It was lobbied for by pilots, it is volunteered for by pilots, and (this is the biggie) if all the other stupid, inane TSA procedures fail - the last line of defense will fall to the pilots.
If you bet your life every workday on the skills and procedures of the apes we have over here, you'd want to be armed too. And don't talk about lightning strikes. We get ten of those a month at my airline. And we get quite a few security incidents too, including the aforementioned hammer attack - but others you didn't hear about as well....
We deal with them every day.
The FFDO program, however, is something different - it is in our hands. It was lobbied for by pilots, it is volunteered for by pilots, and (this is the biggie) if all the other stupid, inane TSA procedures fail - the last line of defense will fall to the pilots.
If you bet your life every workday on the skills and procedures of the apes we have over here, you'd want to be armed too. And don't talk about lightning strikes. We get ten of those a month at my airline. And we get quite a few security incidents too, including the aforementioned hammer attack - but others you didn't hear about as well....
Mr Bin Laden, good day to you Sir.
I hope you don't mind me addressing you directly, but since we know that you have internet access over there in Pakistan it is almost certain that you and/or your assistants will be checking sites like this from time to time to gain information and ideas.
I trust that you have found this lengthy discussion of security procedures and pilots' likely reactions to hostile attack very useful. Doubtless it will inform and assist your next move.
Yes, I know it sounds crazy that we should all help you in this way but apparently that's the way we western people behave.
Also you must be very pleased to have it explained to you just how much concern, expense and inconvenience you continue to cause us just by sitting there and watching your beard grow. You may be sure that we will continue to encourage you for many years to come.
Thank you for your attention
I hope you don't mind me addressing you directly, but since we know that you have internet access over there in Pakistan it is almost certain that you and/or your assistants will be checking sites like this from time to time to gain information and ideas.
I trust that you have found this lengthy discussion of security procedures and pilots' likely reactions to hostile attack very useful. Doubtless it will inform and assist your next move.
Yes, I know it sounds crazy that we should all help you in this way but apparently that's the way we western people behave.
Also you must be very pleased to have it explained to you just how much concern, expense and inconvenience you continue to cause us just by sitting there and watching your beard grow. You may be sure that we will continue to encourage you for many years to come.
Thank you for your attention
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sixandthreeland
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your probability of getting hit by lightning is greater than getting hit by a terrorist. Imagine that. But doomsday believers always outnumber the skeptics.
Meanwhile, the hyper terrorist paranoia fed by the Bush administration has taken on a life of its own. It's a destructive absurdity.
Meanwhile, the hyper terrorist paranoia fed by the Bush administration has taken on a life of its own. It's a destructive absurdity.
Airliners have been used (successfully) as a weapon of mass destruction. Repeated efforts to continue along the same vein have been detected.
Only half a brain is required to determine that if we let our guard down, cowardly terrorists will find a way to repeat their past successful efforts. (Is there anything here you wish to contradict?)
If we were to actually USE your brilliant thinking, we'd immediately stop screening passengers altogether, because we are more likely to be struck by lightning than to discover a weapon on a passenger at a security screening.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sixandthreeland
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sally, I'm not sure exactly how much to agree or to disagree with you. For one, this thread has revealed that armed pilots probably should be anticipated to be tasked with maintaining control of the cockpit. Although this is a secret to some of the pilots not in the program, its not likely to be such a confusion to the plotters out there. While the bad guys know what they have to plan for down to the model of firearm, that knowledge may be part of the reason they give up on trying to commandeer airliners into large groups of people and buildings.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SA
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Your probability of getting hit by lightning is greater than getting hit by a terrorist. Imagine that. But doomsday believers always outnumber the skeptics.
Meanwhile, the hyper terrorist paranoia fed by the Bush administration has taken on a life of its own. It's a destructive absurdity."
Nice of you to use the old lightning strike analogy.
My airline recorded 7 lightning strikes last week.
The aircraft are designed from the outset to deal with lightning strikes.
Flight crews are trained to deal with lightning strikes.
There are tools and procedures in place in the event of lightning strikes.
My airline has not lost an aircraft due to lightning.
It has lost aircraft due to terrorists.
Never again.
Meanwhile, the hyper terrorist paranoia fed by the Bush administration has taken on a life of its own. It's a destructive absurdity."
Nice of you to use the old lightning strike analogy.
My airline recorded 7 lightning strikes last week.
The aircraft are designed from the outset to deal with lightning strikes.
Flight crews are trained to deal with lightning strikes.
There are tools and procedures in place in the event of lightning strikes.
My airline has not lost an aircraft due to lightning.
It has lost aircraft due to terrorists.
Never again.
Jaxon,
Absolutely true of course, that's one way of looking at this complex subject. But the bad guys (and I include here not just the 'professional' terrorists but those misguided individuals and small cliques who might be less well informed but seem to outnumber them and therefore have more opportunities) have learned not just the weapon type but when and how the weapon is carried by the pilot, when and how it is removed from the person, and how non-gun-carrying pilots react to its presence.
We are told that there is a 'war on terror'. In a war you do not tell your enemy what weapons you have and how you deploy them.
Absolutely true of course, that's one way of looking at this complex subject. But the bad guys (and I include here not just the 'professional' terrorists but those misguided individuals and small cliques who might be less well informed but seem to outnumber them and therefore have more opportunities) have learned not just the weapon type but when and how the weapon is carried by the pilot, when and how it is removed from the person, and how non-gun-carrying pilots react to its presence.
We are told that there is a 'war on terror'. In a war you do not tell your enemy what weapons you have and how you deploy them.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sixandthreeland
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tordan, your conclusions are grossly misguided. Are you a pilot? You seem to not understand that only one person at a time could possibly enter the cockpit, that putting holes in anything that comes through that doorway is a quite doable feat, that even a handful of bleeding out terrorists will have a difficult time completing their goal even if they manage to overcome the pilots. Of course, you also fail to recognise the potent deterent offered by a hardened door with an armed pilot waiting behind it. It seems that the aviator's comfort with exactness and certitude doesn't mix well with the uncertainties and inexactness of preparing a defense against certain unknown elements.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airmotive: . . . "struck by lightning" meant for a person to be struck, as when on a Florida golf course, for example, not the airplane.
Jaxon: . . . you may be surprised to learn that the pilots of the world's most security conscious airline are unarmed.
Jaxon: . . . you may be surprised to learn that the pilots of the world's most security conscious airline are unarmed.