Pardon the Loud Noise, Captain...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this did occur on final approach, then wouldn't it be unlikely that a round penetrating the fuselage would result in decompression because the plane was likely at or below the cabin altitude anyway? What would happen if this occurred at a much higher altitude?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bangkok / San Francisco
Age: 58
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guns in the cockpit
As an American, I am quite unfomfortable saying this, but we definitely have it wrong. The US has a problem.
There are too many guns, and that now, unfortunately, includes the cockpit. I cannot imagine how they would help in the cockpit. If guns made people safer, the US wouldn't have the number of murders (by guns) that it has.
The solution is a compromise that limits access with reason. Guns only to those that are instructed, certified and licensed; and most certainly not in an airplane where there is absolutely no need for them.
There are too many guns, and that now, unfortunately, includes the cockpit. I cannot imagine how they would help in the cockpit. If guns made people safer, the US wouldn't have the number of murders (by guns) that it has.
The solution is a compromise that limits access with reason. Guns only to those that are instructed, certified and licensed; and most certainly not in an airplane where there is absolutely no need for them.
I'm sorry if my irony wasn't apparent. Again, the question was: why a gun in the cockpit with a locked armoured door?
I no more want to rely on the door for the security of the aircraft than the French should have relied on the maginot line. I have to be careful knowing a journo is in the debate, but the door has its limits. I'm not having a go at you Kaos with my abbreviated answer, I save that for JB. I'll leave it to say for every measure there's a counter measure.
Fade to grey
Can you elaborate on the UK program? I am not familiar with it. Thanks.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by West Coast
I no more want to rely on the door for the security of the aircraft than the French should have relied on the maginot line.
The Maginot line had obvious flaws and an even more obvious way of bypassing it. A terrorist is hardly going to sneak in an open side window (or pretty much any other way) to get to the cockpit these days.
For those arguing about the "lack" of terror attacks in the US: to attribute that to armed pilots is even more of a logical fallacy. The lack of terror attacks is equally true in the huge majority of countries who do not arm their pilots. Could there be a common cause for this perhaps (he asks, already knowing the answer)?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where I'm pointing...
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's easy to critisize. Pilots should know the value of learning from experience
As a pilot and a gun-owner I have mixed feelings and answers to this. But for the sake of pprune I will answer with my pilots hat.
We have learned from many aviation incidents, fatal and not-fatal alike.
The idea being to take a procedure and make it safer. For better or for worse we live in a world that is complicated, and we don't have the right answers.
As of today the FFDO program has not yielded a success story, but what if it had and then this happened?
In aviation we face an unnatural challenge every day trying to keep something not meant by nature to fly in the air. We also do many things to make people feel comfortable, even if only for appearance sake.
Let's not quibble over the right or wrong of carrying a firearm in the cockpit, but if necessary (for what ever reason) how to make it more practical (like not making one stow it away when going opening the cockpit door) to make it practical and safe to have it ready for use.
Why this would happen during finals is beyond imagination, but one incident should not ground an issue, otherwise we will never fly another aircraft again if the nay-sayers of aviation have their way.
Let's follow the pilot creed and use this to make the procedure and aviation in general safer, and not further look for ways to stop pilots from keeping passengers safe.
I for one would rather have armed, suitably trained folk on board for what ever deterrent factor it serves than live in a society where we are too pacifist or scared to try and protect our society and let the wacko's win.
We have so many challenges in this industry; let's not knock attempts to address them and further handicap our ability to address them.
It is better to embrace an approach and make it more practical, than less and further hinder as all towards progress.
<open myself to flame>
For those nay-sayers out there, why don't you try and solve world piece first, then try and stop those trying to protect everyone else.</close open to flame>
It ain't easy; but then no-one said it would be.
We have learned from many aviation incidents, fatal and not-fatal alike.
The idea being to take a procedure and make it safer. For better or for worse we live in a world that is complicated, and we don't have the right answers.
As of today the FFDO program has not yielded a success story, but what if it had and then this happened?
In aviation we face an unnatural challenge every day trying to keep something not meant by nature to fly in the air. We also do many things to make people feel comfortable, even if only for appearance sake.
Let's not quibble over the right or wrong of carrying a firearm in the cockpit, but if necessary (for what ever reason) how to make it more practical (like not making one stow it away when going opening the cockpit door) to make it practical and safe to have it ready for use.
Why this would happen during finals is beyond imagination, but one incident should not ground an issue, otherwise we will never fly another aircraft again if the nay-sayers of aviation have their way.
Let's follow the pilot creed and use this to make the procedure and aviation in general safer, and not further look for ways to stop pilots from keeping passengers safe.
I for one would rather have armed, suitably trained folk on board for what ever deterrent factor it serves than live in a society where we are too pacifist or scared to try and protect our society and let the wacko's win.
We have so many challenges in this industry; let's not knock attempts to address them and further handicap our ability to address them.
It is better to embrace an approach and make it more practical, than less and further hinder as all towards progress.
<open myself to flame>
For those nay-sayers out there, why don't you try and solve world piece first, then try and stop those trying to protect everyone else.</close open to flame>
It ain't easy; but then no-one said it would be.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
Age: 39
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Run this by me again?
You have to lock the gun away when you open the door to go for a slash.?
So, when the door is open, the time of max vulnerability, you have the gun
locked away, but when the door is locked, and there is little threat, you
can take it out and .......
Nah, that cant be right.....
But it probably is.
You have to lock the gun away when you open the door to go for a slash.?
So, when the door is open, the time of max vulnerability, you have the gun
locked away, but when the door is locked, and there is little threat, you
can take it out and .......
Nah, that cant be right.....
But it probably is.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: your sisters house
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regards to the argument of 'why do you need a gun if you're behind an armoured door?', what people fail to realise is that the cockpit door is no undefeatable barrier. Access can be gained by obtaining a key (in todays society with todays technology not unfathomable for a determined terrorist cell) or perhaps by breaching the bulkhead in the forward lavatory?
In my humble opinion a suitably trained, armed flight deck memeber is an asset to security. Just because of one incident which we dont even know the outcome of the investigation yet, there are no grounds to slate it. We are all pilots, qualified to the stadards our respective lands have set out and we have all made mistakes and had incidents in aviation (big or small) but yet we see them as lessons to our selves. Lets do the same here. As pilots it is our duty undertake the flight in the safest way possible, unfortunately in this day and age maybe this has to extend beyond our airmanship to other avenues.
Unfortunately we live in a world where there are armed threats against us. You cannot counter an armed threat if you are unarmed. The cockpit door will not always save you. In the US as in South Africa where I am from we understand this. Perhaps in the EU and UK where armed threats agaist you are not as a common occurence/historical occurence it is harder to understand the need to carry a firearm.
I for one would love to live in a gun free state, thats why many of my countrymen have immegrated, but I choose to live here so as long as the criminals are armed, my .45 will be by my side. If our CAA allowed armed flight deck and if my country and airliner was under constant terrorist threat as in the US, it'd be there too.
In my humble opinion a suitably trained, armed flight deck memeber is an asset to security. Just because of one incident which we dont even know the outcome of the investigation yet, there are no grounds to slate it. We are all pilots, qualified to the stadards our respective lands have set out and we have all made mistakes and had incidents in aviation (big or small) but yet we see them as lessons to our selves. Lets do the same here. As pilots it is our duty undertake the flight in the safest way possible, unfortunately in this day and age maybe this has to extend beyond our airmanship to other avenues.
Unfortunately we live in a world where there are armed threats against us. You cannot counter an armed threat if you are unarmed. The cockpit door will not always save you. In the US as in South Africa where I am from we understand this. Perhaps in the EU and UK where armed threats agaist you are not as a common occurence/historical occurence it is harder to understand the need to carry a firearm.
I for one would love to live in a gun free state, thats why many of my countrymen have immegrated, but I choose to live here so as long as the criminals are armed, my .45 will be by my side. If our CAA allowed armed flight deck and if my country and airliner was under constant terrorist threat as in the US, it'd be there too.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: hong kong
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilot has been grounded, according to the TSA, and no one was hurt. Passengers were unaware the gun had been fired.
By Ben DuBose, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 25, 2008
WASHINGTON -- A gun carried by a US Airways pilot accidentally discharged in the cockpit Saturday during a flight from Denver to Charlotte, N.C., the Transportation Safety Administration said Monday.
The incident, which occurred as Flight 1536 was preparing to land, marked the first time that a weapon issued under a federal program to arm pilots had been fired.
A statement posted by the TSA on its website noted that "the pilot was authorized to be in possession of the weapon and he completed the appropriate training."
Citing the investigation, officials of the TSA and US Airways declined to identify the pilot or provide information about the position of the gun or what the bullet struck. TSA spokesman Dwayne Baird said the pilot had been grounded.
The Airbus A319, which landed safely and without any injuries to the 124 passengers, two pilots and three flight attendants, has been pulled from service, also pending the investigation. According to the TSA, passengers were not aware of the incident.
"Our safety record is superb," Bob Hesselbein, chairman of the national security committee of the Air Line Pilots Assn., said in an interview Monday. "This was truly an anomaly. At a minimum, 130,000 flights a month are protected by armed pilots. We are an integral part of the protection of airlines in our sky.
"After 9/11, we became convinced an armed flight deck was the ultimate deterrent to stopping a hijacking plan. From a terrorist standpoint, the hardest thing to do is take control of the cockpit. That's why the deterrent value of this program is just staggering."
The Federal Flight Deck Officer program, created in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, trains eligible flight crew members in the use of firearms, use of force, legal issues, defensive tactics, the psychology of survival and standard operating procedures. Officers who carry firearms are required to requalify for the program twice a year.
"The training is very rigorous and extensive," Baird said, adding that crew members who completed the program were issued Heckler & Koch .40-caliber semiautomatic handguns. Some pilots carry guns that are loaded and ready to go, he said.
The pilot whose gun discharged Saturday last requalified on Nov. 7, according to the TSA statement.
"They go through same process it takes to join the FBI or other federal law enforcement organizations," Hesselbein said. "It's a stringent program. This was an accidental discharge -- no one wants to see this happen again. But it's a known risk, and they're going to see what they can do to make sure it doesn't happen again."
[email protected]
Times staff writer Mary Forgione in Los Angeles contributed to this report.
By Ben DuBose, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 25, 2008
WASHINGTON -- A gun carried by a US Airways pilot accidentally discharged in the cockpit Saturday during a flight from Denver to Charlotte, N.C., the Transportation Safety Administration said Monday.
The incident, which occurred as Flight 1536 was preparing to land, marked the first time that a weapon issued under a federal program to arm pilots had been fired.
A statement posted by the TSA on its website noted that "the pilot was authorized to be in possession of the weapon and he completed the appropriate training."
Citing the investigation, officials of the TSA and US Airways declined to identify the pilot or provide information about the position of the gun or what the bullet struck. TSA spokesman Dwayne Baird said the pilot had been grounded.
The Airbus A319, which landed safely and without any injuries to the 124 passengers, two pilots and three flight attendants, has been pulled from service, also pending the investigation. According to the TSA, passengers were not aware of the incident.
"Our safety record is superb," Bob Hesselbein, chairman of the national security committee of the Air Line Pilots Assn., said in an interview Monday. "This was truly an anomaly. At a minimum, 130,000 flights a month are protected by armed pilots. We are an integral part of the protection of airlines in our sky.
"After 9/11, we became convinced an armed flight deck was the ultimate deterrent to stopping a hijacking plan. From a terrorist standpoint, the hardest thing to do is take control of the cockpit. That's why the deterrent value of this program is just staggering."
The Federal Flight Deck Officer program, created in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, trains eligible flight crew members in the use of firearms, use of force, legal issues, defensive tactics, the psychology of survival and standard operating procedures. Officers who carry firearms are required to requalify for the program twice a year.
"The training is very rigorous and extensive," Baird said, adding that crew members who completed the program were issued Heckler & Koch .40-caliber semiautomatic handguns. Some pilots carry guns that are loaded and ready to go, he said.
The pilot whose gun discharged Saturday last requalified on Nov. 7, according to the TSA statement.
"They go through same process it takes to join the FBI or other federal law enforcement organizations," Hesselbein said. "It's a stringent program. This was an accidental discharge -- no one wants to see this happen again. But it's a known risk, and they're going to see what they can do to make sure it doesn't happen again."
[email protected]
Times staff writer Mary Forgione in Los Angeles contributed to this report.
Guest
Posts: n/a
LittleMo
With regards to the argument of 'why do you need a gun if you're behind an armoured door?', what people fail to realise is that the cockpit door is no undefeatable barrier.
With regards to the argument of 'why do you need a gun if you're behind an armoured door?', what people fail to realise is that the cockpit door is no undefeatable barrier.
Those who think guns are needed on the flight deck have some crazy 'Wild West' mentality.
Guest
Posts: n/a
LittleMo
Unfortunately we live in a world where there are armed threats against us.
Unfortunately we live in a world where there are armed threats against us.
NO potential hijacker should be able to carry a gun onto a plane. If you think he can, then you need to fix ground security, not arm pilots !
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Manchester
Age: 40
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
> Anti American - I think a lot of you are missing or confusing the point. I think the majority of posters here are expressing an ANTI-GUN opinion not an Anti-American one.
In my opinion, firearms should not be allowed onboard any flight, whether or not the people carrying them are considered to be suitably trained or not. In this case the crew were lucky, next time an 'accident' like this happens someone might cop one in the face.
I feel that the security on the ground has to be where the focus is. Don't get me wrong, I think that the extremes of Biometric ID cards are a bad idea, but more thorough checks of what passengers and crew are carrying is a must, security I have seen in some airports is laughable. For sure, more thorough checks / searches may cause a considerably longer waiting time for passengers and a bit more hassle, I'm sure there would be a lot of moaners (especially here in the UK!) but, surely a longer wait on the ground is better than winding up dead?
In my opinion, firearms should not be allowed onboard any flight, whether or not the people carrying them are considered to be suitably trained or not. In this case the crew were lucky, next time an 'accident' like this happens someone might cop one in the face.
I feel that the security on the ground has to be where the focus is. Don't get me wrong, I think that the extremes of Biometric ID cards are a bad idea, but more thorough checks of what passengers and crew are carrying is a must, security I have seen in some airports is laughable. For sure, more thorough checks / searches may cause a considerably longer waiting time for passengers and a bit more hassle, I'm sure there would be a lot of moaners (especially here in the UK!) but, surely a longer wait on the ground is better than winding up dead?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Vancover
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crewing Question
No,I do not fly for a carrier that allows the guns onboard, my question has to do with crewing, what if the Captain is of the belief that this program is more of a threat and the F/O is involved in the program, dose the gun come onboard?
Last edited by na-at6g; 25th Mar 2008 at 11:36.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: your sisters house
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
psasoundman: By armed I refer to any weapon, knife,incendiary device, gun, boxcutter etc. I totally agree with you, security on the ground should be such that these items never get aboard. Wht i'm saying is when all these measures fail and a weapon of sorts gets through, i'd rather be the guy who brought the gun to the knife fight than the other way around
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Queensland, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skiingman wrote:
I can only speak for myself, but my personal perception is that I am LESS secure on a flight where anyone--even a trained pilot--has brought a gun aboard. The possibility of an accident (like the one that started this thread) or a hijacker managing to steal the gun...or even a pilot having a nervous breakdown and using the gun...seems to me to be more likely than the gun serving a useful purpose in the unlikely event of a hijacking.
Bobbsy
I think this needs to be repeated a couple dozen more times. The perception of security and the genuine article are two completely different things, and most TSA initiatives are squarely aimed at the former.
Bobbsy