U.S. pilots allowed to carry guns.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
go with the flow -
I've got news for ya. A pilot determined to commit murder/suicide can do it just about anytime, and certainly doesn't need a firearm to do it, 3rd crewmember or not.
Remember the murder/suicide by the Egyptair copilot?
It's obvious that you're not an pilot, or you would know that.
I've got news for ya. A pilot determined to commit murder/suicide can do it just about anytime, and certainly doesn't need a firearm to do it, 3rd crewmember or not.
Remember the murder/suicide by the Egyptair copilot?
It's obvious that you're not an pilot, or you would know that.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This subject is always an emotive one and gets some good debate points going.
I have to agree with Norman Stanley in his comment that we have done pretty well in the UK with firearms related incidents by keeping firearms out of peoples hands. Yes we do get shootings on the streets of the UK but thankfully they are minimal. Our police force have, for the whole, determined they can get about without loading themselves upto the eyeballs with firearms and I respectfully suggest that they are put in a number of potentially more dangerous situations than your average airline pilot.
If they did arm pilots I am not sure what would happen when they came into land at the UK. I can't imagine the authourities being very happy about someone bringing firearms into the country, presumably they would have to be locked up on the flight deck with a nominated person responsible (ie, the Captain).
A comprehensive training course would have to be provided, yes even two weeks under a licenced centre with expert knowledge, ie. military of police, as stated before. I think the idea of a short course by a non-military outfit, as seems to have been hinted earlier, is downright daft. You may hold a firearms cert but does not mean you are necessarily any good with it.
Currency would also have to be looked at, if you were expecting an aircraft Captain to be responsible for a firearm then you would have to expect him to be practising regulary and any lapse in this currency resulting in the removal of his right to carry the weapon. Assessments would also be required to ensure that he/she can still use the weapon in the manner in which they were instructed.
Finally there would have to be some sort of failsafe method to ensure that if the owner did lose possession of his firearm that it was rendered inoperable. You do not really want to go giving a terrorist another method of controlling the aircraft.
Maybe at the end of the day, pilots are pilots not lethal enforcers and therefore the best way to deal with this issue would be to keep it out of the pilots hands and in the hands of a skymarshall who is specifically trained in these duties. It also has the added advantage of the fact that the terrorist will not know who he is until its too late!
Maybe someone on here who with a UK police firearms unit can offer a view on what their reaction would be to civvy pilots carrying firearms onboard?
Julian.
I have to agree with Norman Stanley in his comment that we have done pretty well in the UK with firearms related incidents by keeping firearms out of peoples hands. Yes we do get shootings on the streets of the UK but thankfully they are minimal. Our police force have, for the whole, determined they can get about without loading themselves upto the eyeballs with firearms and I respectfully suggest that they are put in a number of potentially more dangerous situations than your average airline pilot.
If they did arm pilots I am not sure what would happen when they came into land at the UK. I can't imagine the authourities being very happy about someone bringing firearms into the country, presumably they would have to be locked up on the flight deck with a nominated person responsible (ie, the Captain).
A comprehensive training course would have to be provided, yes even two weeks under a licenced centre with expert knowledge, ie. military of police, as stated before. I think the idea of a short course by a non-military outfit, as seems to have been hinted earlier, is downright daft. You may hold a firearms cert but does not mean you are necessarily any good with it.
Currency would also have to be looked at, if you were expecting an aircraft Captain to be responsible for a firearm then you would have to expect him to be practising regulary and any lapse in this currency resulting in the removal of his right to carry the weapon. Assessments would also be required to ensure that he/she can still use the weapon in the manner in which they were instructed.
Finally there would have to be some sort of failsafe method to ensure that if the owner did lose possession of his firearm that it was rendered inoperable. You do not really want to go giving a terrorist another method of controlling the aircraft.
Maybe at the end of the day, pilots are pilots not lethal enforcers and therefore the best way to deal with this issue would be to keep it out of the pilots hands and in the hands of a skymarshall who is specifically trained in these duties. It also has the added advantage of the fact that the terrorist will not know who he is until its too late!
Maybe someone on here who with a UK police firearms unit can offer a view on what their reaction would be to civvy pilots carrying firearms onboard?
Julian.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: very close to STN!!
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
will put my two cents, euros, pence, punts, prestos and nachos as well into this discussion,
this subject about guns for pilots is just the tip of the iceberg of a huge deep subject, i think.
i personally think that we should be able to if we think it best; in the cockpit and at home as well.
cold hard fact of life is that everyone is going to die one way or the other.
in the countries that have taken guns away from the common people, those same common people seem to make up for it in automobile accidents, knifing, drugs and drinking.
in the countries that i have been in, when only the government is allowed to have firearms, the government seems to take as much other control as possible. i really think that the countries' leaders would think differently if they knew in the back of their mind, that if they make taxes and other legislation bad enough for the common person, some commoner is bound to come and use one of their last remaining powers. perhaps one reason why america's taxes are one of the least is because even the president is aware that the common person can have some real power when push comes to shove. puts a little meat to the words, government by the people and for the people.
the present nations only came to pass because of the sword and later the gun. it wasn't a taking away of guns that stabilized civilization. it was when they figured out there were better things to do. (good to have the sword or gun to use when the other person wants to take something by force) keeping that right in the hands of the common person will keep governments' feet on the ground, and give second thoughts to everyone else.
from the statistics i have read, all the security people and policeman who are allowed to use guns appear to be no more stable than the average flight crewmember who is indeed allowed to control a long slow bullet with lots of people on board.
the individuals who choose to carry a gun can pay for the training themselves and use their holiday time. that will stop the airlines' whinging about that expense.
i personally don't have one at this time. have in the past and think the ability to get one in the future is my right just as much as any government officials'.
the saying goes, he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. but having one to use in emergencies is not the same as living by it.
(i'm waiting for the incoming)
this subject about guns for pilots is just the tip of the iceberg of a huge deep subject, i think.
i personally think that we should be able to if we think it best; in the cockpit and at home as well.
cold hard fact of life is that everyone is going to die one way or the other.
in the countries that have taken guns away from the common people, those same common people seem to make up for it in automobile accidents, knifing, drugs and drinking.
in the countries that i have been in, when only the government is allowed to have firearms, the government seems to take as much other control as possible. i really think that the countries' leaders would think differently if they knew in the back of their mind, that if they make taxes and other legislation bad enough for the common person, some commoner is bound to come and use one of their last remaining powers. perhaps one reason why america's taxes are one of the least is because even the president is aware that the common person can have some real power when push comes to shove. puts a little meat to the words, government by the people and for the people.
the present nations only came to pass because of the sword and later the gun. it wasn't a taking away of guns that stabilized civilization. it was when they figured out there were better things to do. (good to have the sword or gun to use when the other person wants to take something by force) keeping that right in the hands of the common person will keep governments' feet on the ground, and give second thoughts to everyone else.
from the statistics i have read, all the security people and policeman who are allowed to use guns appear to be no more stable than the average flight crewmember who is indeed allowed to control a long slow bullet with lots of people on board.
the individuals who choose to carry a gun can pay for the training themselves and use their holiday time. that will stop the airlines' whinging about that expense.
i personally don't have one at this time. have in the past and think the ability to get one in the future is my right just as much as any government officials'.
the saying goes, he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. but having one to use in emergencies is not the same as living by it.
(i'm waiting for the incoming)
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Well, this is cheaper than a Personal Title!
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's interesting that, by and large, this discussion splits (unsurprisingly) on national lines; Americans for - Europe against. The argument about private use of firearms will never be settled, it's just too emotive. However, there are at least a couple of facts:
1. The rate of gun crime is far lower in the UK than in the USA. Fifty crimes prevented are not worth even one person wrongfully killed.
2. The first American pilot to fly into LHR or LGW with a pistol in his bag or on his person is going to have a very nasty surprise along with a sudden introduction to a diet of porridge!
1. The rate of gun crime is far lower in the UK than in the USA. Fifty crimes prevented are not worth even one person wrongfully killed.
2. The first American pilot to fly into LHR or LGW with a pistol in his bag or on his person is going to have a very nasty surprise along with a sudden introduction to a diet of porridge!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's an alternative:
Sleeping/ knockout Gas. Easy to fit and control, all flight decks have oxygen systems, no need to worry about training or legislation, no need to liase with countries you overfly with bans on weaponry so that you can divert safely. OK you may lose the odd grannie if you have to use it, but it's a damn sight safer than some wannabe rambo trying to fly a plane, turn 180 degrees in his seat and shoot one of the Bin's boys through the forehead. Tie this with reinforced doors, and the fact that it's a bit harder to get a gas mask onto an aircraft than a knife it seems the best option
Sleeping/ knockout Gas. Easy to fit and control, all flight decks have oxygen systems, no need to worry about training or legislation, no need to liase with countries you overfly with bans on weaponry so that you can divert safely. OK you may lose the odd grannie if you have to use it, but it's a damn sight safer than some wannabe rambo trying to fly a plane, turn 180 degrees in his seat and shoot one of the Bin's boys through the forehead. Tie this with reinforced doors, and the fact that it's a bit harder to get a gas mask onto an aircraft than a knife it seems the best option
Pukka PPRuNer!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: PRMK
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO the only reason the Capt would need a firearm is to restore order among us SLFs after we'd knocked the ***** out of the hijackers.....
BTW...I'm not being brave, I just want to live....
Also, I think you'd have a problem convincing people that a firearm being discarged would NOT lead to an explosive decompression after 30 years of crappy action movies......
BTW...I'm not being brave, I just want to live....
Also, I think you'd have a problem convincing people that a firearm being discarged would NOT lead to an explosive decompression
after 30 years of crappy action movies......
Moderator
raas767, the difference between the 18-year old National Guardsman and the Northwest captain is that the former is under military discipline, the latter is not. Surprised the Northwest captain can't see this.
Standing by a security checkpoint (when was the last checkpoint hijacking?) with an unloaded machine gun/pistol, looking bored, ocasionally stopping to eat requires a lot more discipline than commanding an airliner?
This whole topic is Deja Vu all over again.
FWIW, I don't think we will see any airlines arming their pilots any time soon....... Too much of a political football.
Besides.......
We pilots are much too busy flying the aircraft to fight off hijackers with a firearm (but not too busy to fight them by hand, I guess).
We have the paper mache vault (improved cockpit door)
The security screeners will now be Federal employees.
We are not cops!
There MIGHT be a sky marshall or 2 on the airplane.
Some of us have to fly to hoplophobic areas of the world.
Some talking head on the news said that it won't happen again.
Even if it does, I can rest assured that one of my future co-pilots are up there on a CAP mission waiting to shoot me down. Very comforting!
I am glad that the powers that be are there to protect me and my pax
.........
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fokker.
I have already brought US skymarshals into and out of London. Armed skymarshals. Where do you suppose their guns went?
If we are deputized then we have the same reciprical rights as other lawenforcement.
So 50 crimes against one innocent life? So 50 september 11ths equals 250,000 dead people against one accident? Then howcome the UK is steadily arming their police force? After all there could be an accident with all those guns now in cops hands. But we could just let the 50 crimes go on and on.
In all the years that US pilots were required to carry guns there was never an accident with a gun that is documented, there was however one clearly documented foiling of an attempted skyjacking where the hijacker was shot dead in the cockpit! And this was in the days before the Palistinian nutcases...
Cheers
Wino
I have already brought US skymarshals into and out of London. Armed skymarshals. Where do you suppose their guns went?
If we are deputized then we have the same reciprical rights as other lawenforcement.
So 50 crimes against one innocent life? So 50 september 11ths equals 250,000 dead people against one accident? Then howcome the UK is steadily arming their police force? After all there could be an accident with all those guns now in cops hands. But we could just let the 50 crimes go on and on.
In all the years that US pilots were required to carry guns there was never an accident with a gun that is documented, there was however one clearly documented foiling of an attempted skyjacking where the hijacker was shot dead in the cockpit! And this was in the days before the Palistinian nutcases...
Cheers
Wino
Guest
Posts: n/a
TP455, the issue for me is who is responsible for the use of a weapon. The Guardsman is responsible to his military superiors for any use of his weapon; the pilot, as far as I can see, to nobody.
As a pax, I can tolerate being in the vicinity of weapons wielded by a properly constituted and trained (and, of course, friendly to me ;-)) military or police force: I am not comfortable being in the vicinity of weapons wielded by those who, in the last analysis, are answerable only to themselves.
As a pax, I can tolerate being in the vicinity of weapons wielded by a properly constituted and trained (and, of course, friendly to me ;-)) military or police force: I am not comfortable being in the vicinity of weapons wielded by those who, in the last analysis, are answerable only to themselves.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ft, Lauderdale,FL
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it infuriating that we as pilots even have to think about this, but as we all know we live in a world with suicide bombers.
I have always said that if you introduce a weapon into any situation it becomes inflamed beyond what it might have been had there not been a gun. I would be against having weapons in the cockpit if I had ABSOLUTE confidence in Pax. profiling, screaning, skymarshals and any other security measure, but I don't. Hence the dilema. We are charged with the safety of our jet our crew and our passengers and when all ellse fails we have to have a reliable meathod of defending the aircraft. Thats a fact.
Another aspect of all of this that I havn't heard much talk about is checked bag screening. In the U.S. they don't Xray every bag that gets on the jet so it is consievable that a would be terrorist could simply detonate a bomb in his suitcase from his seat whenever he wants. All the fire power in the world can't prevent that. I suppose the bottom line is, that no matter what we do we will never be able to say that we have 100% security.
I have always said that if you introduce a weapon into any situation it becomes inflamed beyond what it might have been had there not been a gun. I would be against having weapons in the cockpit if I had ABSOLUTE confidence in Pax. profiling, screaning, skymarshals and any other security measure, but I don't. Hence the dilema. We are charged with the safety of our jet our crew and our passengers and when all ellse fails we have to have a reliable meathod of defending the aircraft. Thats a fact.
Another aspect of all of this that I havn't heard much talk about is checked bag screening. In the U.S. they don't Xray every bag that gets on the jet so it is consievable that a would be terrorist could simply detonate a bomb in his suitcase from his seat whenever he wants. All the fire power in the world can't prevent that. I suppose the bottom line is, that no matter what we do we will never be able to say that we have 100% security.
Moderator
TP455, the issue for me is who is responsible for the use of a weapon. The Guardsman is responsible to his military superiors for any use of his weapon; the pilot, as far as I can see, to nobody.
As a pax, I can tolerate being in the vicinity of weapons wielded by a properly constituted and trained (and, of course, friendly to me ;-)) military or police force: I am not comfortable being in the vicinity of weapons wielded by those who, in the last analysis, are answerable only to themselves.
As a pax, I can tolerate being in the vicinity of weapons wielded by a properly constituted and trained (and, of course, friendly to me ;-)) military or police force: I am not comfortable being in the vicinity of weapons wielded by those who, in the last analysis, are answerable only to themselves.
Since it has been proven that the airplane itself can effectively be used as a weapon, why is it OK for me to fly one since I am answerable to only myself (!)?
BTW, I am not comfortable knowing that the only recourse available to me in the case of a hijacking (however remote the possibility) is the aforementioned future new hire in the F-15!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have read many well thought out comments in this forum. It seems that they all address the bigger issues that surround "Gun Control". I still think that if any hijacker knew that upon boarding a plane he would be in the company of not one, two, three or even four armed personal but maybe 200 well trained and armed civilians, he might pause before he stood up an yelled "Hijack" I guess its too simplistic for the deep thinkers among us, but the law of large numbers applies here I think.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF A CREWMEMBER HAD A POSITIVE BACKGROUND CHECK THAT ALLOWED THEM TO FLY ARMED, WITH A GUN, WOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO BE CREWED WITH A PILOT THAT HAD FAILED THE BACKGROUND CHECK ?
COULD BE A NIGHTMARE FOR THE ROSTERING DEPARTMENT !!!
COULD BE A NIGHTMARE FOR THE ROSTERING DEPARTMENT !!!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raas, think you made a good point in the screening of bags. Its a case of prevention is better than cure!! If the ground staff isnt doing what they should be then they need their @rse kicked.
TP455, You are a pilot not a firearms officer. Yes you are more than likely a 1st class pilot but that does not mean you should therefore be allowed to use that as an argument to justify asking for our complete confidence engaging in another activity. I wouldnt let you conduct open heart surgery
Wino, I dont know where you get the idea tha the UK is steadily arming its police officers from? Or are you confusing firearms with their newly acquired pepper spray...?
Julian.
TP455, You are a pilot not a firearms officer. Yes you are more than likely a 1st class pilot but that does not mean you should therefore be allowed to use that as an argument to justify asking for our complete confidence engaging in another activity. I wouldnt let you conduct open heart surgery
Wino, I dont know where you get the idea tha the UK is steadily arming its police officers from? Or are you confusing firearms with their newly acquired pepper spray...?
Julian.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF A CREWMEMBER HAD A POSITIVE BACKGROUND CHECK THAT ALLOWED THEM TO FLY ARMED, WITH A GUN, WOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO BE CREWED WITH A PILOT THAT HAD FAILED THE BACKGROUND CHECK ?
COULD BE A NIGHTMARE FOR THE ROSTERING DEPARTMENT !!!
COULD BE A NIGHTMARE FOR THE ROSTERING DEPARTMENT !!!
Moderator
TP455, You are a pilot not a firearms officer. Yes you are more than likely a 1st class pilot but that does not mean you should therefore be allowed to use that as an argument to justify asking for our complete confidence engaging in another activity. I wouldnt let you conduct open heart surgery
I have been lawfully handling firearms my entire life (much longer than I've been flying, now that I think about it), and I can assure you that it it is not brain (or should I say open heart) surgery! Any pilot that makes it to the level of proficiency to be qualified for an airline job is perfectly capable of handling a firearm responsibly. They are very simple tools. I would question any airline pilot's judgement who feels that he or she isn't capable of handling a firearm in the context of cockpit security. Whether they choose to or not is a personal matter.
The bottom line is that even with all of the awesome
and necessary "security" (cough......eyewash....cough) measures enacted since 9/11, the fact is that if someone wants an airplane bad enough, he can have it.No matter how many Nat. Guardsmen you have watching the Mc Donalds rejects paw through pilot's dirty underwear. No matter how many sky marshalls you put on other planes. No matter how many 80 year olds in wheelchairs and flight crew are "randomly selected" for patdown (at the gate, by airline ground ops types that are not subject to security screening because they are "trusted" employees) and more dirty laundry airing. No matter how many nail clippers are confiscated at the checkpoint. No matter how many warning signs and Rube Goldberg devices you tape to the cockpit door, all of the "Greatest Security Show on Earth" measures are for naught once Mohammed makes it into the cockpit. At this point, it is up to the twice mentioned, future new hire in the F-15. If he makes it in time.
There are some pilots who can't cope with a radio under pressure, let alone have to make a decision that could (mistakenly?) take a human life.......
[ 20 November 2001: Message edited by: Tripower455 ]
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The proposed type of guns to be carried by pilots are .40 Magnum with ceramic ammunition. FBI currently uses them. They say it will not go through the aircraft skin but deadly. Not sure how that works.