U.S. pilots allowed to carry guns.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: u.k.
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all, You can tell the British mentality in some of the posts in this thread,[ I'm British]and the silly attitude to guns.As I'm sure every one knows,we are not trusted with guns, tooooooo dangerous old boy,they can kill you know, the gov' even give our armed services a crap rifle, that falls to bits if you run with it!Lucky special forces, they can have the same type of rifle as the regular blokes, but made by someone else[Colt]and it does not fall to bits when you run with it.
I must agree strongly with the idea of a pistol on the flightdeck,cos if someone gets in,then we are probably about to get our throats cut, now that we know what the plan is.
As it is, if someone bursts onto my flightdeck,they will get the crash axe between the eyes,if we have time that is!
A handgun would be perfect,to defend the flightdeck in the last resort.The attitude that we depend on airport security is frightening,knowing what we all know!
Pilots would not need much training,the security issues could easily be overcome, with a bit of lateral thinking,and we would not need a cannon,a light 45 glasser,a standard 38 or even a 22.
It is a bit unfortunate,that most peoples perception of guns,especially the British,comes from Hollywood,it is just not like that.However, British pilots will never have guns,our attitude is,call the police on 999 and they will send a bobby round as soon as they can.And do not even think about taking the law into your own hand, that's unforgivable,and the courts will take a very dim view of that, whilst compensating the villain.And heaven help you when the plod eventually arrive, they will probably shoot the wrong person, U.K. cops and guns don't seem to mix very well.
I am a great fan of the U.S.A. but can't help being a little miffed sometimes,esp' the post a little bit back,where the poster thinks that no one ever helps the Americans, I don't think you would have got to the moon with out the Euro-know-how,and the last time I tried to get into the U.S.A. I was treated to a Rag-head giving my family and I the good ol' US welcome,while every other desk was letting even more Rag-heads through, with hardly a glance at there fake passports! Peace be apon them.And as for immigration,we are simply not wanted.When you look at the "folks" that are wanted, it makes you wonder.
I must agree strongly with the idea of a pistol on the flightdeck,cos if someone gets in,then we are probably about to get our throats cut, now that we know what the plan is.
As it is, if someone bursts onto my flightdeck,they will get the crash axe between the eyes,if we have time that is!
A handgun would be perfect,to defend the flightdeck in the last resort.The attitude that we depend on airport security is frightening,knowing what we all know!
Pilots would not need much training,the security issues could easily be overcome, with a bit of lateral thinking,and we would not need a cannon,a light 45 glasser,a standard 38 or even a 22.
It is a bit unfortunate,that most peoples perception of guns,especially the British,comes from Hollywood,it is just not like that.However, British pilots will never have guns,our attitude is,call the police on 999 and they will send a bobby round as soon as they can.And do not even think about taking the law into your own hand, that's unforgivable,and the courts will take a very dim view of that, whilst compensating the villain.And heaven help you when the plod eventually arrive, they will probably shoot the wrong person, U.K. cops and guns don't seem to mix very well.
I am a great fan of the U.S.A. but can't help being a little miffed sometimes,esp' the post a little bit back,where the poster thinks that no one ever helps the Americans, I don't think you would have got to the moon with out the Euro-know-how,and the last time I tried to get into the U.S.A. I was treated to a Rag-head giving my family and I the good ol' US welcome,while every other desk was letting even more Rag-heads through, with hardly a glance at there fake passports! Peace be apon them.And as for immigration,we are simply not wanted.When you look at the "folks" that are wanted, it makes you wonder.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DFW, Tx - USA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu chuckles -
Supreme Court has held that a "militia" is constituted by the "citizens" of the USA. The Court has consistently held that the citizens have a right to "keep and bear arms" as the Constitution so eloquently puts it. They have NOT specified training, or trained citizens - merely "armed" citizens.
Julian - if you do know about shaped charges then you know you can "blow" either in, OR OUT. If out , then would not necessarily grossly impact cockpit crew. There is also the small matter about HOW MUCH "matter" is used. Have you ever seen det cord that was 50 mils thick diameter? I have. But even that size could be too much "matter" for the job at hand.
Interesting you talk about bulkhead walls. Think about it some more!
westman - I agree that preentive medicine is the best medicine. My point is that you can't make any guarantees about that sunject in today's world, although El Al has gone along way down that road.
While you talk about a "blast" that would seriously efffect the crew I want you to think smaller, much smaller. Say "big firecracker" size. The object is NOT to blow inward toward the cockpit, it is only to creat an opening that can be used. I think your four (4) points are well taken.
However - there ain't no way in hell you can do the "correct" job of creating an opening - and NOT blowing crap all over the cockpit at the same time - in one (1) second. Ain't possible cause you haven't left any time to get out of the way of the "big bang". Blasting is a three step process: load, arm and run like hell (avoid being the blastee).
upgrade - liked your comments!
Thanks gear-up for the support.
dAAvid -
Supreme Court has held that a "militia" is constituted by the "citizens" of the USA. The Court has consistently held that the citizens have a right to "keep and bear arms" as the Constitution so eloquently puts it. They have NOT specified training, or trained citizens - merely "armed" citizens.
Julian - if you do know about shaped charges then you know you can "blow" either in, OR OUT. If out , then would not necessarily grossly impact cockpit crew. There is also the small matter about HOW MUCH "matter" is used. Have you ever seen det cord that was 50 mils thick diameter? I have. But even that size could be too much "matter" for the job at hand.
Interesting you talk about bulkhead walls. Think about it some more!
westman - I agree that preentive medicine is the best medicine. My point is that you can't make any guarantees about that sunject in today's world, although El Al has gone along way down that road.
While you talk about a "blast" that would seriously efffect the crew I want you to think smaller, much smaller. Say "big firecracker" size. The object is NOT to blow inward toward the cockpit, it is only to creat an opening that can be used. I think your four (4) points are well taken.
However - there ain't no way in hell you can do the "correct" job of creating an opening - and NOT blowing crap all over the cockpit at the same time - in one (1) second. Ain't possible cause you haven't left any time to get out of the way of the "big bang". Blasting is a three step process: load, arm and run like hell (avoid being the blastee).
upgrade - liked your comments!
Thanks gear-up for the support.
dAAvid -
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA You are going on about explosives like you have read too many 'Guns n Ammo' & 'Soldier Of Fortune' magazines! I am still trying to work how your reckon this 'Special Forces' team is going to get all these explosives on board? If you remember 911 was a bunch of guys with box cutters pretending they had a bomb. If the opertaors do something about the area between the the cabin and the flightdeck then it is not a problem - I think you are thinking 'Oh just stick a new door on', I am not!
Upgrade Whoaa boy, you completely missed the mark there, niave? out of touch?
Even if it did rain more than just H2O on Berkshire I still do not support the idea. Leave it to someone who makes it their full time job and not something they do on a whim. If you are labelling me then I could quite easily judge you as a wannabe gun toting rambo...
Julian.
Upgrade Whoaa boy, you completely missed the mark there, niave? out of touch?
Even if it did rain more than just H2O on Berkshire I still do not support the idea. Leave it to someone who makes it their full time job and not something they do on a whim. If you are labelling me then I could quite easily judge you as a wannabe gun toting rambo...
Julian.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wrote an eloquent(if I say so myself)piece chastising the bleeding heart, American bashing, liberals in this forum but then I realized that this forum is supposed to be limited to issues and rumours related to comercial aviation. Is anyone else aware of this caveat?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T_richard We are not bleeding heart, American bashing, liberals just because we dont agree on a particular subject. The subject of this discussion is should pilots be armed.
If you want to start up a thread about are Europeans generally American bashing liberals then please feel free...although you may first want to check which countries are over there fighting the war with you
If you want to start up a thread about are Europeans generally American bashing liberals then please feel free...although you may first want to check which countries are over there fighting the war with you
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DFW, Tx - USA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Julian -
Getting explosives on board an a/c is very easy. Think about how dope smugglers get their dope on the commercial airlines planes from South America to the USA. But our "serious" bad boys don't care about getting the explosives back off the a/c when it lands cause they don't intend a normal landing!!
Have glanced through, not read, at most two copies of "Guns & Ammo" at the barbershop. Not my cup of tea. Am not a serious shooter, just a moderately good one. "Soldier of Fortune" is a joke!!
Now back to the first paragraph: a block of C4 type material on board is really no threat. It needs something to get it going. That something I alluded to in the earlier post. Am going to leave it at that.
I any case, my scenario doesn't need anything more than what I could bring on board on my person.
But I think this whole scenario would never actually occur because I hope the pax would rise up fast enough to stop the bad guy(s). Don't care if there were a lot more than just one baddie, lots of pax on the USA planes. More than enough to handle a small mob. UA-93 has set the tone on the responsibilities of the pax on the plane, sadly enough.
I think this thread has run its course. It is just you and me and a couple of other Yank gun nuts left.
Just give the Capt. a choice is all I ask.
dAAvid -
Getting explosives on board an a/c is very easy. Think about how dope smugglers get their dope on the commercial airlines planes from South America to the USA. But our "serious" bad boys don't care about getting the explosives back off the a/c when it lands cause they don't intend a normal landing!!
Have glanced through, not read, at most two copies of "Guns & Ammo" at the barbershop. Not my cup of tea. Am not a serious shooter, just a moderately good one. "Soldier of Fortune" is a joke!!
Now back to the first paragraph: a block of C4 type material on board is really no threat. It needs something to get it going. That something I alluded to in the earlier post. Am going to leave it at that.
I any case, my scenario doesn't need anything more than what I could bring on board on my person.
But I think this whole scenario would never actually occur because I hope the pax would rise up fast enough to stop the bad guy(s). Don't care if there were a lot more than just one baddie, lots of pax on the USA planes. More than enough to handle a small mob. UA-93 has set the tone on the responsibilities of the pax on the plane, sadly enough.
I think this thread has run its course. It is just you and me and a couple of other Yank gun nuts left.
Just give the Capt. a choice is all I ask.
dAAvid -
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ft, Lauderdale,FL
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I Guess the bottom line is kind of like religion. It doesn't matter what you believe in, things are the way they are. Guns may very well be here to stay in our cockpits regardless of our respective attitude about it. No matter what, we will all adapt to it.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA- Yep, I think you are right! We have got to the going round in circles bit so I guess we will agree to disagree as they say.
Always an emotional debate I guess but I would have a beer with you in an airport lounge.
All the best,
Julian.
Always an emotional debate I guess but I would have a beer with you in an airport lounge.
All the best,
Julian.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: u.k.
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We don't need guns in every pilots case or on every flightdeck,I think security is best served if it is impossible to tell,by anyone,
what security will be applied to a particular flight. So when the next time Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble decide to go flying, they will have no way of beating the security- because they wont know what it will be, perhaps skymarshals or armed pilots or non pre selectable seats or whatever and in what combination.
If we have predictable security, then it can be beat!
Regards to all , and AA your welcome
what security will be applied to a particular flight. So when the next time Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble decide to go flying, they will have no way of beating the security- because they wont know what it will be, perhaps skymarshals or armed pilots or non pre selectable seats or whatever and in what combination.
If we have predictable security, then it can be beat!
Regards to all , and AA your welcome
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the hell, don't give them side arms, post a .50 cal machine gun inside the cockpit door, dress the flight crew in body armour from head to toe, and lets see if any terrorists manage to get in ! Could also have a couple of snipers fore and aft in the main cabin, and what the hell, anti personnel mines on the floor should do the trick. 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DFW, Tx - USA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Julian -
Thank You for the reply. Yes, I too, would enjoy a beer with you. Lively debate; we both stand strong in our positions, and agree to the beer at the end. This I like.
From not-so-sunny San Jose, Calif a "Good Night" to you, although I think it is the AM in the UK. Keep the tail fin up!
dAAvid -
Thank You for the reply. Yes, I too, would enjoy a beer with you. Lively debate; we both stand strong in our positions, and agree to the beer at the end. This I like.
From not-so-sunny San Jose, Calif a "Good Night" to you, although I think it is the AM in the UK. Keep the tail fin up!
dAAvid -
Chief PPRuNe Pilot
Join Date: May 1996
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 16,640
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This article from The National Post about security and El Al's philosophy shows why you shouldn't need to arm the pilots. There is enough to do flying the a/c safely without having to perform the duties of an armed guard also.
I believe it was exactly the same argument after the Gore Commission on airline security that was waived because it would be "too much" as that mentioned above in the last paragraph. What price security and remember September 11th!
U.S. air safety measures have nothing on El Al
World's toughest airline: Israeli agents focus on the person, not the weapon
Martin Himel
National Post
TEL AVIV - The men responsible for El Al's reputation as the world's toughest airline are not impressed with the anti-terrorism measures Western carriers have put in place since Sept. 11.
"The feeling you have now in the United States is they are not professional, that they really don't know what they are doing," says Shlomo Dror, a spokesman for Israel's Defence Ministry.
"Today, I could [hijack] an airplane in the United States without any problem."
Israeli security officials dismiss the sudden obsession with searching passengers for potential weapons, from nail clippers to box cutters to pen knives. Nor do they worry about steel cutlery.
There are already numerous weapons on board an aircraft, they say. Take a bottle of duty-free liquor. Smash it and you have a weapon. Sharpen your credit card and you can slit a throat.
These tactics were not dreamed up by terrorists, but by El Al security personnel.
To beat terrorism, you must think like a terrorist. "Then you can have some answers," explains Mr. Dror, a former senior El Al security official.
The Israeli airline uses four lines of defence, concentrating on psychology more than weaponry.
First is the reservation system. It is linked directly to Israel's intelligence computer network, which scans all names and reviews credit card numbers. It red flags passengers who pay cash and notes any suspected links to terrorists.
Thanks to this pre-flight checking, Israeli security officials often know whom to look for before passengers show up at the airport.
At the check-in desk, a security official asks the kind of questions used by other airlines. "Did you pack your bags? What is the purpose of your trip? Are you bringing any presents or parcels for someone?"
The difference is the El Al official has been trained to note the passengers' body language, how they answer the questions, any inconsistencies or nervousness. Most of those questioned pass through in less than a minute. Five percent get a more thorough review.
That was the experience of Jonas Grandburg, who took an El Al flight to Paris recently.
The smartly dressed Swedish businessman found himself being interrogated by a petite young Israeli woman.
Taking him aside and putting his bag on a table, she asked for documents to prove he was on business in Israel. She wanted contact names, hotel receipts and the address of his Paris office. After 10 minutes, she checked the details with her superiors while Mr. Grandburg waited anxiously.
Five minutes later, she returned and handed back his passport and business documents. She did not inspect his luggage.
If Mr. Grandburg's story did not check out, or if there was a concern he might be unknowingly carrying a bomb or a weapon, he would have been thoroughly searched, though this rarely happens. Any problems are usually detected by the questioning.
In the past three decades there have been several attempts to blow up El Al aircraft. The explosives have always been discovered and, in the past 30 years, no El Al plane has been hijacked.
As for Mr. Grandburg, the experience was unsettling but he agrees it was necessary.
"It feels a bit insulting. Your integrity is a bit violated having to answer all these questions and showing this documentation," he says. "On the other hand, it is only a small price to pay, considering the consequences it could have."
Behind the scenes, Israeli security constantly tries to pierce the airline's defences, devising ever more ingenious methods to slip a "bomb" or a weapon on board an aircraft.
If they succeed, the security official who missed the weapon is dismissed. There are no second chances.
As the final and most obvious line of defence, there are air marshals on all El Al flights.
But, says Mr. Dror, if a marshal has to intervene to stop a hijacking, the system has failed.
Israeli air marshals are not simply airborne policemen. They must have served three or four years in a combat unit and be in excellent physical condition. They must be able to fire three bullets and hit a target 15 metres away in one second.
"That is very quick," says Mr. Dror. "If someone should get up with something in his hand and say, 'I'm [hijacking] the airplane,' he should know a minute later, a second later, he is dead."
U.S. airline security experts contend the Israeli system might work for a small carrier like El Al, but would be too complex and expensive to be applied across the entire North American continent.
Israeli experts argue that if the security procedures are done properly, a jumbo jet with 350 passengers can be cleared and boarded within an hour and a half, less than the current wait at Chicago's O'Hare airport.
World's toughest airline: Israeli agents focus on the person, not the weapon
Martin Himel
National Post
TEL AVIV - The men responsible for El Al's reputation as the world's toughest airline are not impressed with the anti-terrorism measures Western carriers have put in place since Sept. 11.
"The feeling you have now in the United States is they are not professional, that they really don't know what they are doing," says Shlomo Dror, a spokesman for Israel's Defence Ministry.
"Today, I could [hijack] an airplane in the United States without any problem."
Israeli security officials dismiss the sudden obsession with searching passengers for potential weapons, from nail clippers to box cutters to pen knives. Nor do they worry about steel cutlery.
There are already numerous weapons on board an aircraft, they say. Take a bottle of duty-free liquor. Smash it and you have a weapon. Sharpen your credit card and you can slit a throat.
These tactics were not dreamed up by terrorists, but by El Al security personnel.
To beat terrorism, you must think like a terrorist. "Then you can have some answers," explains Mr. Dror, a former senior El Al security official.
The Israeli airline uses four lines of defence, concentrating on psychology more than weaponry.
First is the reservation system. It is linked directly to Israel's intelligence computer network, which scans all names and reviews credit card numbers. It red flags passengers who pay cash and notes any suspected links to terrorists.
Thanks to this pre-flight checking, Israeli security officials often know whom to look for before passengers show up at the airport.
At the check-in desk, a security official asks the kind of questions used by other airlines. "Did you pack your bags? What is the purpose of your trip? Are you bringing any presents or parcels for someone?"
The difference is the El Al official has been trained to note the passengers' body language, how they answer the questions, any inconsistencies or nervousness. Most of those questioned pass through in less than a minute. Five percent get a more thorough review.
That was the experience of Jonas Grandburg, who took an El Al flight to Paris recently.
The smartly dressed Swedish businessman found himself being interrogated by a petite young Israeli woman.
Taking him aside and putting his bag on a table, she asked for documents to prove he was on business in Israel. She wanted contact names, hotel receipts and the address of his Paris office. After 10 minutes, she checked the details with her superiors while Mr. Grandburg waited anxiously.
Five minutes later, she returned and handed back his passport and business documents. She did not inspect his luggage.
If Mr. Grandburg's story did not check out, or if there was a concern he might be unknowingly carrying a bomb or a weapon, he would have been thoroughly searched, though this rarely happens. Any problems are usually detected by the questioning.
In the past three decades there have been several attempts to blow up El Al aircraft. The explosives have always been discovered and, in the past 30 years, no El Al plane has been hijacked.
As for Mr. Grandburg, the experience was unsettling but he agrees it was necessary.
"It feels a bit insulting. Your integrity is a bit violated having to answer all these questions and showing this documentation," he says. "On the other hand, it is only a small price to pay, considering the consequences it could have."
Behind the scenes, Israeli security constantly tries to pierce the airline's defences, devising ever more ingenious methods to slip a "bomb" or a weapon on board an aircraft.
If they succeed, the security official who missed the weapon is dismissed. There are no second chances.
As the final and most obvious line of defence, there are air marshals on all El Al flights.
But, says Mr. Dror, if a marshal has to intervene to stop a hijacking, the system has failed.
Israeli air marshals are not simply airborne policemen. They must have served three or four years in a combat unit and be in excellent physical condition. They must be able to fire three bullets and hit a target 15 metres away in one second.
"That is very quick," says Mr. Dror. "If someone should get up with something in his hand and say, 'I'm [hijacking] the airplane,' he should know a minute later, a second later, he is dead."
U.S. airline security experts contend the Israeli system might work for a small carrier like El Al, but would be too complex and expensive to be applied across the entire North American continent.
Israeli experts argue that if the security procedures are done properly, a jumbo jet with 350 passengers can be cleared and boarded within an hour and a half, less than the current wait at Chicago's O'Hare airport.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: u.k.
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt PPrune,
It would be nice to think like El Al, but somehow I can't see it. Can you? At most airports that I visit,work amd play,I can see the kind of security that just pisses every one off for no good reason, as an example- taking things from the pilot that might bring an aircraft into danger, like a small pair of plyers,nail scissors etc,It is laughable, and we all know how to beat the system anyhow.
Security is a luxury that we don't really have in the Euro- field, sounds like it is the same in the U.S.
The point we are making, re- flightdeck guns,is that it is a last resort,and would I believe,increase pax confidence,and safety.And help our industry recover quicker.
It would be nice to think like El Al, but somehow I can't see it. Can you? At most airports that I visit,work amd play,I can see the kind of security that just pisses every one off for no good reason, as an example- taking things from the pilot that might bring an aircraft into danger, like a small pair of plyers,nail scissors etc,It is laughable, and we all know how to beat the system anyhow.
Security is a luxury that we don't really have in the Euro- field, sounds like it is the same in the U.S.
The point we are making, re- flightdeck guns,is that it is a last resort,and would I believe,increase pax confidence,and safety.And help our industry recover quicker.
