U.S. pilots will not be armed... (merged)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armed Flight Deck
WW1 ,if the suicide hijacker knows there is a gun on the flight deck it does not solve a problem - it gives him a problem.
In the current security situation control of the aircraft is the target & is what has to be protected.
The safe use of a revolver is not rocket science - and recurrent training is only necessary for Special Forces/ Law Enforcement
professionals who need to be highly proficient at all ranges & under all sorts of conditions.
Flash2001, interesting post, there's nothing new under the sun
it seems.
In the current security situation control of the aircraft is the target & is what has to be protected.
The safe use of a revolver is not rocket science - and recurrent training is only necessary for Special Forces/ Law Enforcement
professionals who need to be highly proficient at all ranges & under all sorts of conditions.
Flash2001, interesting post, there's nothing new under the sun
it seems.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Richmond Texas
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IBNI (It'd Be Nice If) the flight crew could carry arms without a lot of paper that would, if compromised, tell everyone where the guns are. We should maximize the uncertainty that a hijacker feels.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: _
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Armed Flight Deck
capt. crosswind
You mean it'd be okay for you to fly with a guy charged with the responsibility of handling a type of deadly weapon he hasn't touched in 1 or 5 or more years?
It's a remote possibility, I know, but if we are expected to use deadly force in a crisis situation, I think it would be prudent to be proficient in the employment of that deadly force.
We get checked every six months flying the airplane, and although misuse of a handgun would kill less people at a time than a misflown airliner, they'de be just as dead.
You mean it'd be okay for you to fly with a guy charged with the responsibility of handling a type of deadly weapon he hasn't touched in 1 or 5 or more years?
It's a remote possibility, I know, but if we are expected to use deadly force in a crisis situation, I think it would be prudent to be proficient in the employment of that deadly force.
We get checked every six months flying the airplane, and although misuse of a handgun would kill less people at a time than a misflown airliner, they'de be just as dead.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ww1 - when was the last time you, or most of us for that matter, were proficient in wielding the fire axe for a lethal blow and be "proficient in the employment of that deadly force" as you suggest would be needed before this serious additional defense option (handgun) being discussed here would be OK to be used?
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One wonders, underboost, who indeed would be well-advised to stick “to subjects of which you have knowledge”.
You have been clearly presented with an argument that is extravagantly forceful, yet logical, thoroughly considered, and strategically well founded in the constructs of current world opinion.
Unlike some, I defer to those who have the ability to think in the abstract. They may yet, God help us all, save this planet from the excesses of the many.
So, my weak-kneed brother, answer now, or forever hold your tortured and self-indulgent peace.
You have been clearly presented with an argument that is extravagantly forceful, yet logical, thoroughly considered, and strategically well founded in the constructs of current world opinion.
Unlike some, I defer to those who have the ability to think in the abstract. They may yet, God help us all, save this planet from the excesses of the many.
So, my weak-kneed brother, answer now, or forever hold your tortured and self-indulgent peace.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just came across this written by a US journalist............
"If hijackers are able to force themselves into the cockpit, all that pilots have to prevent the plane from being turned into a cruise missile is a crash ax, a flashlight and a flight manual."
That's what David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association had to say while endorsing pilots carrying guns in the cockpit. Oh, now I feel safe.
I say, give the pilot an "armed seat." If the cockpit door is broken open, the pilot pushes a button and the back of the seat would let go with a fatal blast, killing the terrorist SOB.
Never mind that thousands of lives are at risk from air terrorism. John Magaw, undersecretary of transportation security, with Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta hiding behind him, told a senate committee that pilots don't need guns. In fact, Magaw said he decided they will not have them.
I repeat what I said last September: If pilots are denied this one last chance to save lives, they should strike. Now. There's no requirement they sacrifice their lives for their job.
Remember, the same government refusing guns for pilots has decided that if a terrorist does get into the cockpit, the government will order the plane shot down, killing everyone!
Please explain where it says on my ticket that when I board the flight, I put my life in the hands of a Washington bureaucrat with his finger on the "fire" button.
I hope intrepid trial lawyers are loading their legal ammo for the lawsuits with Magaw's name on them the next time a plane is hijacked.
And there will be a next time if you listen to Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al. It's one doomsday headline after another from these men telling us it's not if, just when, and we can't prevent it.
They speak for the government. But it's the primary job of government to protect citizens, first within our borders and then beyond.
The warnings we're getting, with all the gloom and doom of Armageddon, is that when this apocalypse happens, it will be here, on our home turf.
OK. If that is the case, then what's wrong with taking all means to protect ourselves?
How safe are we?
Despite all the hoo haa, ever since Sept. 11, people have gotten past airline security with guns, knives, swords and all other kinds of possible weapons.
Bolstered with their new importance as "government employees," airport security workers feel free to search people arbitrarily, practice rudeness, get too personal with body searches, waste time on the wrong people and manhandle personal belongings.
Airport employment checks across the country have shown high numbers of employees who weren't American citizens, lied on their applications, used false ID's and had criminal records. These were people doing security checks and maintenance people with access to planes. Any of them could hide a weapon or bomb onboard, if that was their intent.
They should have been fired, but no! Excuses were found. As for citizenship, it's in the works now to speed up legalizing them. Wait a minute! Why the special treatment?
Just what is the line between us and terrorists who may try to pull another hijacking horror similar to 9-11?
If you listen to the administration … Well, if you listen to the administration, what you hear is that "we just don't know."
So what's the problem with Magaw and Mineta?
You have a plane filled with people, cargo and fuel and flying at high altitude and speed. Terrorists take over. It doesn't matter whether they have box cutters, guns, bombs or nail clippers. At some point, they get into the cockpit.
If they get that far, clearly the rest of the people in the plane couldn't stop them. At that moment, life and death are in balance between the terrorist at the door and the pilots.
What do they do? According to the guys safe on the ground and protected by armed security people – "just fly the plane."
Are those pilots – educated, trained, experienced, responsible and with a desire to live to get home to their families – able to defend themselves and the hundreds whose lives they have in their hands?
No. Because John Magaw has decided – no guns.
It makes as much sense as police without guns or a disarmed Secret Service. In fact, it makes as much sense as telling citizens they can't defend their homes with a gun.
It's not about stopping terrorism – it's about guns and the attempt to disarm all Americans. It shows how little value bureaucrats put on our lives and how pitiful is the war on terrorism.
"If hijackers are able to force themselves into the cockpit, all that pilots have to prevent the plane from being turned into a cruise missile is a crash ax, a flashlight and a flight manual."
That's what David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association had to say while endorsing pilots carrying guns in the cockpit. Oh, now I feel safe.
I say, give the pilot an "armed seat." If the cockpit door is broken open, the pilot pushes a button and the back of the seat would let go with a fatal blast, killing the terrorist SOB.
Never mind that thousands of lives are at risk from air terrorism. John Magaw, undersecretary of transportation security, with Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta hiding behind him, told a senate committee that pilots don't need guns. In fact, Magaw said he decided they will not have them.
I repeat what I said last September: If pilots are denied this one last chance to save lives, they should strike. Now. There's no requirement they sacrifice their lives for their job.
Remember, the same government refusing guns for pilots has decided that if a terrorist does get into the cockpit, the government will order the plane shot down, killing everyone!
Please explain where it says on my ticket that when I board the flight, I put my life in the hands of a Washington bureaucrat with his finger on the "fire" button.
I hope intrepid trial lawyers are loading their legal ammo for the lawsuits with Magaw's name on them the next time a plane is hijacked.
And there will be a next time if you listen to Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al. It's one doomsday headline after another from these men telling us it's not if, just when, and we can't prevent it.
They speak for the government. But it's the primary job of government to protect citizens, first within our borders and then beyond.
The warnings we're getting, with all the gloom and doom of Armageddon, is that when this apocalypse happens, it will be here, on our home turf.
OK. If that is the case, then what's wrong with taking all means to protect ourselves?
How safe are we?
Despite all the hoo haa, ever since Sept. 11, people have gotten past airline security with guns, knives, swords and all other kinds of possible weapons.
Bolstered with their new importance as "government employees," airport security workers feel free to search people arbitrarily, practice rudeness, get too personal with body searches, waste time on the wrong people and manhandle personal belongings.
Airport employment checks across the country have shown high numbers of employees who weren't American citizens, lied on their applications, used false ID's and had criminal records. These were people doing security checks and maintenance people with access to planes. Any of them could hide a weapon or bomb onboard, if that was their intent.
They should have been fired, but no! Excuses were found. As for citizenship, it's in the works now to speed up legalizing them. Wait a minute! Why the special treatment?
Just what is the line between us and terrorists who may try to pull another hijacking horror similar to 9-11?
If you listen to the administration … Well, if you listen to the administration, what you hear is that "we just don't know."
So what's the problem with Magaw and Mineta?
You have a plane filled with people, cargo and fuel and flying at high altitude and speed. Terrorists take over. It doesn't matter whether they have box cutters, guns, bombs or nail clippers. At some point, they get into the cockpit.
If they get that far, clearly the rest of the people in the plane couldn't stop them. At that moment, life and death are in balance between the terrorist at the door and the pilots.
What do they do? According to the guys safe on the ground and protected by armed security people – "just fly the plane."
Are those pilots – educated, trained, experienced, responsible and with a desire to live to get home to their families – able to defend themselves and the hundreds whose lives they have in their hands?
No. Because John Magaw has decided – no guns.
It makes as much sense as police without guns or a disarmed Secret Service. In fact, it makes as much sense as telling citizens they can't defend their homes with a gun.
It's not about stopping terrorism – it's about guns and the attempt to disarm all Americans. It shows how little value bureaucrats put on our lives and how pitiful is the war on terrorism.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armed Flight Deck
Point taken & acknowledged WW1
I guess the point I wanted to get across is that to be a competent deterent to suicide hijackers, pilots don't need the
training of Special Forces / Law Enforcement professionals.
Safe handling of the firearm and being able to hit a barn door at ten paces is adequate training for this situation.
What recurrent training is required I leave to those more knowledgable in this field.
In my military time we did an annual refresher on the range
which seemed okay for the basic proficiency level to which we were trained.
I guess the point I wanted to get across is that to be a competent deterent to suicide hijackers, pilots don't need the
training of Special Forces / Law Enforcement professionals.
Safe handling of the firearm and being able to hit a barn door at ten paces is adequate training for this situation.
What recurrent training is required I leave to those more knowledgable in this field.
In my military time we did an annual refresher on the range
which seemed okay for the basic proficiency level to which we were trained.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots offered free
firearms training
Classes seen as way to protect passengers, crew on airliners
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jon Dougherty
In the wake of serial terrorist attacks involving the use of hijacked airliners, one firearms training company is offering free defensive gun courses to commercial airline pilots.
"Commercial airliners must be willing to take an uncompromising stand that will not allow anyone, under any circumstances, to access the controls" of a plane, said Dr. Ignatius Piazza, the founder and director of the Front Sight Firearms Training Institute, in Las Vegas. "The pilot and co-pilot are responsible for the security of the cockpit. Without a gun to defend it, the cockpit crew is easily defeated."
Piazza's offer of free gun training comes as a number of airline experts and former pilots are pushing for enhanced security and safety standards in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, in which two hijacked airliners were flown into each of the twin towers of the World Trade Center and another aircraft was flown into the Pentagon. The twin towers collapsed within an hour of being struck.
A fourth hijacked airliner crashed in western Pennsylvania; authorities believe passengers may have overpowered the 3-4 hijackers reportedly on board.
U.S. government officials have said they are placing armed deputy marshals aboard more airline flights to complement a rather small number of armed "sky marshals" who accompany mostly international flights. Arming pilots and aircrews has also been considered but has yet to be seriously discussed.
"… When both pilot and co-pilot are armed and trained … they have the tools, ability and will to defend themselves and repel the murderous intent of terrorists," Piazza said.
Former airline pilots also supported Piazza's plan.
"The [Sept. 11] terrorists knew that they would face no opposition to the hijacking, once they managed to get on the airplane," said Dennis Vied, a retired TWA captain with 28 years experience flying commercial airliners. "All they had to do was threaten to do something to a passenger, and they would be allowed access to the cockpit."
"The terrorists knew they would face no armed opposition," Vied, a former Front Sight student, added. "We have such an abhorrence to guns that we fail to allow the good people to arm themselves for defense. I hope this is a wakeup call to America."
Vied said he believes aircrews should be armed.
"There is so much emphasis on prevention and precious little emphasis on the ultimate lines of defense," he said.
Aaron Benedetti, a United Airlines 747 copilot and Front Sight graduate, agreed that the emphasis practiced by airlines is on compliance with hijackers, not self-defense or defense of the airplane.
"We get recurrent training regarding hijacking and security procedures, but the training centers around placating and negotiating with the terrorists to safely land the plane," he said. "We are told not to make any aggressive move[s] and to work toward a calm outcome."
"The World Trade Center disaster is a real blind spot in our training," he continued. "The attack reveals that perhaps the only way the pilots could have stopped it would have been to deny access to the cockpit and stop the terrorists from taking over the controls of the plane. …"
Benedetti said he recommends locking the cockpit and allowing the copilot to guard the cockpit door with a gun.
Mark Donovan, a pilot for Southwest Airlines, noted that the "political climate in commercial aviation prior to the World Trade Center attack has not been conducive to arming pilots."
"In fact, just the opposite has occurred," Donovan said. "Airlines have disarmed pilots to the point where a terrorist with a box cutter can take over control of a plane because no one is armed to defend the plane or themselves."
He noted that despite disarming pilots, "numerous federal agencies are allowed to carry a gun on commercial airlines, including such dubiously qualified agencies as the Bureau of Engraving and Printing," a division of the Treasury Department, "the Department of Agriculture, Department of Education and the Smithsonian Institute."
---------------------------------------------------------------
any comments on these guys for training aircrew?
http://www.frontsight.com/home.html
firearms training
Classes seen as way to protect passengers, crew on airliners
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jon Dougherty
In the wake of serial terrorist attacks involving the use of hijacked airliners, one firearms training company is offering free defensive gun courses to commercial airline pilots.
"Commercial airliners must be willing to take an uncompromising stand that will not allow anyone, under any circumstances, to access the controls" of a plane, said Dr. Ignatius Piazza, the founder and director of the Front Sight Firearms Training Institute, in Las Vegas. "The pilot and co-pilot are responsible for the security of the cockpit. Without a gun to defend it, the cockpit crew is easily defeated."
Piazza's offer of free gun training comes as a number of airline experts and former pilots are pushing for enhanced security and safety standards in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, in which two hijacked airliners were flown into each of the twin towers of the World Trade Center and another aircraft was flown into the Pentagon. The twin towers collapsed within an hour of being struck.
A fourth hijacked airliner crashed in western Pennsylvania; authorities believe passengers may have overpowered the 3-4 hijackers reportedly on board.
U.S. government officials have said they are placing armed deputy marshals aboard more airline flights to complement a rather small number of armed "sky marshals" who accompany mostly international flights. Arming pilots and aircrews has also been considered but has yet to be seriously discussed.
"… When both pilot and co-pilot are armed and trained … they have the tools, ability and will to defend themselves and repel the murderous intent of terrorists," Piazza said.
Former airline pilots also supported Piazza's plan.
"The [Sept. 11] terrorists knew that they would face no opposition to the hijacking, once they managed to get on the airplane," said Dennis Vied, a retired TWA captain with 28 years experience flying commercial airliners. "All they had to do was threaten to do something to a passenger, and they would be allowed access to the cockpit."
"The terrorists knew they would face no armed opposition," Vied, a former Front Sight student, added. "We have such an abhorrence to guns that we fail to allow the good people to arm themselves for defense. I hope this is a wakeup call to America."
Vied said he believes aircrews should be armed.
"There is so much emphasis on prevention and precious little emphasis on the ultimate lines of defense," he said.
Aaron Benedetti, a United Airlines 747 copilot and Front Sight graduate, agreed that the emphasis practiced by airlines is on compliance with hijackers, not self-defense or defense of the airplane.
"We get recurrent training regarding hijacking and security procedures, but the training centers around placating and negotiating with the terrorists to safely land the plane," he said. "We are told not to make any aggressive move[s] and to work toward a calm outcome."
"The World Trade Center disaster is a real blind spot in our training," he continued. "The attack reveals that perhaps the only way the pilots could have stopped it would have been to deny access to the cockpit and stop the terrorists from taking over the controls of the plane. …"
Benedetti said he recommends locking the cockpit and allowing the copilot to guard the cockpit door with a gun.
Mark Donovan, a pilot for Southwest Airlines, noted that the "political climate in commercial aviation prior to the World Trade Center attack has not been conducive to arming pilots."
"In fact, just the opposite has occurred," Donovan said. "Airlines have disarmed pilots to the point where a terrorist with a box cutter can take over control of a plane because no one is armed to defend the plane or themselves."
He noted that despite disarming pilots, "numerous federal agencies are allowed to carry a gun on commercial airlines, including such dubiously qualified agencies as the Bureau of Engraving and Printing," a division of the Treasury Department, "the Department of Agriculture, Department of Education and the Smithsonian Institute."
---------------------------------------------------------------
any comments on these guys for training aircrew?
http://www.frontsight.com/home.html
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
House committee approves arming airline pilots 26th June
see http://www.nandotimes.com/politics/s...-3583980c.html
see http://www.nandotimes.com/politics/s...-3583980c.html
