U.S. pilots will not be armed... (merged)
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've been observing the posts re. arming pilots and several who profess to be anti-arming don't have pilots licences, at least on their profiles, which makes me think the anti-gun lobby are having their say, like 18, above. "Cool-no guns". No reasons either.
By the way 18-wheeler, did you know all 747's (400's anyway) have the same door key?
By the way 18-wheeler, did you know all 747's (400's anyway) have the same door key?
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Security is still in the BandAid stage. Folks really dont know what the hell to do and who to allow to do it. Things of yesterday are gone forever. The US Army never had locks on Aircraft until some idiot stole a helicopter and drove it to the White House. Within a week, all in the inventory had keyed ignition and locked doors that a teenager could open....
So it is with Guns. As for me, if I were in heavy Iron, I would probably settle for a nice sawed off shotgun. Something with a good load to kick Al Quiada's ass back through first class.
In reality though, I think a compromise as to let those who want to be, and can qualify, carry a weapon.... Let the terrorists try to figure out who is not armed....
As to non lethal stuff someone mentioned MACE. Now that will certainly do the trick. Everyone goes blind.. Where are these folks coming from...
As one who flys as a passenger when not doing part 135, I can agree with someone elses comment. Should one of our Al Quiada brethern even appear to head for the cockpit, Im going to drop him like a bad habit. Hopefully with help and guarnteed, We will be the only ones to give a statement after all is said and done....
So it is with Guns. As for me, if I were in heavy Iron, I would probably settle for a nice sawed off shotgun. Something with a good load to kick Al Quiada's ass back through first class.
In reality though, I think a compromise as to let those who want to be, and can qualify, carry a weapon.... Let the terrorists try to figure out who is not armed....
As to non lethal stuff someone mentioned MACE. Now that will certainly do the trick. Everyone goes blind.. Where are these folks coming from...
As one who flys as a passenger when not doing part 135, I can agree with someone elses comment. Should one of our Al Quiada brethern even appear to head for the cockpit, Im going to drop him like a bad habit. Hopefully with help and guarnteed, We will be the only ones to give a statement after all is said and done....
Last edited by PPRuNe Radar; 27th May 2002 at 23:07.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And for special effects, you can use the Halon or CO2 Fire Extinguisher on the face of the cockpit intruder.
But the bottom line is that pax no longer will sit idle during any inflight confrontation. Fearing for their own safety and survival, passengers would quickly tackle any would be hijacker. This fact already has been demonstrated with the "shoe bomber" and the Urugayan "banker" nut-case who attempted to break into the UA 777 cockpit.
ALPA's aerial cowboy mentality is reactionary. Juvenile. Impractical reality.
But the bottom line is that pax no longer will sit idle during any inflight confrontation. Fearing for their own safety and survival, passengers would quickly tackle any would be hijacker. This fact already has been demonstrated with the "shoe bomber" and the Urugayan "banker" nut-case who attempted to break into the UA 777 cockpit.
ALPA's aerial cowboy mentality is reactionary. Juvenile. Impractical reality.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast the fatal logical flaw that September the 11th was last year. Any armed flight is a solution to a problem that has already occured. September 11th was a dramatic enough event to change all future cases of airborne violence such that a respose to that attack in that form becomes obsolete.
Completely agree Orca. Pilots must be in the debate. No-one outside aviation seems to realise quite how much this affected us. At least outside the USA there was from teh start even more shock amongst our community than in the wider society. Mutt perfectly expresses my initial feeling as I saw the sight I can still not watch when it is repeated on television.
Completely agree Orca. Pilots must be in the debate. No-one outside aviation seems to realise quite how much this affected us. At least outside the USA there was from teh start even more shock amongst our community than in the wider society. Mutt perfectly expresses my initial feeling as I saw the sight I can still not watch when it is repeated on television.
The ability to carry a firearm would be completely voluntary. Those of you that are against armed cockpits would not be required to carry.
Those that are against scare me because you do not have any viable solutions. Keep locking your selves into the paper mache vault and wear those pink sunglasses.
The US government is great at diverting attention from the real need of its people. Security is a joke and will continue to be as long as the Keystone cops are in charge.
To those that think that this coming from some gun happy "cowboy", you are wrong. I do not own a gun, but would be willing to go to any training program that would make me competent to safely use a tool of self defense. As it stands today, all the bad guys have guns and know that we do not. Still feel safe?
Those that are against scare me because you do not have any viable solutions. Keep locking your selves into the paper mache vault and wear those pink sunglasses.
The US government is great at diverting attention from the real need of its people. Security is a joke and will continue to be as long as the Keystone cops are in charge.
To those that think that this coming from some gun happy "cowboy", you are wrong. I do not own a gun, but would be willing to go to any training program that would make me competent to safely use a tool of self defense. As it stands today, all the bad guys have guns and know that we do not. Still feel safe?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grandprix said-
"To those that think that this coming from some gun happy "cowboy", you are wrong. I do not own a gun, but would be willing to go to any training program that would make me competent to safely use a tool of self defense. As it stands today, all the bad guys have guns and know that we do not. Still feel safe?"
So, why have you not taken the training? As a non-pilot you stand a much higher chance of meeting an armed BG (bad guy) in your everyday life - and yet you have not taken the opportunity to protect yourself. And were you to take proper training, you would have a much better idea of the limitations of a firearm in resolving aggressive confrontations.
"To those that think that this coming from some gun happy "cowboy", you are wrong. I do not own a gun, but would be willing to go to any training program that would make me competent to safely use a tool of self defense. As it stands today, all the bad guys have guns and know that we do not. Still feel safe?"
So, why have you not taken the training? As a non-pilot you stand a much higher chance of meeting an armed BG (bad guy) in your everyday life - and yet you have not taken the opportunity to protect yourself. And were you to take proper training, you would have a much better idea of the limitations of a firearm in resolving aggressive confrontations.
Turnup,
Good ?
I belive that in any other situation I can get away from the BG.
In a cockpit I have no place to go. In the real world, I get to make the choice as to where I go. I avoid dangerous areas and sitiuations at all reasonable cost. That opportunity does not exist on the aircraft because I do not have the final authority as to who is allowed to board. The government made sure of that when they decided that profiling was wrong.
Good ?
I belive that in any other situation I can get away from the BG.
In a cockpit I have no place to go. In the real world, I get to make the choice as to where I go. I avoid dangerous areas and sitiuations at all reasonable cost. That opportunity does not exist on the aircraft because I do not have the final authority as to who is allowed to board. The government made sure of that when they decided that profiling was wrong.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Swanwick
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an intrested and sympathetic ATC person, I wonder if we are not getting sidelined whether pilots should or should not be armed, and whether the flight deck door is locked or not.
The important thing is to make all efforts with the regulatory and airport authorities to make sure that these hijackers do not get on the aeroplane in the first place by the use of increased security, surely if these hijackers are on board the aeroplane then the battle is effectively lost.
The important thing is to make all efforts with the regulatory and airport authorities to make sure that these hijackers do not get on the aeroplane in the first place by the use of increased security, surely if these hijackers are on board the aeroplane then the battle is effectively lost.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Out West
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said GrandPrix!
The most emotional responses to gun issues on this board appear to overwhelmingly come from non flight deck personnel.
A gun in every flight deck makes about as much logistical and economic sense as hiring 90,000 air marshals.
A gun on some flight decks? Why not, there are some very qualified people in flight decks already that come from anti-terrorist and gun handling backgrounds. The idea is to add one more layer to a multi-layered security blanket.
Observed in a retail shop:
-----------------------------------------
The most emotional responses to gun issues on this board appear to overwhelmingly come from non flight deck personnel.
A gun in every flight deck makes about as much logistical and economic sense as hiring 90,000 air marshals.
A gun on some flight decks? Why not, there are some very qualified people in flight decks already that come from anti-terrorist and gun handling backgrounds. The idea is to add one more layer to a multi-layered security blanket.
Observed in a retail shop:
These premises protected by Smith & Wesson every third day; you guess which day is the third.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the debate rages on...
Ideas like arming pilots are there to remind us of how much we still need our sense of smell and test our professed dedication to honesty...
Permission to speak with 100% candor, please.
In the consideration of suicidal terrorism onboard:
Without respect to your toughness, bravery, or commitment to maintaing command of your aircraft, the moment that an aggressive intruder breaches that cockpit, flightcrew life expectancy careens to infinitesimal.
I estimate the space between pilot seating and the cockpit door, runs @ three feet deep, generally speaking. The time it takes somebody to cross that span is exactly how long you have to:
1) Notice the entry
2) Determine the threat
3) Get a hand on that weapon
4) Aim
5) Make your shot without doing catastrophic damage to your aircraft or passengers who mean you no harm.
Assuming that you can manage to overcome astronomical odds here and survive... The argument could easily be made that if you had time to make that shot, you were not warranted in the use of deadly force because the threat to your command of that aircraft was not as great as you perceived it to be. Here's the bitch of the thing; even if you are justified--you're still going to get stuck with the liability and pay through the nose for it.
You may have been right, and I may believe you--but it will not matter.
Now, considering that fact that the potential for civil liabilities, aircraft damage, and bad public relations are enormous... And considering that no insurer, anywhere, is going to touch this--period... This is a formula for the demise of your carrier (that's already struggling in a brutal economic environment) your career, and the livelihood of tens of thousands of people. So, who's going to pay for these liabilities when this bright idea goes south--and it will--ALPA? Carrier? Passengers? Tax Payers? Who gets to have the dubious distinction of bending over and taking it in the rear for this utterly volitile but completely illusory sense of security?
This is nothing more that a dangerous security blanket. You will not have the time to use it properly--and if you do, then we'll be made to pay for it as though you shouldn't have.
We need to stop clapping each other on the back with these feel good "We'll give you a fighting chance" lies. This measure will not push the odds in your favor one iota---nada.
We need to be about the business of making sure that you have the capabilty of throwing over command of your aircraft to a ground unit that will guide you onto a militarized airfield, where you'll be met by a well equipped and highly trained anti-terrorist team, and providing you with security onboard.
What we're trying to do here is reduce the incentive to dispose of the flightcrew and provide you with an unmistakable 'heads up' that you've got trouble just outside that door. Now, you've got the time you need to prepare for your own defense and the defense of your aircraft. You can switch over command, pull that axe off the wall and steady your nerve for whatever may come through that cockpit door. Now, you've got a fighting chance--we really have pushed the odds in your favor.
Permission to speak with 100% candor, please.
In the consideration of suicidal terrorism onboard:
Without respect to your toughness, bravery, or commitment to maintaing command of your aircraft, the moment that an aggressive intruder breaches that cockpit, flightcrew life expectancy careens to infinitesimal.
I estimate the space between pilot seating and the cockpit door, runs @ three feet deep, generally speaking. The time it takes somebody to cross that span is exactly how long you have to:
1) Notice the entry
2) Determine the threat
3) Get a hand on that weapon
4) Aim
5) Make your shot without doing catastrophic damage to your aircraft or passengers who mean you no harm.
Assuming that you can manage to overcome astronomical odds here and survive... The argument could easily be made that if you had time to make that shot, you were not warranted in the use of deadly force because the threat to your command of that aircraft was not as great as you perceived it to be. Here's the bitch of the thing; even if you are justified--you're still going to get stuck with the liability and pay through the nose for it.
You may have been right, and I may believe you--but it will not matter.
Now, considering that fact that the potential for civil liabilities, aircraft damage, and bad public relations are enormous... And considering that no insurer, anywhere, is going to touch this--period... This is a formula for the demise of your carrier (that's already struggling in a brutal economic environment) your career, and the livelihood of tens of thousands of people. So, who's going to pay for these liabilities when this bright idea goes south--and it will--ALPA? Carrier? Passengers? Tax Payers? Who gets to have the dubious distinction of bending over and taking it in the rear for this utterly volitile but completely illusory sense of security?
This is nothing more that a dangerous security blanket. You will not have the time to use it properly--and if you do, then we'll be made to pay for it as though you shouldn't have.
We need to stop clapping each other on the back with these feel good "We'll give you a fighting chance" lies. This measure will not push the odds in your favor one iota---nada.
We need to be about the business of making sure that you have the capabilty of throwing over command of your aircraft to a ground unit that will guide you onto a militarized airfield, where you'll be met by a well equipped and highly trained anti-terrorist team, and providing you with security onboard.
What we're trying to do here is reduce the incentive to dispose of the flightcrew and provide you with an unmistakable 'heads up' that you've got trouble just outside that door. Now, you've got the time you need to prepare for your own defense and the defense of your aircraft. You can switch over command, pull that axe off the wall and steady your nerve for whatever may come through that cockpit door. Now, you've got a fighting chance--we really have pushed the odds in your favor.
Last edited by mriya225; 23rd May 2002 at 17:33.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Out West
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mriya225
With all due respect to opinion and argument, I have to refer to my previous statement regarding emotional responses from non flight-deck personnel. The general response from non flight-deck ppruner's is to let some other expert sort out the problems, that’s not the pilot's job, i.e.:
I'll assume from this cozy statement that:
1) These facilities will be available world wide over land, water and ice?
2) There is zero possibility of anyone other than the appointed authority on the ground that can gain control of the aircraft remotely.
The second point of remote aircraft interference is the most absurd. Consider that:
1) The system on the ground would have the ability to override the pilot completely (think about that).
2) Keeping this electronic leash on the aircraft from being intercepted, corrupted etc. is not 100% guaranteed.
When your aircraft pushes back from the gate, the general public truly does not grasp the behind the scenes planning that has brought the aircraft to that point. Planning, dispatching, ground crews, maintenance, over flights, atc and so on. It always amazes me that the system works at all. But fewer yet understand that when that aircraft gets airborne, you better hope that the commander and crew are fully aware that they are now it. Looking for that big cozy hand in the sky to gently set you back on the ground is not going to happen. Just ask two highly motivated flight attendants that disarmed the shoe bomber.
--------------------------------------
With all due respect to opinion and argument, I have to refer to my previous statement regarding emotional responses from non flight-deck personnel. The general response from non flight-deck ppruner's is to let some other expert sort out the problems, that’s not the pilot's job, i.e.:
We need to be about the business of making sure that you have the capability of throwing over command of your aircraft to a ground unit that will guide you onto a militarized airfield, where you'll be met by a well equipped and highly trained anti-terrorist team, and providing you with security onboard.
1) These facilities will be available world wide over land, water and ice?
2) There is zero possibility of anyone other than the appointed authority on the ground that can gain control of the aircraft remotely.
The second point of remote aircraft interference is the most absurd. Consider that:
1) The system on the ground would have the ability to override the pilot completely (think about that).
2) Keeping this electronic leash on the aircraft from being intercepted, corrupted etc. is not 100% guaranteed.
When your aircraft pushes back from the gate, the general public truly does not grasp the behind the scenes planning that has brought the aircraft to that point. Planning, dispatching, ground crews, maintenance, over flights, atc and so on. It always amazes me that the system works at all. But fewer yet understand that when that aircraft gets airborne, you better hope that the commander and crew are fully aware that they are now it. Looking for that big cozy hand in the sky to gently set you back on the ground is not going to happen. Just ask two highly motivated flight attendants that disarmed the shoe bomber.
--------------------------------------
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DFW, Tx - USA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orca strait -
There were a couple of the pax who helped out in the Richard Reid case from a physical standpoint. BUT - a medal to the two AA Cabin Crew that initially went after the bas**rd!!
I am commenting on your post solely to point out the pax involvement. As a "professional" pax, I - and my fellow pros - normally sit in first class. The flight deck, at least in America, can rest assured that the pax are going after any, repeat, anybody that looks suspicious coming up the aisle towards the cockpit door. And, Yes, I do profile those getting on as well as those walking up the aisle!!
GlueBall has it right in his earlier post on this thread.
But, I still support the idea of the Flight Deck crew having the choice to arm themselves, or not. At the end of the day, it is the Pointy End that has the ultimate resxponsibility.
Lots of talk about Air Marshalls on the USA TV recently, but ATPLs know that there are very few of them in existance today, and real secure doors are one-two years away. So, the security gaps are still there and will be into the near future.
Even if we get the plane physically secure we still aren't doing the right thing about the people on the ground with access to the planes!!
There were a couple of the pax who helped out in the Richard Reid case from a physical standpoint. BUT - a medal to the two AA Cabin Crew that initially went after the bas**rd!!
I am commenting on your post solely to point out the pax involvement. As a "professional" pax, I - and my fellow pros - normally sit in first class. The flight deck, at least in America, can rest assured that the pax are going after any, repeat, anybody that looks suspicious coming up the aisle towards the cockpit door. And, Yes, I do profile those getting on as well as those walking up the aisle!!
GlueBall has it right in his earlier post on this thread.
But, I still support the idea of the Flight Deck crew having the choice to arm themselves, or not. At the end of the day, it is the Pointy End that has the ultimate resxponsibility.
Lots of talk about Air Marshalls on the USA TV recently, but ATPLs know that there are very few of them in existance today, and real secure doors are one-two years away. So, the security gaps are still there and will be into the near future.
Even if we get the plane physically secure we still aren't doing the right thing about the people on the ground with access to the planes!!
Profiling: Not Much Help
Profiling would only help if all terrorists in the world happened to be in the racial group you happened to pick. They're not. Sorry wino, there are white terrorists as well, I grew up with IRA bombs and scares on the menu.
For the historically minded: One of the Palestinian star hijackers of the 1970s was a blonde, blue-eyed German woman...oops. (Gabrielle Kruger of the PFLP) Even if you are convinced that Islam and terrorism are the same thing, I would remind you that you that it's a religion not a race - you can convert. Think John Lindh.
For the historically minded: One of the Palestinian star hijackers of the 1970s was a blonde, blue-eyed German woman...oops. (Gabrielle Kruger of the PFLP) Even if you are convinced that Islam and terrorism are the same thing, I would remind you that you that it's a religion not a race - you can convert. Think John Lindh.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Out West
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA SLF-
The professional pax’s are certainly a part of the team, and I have been assisted by them on various occasions (medical emergency, rowdy passenger to name a few). Glad to have you on board.
There is no doubt that since 9/11, collectively, our response to any kind of hi-jack threat would be treated much differently than prior to 9/11.
We have recently learned that there was considerable intelligence gathered prior to 9/11, that the probability of hi-jacking civilian airliners was high. As a pilot, prior to flight I receive briefings on weather, airspace changes, delays; equipment malfunctions etc., but nothing on security. Most of us have held security clearances at one time or another in our careers. Why not issue a discreet security bulletin to the flight crew, something like -an increased threat in air piracy or hi-jacking has been identified, possible perpetrators (terrorist group of the day). Forewarned is forearmed. As it was, prior to 9/11 we were still using hi-jack prevention and control tactics from the 1960's! Instead, we were all led to believe that the hi-jack threat died in the 1970's!
If the crews on that fateful day had known that the possibility of domestic hi-jacking was there and that tactics and demands of the hi-jacker may have changed (this was known in security circles), then those crews may have had a better more effective response that may have saved the day. As it was, the crews used the tools that they had been given and these tools were woefully out of date and ineffective.
The part that really makes my blood boil, since 9/11, crews have been further distanced from the security apparatus and treated as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. We are reminded of this every time we are made to surrender our shoes and nail clippers.
---------------------------
The professional pax’s are certainly a part of the team, and I have been assisted by them on various occasions (medical emergency, rowdy passenger to name a few). Glad to have you on board.
There is no doubt that since 9/11, collectively, our response to any kind of hi-jack threat would be treated much differently than prior to 9/11.
We have recently learned that there was considerable intelligence gathered prior to 9/11, that the probability of hi-jacking civilian airliners was high. As a pilot, prior to flight I receive briefings on weather, airspace changes, delays; equipment malfunctions etc., but nothing on security. Most of us have held security clearances at one time or another in our careers. Why not issue a discreet security bulletin to the flight crew, something like -an increased threat in air piracy or hi-jacking has been identified, possible perpetrators (terrorist group of the day). Forewarned is forearmed. As it was, prior to 9/11 we were still using hi-jack prevention and control tactics from the 1960's! Instead, we were all led to believe that the hi-jack threat died in the 1970's!
If the crews on that fateful day had known that the possibility of domestic hi-jacking was there and that tactics and demands of the hi-jacker may have changed (this was known in security circles), then those crews may have had a better more effective response that may have saved the day. As it was, the crews used the tools that they had been given and these tools were woefully out of date and ineffective.
The part that really makes my blood boil, since 9/11, crews have been further distanced from the security apparatus and treated as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. We are reminded of this every time we are made to surrender our shoes and nail clippers.
---------------------------
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish you wouldn't bother with the "all due respect" disclaimer--it just makes you look bad when you're unable to follow through.
This is a little no-p.c. nit-picky of me, but I just need to get it off my chest:
A "flight deck" is found on a naval carrier--pilots work in a cockpit.
Nothing about the argument, against arming pilots, that I've put forward here is "absurd"--so spare me your histrionics. That whole *tsk, tsk* routine is the bad substitute for logic, from hell, as far as I'm concerned.
As a former load master and mechanic, I've shared the burden of responsibility for aircraft, crew and passenger safety with pilots--so it's not as if I don't "get it". Now, I may not have to die with you, but that doesn't mean that I'm incapable of gleaning, from that experience, some insight into the pressure that you're under.
Nobody's discussed the procedure for assuming control of your aircraft with me--so I don't know exactly how they intend to safeguard against terrorists using that same system to their advantage. I do know that it wouldn't be tactically difficult to protect you from that possibility--but entrusting one source, especially a lumbering bureaucratic source, to handle it would be extraordinarily unwise.
As far as airfield availabilty goes, pardon my candor, but you're as good as dead anyway. Now, if I can get you onto a friendly military airfield--fabulous--you had better believe I'm going to do that (even if we have to wait a few hours for the anti-terrorist team and equipment to arrive). But if you're only wet enough to put you out over the Atlantic or any other unpopulated area, where your aircraft can't be used as a weapon to kill more people than are already going to perish onboard anyway--that, unfortunately, is precisely where you're headed. I'm terribly sorry; it isn't fair. Please forgive me--but that is exactly what's going to happen.
Nearly every commercial jet in production today is capable of completing a cycles without a flight crew. I sure as hell wouldn't trust it--unless I absolutely had to. But then, that's what we're talking about here, isn't it? A situation so dire has arisen, onboard this aircraft, that you absolutely must rely on it.
No guarantees? When have you, in any facet of your existence, been guaranteed anything? Ever? The probablities may have been high--but you have never been guaranteed anything--not ever; I promise you.
You want to work with a gun on your hip? I don't blame you. I wouldn't mind slinging an OICW over my shoulder too, for deterrence and safety--but that doesn't make it a good idea.
I know it sucks to face this rationally. But if you will throw your energy into productive means of addressing these threats--then this public will back your play and pressure this government and carriers into putting their money where your posteriors are.
This is a little no-p.c. nit-picky of me, but I just need to get it off my chest:
A "flight deck" is found on a naval carrier--pilots work in a cockpit.
Nothing about the argument, against arming pilots, that I've put forward here is "absurd"--so spare me your histrionics. That whole *tsk, tsk* routine is the bad substitute for logic, from hell, as far as I'm concerned.
As a former load master and mechanic, I've shared the burden of responsibility for aircraft, crew and passenger safety with pilots--so it's not as if I don't "get it". Now, I may not have to die with you, but that doesn't mean that I'm incapable of gleaning, from that experience, some insight into the pressure that you're under.
Nobody's discussed the procedure for assuming control of your aircraft with me--so I don't know exactly how they intend to safeguard against terrorists using that same system to their advantage. I do know that it wouldn't be tactically difficult to protect you from that possibility--but entrusting one source, especially a lumbering bureaucratic source, to handle it would be extraordinarily unwise.
As far as airfield availabilty goes, pardon my candor, but you're as good as dead anyway. Now, if I can get you onto a friendly military airfield--fabulous--you had better believe I'm going to do that (even if we have to wait a few hours for the anti-terrorist team and equipment to arrive). But if you're only wet enough to put you out over the Atlantic or any other unpopulated area, where your aircraft can't be used as a weapon to kill more people than are already going to perish onboard anyway--that, unfortunately, is precisely where you're headed. I'm terribly sorry; it isn't fair. Please forgive me--but that is exactly what's going to happen.
Nearly every commercial jet in production today is capable of completing a cycles without a flight crew. I sure as hell wouldn't trust it--unless I absolutely had to. But then, that's what we're talking about here, isn't it? A situation so dire has arisen, onboard this aircraft, that you absolutely must rely on it.
No guarantees? When have you, in any facet of your existence, been guaranteed anything? Ever? The probablities may have been high--but you have never been guaranteed anything--not ever; I promise you.
You want to work with a gun on your hip? I don't blame you. I wouldn't mind slinging an OICW over my shoulder too, for deterrence and safety--but that doesn't make it a good idea.
I know it sucks to face this rationally. But if you will throw your energy into productive means of addressing these threats--then this public will back your play and pressure this government and carriers into putting their money where your posteriors are.
Last edited by mriya225; 23rd May 2002 at 22:39.