"House OKs Bill to Arm Airline Pilots"

[Wino]

I don't know what you deleted heliport.
As the post stands now is how I left it with the only change being the modified time stamp.

My last edit was at 928 and yours of 954. I think maybe I should take the additional precaution of changing my password, though the time frame is close enough for possibly a late refresh.

Not looking for a fight

Cheers
Wino

[Tripower455]

Can you imagine it, the F/O tries to shoot a terrorist and drills aunty mabel instead: he gets sued, so does the captain,airline, aircraft manufacturer etc...........

At least that FO, as well as a majority of his pax (except for Aunty Mabel of course) is still alive to get sued (and I agree that in this situation, there would be tons of lawsuits). Is it somehow more palatable when everyone on board dies when the the aircraft is hit by the missile, or hits the building?

If Aunty Mabel (and everyone else on board) gets killed by the bad guys, do you not think that there will be tons of lawsuits?

Every time I put my name in the log book, I am responsible for the safety of my pax and crew.


We've already seen what happens when the bad guys get control of the aircraft. Nothing that's been done post 9/11 will prevent it from happening again.

[WhatsaLizad?]

. Can you imagine it, the F/O tries to shoot a terrorist and drills aunty mabel instead: he gets sued, so does the captain,airline, aircraft manufacturer etc...........

This poster is for a trained, proficient armed pilot if the unfortunate need arises. In this debate there are many problems to be considered such as storage, procedures, foreign countries, cockpit door openings, ect, that can increase the risk rather than lower it.

Too often to debate is clouded by statements that totally lack ANY logic or INTELLIGENT thought that may contradict ones own personal anti-gun view. Read the above statement again. The only reason the FO would have a shot at the TERRORIST would be if the cockpit door was breached. A terrorist gets in the cockpit and you are afraid of getting sued?

Let me paraphrase your statement;

Can you imagine it? A person accidently shot an innocent bystander in an attempt to shoot a killer who was attempting to murder his child.

In my example, there was a 100% chance the killer was attempting to commit a murder, much like todays terrorists. Any armed defense carrys the risks of hurting innocents that must be weighed against stopping the bigger threat.


I am a airline pilot and I am told to fly the plane, not be a cop nor constable. Why then if the FIRE light comes on, am I told to be a fireman? I

[virgin]

Not sure about this one, I don't know enough about guns.
But I can't help feeling we're p*ssing in the wind as far as some security measures go. If extremists are determined enough, they'll get round any security precautions and all we;ve done in many cases is inconvenience ourselves for nothing.

Maybe NDP has a good point.
Looking at the causes of terrorism has to be an important part of fighting it. I admire the US, but it's foreign policy is sometimes a bit hamfisted. Interfering in the internal affairs of another country is bound to cause or fuel resentment. Being seen as a neutral power is bound to help.

Wino
Don't be an 'asshole' all your life. I saw your second post (before Heliport edited it). I don't think he took too kindly to you telling him he should delete somebody else's post and I don't blame him.
Try letting something drop now and then.

[Wino]

Virgin, that was up for less that 30 sec before I pulled it down, and left the post as it currently is...

20 plus min later I was edited for probably something else.



On the thread

Airline pilots in the USA were required to carry guns for 50 years. In that time there were no recorded misdeeds that I can find. There was however 1 hijacker shot dead by an American Airlines DC-6 captain in the 50s in Ohio.

A gun a simple tool. Yes misuse or carelessness can have dreadfull consequences, but so can a chain saw or an airplane. With proper procedures and training (and no one receives more regular training and testing than an airline pilot) they should be just fine. IF you cannot trust a pilot with a simple tool like a gun, how can you trust them with a complex tool like an airplane.

And yes pilots are not perfect, they might even kill themselves and all on their aircraft intentionally (Egypt Air and Silk Air come to mind) but they don't need a gun to do that! On the otherhand a weapon does increase the odds that a determined assault on the cockpit will be repelled atleast long enough to get the aircraft on the ground where better assistance is available.

Im on my way to recurrent training in Dallas tonight. I will have to shoot a couple of approaches, then shoot water on a fire, there is no reason I can't shoot 50 rounds into a target on a gun range right next to the fire range.


Cheers
Wino

[WhatsaLizad?]

whisperbrick,

Sorry I left out that your first comment about the SAS, Delta Force, and GS9 training in the cabin was an excellent logical point. Any pilot attempting to resolve a situation in the passenger cabin while armed would most likely be an absolute distaster and would definately increase the risk over that of an unarmed crew.

The weapon should only be there to help prevent commandeering of the aircraft for use as a weapon


One other note; On a range the other day I fired two 10 round 9mm magazines from a Glock very rapidly, at a target aprox 3 meters away. Both groupings would have fit well inside the dimensions of a cocpit door.

[jet_noseover]

WhatsaLizad

WhatsaLizad

"I am a airline pilot and I am told to fly the plane, not be a cop nor constable. Why then if the FIRE light comes on, am I told to be a fireman?"

The oil refinery operator, nuclear facility worker, hazmat truck driver, homeowner, etc become fire fighters as well when the FIRE light comes on.
Are you a cook when you prepare a meal for the family, cab driver when driving kids to their activities, painter when you "refresh" your home, gardener when planting your tomatoes?

It appears pilots in the US trust the security on the ground to protect their citisens from terrorists on water supplies reservoirs, nuke plants, refineries, natural gas compression stations, pipelines, high-rise buildings but not in the air.

My question:
How different is it upthere from downhere?

If pilots get the weapons, why not the rest of working America?

[whisperbrick]

whatsalizad,

yes I did apply some thought to my post, i was thinking of accidents within the scenario.
but it seems that you are seriously suggesting that these weapons would only be used should a terrorist breach the cockpit and you would cut him down ?

So if your favourite flight attendant, Betty-Lou, is about to be maimed, stabbed etc. in the cabin and you look through the peephole you think that you would be able to overide the basic human instinct to go and help (no doubt tooled up)?I don't think so.

And incidentally I am not anti-gun, I am in fact a UK Firearms certificate holder, although over here automatic weapons are not allowed in civilian ownership (thank god).

[Wino]

Whisperbrick

So then if you can't restrain yourself in that scenario, what will restrain you without a gun? If you have a hero complex so bad and can't follow procedure, than you probably shouldn't be entrusted with an aircraft in this day and age.

Cheers
Wino

[Tripower455]

How different is it upthere from downhere?

You answered your own question.

On the ground (which, presumably is where these nuclear power plants, factories etc ar elocated), the SWAT team, fire fighters etc, have ACCESS to the above mentioned buildings. The only thing that the authorities can do is shoot us down (since they cannot keep the baddies off the aircraft).

[MarkD]

WhatsaLizad?

were you twisted around in your seat and strapped in when firing off that handcannon, or standing up in marksman position?

Not really a realistic simulation - need to add a cramped cabin and screaming pax for realism!!

[WhatsaLizad?]

It appears pilots in the US trust the security on the ground to protect their citisens from terrorists on water supplies reservoirs, nuke plants, refineries, natural gas compression stations, pipelines, high-rise buildings but not in the air.

My question:
How different is it upthere from downhere?


jet_noseover,

jet_noseover

Using your above examples, yes I trust the security on the ground in each place listed. Please tell me this jet_noseover, at which control station for a water supply resevoir ( resevoirs are tough to make lethal themselves), nuke plant, refinery, natural gas compression station, pipeline can the general public be seperated by a single door, of lesser strength than any even on the drawing board, without any armed guards on the public side, 98% of the time. I await a full report.

With your high rise example, I have never seen a highrise that has every entry point ,beside the main entry way glass ones, equipped with heavy duty steel doors far stronger than any aircraft will see. Every large highrise I have seen is 100% staffed with armed guards. see the difference.

If they protect the cockpit like they do with your above examples, and I won't even arm myself with dirty looks.

[AA SLF]

whisperbrick -

As a simple PAX/SLF I do NOT want anyone from the flight deck to come into the cabin in a "takeover" situation. NEVER - EVER.

USA airline pilots can, IMHO, can depend on their PAX to defend the cabin with maximum force available to them (usually pure numbers!). In the case where a "takeover" person has reached the flightdeck door while his/her pals defend behind then I want the PNF INSIDE the flightdeck to be able to defend as a "last ditch" line-of-defense. I fully expect that the Pax will ultimately prevail over the "takeover" defenders but it might take some several seconds. We need the PNF to defend for that amount of time. American "professional" Pax learned post-Sept/11/01 that they have to do EVERYTHING in their power (which is considerable) to defend the cabin. I HOPE the same could be said of Pax/SLF in the rest of the world!

jet_noseover -

You say you are from the USA - lots of recent articles in the news about "defending" power-plants; reservoirs, etc. How do either you, or I, know that "armed defenders" have NOT been quietly moved INTO these facilities. Would you "blab" this to the nation if it had been done (move defenders in), and thus "forewarn" the bad folks? I thought an ambush only worked when the other side did NOT know about the ambush?

For instance - did you know about the Greenbriar Resort facility. Well I did, it had the call-sign of "bluegrass" at one time. Reason you didn't know, was "security". Basic need to know situation.

Why do I want the cockpit to have access to a pistol? As a last line-of-defense, pure and simple. Anyone that can not appreciate this line of reasoning is just slightly out of touch with the real world of "bad people". To be handled by the PNF!

Yes, there will be a lot of "things" to be overcome to go BACK TO an armed cockpit in the USA, but nothing good in life is ever easy, is it?

Please read my signature line below . . . . . . dAAvid

[WhatsaLizad?]

whisperbrick,

Sorry if I generalized a anti-gun poke at you, it should have been left out of the post. I don't want to thread drift nor debate it, but I believe US citizens are only allowed to own automatic weapons with some sort of a permit called a ClassIII. You can look it up yourself but I believe there is only one crime on record of a legal owner of a ClassIII fully automatic weapon using his weapon in a crime and I think he was a cop who killed an informant. I am sure God appreciates the thanks.

Yes, I am also for being armed ONLY for defense of the cockpit. Your example is something that should be dealt with in any training for armed pilots, maybe more than marksmanship itself. Most police forces seem to train their members not to enter "no win" situations without significant backup, why would pilots be any different. Before 9/11 I would agree that the leverage owned by a hijacker when he states "OPEN THE DOOR AND NOBODY DIES, IF YOU DON"T I'LL CUT HER THROAT", would be tough to ignore armed or not. Would you trust him after 9/11?
Trying to get a disabling shot at a hijacker hiding behind a hostage aft of the cockpit is a ludicrous thought.

[WhatsaLizad?]

were you twisted around in your seat and strapped in when firing off that handcannon, or standing up in marksman position? MarkD

I submitted the post before I added the words "non-scientific, non-statistical, possibly lucky" about my range visit.

I would like to see adequate testing about the suitability and marksmanship when strapped it and twisted around. But if I can twist around and pour myself a coffee plus a sugar packet ,in the dark , behind the center console with more body movement than a firing position, I am somewhat suspicious of comments like yours. For pure marksmanship in a stable non-emotional range visit, a seated position using the seat for a brace might have provided more accuracy than my standing position.




By the way, I would hardly call a Glock 17 with 9mm ammo a "handcannon". I fired 3 rounds into the soft pine target supports for laughs. The wood board, which I could easily break over my knee, was about 8 cm wide and 1.5 cm thick. The 9mm rounds put 3 small holes in the wood without moving the target nor doing much damage. I would prefer the "HollyWood" effect of exploding the wood supports as shown in many movies though . Maybe some useless .50 caliber show gun might qualify for "handcannon" status, however most handguns don't.

[jet_noseover]

AA SLF, others...

Tell me what good guns are going to do you when the hijackers are to target international flights to/from and over America.

No matter which way you turn, your butt is still behind you.

[WhatsaLizad?]

jet_noseover,

I may be taking a guess here but I think your nuke control example is a fairy tale. Do you mean to tell me that at US nuclear plants I can park my rented Saturn (or Ryder truck), then walk up to the ONLY door to the control room, bang on it and say "Pizza Man! please open up".

Listen carefully, unlike the examples you listed, unless there are armed marshals on EVERY flight, it isn't the same as a nuke plant, LNG control room ect. They have 100% armed security for immediate response for fock ups in with their first layer of security which include items such fences, gates, guards, background checks ect. That is why you can't bring a gun to work as a nuke control tech, they have someone there 100% of the time to provide lethal defense. Giving examples comparing flight ops to places that have 100 % armed guards on the premises is idiotic.

. I simply think you guys have enough to deal with upthere to begin with to be burdened with what air marshals should do.

Fine, put an armed Air Marshal on every flight. That is my first request. Is it going to happen ? What carrier besides El Al with its limited long haul flights will do it? You somewhat alluded to the common statement of " I want the pilots concentrating on flying not gunfighting". Why is it that then that these same people have no problem with a pilot cocentrating on fighting with a medievel crash axe?

Tell me what good guns are going to do you when the hijackers are to target international flights to/from and over America.

The US has limited control over foreign carriers and their practices. In reality, the actual numbers of aircraft, mainly widebodies except from places like Mexico and Canada, are relatively small. This is a guess, but I think 20 F15's could cover the coast from Virginia to Maine for scheduled airline service. My airline has something like 2500 flights a day. the US doesn't have enough fighters to cover them all, not including every other US airline. If the main threat could come from foreign carriers, cutting out the blizzard of potential targets like USair, Southwest, Delta, could make life easier for them. Besides that I don't really want to see them acting out a hostage response scenario.

[jet_noseover]

AA SLF

"How do either you, or I, know that "armed defenders" have NOT been quietly moved INTO these facilities. Would you "blab" this to the nation if it had been done (move defenders in), and thus "forewarn" the bad folks?"


Media has been known to do exellent job on "blabbing". They hear bits and pieces of what might be going on and write sensentional story to sell the paper. I posted on the Airlines, Airports & Routes an article from a reporter in training about the "GO" event, see what the comedy it turned out to be...


Not that you were not aware of this

[Tripower455]

Not quite, Tri. The territory is accessible, not the containment bldg.

What makes it unaccessable? A locked door? The guards outside of it? Symantics. Help is not far away.

I don't know enough about nuclear power to argue what effect a stray round would have when fired in a control room. Would it be as bad as if a terrorist who knew what he was doing pulled the control rods out all the way? Besides, when was the last time a terrorist hijacked the control room of a npp (not to say that it can't/won't happen....)? Maybe you should be armed!


Are a lot of workers at a nuclear plant allowed unfettered access to every part of the plant with NO daily security screening and cursory (at best) pre employment screenings? Just about every airport worker you see scurrying around on the ramp has NOT gone through any type of daily screening to get there.

Can I get a job at the nuclear plant today and bypass security tomorrow?

An airliner is not going to blow up (or even go critical) if someone fires a round into a cb panel. Certainly nothing as bad a having the aircraft flown into a building will happen. That argument also doesn't seem to apply to sky marshalls, barney fifes etc. who, I guess never miss.........

If the main threat could come from foreign carriers, cutting out the blizzard of potential targets like USair, Southwest, Delta, could make life easier for them.

WhatsaLizad?

That is a great idea! No worries about running afoul of the law in other countries and less worries about having MY airplane used as a missile!

[WhatsaLizad?]

That is a great idea! No worries about running afoul of the law in other countries and less worries about having MY airplane used as a missile!

I don't have clue what you said. I meant that a few foreign carriers with suspect security are easier to track and unfortunately shoot down than the multitudes of domestic carriers. Whether they are easier or more difficult to penetrate now is something I do not know nor will comment on