Guns in Cockpit (Various)
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK 28th I will bite even though I know I should ignore your post. Please tell me which is the worst situation even accepting the dismal outcome of your scenario. Two dead pilots with throats cut and six live terrorists or two dead pilots with throats cut and four live terrorists? Does not make much difference does it? In either case the aircraft is lost. With any luck, or judgement, the first two dead terrorists will be jammed in the cockpit doorway slowing down the entry of the others and giving our pax time to react. In reality, who knows how these things could unfold, we can speculate as much as we want but I bet the real thing will be different to what we ever imagined..
Re-training. When I was in a certain airforce a senior NCO used to "misdirect" 9mm ammo which was supposed to have been used for light machine gun training to me so I could practice 9mm pistol for the station shooting club. In UK it was impossible for me to buy enough pistol ammo to practice for our events. Now, in the US I buy my 9mm ammo in cases of 1,000 ($6.95 for 50 rounds and 10% off for case prices). I get through 100 or 200 rounds in an afternoon in serious practice on my home shooting range. (It is still cheaper than playing golf!). I do not pretend to be a great shot but I bet I can do better than two out of six. The point is that keeping in a pretty high level of currency is much easier in the US than elsewhere and it is a thing many people do for fun in the same way some people practice their golf. Currency is not such a great problem as you might anticipate.
Re-training. When I was in a certain airforce a senior NCO used to "misdirect" 9mm ammo which was supposed to have been used for light machine gun training to me so I could practice 9mm pistol for the station shooting club. In UK it was impossible for me to buy enough pistol ammo to practice for our events. Now, in the US I buy my 9mm ammo in cases of 1,000 ($6.95 for 50 rounds and 10% off for case prices). I get through 100 or 200 rounds in an afternoon in serious practice on my home shooting range. (It is still cheaper than playing golf!). I do not pretend to be a great shot but I bet I can do better than two out of six. The point is that keeping in a pretty high level of currency is much easier in the US than elsewhere and it is a thing many people do for fun in the same way some people practice their golf. Currency is not such a great problem as you might anticipate.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: World
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its interesting seeing the views on both sides - some good comments. Here is another rant from myself…
Looking at the vote results, you have to acknowledge there is seemingly widespread acceptance amongst US pilots. Of course, such acceptance comes from having a different attitude (and background) to firearm ownership – for people living in environments where firearms are heavily restricted/prohibited, there will always be a different attitude.
The strong “yes” vote indicates pilots want more protection on the flightdeck (FD)…should the carriage of a firearm therefore be considered as “standard” equipment for the aircraft? Rather than have individuals carry weapons in nav bags (all kinds of potential problems), why not have a firearm locked in a safe on the FD. To access the FD safe would require selection of the discrete TX code, which would unlock the safe and alert ATC at the same time.
I appreciate this may not have worked pre 9/11, however since then, the way in which potential hijackers demands are followed has completely and irrevocably changed. There should also be more time for the crew to advise ATC of the actual threat given more secure doors, severely restricted FD access and in some cases, cameras at the door entry and throughout the cabin.
And although this may sound harsh, no matter what is happening in the cabin (eg. cabin crew and/or pax being physically assaulted), the tech crew must not try and intervene in the dispute…just get the aircraft on the ground ASAP and keep the terrorists out of the FD. What happens if a pilot decides he/she can “take em out” and so leaves their position attempting to neutralise the threat but ends up in a gun fight and worse case scenario, dead with the FD door open and another gun available?
And don’t forget the other “friendly” weapons available in the cabin – other pax! Since 9/11, how many pax have assisted crews with unlawful behaviour?
Looking at the vote results, you have to acknowledge there is seemingly widespread acceptance amongst US pilots. Of course, such acceptance comes from having a different attitude (and background) to firearm ownership – for people living in environments where firearms are heavily restricted/prohibited, there will always be a different attitude.
The strong “yes” vote indicates pilots want more protection on the flightdeck (FD)…should the carriage of a firearm therefore be considered as “standard” equipment for the aircraft? Rather than have individuals carry weapons in nav bags (all kinds of potential problems), why not have a firearm locked in a safe on the FD. To access the FD safe would require selection of the discrete TX code, which would unlock the safe and alert ATC at the same time.
I appreciate this may not have worked pre 9/11, however since then, the way in which potential hijackers demands are followed has completely and irrevocably changed. There should also be more time for the crew to advise ATC of the actual threat given more secure doors, severely restricted FD access and in some cases, cameras at the door entry and throughout the cabin.
And although this may sound harsh, no matter what is happening in the cabin (eg. cabin crew and/or pax being physically assaulted), the tech crew must not try and intervene in the dispute…just get the aircraft on the ground ASAP and keep the terrorists out of the FD. What happens if a pilot decides he/she can “take em out” and so leaves their position attempting to neutralise the threat but ends up in a gun fight and worse case scenario, dead with the FD door open and another gun available?
And don’t forget the other “friendly” weapons available in the cabin – other pax! Since 9/11, how many pax have assisted crews with unlawful behaviour?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: No fixed abode...
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that BOING doesn't seem to find anything peculiar about concept of an "armed Housing and Urban Development officer" 
If thats the land of the free, they can keep it. Belfast sounds a much safer place to be free in.
If thats the land of the free, they can keep it. Belfast sounds a much safer place to be free in.
Last edited by Old Phart; 9th Sep 2002 at 06:10.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Out West
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This topic was discussed in detail earlier this year (15 pages). All the same arguments being put forth at this time therefore a peek at past arguments may prove to be enlightening, or at least help to bring forth new material.U.S. Pilots will not be armed...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Although I could probably insist in the "Housing" fellow checking his firearm you need to realise that he had met the federal criteria for carriage of a firearm - whether I thought it was necessary or not.
Certain personnel in the US are ALWAYS allowed to carry a firearm on an aircraft. Others are PERMITTED to carry a firearm. To get this permission they undergo approved verification procedure. This person was not required to carry a firearm for the performance of his employment on the flight. On the other hand, although his possession of the firearm may not have been needed I had no reason to deny his permission (unless it was as a case of potential loss of the firearm to a troublemaker).
In this case I agreed to the situation after I had discussed the reason he was travelling on duty and what operations he had been carrying out. A few friendly questions usually helps clarify these situations. It just shows that you never know what members of what government agencies may be permitted to carry arms. I figure if all of these folks can travel armed surely pilots can do so also.
In my state 4% of the population are permitted to carry concealed weapons. For all you know a dozen people in the supermarket with you could be carrying concealed firearms. Nothing to get neurotic about. The people checked out and approved to carry firearms are not the risk, it is the unlicenced firearm carriers you need to worry about.
Certain personnel in the US are ALWAYS allowed to carry a firearm on an aircraft. Others are PERMITTED to carry a firearm. To get this permission they undergo approved verification procedure. This person was not required to carry a firearm for the performance of his employment on the flight. On the other hand, although his possession of the firearm may not have been needed I had no reason to deny his permission (unless it was as a case of potential loss of the firearm to a troublemaker).
In this case I agreed to the situation after I had discussed the reason he was travelling on duty and what operations he had been carrying out. A few friendly questions usually helps clarify these situations. It just shows that you never know what members of what government agencies may be permitted to carry arms. I figure if all of these folks can travel armed surely pilots can do so also.
In my state 4% of the population are permitted to carry concealed weapons. For all you know a dozen people in the supermarket with you could be carrying concealed firearms. Nothing to get neurotic about. The people checked out and approved to carry firearms are not the risk, it is the unlicenced firearm carriers you need to worry about.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple answer, go for an international flight, the pilots won't be armed! Unless there is a housing development officer on board of course, maybe they should be made compulsory pax on all flights!! Amazing that an apparently sane bunch of legislators deems arming pilots a viable deterent. Frightening.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opinions about whether or not to arm pilots inside the USA are fairly irrelevant if we are not living there and/or don't fly a N-reg aircraft. It's their country and they can do as they please inside it (just as others get to decide what happens in their countries - that's democracy!).
Unfortunately(?), guns do not make you safe. The US has the largest defense expenditure/forces in the world and could reduce most if not all countries to rubble if they so chose. That didn't stop Sept 11 just in the same way as guns in the cockpit won't stop all terrorist attacks on aircraft. To a certain extent, arms are simply there to make people feel more secure. Dangers and threats still exist and people think that we can get rid of them all. We can't. Life doesn't work like that.
So take guns into the cockpit. But you will find that:
1. This will not stop terrorist acts on aircraft.
2. Accidents happen and therefore, in all probability, someone will be accidently shot (this will be put down "acceptable loses to achieve a given outcome").
3. You can't plan for every eventuality. Life is dangerous (it will kill you in the end
) and that while you may think arming yourself is going to make you safer, this is probably not the case.
On a final note, the US needs to accept the idea that other countries don't want guns in their aircraft's cockpits (even in aircraft going to the US) and that is their choice! If you flying Europe, Asia or Africa let your feelings be known to your country's aviation authority. Be vocal about what you want. Don't accept guns in the cockpit just because the US does it.
Unfortunately(?), guns do not make you safe. The US has the largest defense expenditure/forces in the world and could reduce most if not all countries to rubble if they so chose. That didn't stop Sept 11 just in the same way as guns in the cockpit won't stop all terrorist attacks on aircraft. To a certain extent, arms are simply there to make people feel more secure. Dangers and threats still exist and people think that we can get rid of them all. We can't. Life doesn't work like that.
So take guns into the cockpit. But you will find that:
1. This will not stop terrorist acts on aircraft.
2. Accidents happen and therefore, in all probability, someone will be accidently shot (this will be put down "acceptable loses to achieve a given outcome").
3. You can't plan for every eventuality. Life is dangerous (it will kill you in the end
) and that while you may think arming yourself is going to make you safer, this is probably not the case.On a final note, the US needs to accept the idea that other countries don't want guns in their aircraft's cockpits (even in aircraft going to the US) and that is their choice! If you flying Europe, Asia or Africa let your feelings be known to your country's aviation authority. Be vocal about what you want. Don't accept guns in the cockpit just because the US does it.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just logged on to excite.com, which has a poll on pilots with guns;
What’s frightening to us Brits is no less than 71% said yes to pilots being given artillery in the cockpit! Only 25% said no and the rest neutral.
1/there must be some way 'Q' can come up with a 'gizmo' to use
other than low velocity/cal. firearms?
2/If we have to have them, then they must be isolated 'airside' either in a safe in the flight deck or what ever.
3/ they would only be reasonably safe if the gun had some sort of personal recognition system like an arm bracelet that worked like
those fancy new car keys.
4/they need to be holstered in such a way you could draw them while facing front.
5/Proper training for the use of such weapons.
6/given that if it comes to it you've gotta do some thing, instead of carrying guns why not just 'lamp' them with the crash axe! That works for me!
"Shirley you can't be serious" (stop calling me Shirley!)
What’s frightening to us Brits is no less than 71% said yes to pilots being given artillery in the cockpit! Only 25% said no and the rest neutral.
1/there must be some way 'Q' can come up with a 'gizmo' to use
other than low velocity/cal. firearms?
2/If we have to have them, then they must be isolated 'airside' either in a safe in the flight deck or what ever.
3/ they would only be reasonably safe if the gun had some sort of personal recognition system like an arm bracelet that worked like
those fancy new car keys.
4/they need to be holstered in such a way you could draw them while facing front.
5/Proper training for the use of such weapons.
6/given that if it comes to it you've gotta do some thing, instead of carrying guns why not just 'lamp' them with the crash axe! That works for me!
"Shirley you can't be serious" (stop calling me Shirley!)
Last edited by David Balchin; 9th Sep 2002 at 19:04.
Guest
Posts: n/a
David, the interesting thing about your post is that the percentage of the US public advocating firearms appears to be increasing. The figure was 68% immediately following 9/11. Could be polling error I suppose but the figure would at least seem to be remaining constant. This demonstrates how much faith the general public have in the security measures applied so far.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Ny, NY, USA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guns in the cockpit, what is the world coming to? The next thing you know, people will be trying to break down the cockpit door to try and take over the airplane. They will probably even try to crash an airplane into a building or something.
Wow, it sure would have been nice to have a gun on 9/11. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot you guys overseas can safely land an airplane while someone tries to slit your throat from ear to ear. Give me a F**king break.
The weapon is the last resort to try and prevent another 9/11. Do you have a better idea? Maybe you could convince the bad person that they don't really want to harm you. Let's face it, If someone is breaking down your door................they don't want to join you for a cup of tea.
Wow, it sure would have been nice to have a gun on 9/11. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot you guys overseas can safely land an airplane while someone tries to slit your throat from ear to ear. Give me a F**king break.
The weapon is the last resort to try and prevent another 9/11. Do you have a better idea? Maybe you could convince the bad person that they don't really want to harm you. Let's face it, If someone is breaking down your door................they don't want to join you for a cup of tea.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
>>Let's face it, If someone is breaking down your door................they don't want to join you for a cup of tea.<<
Now, now...
After several incidents, the locked cockpit door was still a foreign concept in many countries a year ago...
Now they are worried about not having granny on the jumpseat.
Now, now...
After several incidents, the locked cockpit door was still a foreign concept in many countries a year ago...
Now they are worried about not having granny on the jumpseat.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Pointy End
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That’s right Airbubba, we’re also asking for details of how the FAA policy of flight deck doors being locked prevented the 9-11 atrocities? But guess what, no one seems to be willing to step up and explain how that brilliant strategy foiled the terrorists.
Unlike some, we don’t go for the Hollywood hype. If a procedure has proved ineffective then we ask why implement it? We’re not interested in window dressing for the travelling public, or banning family members so that the politicians can go on TV and say “look, we’ve improved security, we’re the party to trust…vote for us”.
This threat is far too serious for that. We’ll ridicule and bitch, until we force the powers that be to take real and effective measures. If that means profiling then so be it. Individual rights will (on this occasion) have to be subservient to the collective security of the majority. But this is going to cost lots of money to implement…that I suspect is why we keep getting these stupid, irrelevant and ineffective (but cheap) edicts from the idiots in power.
Tony Blair is willing to pay the “blood price” to go to war in Iraq. I bet he won’t be there in the Warrior armoured vehicles with the rest of the boys and girls, (Perhaps we should insist that all MP’s are the first in, in any shooting war they get us into) just like he won’t pay the “blood price” when the next attack happens and the new security measures prove ineffective again.
Unlike some, we don’t go for the Hollywood hype. If a procedure has proved ineffective then we ask why implement it? We’re not interested in window dressing for the travelling public, or banning family members so that the politicians can go on TV and say “look, we’ve improved security, we’re the party to trust…vote for us”.
This threat is far too serious for that. We’ll ridicule and bitch, until we force the powers that be to take real and effective measures. If that means profiling then so be it. Individual rights will (on this occasion) have to be subservient to the collective security of the majority. But this is going to cost lots of money to implement…that I suspect is why we keep getting these stupid, irrelevant and ineffective (but cheap) edicts from the idiots in power.
Tony Blair is willing to pay the “blood price” to go to war in Iraq. I bet he won’t be there in the Warrior armoured vehicles with the rest of the boys and girls, (Perhaps we should insist that all MP’s are the first in, in any shooting war they get us into) just like he won’t pay the “blood price” when the next attack happens and the new security measures prove ineffective again.
Last edited by max_cont; 11th Sep 2002 at 06:42.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David - As I said above. Let them have guns in the cockpit IN THE US!. We just don't want them over here. Accidents will happen and the US has to decide whether or not those accidents are an acceptable price to pay for the level of safety achieved, real or otherwise. Over here, we don't want them, so let your boss know, let the CAA know, maybe even let "The Sun" know (but then again, maybe not ). Guns may be great in the US, but not here!
). Guns may be great in the US, but not here!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Ny, NY, USA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see your point. It didn't happen over here, so we don't need guns. For us, it did happen over here. We're the ones seeing the children attending events all over the country with only ONE parent. Mothers and fathers talking about their lost sons and daughters. And let's not forget the countless young couples that lost their partners just as their lives were beginning.
Yes, there probably will be someone that needs mental help that breaks down the cockpit door and pays the ultimate price. On the other hand, there will be those insane terrorists that sit quitely in their seats (on our airplanes) just waiting to make that connection to travel overseas. Enroute overseas is where they'll do their dirty work...........because the foreign carrier's doors won't be protected. They know for certain, that foreign carriers are way too civilized to need a weapon.
For your sake, I hope you have passengers on board similiar to United flight 93. Because I'm sure, your pilots will have their heads stuck in the sand................That is, if their heads are still attached.
Yes, there probably will be someone that needs mental help that breaks down the cockpit door and pays the ultimate price. On the other hand, there will be those insane terrorists that sit quitely in their seats (on our airplanes) just waiting to make that connection to travel overseas. Enroute overseas is where they'll do their dirty work...........because the foreign carrier's doors won't be protected. They know for certain, that foreign carriers are way too civilized to need a weapon.
For your sake, I hope you have passengers on board similiar to United flight 93. Because I'm sure, your pilots will have their heads stuck in the sand................That is, if their heads are still attached.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Excuse my ignorance, but surely it must be possible to make a cockpit door that cannot be opened by man force? There was a demonstration by a Dutch chemical company (DSM) that could make lite weight panels that are able to absorb bullets....
DSM’s Dyneema fiber in first FAA-certified bulletproof cockpit door
Video cameras will be able to give the pilots information whats going on in the cabin, so they can inform the ground about the situation.
Of course it wouldn't stop the hijackers to threaten pax or inflight personal, but it would take away the threat and attraction to use the a/c as a projectile.
At the other hand terrorists will always find another targets like nuclear power-station or refinery, but that's a complete different discussion I'll leave to the political experts......
Cheers
Acap.TOSK
DSM’s Dyneema fiber in first FAA-certified bulletproof cockpit door
Video cameras will be able to give the pilots information whats going on in the cabin, so they can inform the ground about the situation.
Of course it wouldn't stop the hijackers to threaten pax or inflight personal, but it would take away the threat and attraction to use the a/c as a projectile.
At the other hand terrorists will always find another targets like nuclear power-station or refinery, but that's a complete different discussion I'll leave to the political experts......
Cheers
Acap.TOSK
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Pointy End
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That’s the worry for flight crews. In an emergency the door has to be breakable.
Statistically we’re far more likely to have an in-flight emergency than get hi jacked.
Solving one problem about security creates lots more about operational safety.
It would seem it’s politically acceptable for flight crews to burn to death in an accident because the fire crews can’t get to us, but not if we die at the hands of the terrorist. Well since this directly affects me, I reserve the right treat it the same way as friendly fire. That’s to say I believe there’s no such thing. It’s either incoming or outgoing and if it’s coming in, I’m damn well going to send some out.
The solutions that are required are very expensive, but neither the government nor the companies want to pay for it.
Statistically we’re far more likely to have an in-flight emergency than get hi jacked.
Solving one problem about security creates lots more about operational safety.
It would seem it’s politically acceptable for flight crews to burn to death in an accident because the fire crews can’t get to us, but not if we die at the hands of the terrorist. Well since this directly affects me, I reserve the right treat it the same way as friendly fire. That’s to say I believe there’s no such thing. It’s either incoming or outgoing and if it’s coming in, I’m damn well going to send some out.
The solutions that are required are very expensive, but neither the government nor the companies want to pay for it.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: fl
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mayby you that don't think guns in the cockpit are good, should take a look at this.
Stun Guns vs Firearms
Stun Guns vs Firearms
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Zealand
Age: 73
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent video. It shows the speed at which a situation can develop without any detectable weapons being used.
I personally have no confidence in the $5 bolts on the doors or the projected armoured doors (if and when they ever arrive) - what is the point of a bulletproof door if the terrorists don't have guns? - thinks I. They can kick them in just as easily. Even if the doors are made of Kevlar - the side frames are just alloy.
It may slow them - but not stop them. The stun guns - as demonstrated here - are a total waste of time. It needs a 9mm minimum or better a nice high mass, slow 44 stopper to do the job. Sorry folks but this whole topic is a PR blow job. If "they" are not prepared to do the whole job on the ground - then the last line of defence must be in the cockpit. And I can't defend my patch at all well with a ball point pen and a clipboard (which is all I am allowed right now).
The cockpit door is a high tech Thermopolie - it's narrow and I have a very good chance of stemming the tide. But I do need a weapon that works at close quarters and can be used from my seat. So don't come all this weak kneed, liberal, PC ballshiite. If you are kicking down my door - you are history. If it turns out you are (were) a grande-mal autistic with a direction problem - I will happily deal with that in a earthbound court at a later time. But I really would wait until I saw the colour of your eyes first - honest. And if you had the determination to break down the door - well - sorry.....
These must be the new rules. You breach the cockpit door - you get shot bad/dead - QED. I don't have a problem with that.
So I go to work every day in harms way to my mind. And I can tell you I don't like it very much. I am not too mobile strapped to my seat and I really wouldn't have much of a chance if a person of evil intent started banging down my door. It's a sorry world that comes to this - but until we solve the bigger problem - I want a gun. At least I can, hopefully, take a few (if not all) with me. And remember - if I go down - everyone does...
As an aside I have (in the past) carried a gun for 12 years - and I can tell you, from a personal viewpoint - that I would much rather not. They (guns) are a pain in the arse. They need cleaning and servicing and the security issues are a nightmare. But if I need to do this as part of my bigger task - I will do so. Not happily - but needs must - I will.
MG
I personally have no confidence in the $5 bolts on the doors or the projected armoured doors (if and when they ever arrive) - what is the point of a bulletproof door if the terrorists don't have guns? - thinks I. They can kick them in just as easily. Even if the doors are made of Kevlar - the side frames are just alloy.
It may slow them - but not stop them. The stun guns - as demonstrated here - are a total waste of time. It needs a 9mm minimum or better a nice high mass, slow 44 stopper to do the job. Sorry folks but this whole topic is a PR blow job. If "they" are not prepared to do the whole job on the ground - then the last line of defence must be in the cockpit. And I can't defend my patch at all well with a ball point pen and a clipboard (which is all I am allowed right now).
The cockpit door is a high tech Thermopolie - it's narrow and I have a very good chance of stemming the tide. But I do need a weapon that works at close quarters and can be used from my seat. So don't come all this weak kneed, liberal, PC ballshiite. If you are kicking down my door - you are history. If it turns out you are (were) a grande-mal autistic with a direction problem - I will happily deal with that in a earthbound court at a later time. But I really would wait until I saw the colour of your eyes first - honest. And if you had the determination to break down the door - well - sorry.....
These must be the new rules. You breach the cockpit door - you get shot bad/dead - QED. I don't have a problem with that.
So I go to work every day in harms way to my mind. And I can tell you I don't like it very much. I am not too mobile strapped to my seat and I really wouldn't have much of a chance if a person of evil intent started banging down my door. It's a sorry world that comes to this - but until we solve the bigger problem - I want a gun. At least I can, hopefully, take a few (if not all) with me. And remember - if I go down - everyone does...
As an aside I have (in the past) carried a gun for 12 years - and I can tell you, from a personal viewpoint - that I would much rather not. They (guns) are a pain in the arse. They need cleaning and servicing and the security issues are a nightmare. But if I need to do this as part of my bigger task - I will do so. Not happily - but needs must - I will.
MG
Last edited by MasterGreen; 14th Sep 2002 at 03:47.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Pointy End
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too carried a gun. I tried to explain how fast thing would happen in the original thread on this subject.
I do have an issue with this advertisement. When trained teams go into an enclosed situation the first thing through the door is a flash-bang…well several actually. I also prefer a bit of CS in the atmosphere as well.
On the aircraft we have equipment that when utilised properly will
A)Stop the pilots breathing
B)Stop the pilots seeing
C)Cut down the pilots reaction time
D)Physically inflict damage so that the firearm wielding hero’s ability to defend the plane is significantly reduced or cancelled altogether.
We have just watched a breach by trained personnel. It can get even better than that. I suspect they were not permitted to demonstrate how they would win in the lethal firearm scenario
Don’t make the mistake of believing that the terrorist does not have specialised training to help him achieve his aims. One man/woman is not going to stop a team of properly trained and motivated terrorist, who are willing to die to achieve their goal.
I do have an issue with this advertisement. When trained teams go into an enclosed situation the first thing through the door is a flash-bang…well several actually. I also prefer a bit of CS in the atmosphere as well.
On the aircraft we have equipment that when utilised properly will
A)Stop the pilots breathing
B)Stop the pilots seeing
C)Cut down the pilots reaction time
D)Physically inflict damage so that the firearm wielding hero’s ability to defend the plane is significantly reduced or cancelled altogether.
We have just watched a breach by trained personnel. It can get even better than that. I suspect they were not permitted to demonstrate how they would win in the lethal firearm scenario
Don’t make the mistake of believing that the terrorist does not have specialised training to help him achieve his aims. One man/woman is not going to stop a team of properly trained and motivated terrorist, who are willing to die to achieve their goal.