View Poll Results: What do you think about arming pilots?
Useful addition to the prevetion of hijacking
139
20.14%
Useless. They should concentrate on getting the aircraft on the ground
465
67.39%
I think our (non US) pilots should also be armed
95
13.77%
I have no opinion
16
2.32%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 690. This poll is closed
Armed Pilots (Merged)
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 1
From: Asia
If we all had the sort of security EL AL has there probably wouldn't be anymore successful hijackings. Note that Richard Reid the shoe bomber flew to Israel on EL AL ,assuming it wasn't because he likes Kosher food we can assume it was a dry run for an attack.But having had his shoes searched at check in and being seated next to a large fit man with a bulge in his jacket (read skymarshall) he realised he was wasting his time and decided to try another airline ,and almost succeeded.
However if this sort of security was introduced we wouldn't need a terrorist attack ,it would destroy the industry by itself.
A three hour check in may be acceptable once a year for a long haul flight ,but not for frequent fliers (read high yield ,full fare tickets).High speed trains ,driving ,video conferencing or not going would boom ,aircraft would sit idle and crews would be laid off.
EL AL are able to profile their passengers by ethnic origin to decide who gets increased attention ,other airlines can't. They can rely on Jewish passengers supporting them even if the check in procedure takes longer.
They only operate around 40 flights per day vs +/- 2400 for a large US carrier.
Imagine the terminals and roads to the airports with people taking three hours to get through ,absolute chaos.
I haven't even tried to work out the cost ,but if it is US$90 million for 40 flights a day, six days a week what would it be across the whole industry ,even allowing for economies of scale ,and who pays ?
We can't and won't have this level of security for all airlines .Nearly two years on we still don't even have reinforced doors on all cockpits.
All we are going to get is a solution that politicians can point to and say "Look we are doing something." And if it is obvious to the public , like confiscating nail clippers ,so much better.
I suggest the following:
1. Ideally the armoured cockpit door should be locked from the inside before the passengers board and never opened until after they have disembarked. This is impractical though ,food ,toilet visits crew changes on long haul flights come to mind. Double airlock type doors as discussed earlier would be needed.
2. A skymarshall reserve be created. We won't have enough full time marshalls for every flight or be able to afford them. The right sort of people such as police or military could could volunteer as skymarshalls and undergo the same vetting procedures, training and recurrency as regular skymarshalls. Shouldn't be too hard for an army training sargent to get through. They would not be paid but allowed free travel in return for guard duties. Some runs would obviously be more popular than others so incentives could be offered eg. do a Warsaw trip in winter before a Madrid in summer.
This would free up the full time marshalls for the less popular runs ,or higher risk ones were a marshall would be needed everytime.This would greatly increase the number of marshalls available at little extra cost. The guard on your outbound flight could be an armed police officer visiting his mother for the weekend ,on your return leg it could be an army officer going to a conference.
3.Arm the pilots just incase
PS Note hijack attempt on Qantas aircraft yesterday.
However if this sort of security was introduced we wouldn't need a terrorist attack ,it would destroy the industry by itself.
A three hour check in may be acceptable once a year for a long haul flight ,but not for frequent fliers (read high yield ,full fare tickets).High speed trains ,driving ,video conferencing or not going would boom ,aircraft would sit idle and crews would be laid off.
EL AL are able to profile their passengers by ethnic origin to decide who gets increased attention ,other airlines can't. They can rely on Jewish passengers supporting them even if the check in procedure takes longer.
They only operate around 40 flights per day vs +/- 2400 for a large US carrier.
Imagine the terminals and roads to the airports with people taking three hours to get through ,absolute chaos.
I haven't even tried to work out the cost ,but if it is US$90 million for 40 flights a day, six days a week what would it be across the whole industry ,even allowing for economies of scale ,and who pays ?
We can't and won't have this level of security for all airlines .Nearly two years on we still don't even have reinforced doors on all cockpits.
All we are going to get is a solution that politicians can point to and say "Look we are doing something." And if it is obvious to the public , like confiscating nail clippers ,so much better.
I suggest the following:
1. Ideally the armoured cockpit door should be locked from the inside before the passengers board and never opened until after they have disembarked. This is impractical though ,food ,toilet visits crew changes on long haul flights come to mind. Double airlock type doors as discussed earlier would be needed.
2. A skymarshall reserve be created. We won't have enough full time marshalls for every flight or be able to afford them. The right sort of people such as police or military could could volunteer as skymarshalls and undergo the same vetting procedures, training and recurrency as regular skymarshalls. Shouldn't be too hard for an army training sargent to get through. They would not be paid but allowed free travel in return for guard duties. Some runs would obviously be more popular than others so incentives could be offered eg. do a Warsaw trip in winter before a Madrid in summer.
This would free up the full time marshalls for the less popular runs ,or higher risk ones were a marshall would be needed everytime.This would greatly increase the number of marshalls available at little extra cost. The guard on your outbound flight could be an armed police officer visiting his mother for the weekend ,on your return leg it could be an army officer going to a conference.
3.Arm the pilots just incase
PS Note hijack attempt on Qantas aircraft yesterday.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
From: UK
Thomas, a single bullet is unlikely to depressurize the aircraft: the pressurisation system works on the principle of controlled leaks, rather than sealing the air in: the outflow valves would close a little, the cabin pressure wouldn't change much (although passengers seated near the hole might notice a whistling noise.
I was fascinated by your assertion that a 9mm has more stopping power than a .44": nope! Sure, the 9mm may have a higher muzzle velocity, but the considerably heavier bullet fired by the .44 makes up for that. And if the hijacker also has a firearm? Well, you're not really any worse off, are you?
I was fascinated by your assertion that a 9mm has more stopping power than a .44": nope! Sure, the 9mm may have a higher muzzle velocity, but the considerably heavier bullet fired by the .44 makes up for that. And if the hijacker also has a firearm? Well, you're not really any worse off, are you?
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: Arkansas
NOW HEAR THIS...NOW HEAR THIS...
Arming pilots is a done deal. The hair brained ideas may now stop.
Seal the pilots in with little food ports and toilets, get real!!
I'm in phase two of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program and will be protecting the flight deck with a gun (oh my auntie Em!!) by july, compared to protecting the flight deck with crash ax in june.
I know, I should not be involved in protecting the flight deck. I should just sit there and fly the jet like a good little pilot even as my throat is being cut by the cockpit intruders. I mean if I don't fly the jet, as the cockpit is being breached to take over the jet to use it as a guided missile, something bad may happen.
Whateverrrrr....
Arming pilots is a done deal. The hair brained ideas may now stop.
Seal the pilots in with little food ports and toilets, get real!!
I'm in phase two of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program and will be protecting the flight deck with a gun (oh my auntie Em!!) by july, compared to protecting the flight deck with crash ax in june.
I know, I should not be involved in protecting the flight deck. I should just sit there and fly the jet like a good little pilot even as my throat is being cut by the cockpit intruders. I mean if I don't fly the jet, as the cockpit is being breached to take over the jet to use it as a guided missile, something bad may happen.
Whateverrrrr....
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
From: US
I use airpistols and other airweapons, as well as being quite skilled with firearms, and a pistol is not a "point and shoot" weapon. Its hard to shoot a pistol accurately without:
a. Standing up
b. Getting sightss in line
c. straight arms
d being still
A pilot in a cockpit is
a. sitting down twisting round
b. this would make it mhard to see the sights
c.strained arms
d. The assailant would try and stop the pilot.
e. What would happen if the assailant had a gun? a firefight would be awful.
a. Standing up
b. Getting sightss in line
c. straight arms
d being still
A pilot in a cockpit is
a. sitting down twisting round
b. this would make it mhard to see the sights
c.strained arms
d. The assailant would try and stop the pilot.
e. What would happen if the assailant had a gun? a firefight would be awful.
First, it is quite easy to shoot accurately while sitting. In fact, it is harder to shoot accurately while standing than it is while shooting, simply because when you are standing, your body sways more than when you are seated.
Second, there is no need to have your arms straight. There are three main two-handed positions taught in the US these days a) isosceles, b) Chapman, and c) Weaver. In the isosceles position both arms are extended and the elbows not quite locked. In the Chapman position, the strong arm is extended and the support arm is bent, with the elbow pointed towards the ground. In the Weaver position, both arms are bent, with the strong arm pushing and the weak arm pulling. Stand up and get in an isosceles position, aiming straight out in front of you. Now, without moving your feet, rotate your body so that you are aiming 90 degrees towards your support side (left, for most of us). Your arms are now pretty naturally in a Chapman position. Keep rotating around until you are aiming to the rear and you are now in a Weaver position. There are quite a few learned trainers who argue that Weaver is superior to iso and Chapman. So your argument that both arms must be extended is quite simply false. Besides, you can always shoot with one hand.
Third, no one is still during a gunfight. Gunfights are not the same as target shooting. The bad guy moves and the good guy moves. Does that make it harder to hit the target? Sure does. That doesn't make it impossible.
Fourth, you can shoot while twisting around in a seat. Take your air pistol, sit down in an upright chair, now rotate your body around. You should be able to get into a decent Weaver position facing to the rear if you allow your hips to come off the cushion.
Fifth, cockpits are not big places. How far is it from the seat to the cockpit door? Not more than 10 feet I suspect, and in most cases much less than that. The hijacker must come through the cockpit doorway so the pilot knows where the attack will come from. There is a reason why doorways are termed "fatal funnels." This is an incredibly easy shot to take. It does not require Olympic skill.
the assailant would try and stop the pilot
e. What would happen if the assailant had a gun? a firefight would be awful.
As for the 9mm vs. .44 argument, get real. I know of no US law enforcement agency that carries either .44 Special or .44 Magnum. The US armed pilots are being issued semi-automatic pistols -- specifically Glocks chambered in .40 S&W. The .40 S&W round is somewhat more powerful than 9mm. Either will work if the shooter does his part. Either will fail if the shooter misses.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
From: Kuala Lumpur
A very interesting topic and discoveries in deed! Most of us outside US hope and pray that these type of measures to secure and protect the flight deck will work on the actual intent and purposes. Things always happen for a reason but after the last hijack attempt on Qantas, I believe ANYTHING can just happen at anywhere, anytime! It doesn't have to be due to long term political suppression, religion, insanity or even intoxication state....just pure anything! All the best to all the pilots with GUNS!
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
From: US
Thomas: I'm glad you are open-minded enough to try what I suggested. You are quite a gentlemen to change your mind in a public forum.
turbspeed: I hope and pray that the flight deck officers will never need to use their guns. And if they do, I hope and pray that they are able to prevail.
turbspeed: I hope and pray that the flight deck officers will never need to use their guns. And if they do, I hope and pray that they are able to prevail.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
From: UK
Thomas, I'd just like to add my agreement with OFBSLF; arithmetic errors are something we can all make, your willingness to accept yours (and check again!) speaks highly of you.
IMHO it's entirely reasonable to have reservations about the armed-pilots idea. It's not a cure-all, there are inherent risks, but (again IMHO) the odds are better with armed pilots than without.
IMHO it's entirely reasonable to have reservations about the armed-pilots idea. It's not a cure-all, there are inherent risks, but (again IMHO) the odds are better with armed pilots than without.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
From: US
IMHO it's entirely reasonable to have reservations about the armed-pilots idea. It's not a cure-all, there are inherent risks, but (again IMHO) the odds are better with armed pilots than without.
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,938
Likes: 2
From: Manchester, UK
well I realise we're not so used to guns on the Europeaon side of the Atlantic but some of the "anti" arguments don't hold water. Yes we want security to begin outside the aircraft...but we have already accepted this won't always happen by fitting kevlar flight deck doors etc. Having done this, what's so wrong about arming some pilots as a last line of defence?
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
From: Canada
USAF transport pilots have been carrying guns for years as anti hijacking procedures.
Not one accidental discharge of a firearm ever.
Know all about it, done it for years.
How can this be verified? Do you think the military is going to publicize "friendly fire" in the cockpit?
The hijacker must come through the cockpit doorway so the pilot knows where the attack will come from. There is a reason why doorways are termed "fatal funnels." This is an incredibly easy shot to take. It does not require Olympic skill.
You forgot to mention a couple of things. The pilots are normally facing the same direction as the guys breaking through the doorway. Therefore, they not only need to turn around, they have to get thier weapon ready. I assume the pilot's wouldn't have their gun in hand at all times. If someone comes crashing through the "fatal tunnel" of a cockpit they have a disctinct advantage. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
I have always argued that arming pilots is a bad idea. It places a firearm in an area that should be completely free of lethal weapons. (Please don't start telling me that ANYTHING including a toothpick can be a lethal weapon)
My main argument with respect to arming pilots is based on crime statistics in the US. The majority of victims of violent crime in the US including assault with a firearm, are committed by a person known to the victim. Furthermore, there is an unsettling amount of people who are killed or injured by their own firearm. This statistic comprises people who accidently shoot themselves and people who are shot by an intruder or aquaintance.
These very real statistics don't factor in the assailant's profession but I would hazard a guess that a good cross section of society would include everything from doctors, lawyers, policemen, and pilots as well as career criminals, drug abusers and rapists.
For instance. The police chief of Tacoma shot his wife last month in front of his children. And how about that Egypt Air pilot who decided to kill everyone on the airplane. Hard to believe...but true.
Anyway, I have no reason to believe that these statistics would be any different for guns in cockpits. Some day, in the near future, there will be an incident where a shot is fired in the airplane or a gun will go missing. Hopefully nobody will be hurt. but instant public outrage will see an end to armed pilots. There is a good statistical possibility that it will happen within a year.
I for one would like to know if the crew is armed. I don't want to fly on an airplane with a gun on board.
So what's the alternative? Maintain and continue developing ways to screen passengers and potential weapons. Keep the knives, guns, bats, etc off airplans totally. Accept the fact that occasionally someone will make it through and cause a disturbance that hopefully will be mitigated by the security measures. This is the logical way to do things rather than increase the risk of danger by arming pilots.
Not one accidental discharge of a firearm ever.
Know all about it, done it for years.
How can this be verified? Do you think the military is going to publicize "friendly fire" in the cockpit?
The hijacker must come through the cockpit doorway so the pilot knows where the attack will come from. There is a reason why doorways are termed "fatal funnels." This is an incredibly easy shot to take. It does not require Olympic skill.
You forgot to mention a couple of things. The pilots are normally facing the same direction as the guys breaking through the doorway. Therefore, they not only need to turn around, they have to get thier weapon ready. I assume the pilot's wouldn't have their gun in hand at all times. If someone comes crashing through the "fatal tunnel" of a cockpit they have a disctinct advantage. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
I have always argued that arming pilots is a bad idea. It places a firearm in an area that should be completely free of lethal weapons. (Please don't start telling me that ANYTHING including a toothpick can be a lethal weapon)
My main argument with respect to arming pilots is based on crime statistics in the US. The majority of victims of violent crime in the US including assault with a firearm, are committed by a person known to the victim. Furthermore, there is an unsettling amount of people who are killed or injured by their own firearm. This statistic comprises people who accidently shoot themselves and people who are shot by an intruder or aquaintance.
These very real statistics don't factor in the assailant's profession but I would hazard a guess that a good cross section of society would include everything from doctors, lawyers, policemen, and pilots as well as career criminals, drug abusers and rapists.
For instance. The police chief of Tacoma shot his wife last month in front of his children. And how about that Egypt Air pilot who decided to kill everyone on the airplane. Hard to believe...but true.
Anyway, I have no reason to believe that these statistics would be any different for guns in cockpits. Some day, in the near future, there will be an incident where a shot is fired in the airplane or a gun will go missing. Hopefully nobody will be hurt. but instant public outrage will see an end to armed pilots. There is a good statistical possibility that it will happen within a year.
I for one would like to know if the crew is armed. I don't want to fly on an airplane with a gun on board.
So what's the alternative? Maintain and continue developing ways to screen passengers and potential weapons. Keep the knives, guns, bats, etc off airplans totally. Accept the fact that occasionally someone will make it through and cause a disturbance that hopefully will be mitigated by the security measures. This is the logical way to do things rather than increase the risk of danger by arming pilots.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: Arkansas
STC,
Someone may on occasion make it through??? There will be security measures to deal with someone getting through on occasion???
It's called a armed pilot and I'm not talking crash ax. How about that security measure???
Someone may on occasion make it through??? There will be security measures to deal with someone getting through on occasion???
It's called a armed pilot and I'm not talking crash ax. How about that security measure???
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
From: UK
STC, it's already been said on here that arming the flight deck crew won't cure everything. However, we're getting armoured flight decks anyway: at the very least these should slow down a hijacker long enough for one pilot to draw his weapon, unstrap, turn around, and be ready for him: then we're back into the "fatal funnel" described above.
It's a last resort; as with all last resorts it is hopefully never going to arise. As I've said before: I don't want to carry a gun to work- but I think it would be safer for me, the rest of the crew and our pax if I do.
It's a last resort; as with all last resorts it is hopefully never going to arise. As I've said before: I don't want to carry a gun to work- but I think it would be safer for me, the rest of the crew and our pax if I do.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
From: US
The pilots are normally facing the same direction as the guys breaking through the doorway. Therefore, they not only need to turn around, they have to get thier weapon ready. I assume the pilot's wouldn't have their gun in hand at all times. If someone comes crashing through the "fatal tunnel" of a cockpit they have a disctinct advantage. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Either way, by the time the hijackers break through the door, the armed pilot will already have his gun in his hand and be facing the door. When the door bursts open, the pilot will be ready to fire.
Try this: put your cellphone a holster on belt. How long does it take you to remove the cellphone from its holster and twist around in your chair to face behind you? A second or two at most?
Some day, in the near future, there will be an incident where a shot is fired in the airplane or a gun will go missing.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
From: Canada
Someone may on occasion make it through??? There will be security measures to deal with someone getting through on occasion???
If pilots have guns, then someone will make it through on EVERY flight. That's my point.
The replies about the re-enforced door are a little misinformed in my opinion.
I won't go into details, but if you are familiar with the applicable standards, you would quickly realize that the door can be broken down quite quickly if you put a little thought into it. Furthermore, even though the door is re-enforced the cockpit crew could be injured. (Again, I won't go into details)
There are also a few other ways to quickly get through the door that I am aware of but hopefully, these flaws will be less and less common as the designs are reviewed and fixed.
Another factor is psychological impact. Will pilots be able to stay in the cockpit if they know people in the back are being executed? It doesn't even have to be a gun. How about a knife? Will they just sit in the cockpit or be drawn out? Will the first person they shoot at be a terrorist or a human shield whose body gets pushed towards the pilot as he emerges from the cockpit?
If pilots have guns, then someone will make it through on EVERY flight. That's my point.
The replies about the re-enforced door are a little misinformed in my opinion.
I won't go into details, but if you are familiar with the applicable standards, you would quickly realize that the door can be broken down quite quickly if you put a little thought into it. Furthermore, even though the door is re-enforced the cockpit crew could be injured. (Again, I won't go into details)
There are also a few other ways to quickly get through the door that I am aware of but hopefully, these flaws will be less and less common as the designs are reviewed and fixed.
Another factor is psychological impact. Will pilots be able to stay in the cockpit if they know people in the back are being executed? It doesn't even have to be a gun. How about a knife? Will they just sit in the cockpit or be drawn out? Will the first person they shoot at be a terrorist or a human shield whose body gets pushed towards the pilot as he emerges from the cockpit?
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Having flown with these new armoured doors I am positive that it would take more than just 30 seconds to break through one unless you were armed with some 'plastique' and knew where to place it. However, there are serious security flaws in with the system which I won't go into detail on here but suffice it to say that the classic opportunity to rush the flight deck will still be during feeding/watering time for the pilots.
Now, I'm just playing devils advocate here as I don't hold a definite opinion one way or another whether pilots should be armed or not but, for all those gung-ho, pro-arming pilot types out there, the most likely scenario I can envisage is the well trained terrorist making a grab for a cabin crew member as they are entering the F/D and using that crew member as a human shield. There would likely be no prior warning and the shock tactic as well as forcing any pilot who was quick enough to access their weapon and have it cocked with one in the breech during those one or two seconds would have to be a very 'ard man indeed if he were to let off a few rounds into his colleague before the terrorist and any accomplices had overpowered the crew and taken control.
I'm still not convinced that arming pilots is the way to go. The odds of having an attack on your aircraft are infinitesimal. As we have seen recently, the more likely scenario of a deranged individual attempting to storm the F/D is soon sorted with the help of pax and well trained cabin crew. Until the relevant authorities get their acts together and put into place serious measures to prevent deranged grannies, armed with nail clippers and shaved chopsticks frem getting on board in the first place we will have this groundswell of gung-ho, wannabe policemen pilots going for the arming option.
Obviously there is little faith in the current measures at most airports where the check-in agent asks the usual questions and a bunch of middle aged suits with a weeks training on how to frisk granny if the metal detector goes off. Can you blame the pro-gun proponents wanting to arm pilots with the current joke that passes for airport security?
Now, I'm just playing devils advocate here as I don't hold a definite opinion one way or another whether pilots should be armed or not but, for all those gung-ho, pro-arming pilot types out there, the most likely scenario I can envisage is the well trained terrorist making a grab for a cabin crew member as they are entering the F/D and using that crew member as a human shield. There would likely be no prior warning and the shock tactic as well as forcing any pilot who was quick enough to access their weapon and have it cocked with one in the breech during those one or two seconds would have to be a very 'ard man indeed if he were to let off a few rounds into his colleague before the terrorist and any accomplices had overpowered the crew and taken control.
I'm still not convinced that arming pilots is the way to go. The odds of having an attack on your aircraft are infinitesimal. As we have seen recently, the more likely scenario of a deranged individual attempting to storm the F/D is soon sorted with the help of pax and well trained cabin crew. Until the relevant authorities get their acts together and put into place serious measures to prevent deranged grannies, armed with nail clippers and shaved chopsticks frem getting on board in the first place we will have this groundswell of gung-ho, wannabe policemen pilots going for the arming option.
Obviously there is little faith in the current measures at most airports where the check-in agent asks the usual questions and a bunch of middle aged suits with a weeks training on how to frisk granny if the metal detector goes off. Can you blame the pro-gun proponents wanting to arm pilots with the current joke that passes for airport security?
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
From: UK
Will the first person they shoot at be a terrorist or a human shield whose body gets pushed towards the pilot as he emerges from the cockpit?
cargo boy , your scenario (the flight deck being rushed at feeding time) is the biggest problem. However, some of the extra equipment being fitted to allow the flight deck crew to see who is at the door, and near it, should help prevent this. In addition, the proposed door locking system proposed by ATR (I think, the article in Flight International was some time ago) would make it impossible for anyone to override the flight deck door locks as long as either pilot wanted to stop them- without, however, stopping the cabin crew getting in in the event of crew incapacitation.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: Arkansas
STC,
You have no clue. You say a terrorist will take a cabin crewmember hostage and tell the cockpit "open the door or else!!" We learned on Sept 11th that means all on board will die including...INCLUDING...the hostage cabin crewmember. One more time STC...listen carefully...ALL WILL DIE.
The cockpit has strict orders to not open the cockpit door, even if the life of a passenger or cabin crewmember is threatened.
Now for the test question STC...hope you were paying attention.
Why will the cockpit door not be opened to a terrorist, even with the life of passengers and cabin crew at risk?
Sorry STC...times up. BECAUSE ALL WILL DIE IF THE COCKPIT IS TAKEN OVER!!! And...AND...many on the ground will die as well.
The armed cockpit will be a layer of protection in case the cockpit is breached. The door is a big improvement and will give the armed pilot time to get in place to kill the intruder.
As far as a passenger shield taking the first few rounds, that is no differnet than taking the first few hacks by the crash ax.
Your concern is the cockpit door being opened and a armed pilot attempt to save the passengers or crew with the gun. How about a cockpit crewmember doing the same with a crash ax? Same thing...all dead.
It's not rocket science. If someone attempts to breach the cockpit, the pilot, given time by the new door, will get in position and kill the terrorist. If not, all will die for certain.
Terrorists have no need for a gun, box cutters have proven very effective. Don't think they can't get them through security.
I can't understand why you oppose the armed cockpit as a last line of defense.
Your concerns are minor to events like Sept 11.
duuhh....
You have no clue. You say a terrorist will take a cabin crewmember hostage and tell the cockpit "open the door or else!!" We learned on Sept 11th that means all on board will die including...INCLUDING...the hostage cabin crewmember. One more time STC...listen carefully...ALL WILL DIE.
The cockpit has strict orders to not open the cockpit door, even if the life of a passenger or cabin crewmember is threatened.
Now for the test question STC...hope you were paying attention.
Why will the cockpit door not be opened to a terrorist, even with the life of passengers and cabin crew at risk?
Sorry STC...times up. BECAUSE ALL WILL DIE IF THE COCKPIT IS TAKEN OVER!!! And...AND...many on the ground will die as well.
The armed cockpit will be a layer of protection in case the cockpit is breached. The door is a big improvement and will give the armed pilot time to get in place to kill the intruder.
As far as a passenger shield taking the first few rounds, that is no differnet than taking the first few hacks by the crash ax.
Your concern is the cockpit door being opened and a armed pilot attempt to save the passengers or crew with the gun. How about a cockpit crewmember doing the same with a crash ax? Same thing...all dead.
It's not rocket science. If someone attempts to breach the cockpit, the pilot, given time by the new door, will get in position and kill the terrorist. If not, all will die for certain.
Terrorists have no need for a gun, box cutters have proven very effective. Don't think they can't get them through security.
I can't understand why you oppose the armed cockpit as a last line of defense.
Your concerns are minor to events like Sept 11.
duuhh....
Last edited by gohogs; 8th June 2003 at 06:39.