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)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Terrorists have no need for a gun, box cutters have proven very effective. Don't think they can't get them through security.
That's my point. You can't guarantee that every pilot has the nerves of steel that Clint Eastwood does in the movies.
Some yahoo in the back with box cutters may draw a pilot out of the cockpit. Are you suggesting that EVERY pilot will do exactly what he/she is told in this instant? Hell some can't follows SOPS at the best of times.
Drawing the pilot out with guns a-blazing will give the terrorist a chance to nab the gun.
We could go over these scenarios ad-nauseum but they won't convince me that its a good idea to arm pilots simply because of the statistics I quoted earlier. People most often are shot by people they know and people are sometimes shot by their own weapons. The chances of the average passenger being on a hijacked flight is much more remote than getting shot and killed by someone they know. Put the gun on the airplane, and you have now exposed everyone to that risk.
If you have no guns on board, there is a chance the airplane will be hijacked. An extremely remote chance. Put a gun on every airplane, and now you have a chance that SOMEONE will be shot. Even better odds than being hijacked simply because you added a lethal weapon to a situation where there was none before.
I don't have a clue? Maybe not. Let's wait 6 months and see....
Which countries in the world have the highest incident of violent crime? Sorry gohogs. Too late. You're already 10 times more likely to be shot than I am simply for living in the US wich has lax firearm laws. Duhhhh....
That's my point. You can't guarantee that every pilot has the nerves of steel that Clint Eastwood does in the movies.
Some yahoo in the back with box cutters may draw a pilot out of the cockpit. Are you suggesting that EVERY pilot will do exactly what he/she is told in this instant? Hell some can't follows SOPS at the best of times.
Drawing the pilot out with guns a-blazing will give the terrorist a chance to nab the gun.
We could go over these scenarios ad-nauseum but they won't convince me that its a good idea to arm pilots simply because of the statistics I quoted earlier. People most often are shot by people they know and people are sometimes shot by their own weapons. The chances of the average passenger being on a hijacked flight is much more remote than getting shot and killed by someone they know. Put the gun on the airplane, and you have now exposed everyone to that risk.
If you have no guns on board, there is a chance the airplane will be hijacked. An extremely remote chance. Put a gun on every airplane, and now you have a chance that SOMEONE will be shot. Even better odds than being hijacked simply because you added a lethal weapon to a situation where there was none before.
I don't have a clue? Maybe not. Let's wait 6 months and see....
Which countries in the world have the highest incident of violent crime? Sorry gohogs. Too late. You're already 10 times more likely to be shot than I am simply for living in the US wich has lax firearm laws. Duhhhh....
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give the gun to the cabin crew!
No more gold cards 'demanding'an upgrade.
No more gargantuan wheelie bags/60kg strollers
No more 'attitude' from pax who believe they are superior.
No more taking 5 drinks every time a bar cart passes.
No more demanding your coat is hung or suitcarrier stowed.
No more mobile phone use on taxi/inflight.
No more derisory looks when asked to switch off their laptops.
No more 'i'm a new parent, i'm precious' .
No more complaints over the lousy chicken sandwich.
No more scowls on boarding , they might even say hello.
No more drunken / abusive behaviour.
No more tutting when the captain says an ATC slot delay of17mins
No more leaving the washroom in a state.
No more handing you full sickbags.
No more total disregard for the safety briefing.
No more flightcrew grassing you for not giving them 'First' meals
No more newF/O's trying it onwith every blonde gorgeous hostie
No more fellow cabin crew being lazy during the flight
GREAT
Well, it could make life a little easier the wrong side of the F/D door !
Seriously though, as a last line of defence ,and with v strict procedures in use , could it not be the final deterrent??
No more gold cards 'demanding'an upgrade.
No more gargantuan wheelie bags/60kg strollers
No more 'attitude' from pax who believe they are superior.
No more taking 5 drinks every time a bar cart passes.
No more demanding your coat is hung or suitcarrier stowed.
No more mobile phone use on taxi/inflight.
No more derisory looks when asked to switch off their laptops.
No more 'i'm a new parent, i'm precious' .
No more complaints over the lousy chicken sandwich.
No more scowls on boarding , they might even say hello.
No more drunken / abusive behaviour.
No more tutting when the captain says an ATC slot delay of17mins
No more leaving the washroom in a state.
No more handing you full sickbags.
No more total disregard for the safety briefing.
No more flightcrew grassing you for not giving them 'First' meals
No more newF/O's trying it onwith every blonde gorgeous hostie
No more fellow cabin crew being lazy during the flight
GREAT
Well, it could make life a little easier the wrong side of the F/D door !
Seriously though, as a last line of defence ,and with v strict procedures in use , could it not be the final deterrent??
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose STC it could be explained another way. The type of terrorist that this measure is adressing does not want to kill himself/herself, that could be easily done in their own bathroom with their boxcutter. They do not simply want to kill a few passengers, they could do that in the back, they want access to to cockpit.
He or she will kill or incapacitate the flight crew, they will have basic flying training, they will probably have a rudimentary idea of how to program a specific way point into the nav system because they wishes to utilise the plane and everybody in it as a huge cruise missile.
Their mission is actualy quite complex. Yes the odds have been reduced enormously, forwarned is forearmed the threat still exists we know that. Or perhaps you still believe it cannot happen to you. No the threat has not gone away!
Your assumption that it is just some 'yahoo in the back with a boxcutter' is a gross underestimation of the type of threat now around and a dangerous frame of mind to have. No matter how twisted the logic, these people undergo rigorous training and some will be very dedicated to accomplishing their mission and the sooner people like you begin to take them seriously the safer we all will be.
He or she will kill or incapacitate the flight crew, they will have basic flying training, they will probably have a rudimentary idea of how to program a specific way point into the nav system because they wishes to utilise the plane and everybody in it as a huge cruise missile.
Their mission is actualy quite complex. Yes the odds have been reduced enormously, forwarned is forearmed the threat still exists we know that. Or perhaps you still believe it cannot happen to you. No the threat has not gone away!
Your assumption that it is just some 'yahoo in the back with a boxcutter' is a gross underestimation of the type of threat now around and a dangerous frame of mind to have. No matter how twisted the logic, these people undergo rigorous training and some will be very dedicated to accomplishing their mission and the sooner people like you begin to take them seriously the safer we all will be.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paterbrat,
Just out of curiosity, what do you suppose the odds of being on a hijacked aircraft is? How about being on a hijacked aircraft that originates in North American or Europe? How about a aircraft that originates in Europe or North American where the hijacker has an elaborate plan to bring down the entire aircraft into a strategic target?
What are the odds?
Now...what are the odds of you being physically assaulted while walking through New York's central park at night?
How about being in a car accident? How about dying from a snake bite or being hit by lightening? How about the flu? Actually, your likelihood of dying of these things are huge compared to the odds that the victims of 9/11 suffered. Why aren't we out slaughtering snakes or increasing lightning hazard awareness? Or making flu shots mandatory?
It's because of the publics strange facination with everything related to aviation and the FAA's typical knee-jerk reaction to public pressure.
Certainly, security is a requirment when it comes to public transportation of any sort. The lessons of 9/11 should be that security should be a higher priority. Not that we should rise as an industry and become a bunch of vigilantes.
Just out of curiosity, what do you suppose the odds of being on a hijacked aircraft is? How about being on a hijacked aircraft that originates in North American or Europe? How about a aircraft that originates in Europe or North American where the hijacker has an elaborate plan to bring down the entire aircraft into a strategic target?
What are the odds?
Now...what are the odds of you being physically assaulted while walking through New York's central park at night?
How about being in a car accident? How about dying from a snake bite or being hit by lightening? How about the flu? Actually, your likelihood of dying of these things are huge compared to the odds that the victims of 9/11 suffered. Why aren't we out slaughtering snakes or increasing lightning hazard awareness? Or making flu shots mandatory?
It's because of the publics strange facination with everything related to aviation and the FAA's typical knee-jerk reaction to public pressure.
Certainly, security is a requirment when it comes to public transportation of any sort. The lessons of 9/11 should be that security should be a higher priority. Not that we should rise as an industry and become a bunch of vigilantes.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STC, you are a fool. Even a very few more instances of hijackers downing airliners is a few too much. Would you like to explain those odds to the tens of thousands of children, spouses, relatives and friends of victims on 9/11? And of various other terorrist attacks since and to come. Now is not the time to be complacent.
Most of us Aussie pilots would like to see tasers, rather than guns as standard flightdeck equipment. There could be a safety activation feature requiring a flight specific discreet code entry. The code (similar to sqwak) would be assigned pre-flight. Should the perpetrators ever make it past the pax and the flightdeck door, activate your taser, give them a zap, and once down let the more physically capable pax take them down the back and finish them off.
Most of us Aussie pilots would like to see tasers, rather than guns as standard flightdeck equipment. There could be a safety activation feature requiring a flight specific discreet code entry. The code (similar to sqwak) would be assigned pre-flight. Should the perpetrators ever make it past the pax and the flightdeck door, activate your taser, give them a zap, and once down let the more physically capable pax take them down the back and finish them off.
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STC to consider steps that would increase security and adress a specific new type of threat that has altered and effected our industry in such a dramatic fashion can hardly be equated with your somewhat melodramatic implication that an attempt is being made for the industry to "become a bunch of vigalantes".
I find your attitude towards the pilots in the profession, lacking in apreciation of the profesionalism and resposibility required and demonstrated on a daily basis by hundreds of thousands of flight deck crews around the world.
Your anti-gun attitude is obvious, your posts seem more a kneejerk reaction than a considered response. Your quoting odds of simple assault while walking through the park and dying of various other misfortunes simplistic and rather remote from the problem. None of the examples quoted by you has had a fraction of the impact that the type of assault that we are considering protection against, had on the airline industry.
If you have not yet grasped the implications of how that one day has effected the airline profession worldwide, you have had your mind closed. The sophistication, methods, objectives and ruthlessness of the threat today is many orders of magnitude more hazardous than anything faced before. It deserves careful sober and thorough consideration of all aspects. Simply quoting some meaningless statistics and suggesting that we simply leave it to other sectors to cope is in my opinion a poor way to even begin considering the problem.
I find your attitude towards the pilots in the profession, lacking in apreciation of the profesionalism and resposibility required and demonstrated on a daily basis by hundreds of thousands of flight deck crews around the world.
Your anti-gun attitude is obvious, your posts seem more a kneejerk reaction than a considered response. Your quoting odds of simple assault while walking through the park and dying of various other misfortunes simplistic and rather remote from the problem. None of the examples quoted by you has had a fraction of the impact that the type of assault that we are considering protection against, had on the airline industry.
If you have not yet grasped the implications of how that one day has effected the airline profession worldwide, you have had your mind closed. The sophistication, methods, objectives and ruthlessness of the threat today is many orders of magnitude more hazardous than anything faced before. It deserves careful sober and thorough consideration of all aspects. Simply quoting some meaningless statistics and suggesting that we simply leave it to other sectors to cope is in my opinion a poor way to even begin considering the problem.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STC is focused on chicken crap. GUNS!! GUNS!!
Thousands killed Sept 11th...you do remember Sept 11th STC??
Had the cockpit been armed with guns and training on Sept 11th, the box cutters would have lost.
What's the joke about bringing a knife to a gun fight?
I'd bet if STC where sitting in the cabin as terrorists batter on the cockpit door, STC would be hoping the pilots are in position, gun in hand to defend the cockpit...if not STC is a fool.
Or perhaps STC would be thinking "gee, I hope the pilot does not shoot a passenger defending the cockpit."
It's a new world since Sept 11th. I'll be armed in july.
Thousands killed Sept 11th...you do remember Sept 11th STC??
Had the cockpit been armed with guns and training on Sept 11th, the box cutters would have lost.
What's the joke about bringing a knife to a gun fight?
I'd bet if STC where sitting in the cabin as terrorists batter on the cockpit door, STC would be hoping the pilots are in position, gun in hand to defend the cockpit...if not STC is a fool.
Or perhaps STC would be thinking "gee, I hope the pilot does not shoot a passenger defending the cockpit."
It's a new world since Sept 11th. I'll be armed in july.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are so many Americans blind to the effects of firearms. In the year 2000, 28663 deaths (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control) were caused by firearm related causes. Ten times the number of fatalities on September 11th 2001.
Typical US response to reduce fatalities.....lets have more guns
Does the apparent glamour of guns make you so blind???
Typical US response to reduce fatalities.....lets have more guns
Does the apparent glamour of guns make you so blind???
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bally Heck,
Arming the cockpit is not about glamour. It's about preventing cockpit takeover.
In July, when you board my jet, you'll have a extra "layer of protection."
No glamour...just protection...simple....
Arming the cockpit is not about glamour. It's about preventing cockpit takeover.
In July, when you board my jet, you'll have a extra "layer of protection."
No glamour...just protection...simple....
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An old friend of mine used to be a policeman in the UK, and volunteered for firearm training. During the lecture from the psychologist, they were told that they were all unsuitable candidates for firearms training, (althought that didn't stop the training proceeding)
When asked why they were unsuitable candidates to be gun toting cops, the psychologist told them it was because "you want to carry them".
Fortunately for me gohogs, it is very unlikely that I shall have occasion to fly on an aircraft with Wyatt Earp at the controls.
When asked why they were unsuitable candidates to be gun toting cops, the psychologist told them it was because "you want to carry them".
Fortunately for me gohogs, it is very unlikely that I shall have occasion to fly on an aircraft with Wyatt Earp at the controls.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bally Heck,
You'll never know Ol' Wyatt is at the controls. You are not allowed to know.
Only thing I can figure is, you'll be riding the bus.
As to the psychologist crap...well lets just leave it at that.
You'll never know Ol' Wyatt is at the controls. You are not allowed to know.
Only thing I can figure is, you'll be riding the bus.
As to the psychologist crap...well lets just leave it at that.
Last edited by gohogs; 12th Jun 2003 at 02:21.
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are certain buzz words which immediately cue one to the state of mind. Vigilantes. Wyatt Earp. Gun crime. Cowboys.
To anyone who has not done so in an ongoing scenario, guns when required to be carried or available do quickly lose their glamour. They are tools in much the same way as an aircraft, a hammer, a rake. They are utilised in a certain way and if any are misused they can all cause fatality. The idea is to adress a specific danger and not to create a bigger one. specific calibres types of weapon and bullet loads can be easily tailored to provide a specific tool for a specific task ie protection of the flight deck. The idea of missile decoys and anti-missile equipment is now being considered, items vastly more costly and complex for ground based threats, why should it be so emotive to consider the threat within.
The idea of killing or having to defend oneself, is to many not only unpalatable but until now probably been unthinkable. The actions of some rather extreme fanatics may just require a change of attitude. Sadly the odds of an event of this nature have increased considerably whether anybody likes it or not. The psychologist was probably right however I see that there are still armed policeman available. Why?
To anyone who has not done so in an ongoing scenario, guns when required to be carried or available do quickly lose their glamour. They are tools in much the same way as an aircraft, a hammer, a rake. They are utilised in a certain way and if any are misused they can all cause fatality. The idea is to adress a specific danger and not to create a bigger one. specific calibres types of weapon and bullet loads can be easily tailored to provide a specific tool for a specific task ie protection of the flight deck. The idea of missile decoys and anti-missile equipment is now being considered, items vastly more costly and complex for ground based threats, why should it be so emotive to consider the threat within.
The idea of killing or having to defend oneself, is to many not only unpalatable but until now probably been unthinkable. The actions of some rather extreme fanatics may just require a change of attitude. Sadly the odds of an event of this nature have increased considerably whether anybody likes it or not. The psychologist was probably right however I see that there are still armed policeman available. Why?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tripower445,
I'm aware of the FFDO requirements. Wish things were different. I'm afraid if we turn our backs because of the "hoops" the program will never get off the ground.
Willing to do what I have to for the layer of protection.
I'm aware of the FFDO requirements. Wish things were different. I'm afraid if we turn our backs because of the "hoops" the program will never get off the ground.
Willing to do what I have to for the layer of protection.
Moderator
I'm afraid if we turn our backs because of the "hoops" the program will never get off the ground.
If we DO turn our backs on this program, and tell congress why, the program will change. If we submit to this nonsense (the same way we've done for drug/alcohol testing after flying, passenger screening because a gate agent committed mass murder etc.......) it will not get better, and it will be a very limited and ineffective program.
The pilots in the first class should have walked out en-masse when the SOP was officially introduced. Maybe the second class will be more inclined to walk out, since they, unlike the first class, aren't getting paid to be there.
There are a few Representatives that are really upset over the way the tsA has implemented (fouled up!) this program. So much so that there will likely be some closed sessions to "discuss" it. It's the only hope we have of getting a workable program, since the tsA has made it clear that it doesn't want us armed. It seems that they are in favor of stun guns though
(if it gets to the point where a pilot need a stun gun, he really needs a firearm.......)If it wasn't going to cost me $6-7k of my own money (trip pull, hotel, transport and food), I might consider doing it and then never carrying the gun. As part of the general harassment associated with the program, the tsA requires ffdos to fax a copy of their schedule every month, and indicate which flights the ffdo will or won't be carrying on. I would never carry it, and forward a copy of the schedule to select members of congress letting them know exactly WHY I wasn't carrying it.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tripower445,
I agree, the program needs work. In time I think a lot of the flaws will be worked out. I'm willing to deal with the down side and begin defending the cockpit.
It will take time=GOVERNMENT.
I agree, the program needs work. In time I think a lot of the flaws will be worked out. I'm willing to deal with the down side and begin defending the cockpit.
It will take time=GOVERNMENT.
Moderator
In time I think a lot of the flaws will be worked out.
If the pilot group accepts the program, a lot of congress' motivation to change it will be thrown out the window (look what happened with the mandatory flight crew "security" screening.....ALPA said "be patient, it will get better".......well, it's been 15 years, and I'm still waiting).
Once again, we have the power to effect positive change, but won't use it. You'll be carrying that 15 lbs of box etc, for the rest of your career (when you could have had it easier.....)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tripower455,
We can ill afford to refuse arming ourselves. If we do not sign on for the program I fear the TSA will say the pilots are not interested.
With all the flaws it beats the hell out of what we had.
We can ill afford to refuse arming ourselves. If we do not sign on for the program I fear the TSA will say the pilots are not interested.
With all the flaws it beats the hell out of what we had.
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I would hope to see is perhaps a two piece item that is a completely non standard calibre. The round should be a low velocity high impact type for instant incapacitation. It should be purpouse built for utility cheapness and designed in a manner that would make it unsuitable for use oustide the limited scope of it's anticipated area of use ie the cockpit. One section which is small and convenient for carriage can be issued to the pilot. The other part of the weapon is left on the flightdeck. You reach the flight deck you assemble the weapon. End of flight you retrieve your section.
Flare pistols are routinely carried in life rafts, this weapon is no more, or less lethal. Some flare pistols are in fact made principaly of plastic and fire a small cartridge similar to that of a small shotgun shell, and before we leap off down that tangent I am not advocating using a flare to ignite would be hijackers though the thought is a satisfying one.
We are not looking for the 'Peacemaker' or turning flight deck crews into 'Dirty Harry's'.
There exists a new hazard and with a reasonable ammount of thought, comparitively little money and some common sense, a reaonable solution should not be impossible to achieve that does not create a bigger hazard or involve huge ammounts of training, money, emotion and red tape
Flare pistols are routinely carried in life rafts, this weapon is no more, or less lethal. Some flare pistols are in fact made principaly of plastic and fire a small cartridge similar to that of a small shotgun shell, and before we leap off down that tangent I am not advocating using a flare to ignite would be hijackers though the thought is a satisfying one.
We are not looking for the 'Peacemaker' or turning flight deck crews into 'Dirty Harry's'.
There exists a new hazard and with a reasonable ammount of thought, comparitively little money and some common sense, a reaonable solution should not be impossible to achieve that does not create a bigger hazard or involve huge ammounts of training, money, emotion and red tape
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paterbrat,
The "piece" left in the cockpit would require the airlines involvement. They do not want to get involved.
How do you deal with the the missing piece? Will the airline have pieces in stock? Will it be a grounding item? Who maintains the piece?
Won't work...to complex.
The "piece" left in the cockpit would require the airlines involvement. They do not want to get involved.
How do you deal with the the missing piece? Will the airline have pieces in stock? Will it be a grounding item? Who maintains the piece?
Won't work...to complex.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having served in the Armed Forces and Police for many years, the only person I've seen shot were by negligence on the part of the bearer. The idea of placing firearms onto flights is crazy! Training is the key to safe useage of a gun and I can't think of commercial pilots giving up more time for training.