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)
Moderator
The "piece" left in the cockpit would require the airlines involvement. They do not want to get involved.
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.
The way the program is set up will discourage many if not most pilots from participating. (Heck, I am all for arming pilots and would volunteer in a heartbeat if it was actually a workable program.) Not a very big deterrent if a small % are armed.
The folks at the tsA designed this program to fail and to get pilots in trouble. (period. dot. end.) They are treating this program as if it were a gift to pilots. The ironic thing is that it will be the only effective measure that the tsA has taken to counter another 9/11 type incident. Too bad not enough pilots will participate to make it work!
Gohogs, we are on the same side of this issue!
Last edited by Tripower455; 13th Jun 2003 at 23:51.
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
Since the airline already hands over a vastly more complex and costly item to the Captain on every flight I am amazed at the fuss you are making over one more item of flight deck equipment. The airlines are involved already with the problem whether they want it or not. Tripower you obviously do not read the submissions very well, since you have a trigger mechanism only it is as dangerous as a whizwheel. The other section is useless without the trigger. You hand over nothing to anybody, the trigger mechanism remains in your possesion, a harmless small light part. Upon reaching the cockpit as part of your preflight procedures assemble the equipment and place it in it's assigned position ready should it be required. End of flight dissasemble and stow. Trainning required is minimal, you are not going to be shooting a gnats eye out at fifty paces.
It is dangerous, so is a plane with 400 odd souls on board, life for that matter involves a degree of risk. This problem can certainly be as difficult and problamatical as anyone chooses to make it, but it certainly does not need be as complex or dangerous as some people are making it out to be.
It is dangerous, so is a plane with 400 odd souls on board, life for that matter involves a degree of risk. This problem can certainly be as difficult and problamatical as anyone chooses to make it, but it certainly does not need be as complex or dangerous as some people are making it out to be.
Moderator
Tripower you obviously do not read the submissions very well, since you have a trigger mechanism only it is as dangerous as a whizwheel.
The program that I refer to in my posts to gohogs IS IN PLACE. It is not conjecture, it is fact. There are pilots flying around (not many yet) as we speak, armed.
My heartburn is not with the fact that they are armed, it is with the ridiculous operating procedures that the tsA has saddled the program with designed to limit participation and get the individual ffdos in trouble. They are not designed with the safe disposition of the fiream in mind. They remind me of a Monty Python sketch, and the situation might be funny if it weren't such a serious issue........
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
My appologies Tripower a thought you were refering to the 'piece' as opposed to a complete weapon which I agree will pose far more issues and would seem to complicate the issue rather than be of reassurance.
Moderator
My appologies Tripower a thought you were refering to the 'piece' as opposed to a complete weapon which I agree will pose far more issues and would seem to complicate the issue rather than be of reassurance.
Actually, I feel that the weapon itself is not the issue at all. It's the manner of carry and disposition with which the tsA has saddled the program.
I see little logic in vetting, training and authorizing a person to carry and be responsible for a firearm, then forcing that person to surrender the firearm to numerous untrained, un-vetted and unauthorized people, in the "secure" area.
It flies in the face of several centuries of law enforcement experience
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you appear to have an "anti-gun" stance on this board, it seems that you are instantly labeled a "fool" or worse by the pro-gun forces.
I'm not surprised. This bullying behaviour that is nothing more than an attempt to intimidate is directly in line with the gun culture mentality.
To those with such "closed minds" I say stop with the silly name calling and try to stick to the topic.
I don't care whether or not the direct victims of 9/11 care to consider the statistics or not. They aren't exactly prime candidates to consider when you want an objective opinion.
The hard facts are that statistically speaking, placing a gun in the cockpit over a long period of time will result in more deaths than terrorism.
Now, go ahead and aim your "internet gun" at me and call me a fool or whatever. It just solidifies my theory that gun nuts feel an overwhelming need to have a lethal weapon at their instant disposal to quell their paranoid fantasies no doubt ingrained by the self destructive gun culture they've been exposed to.
Isn't that latest Steven Segall flick great....
I'm not surprised. This bullying behaviour that is nothing more than an attempt to intimidate is directly in line with the gun culture mentality.
To those with such "closed minds" I say stop with the silly name calling and try to stick to the topic.
I don't care whether or not the direct victims of 9/11 care to consider the statistics or not. They aren't exactly prime candidates to consider when you want an objective opinion.
The hard facts are that statistically speaking, placing a gun in the cockpit over a long period of time will result in more deaths than terrorism.
Now, go ahead and aim your "internet gun" at me and call me a fool or whatever. It just solidifies my theory that gun nuts feel an overwhelming need to have a lethal weapon at their instant disposal to quell their paranoid fantasies no doubt ingrained by the self destructive gun culture they've been exposed to.
Isn't that latest Steven Segall flick great....
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The program needs alot of work.
The problem I agree is government.
Anyone that has went through the US lately an has gone through the TSA security procedures as a crew member has to know what kind of idiots we are dealing with here.
Where did they come from, ex burger flippers at the local burger king.
I am totally for the program an have been from the begining.
Is this a case of the high school drop out trying to rebel at the educated worker.
Hope not but it sure seems to be.
The problem I agree is government.
Anyone that has went through the US lately an has gone through the TSA security procedures as a crew member has to know what kind of idiots we are dealing with here.
Where did they come from, ex burger flippers at the local burger king.
I am totally for the program an have been from the begining.
Is this a case of the high school drop out trying to rebel at the educated worker.
Hope not but it sure seems to be.
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 have an anti-gun stance is not in itself foolish. That, is in fact a very healthy state of affairs.
Having carried a gun for many years one ceases to imbue it with magical powers and treat it for the inanimate object it is. I simply would contestyour 'fact/statistic that placing a gun in a cockpit ... will result in more deaths than terrorism.
The 'long time' was rather open ended but with over three thousand deaths in 9/11 I would say that accidental discharges will have quite a bit of catching up to do.
As to the emotive paranoid culture there's another of those buzzwords coming... Steve Seagal. Boy you really are pushing those buttons.
It definitely is not an overwhelming need. It is simply a recognition that there is a new threat/danger to consider and whether there are reasonable cost effective safe methods of adressing it. I have rather carelessly found myself in the pro-gun side but it is a problem that should be adressed and is not going to dissapear because people like you do not like guns and simply want the problem to go somewhere else.
Having carried a gun for many years one ceases to imbue it with magical powers and treat it for the inanimate object it is. I simply would contestyour 'fact/statistic that placing a gun in a cockpit ... will result in more deaths than terrorism.
The 'long time' was rather open ended but with over three thousand deaths in 9/11 I would say that accidental discharges will have quite a bit of catching up to do.
As to the emotive paranoid culture there's another of those buzzwords coming... Steve Seagal. Boy you really are pushing those buttons.
It definitely is not an overwhelming need. It is simply a recognition that there is a new threat/danger to consider and whether there are reasonable cost effective safe methods of adressing it. I have rather carelessly found myself in the pro-gun side but it is a problem that should be adressed and is not going to dissapear because people like you do not like guns and simply want the problem to go somewhere else.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike, STC, you're absolutely right in that guns are dangerous if not treated with respect. I do not think you are fools in disagreeing with their carriage- I do think you're missing the point slightly in the risks involved.
I make no claim to be an expert on firearm deaths, but (perhaps someone with access to the relevant statistics can comment?) I believe most deaths by firearm happen in the process of a felony. The next most common causes, would (I'm guessing here) be by suicide (and the Silkair event has, sadly, shown that airline pilots don't need guns to commit suicide) and by accidents in the handling of guns. Proper training can almost entirely prevent those kind of accidents; it is usually untrained handling that causes accidental discharge.
I make no claim to be an expert on firearm deaths, but (perhaps someone with access to the relevant statistics can comment?) I believe most deaths by firearm happen in the process of a felony. The next most common causes, would (I'm guessing here) be by suicide (and the Silkair event has, sadly, shown that airline pilots don't need guns to commit suicide) and by accidents in the handling of guns. Proper training can almost entirely prevent those kind of accidents; it is usually untrained handling that causes accidental discharge.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the link Mike, it's very useful: however, IMHO it backs my argument a bit... you're right, even 3% is a tragedy, but I remain convinced that proper training can prevent such tragic accidents from happening to armed flight deck crew. For instance, between a third and a quarter of all accidents happened to children or teenagers- an excellent argument for keeping firearms secure and away from minors, but irrelevant to this discussion. Is there a similar link which can say how many of the adults killed accidentally were killed by trained personnel, and how many in hunting accidents, drunken misadventures and the like?
I may be naive, but I retain my belief that trained professional aircrew can be trained in the use of firearms, and will treat their carriage as professionally as their other duties.
I may be naive, but I retain my belief that trained professional aircrew can be trained in the use of firearms, and will treat their carriage as professionally as their other duties.
Moderator
It seems that TSA have submitted a report (supposedly confidential!) to Congress that said “…electric stun weapons can contribute to aviation security…” & “….given the right plan & the right details, stun weapons can be used on commercial aircraft.”
If it gets to the point where a pilot armed with taser, stun gun etc. NEEDS to use it, he needs a more effective weapon. Might as well start with the crash axe, since that's right where you will be when the taser doesn't work.......
Are the Air Marshalls going to be issued tasers as well? Since they are in the cabin, their firearms are readily accessible to the bad guys and can be used to commandeer the airplane. If I had the choice between being shot with a .357 Sig or an electronic toy, I'd choose the toy..........
Firearms statistics in the USA - this link may be of help. Yes, most were either homicide or suicide, but about 3% were “unintentional.” Even 0.001% chance of “unintentional” shooting in the flight deck is too high!!
CBFO is correct. These statistics are irrelevent to the discussion at hand. In the hands of a trained, responsible individual, a firearm is no more dangerous than....... an airplane, car, boat motorcycle, swimming pool, lawn mower etc.
Moderator
Sorry, if you want to refer to safety, then the handgun is the more dangerous of the 2 choices (& neither of the choices are particularly good)!
Neither of them should be allowed on the flight deck.
Unfortunately, quoting statistics (or unlike “comparibles”) isn’t going to strengthen the gun case, regardless of how/why guns were unintentionally fired. There is no statistical data-base (yet) for “shots fired negligently in the flight deck” and obviously, you can’t call a trauma team for those “Whoops, sorry, I didn’t mean for my .40” to go off” awkward cockpit moments.
However, if you want to debate the accessibility options of the gun or the taser, then I would suggest that the taser would be less liable to accidental “discharge.”
To remind you - pilots are fallible, even after thorough & repetitive training, we still have too many CFIT incidences. So, even after thorough & repetitive training on handguns, pilots will, undoubtedly, make mistakes with equally fatal consequences.
CFIT generally kills all on board. Even in the unlikely event of an AD, the chances of killing or even injuring someone are extremely remote.......
Spending money on arming pilots is treating the symptom, not the cause. Better screening of pax (& support elements such as catering, cleaning, etc) will reduce the already minimal risk of hijacking.
Arming pilots is a high-profile and very political answer, unfortunately, it’s not the right answer to the problem.
The anti-pilot-gun crowd here should be pleased with the latest actions of the TSA.
First, after spending millions on training facilities in the US state of Georgia, they have decided to move the training program to New Mexico after more millions are spent to build facilities there along with more delays.
Second, at least 100 of my fellow pilots in my company alone have received a rejection notification email after taking a psychological test , and an interview with a designated pyschologist.
The email states that the applicant has been removed from consideration for weapons training due to the availability of "more qualified volunteers", and may reapply after a minimum of one year.
Sounds reasonable, except in that the group of pilots not considered "qualified", and have received rejection notices are a former US Navy Seal, a former US Marshal and a former FBI Agent.
First, after spending millions on training facilities in the US state of Georgia, they have decided to move the training program to New Mexico after more millions are spent to build facilities there along with more delays.
Second, at least 100 of my fellow pilots in my company alone have received a rejection notification email after taking a psychological test , and an interview with a designated pyschologist.
The email states that the applicant has been removed from consideration for weapons training due to the availability of "more qualified volunteers", and may reapply after a minimum of one year.
Sounds reasonable, except in that the group of pilots not considered "qualified", and have received rejection notices are a former US Navy Seal, a former US Marshal and a former FBI Agent.
Moderator
Sounds reasonable, except in that the group of pilots not considered "qualified", and have received rejection notices are a former US Navy Seal, a former US Marshal and a former FBI Agent.
I recently flew with one of the 4 guys that were booted from the first ffdo class, and he was a customs and dea agent for years before coming to the airlines..........gotta admire the world class empire building going on at the tsA!
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
Whilst having sympathy with Mike Jenvey's obvious, and laudable desire to keep guns or stun weapons off the flight deck because it is 'dangerous', I cannot help but cast a weather eye to the dedicated 'professionals' out there who, unhappily and for reasons best know only to themselves are going to dedicate their lives to comandeering a plane full of passengers and use it to create a massive and very destructive point.
They will use all their power and ingenuity to achieve this and at some stage one/some of them may succeed. Without going into statistics which are reasonably malleable instruments in the right hands, we can take Mike's approach and leave it to the various layers of security already in place or the problem can be looked into and various solutions considered and proposed.
It does sound as though in the US the problem is being adressed. Whether it is going to be successful or not, remains to be seen, BUT, at least the problem is being studied and something is being attempted.
Doubt will have been created in the minds of whoever is approaching that cockpit door that there may be something lethal behind it.
It may only be a small beginning, but to my mind something is better than nothing Mike.
They will use all their power and ingenuity to achieve this and at some stage one/some of them may succeed. Without going into statistics which are reasonably malleable instruments in the right hands, we can take Mike's approach and leave it to the various layers of security already in place or the problem can be looked into and various solutions considered and proposed.
It does sound as though in the US the problem is being adressed. Whether it is going to be successful or not, remains to be seen, BUT, at least the problem is being studied and something is being attempted.
Doubt will have been created in the minds of whoever is approaching that cockpit door that there may be something lethal behind it.
It may only be a small beginning, but to my mind something is better than nothing Mike.
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: err, *******, we have a problem
Age: 58
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the reason it hasn't been in the news is that there has been no natural movement on it. Perhaps when there is something further to report, then the thread should be revisited. Before then, will we really see anything more than re-hashing of the... extensive... arguments that precede this post? I think not.
By all means revitalise a thread when something new is there to debate. But please... not just because you are bored of an evening.
By all means revitalise a thread when something new is there to debate. But please... not just because you are bored of an evening.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alot of good points that we all have to consider.....but I think that if some group of terrorists resort to trying to take control of an aircraft again, they would surely last about 2 minutes before the rest of the pax beat them into their next sorry lives. I for one would not hesitate to administer discipline if I was in the back end.
Grandpa Aerotart
I'm essentially anti gun in cockpit...although I did carry concealed for many years while working/living in one of those less than civilised 3rd world places.
I can see an argument that a well trained individual has time, while the security door is being battered down, to draw a bead on said door.
Yes the list of motivations for battering down the security door is a very short list.
Yes it would be an easy shot...how many shots would be a different matter..example Mr Cohen some pages back shot 7 times and still defeated the terrorist. Witness the loonies that went on the rampage in Florida years back...how many times was one of them hit before he finally succumbed to blood loss and feinted, having killed how many LEOs?
.40 ballistics would help this...unlike 9mm that goes through and then keeps going through other people/things while doing relatively little damage... in the first instance anyway.
If you had several similarly motivated/drugged up/high on adrenaline or religous ferver loonie terrorists lined up at the cockpit door it's going to take a lot of shooting to stop them all.
By the time they get to the door I believe, in this post 9/11 world, that a significant % of the pax will have jumped them...or else a significant % will have been butchered in a most graphic way to ensure the rest remain seated.
In the same way a cockpit is a relatively easily defended space so is the forward galley from the terrorist perspective.
The preceeding arguments would seem to suggest I support arming pilots...I do not.
When you see the laughably stupid TSA response to being tasked with the implementation it's not an unreasonable stance.
When I carried very few people knew.
If, and it's a mighty big IF from my perspective, guns are to be carried by aircrew then the weapon is carried in a suitable concealment holster (preference of carrier) and remains holstered where ever he goes until such time as he is relieved of all professional duties. The weapon is then locked in a suitable gunsafe in either his home or his o/n hotel room. Participating airlines MIGHT need to look at requiring upgraded safes in HOTAC but probably not as alerting HOTAC staff that weapons may be stored in house is NOT a good idea...for obvious reasons.
None of this BS handling the weapon multitudinous times per sector...safing it and loading it each time it changes location or changes hands in the case of handing over to other staff...that's how accidents happen...and thefts.
Particularly a Glock...no safety catch...police forces world wide who use Glocks have had NUMEROUS accidental discharges and wounds in feet etc...bloody stupid choice if that is the choice!!!
It goes, cocked and locked, into the holster when dressing for work and gets locked in a safe prior to beer call...in between it never see the light of day unless it's going to be used.
A simple means of identification when clearing terminal security so that it doesn't set off the metal detectors every bloody time too. Simple means aircrew being cleared separately from PAX, like at LHR, and that job being done by people with an IQ over 12 (and suitable training to be able to intereract with aircrew while not pissing them off)....wearer has a security card or the approval is imprinted within his/her normal ID card and shows up a code when swiped through a reader for instance.
Letting a Govt department like TSA, who are demonstably not a repository of the national brains trust, over complicate it to such a deadly dangerous and stupid extent is rediculous.
Chances of Govt not insisting that the last paragraph is the ONLY way aircrew can carry?...ZIP.
Therefore I'm against aircrew carrying weapons.
I can see an argument that a well trained individual has time, while the security door is being battered down, to draw a bead on said door.
Yes the list of motivations for battering down the security door is a very short list.
Yes it would be an easy shot...how many shots would be a different matter..example Mr Cohen some pages back shot 7 times and still defeated the terrorist. Witness the loonies that went on the rampage in Florida years back...how many times was one of them hit before he finally succumbed to blood loss and feinted, having killed how many LEOs?
.40 ballistics would help this...unlike 9mm that goes through and then keeps going through other people/things while doing relatively little damage... in the first instance anyway.
If you had several similarly motivated/drugged up/high on adrenaline or religous ferver loonie terrorists lined up at the cockpit door it's going to take a lot of shooting to stop them all.
By the time they get to the door I believe, in this post 9/11 world, that a significant % of the pax will have jumped them...or else a significant % will have been butchered in a most graphic way to ensure the rest remain seated.
In the same way a cockpit is a relatively easily defended space so is the forward galley from the terrorist perspective.
The preceeding arguments would seem to suggest I support arming pilots...I do not.
When you see the laughably stupid TSA response to being tasked with the implementation it's not an unreasonable stance.
When I carried very few people knew.
If, and it's a mighty big IF from my perspective, guns are to be carried by aircrew then the weapon is carried in a suitable concealment holster (preference of carrier) and remains holstered where ever he goes until such time as he is relieved of all professional duties. The weapon is then locked in a suitable gunsafe in either his home or his o/n hotel room. Participating airlines MIGHT need to look at requiring upgraded safes in HOTAC but probably not as alerting HOTAC staff that weapons may be stored in house is NOT a good idea...for obvious reasons.
None of this BS handling the weapon multitudinous times per sector...safing it and loading it each time it changes location or changes hands in the case of handing over to other staff...that's how accidents happen...and thefts.
Particularly a Glock...no safety catch...police forces world wide who use Glocks have had NUMEROUS accidental discharges and wounds in feet etc...bloody stupid choice if that is the choice!!!
It goes, cocked and locked, into the holster when dressing for work and gets locked in a safe prior to beer call...in between it never see the light of day unless it's going to be used.
A simple means of identification when clearing terminal security so that it doesn't set off the metal detectors every bloody time too. Simple means aircrew being cleared separately from PAX, like at LHR, and that job being done by people with an IQ over 12 (and suitable training to be able to intereract with aircrew while not pissing them off)....wearer has a security card or the approval is imprinted within his/her normal ID card and shows up a code when swiped through a reader for instance.
Letting a Govt department like TSA, who are demonstably not a repository of the national brains trust, over complicate it to such a deadly dangerous and stupid extent is rediculous.
Chances of Govt not insisting that the last paragraph is the ONLY way aircrew can carry?...ZIP.
Therefore I'm against aircrew carrying weapons.