Armed Pilots (Merged)

[arcniz]

When legendary David put down giant Goliath with a sling and a rock, his victory was largely the result of using some available but unconventional appropriate technology to solve a critical problem.

It's worthy of note that the locals in the neighborhood are still creatively murdering each other using all the tools available, including rocks, a few thousand years hence. One might venture to say: "Religion and Murder are the mare's milk of the Middle East. " Also: "Rocks are dangerous weapons."

I suggest that people seeking a sense of proportion might review the history of this and related topics with "rock" substituted for "gun".

Technology begets technology. Modern airplanes are full of machines, devices, tools, equipment, and facilities intended to make the transportation process operate better and more safely. Many of these are either inherently dangerous or amenable to serious misuse if the operator is careless, stupid, or malicious. All of these are, in one sense or another, under control of the flight crew. We have to hope that they will be trained to use them skillfully and effectively as may be necessary. Bankers and insurers usually insist on it. Psychiatrists and other docs and lots of managers watch over it And the evidence to date shows that the system works pretty well.

Guns are just another embodiment of technology - a means for projecting force across a distance. A fire axe or a common screwdriver can cause many of the same negative outcomes that are seen as the downside of airborne guns. Just like rocks, it's all in how they are used.

Skillfully, one hopes.

[brownstar]

guns in the cockpit - are you crazy !!

just remember Fedex - how would have that have ended if there had been a gun on board.!

i havent' read all the posts on this subject but i hope there never comes a day when guns are on board public transport aircraft on a regular basis. that will be the day that i stop flying !

[18-Wheeler]

Without a doubt one of the stupidest things ever to happen to aviation.

[T_richard]

Just out of curiosity,

Why were two pilots fighting with each other on the FD? Why were they allowed to remain on the FD after order had been restored?

Does anyone KNOW what kind of ammo has been approved for this situation? I was under the impression, it was short range, fragible (sp) loads.

I am a right wing gun nut, but I gotta see this over-the- shoulder shot performed before I will believe it is a valid tactical manuever. I think there is a problem here that is waiting to surface.

[T_richard]

Mike

LMAO that is sooo sick.

[amanoffewwords]

As a simple pax I can see a problem with armed pilots - from the terrorist point of view the pilot is a known threat - i.e. he/she knows where they sit and, (I'm guessing here), through the freedom of information in America, would probably know what weapon they were carrying. Based on that information they could probably work out a time when the pilots would be at their most vulnerable and attack then.

Air Marshalls on the other hand are an unkown quantity to the terrorist - are they on-board, is there more than one, where are they sitting or are they pretending to be crew, etc.? In my mind a much more effective way of dealing with the issue. It would also re-assure me that the pilots are keeping to their day job, and the Marshall to theirs. Seems to work for El-Al anyway.

The other thing that comes to mind is that the pilots in America are not the only ones allowed to carry weapons. There was a post to that effect in January 2003, in this thread which listed the other people in the list. I'll reproduce part of TR4A's post for your convenience.

The following Federal agencies may be armed during flight -whether on official business or not.
-Bureau of Printing and Engraving
-Coast Guard
-Customs
-Defense Nuclear Agency
-Dept of Agriculture (Poultry Inspectors, etc)
-Dept of Commerce
-Dept of Education
-Dept of Health and Human Services
-Dept of Labor
-Dept of State
-Dept of the Air Force/Army/Navy
-Dept of the Interior
-FBI
-General Services Administration
-Postal Service
-Secret Service
-Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
-FAA
-IRS
-Dept of Transportation
-CIA
-DOD
-Dept of Energy
-Dept of Housing and Urban Development
-Dept of State
-Dept of the Treasury
-National Security Agency
-DEA
-Federal Prison System
-Federal Protective Service
-Marshals Service
-Smithsonian Institution

All you need is for someone to forget to tell the Cap'ain that someone from that list is on board and..



I think I'll take the train, thanks

[T_richard]

My momma always told me not to growup to be a poultry inspector, too risky And the Smithsonian, forget about it

[World of Tweed]

..Y'all do some strange things over the water.

In my humble opinion.....If I was a terrorist wanting to hijack an aircraft.

Would I:

a) Attempt to sneak a ceramic (or other hard-to-detect) gun through secruity - thus endagering the sucess of my mission.

OR

b) Not bother and let the Knee-Jerking Government pre-load my weapon for me. Which, no doubt will be convieniently located in to the side and slightly behind the crew seats AKA in their flight cases.

Why would a terrorist bother carrying his own 'piece' if he knows he has access to the flight decks' own weapon via the forward toilet bulkhead(and cockpit door for that matter) and the conveniently located fire axe?

'Fodder' for thought?

[skidcanuck]

"My momma always told me not to growup to be a poultry inspector..."

They're always in a 'fowl' mood!!!

[PPRuNeUser0171]

but I gotta see this over-the- shoulder shot performed

It's not that hard a shot to do when you are standing on the ground.

In the air a little bit of CAT and whoops, one dead pax, Never mind, plenty more left.

The type of ammo that has been approved is a special expanding shell type, they are designed to puncture the body but not to exit.
The idea is not for airframe protection but for passenger protection as normal bullets will exit the terrorist and hit people behind or go through seats.

Also, How does our gun-totting pilot handle a terrorist holding a grenade with no pin? One shot, he drops the grenade and boom..... Game Over.

Gary.

[T_richard]

Yeah I understand its not difficult to do in a training exercise , I'd like to see someone perform that shot in a cramped cockpit with a hell breaking loose in the cabin. And there is the matter of a grenade with the pin out. Better minds then mine are at work here I guess

[Tripower455]

And there is the matter of a grenade with the pin out.

In this case, as in the case of a terrorist using an RPG or placed explosive, the gun has a zero net effect on the outcome. (Is the bad guy going to put the pin back in before he flies the plane into a building?) The point is moot. Compare it to trying to use the apu fire bottle to control a rapid depressurization.

In the case of a determined hijacker(s) attempting to wrest control of the aircraft away from the pilots, the gun can have a positive effect. Without it, the pilots (and everyone else on the aircraft) are dead anyway. The firearm gives the pilots more of a chance of keeping control of the aircraft.

As far as "trusting" pilots with guns is concerned. Any pilot that can't be trusted with the responsibility of handling a gun, can't be trusted with the hundreds of lives and billions of $$$ of liability that he incurs every time he goes to work.

[PPRuNeUser0171]

Tripower455,

Most hijackers don't want to die, It's very very rare for a hijacker to die in the cause of whatever they are campaining for,

However, Most do take precautions to protect themselves and the pin-out grenade is a favoured one.

At the end of the day a pilot is paid to:

Aviate
Navigate
Commuicate

I don't see 'shoot' anywhere in that list.

I don't see how a firearm can help a pilot keep control, The best way to retain control of the plane is to STAY ON THE FLIGHTDECK not running around pretending to be Steven Segal shooting people.

There are hundreds of thousands of potential terrorist scenarios, It's not just a matter of the good guy vs the bad guy, A pilot cannot be expected to be able to deal with all of those scenarios, When an hostage situation happens on the ground there is a veritable army invovled in solving it with as little loss of life (both terrorists and civilians) as possible.

If pilots start going armed then there will be more death and destruction in the skies than we have now.

Gary.

[T_richard]

Good Morning All from the rainy east coast.

Gary,

I believe there was a time when hijackers intended to get out alive, that operating model changed on 9/11/01. Unless I am misinformed a pilot has the same total authority and the same absolute responsability as a ship's captain. Security of the a/c is very much within his AOR

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

As I see it, the gun is the last resort method of denying access to the flight deck. On it's own it is useless, but in conjunction with an armoured door, it can stop a suicidal hijacker gaining access to the controls.
Ideally, any hijacker will be overpowered by the passengers and cabin crew- but if not, that should still allow time for one pilot to leave his seat, deploy whatever extra barriers are available (jump seat, whatever) and be facing the doorway ready to resist. If the door is forced (I doubt if the armouring can be made perfect) he is then in a good position to shoot the hijacker.
In any of the scenarios above (passengers/cabin crew held hostage, "traditional" hijacker, etc) the armed pilot does not leave the flight deck, he does not even open the door.
With any hijacking, the hijackers must now be kept away from the flightdeck, at any cost. It is unlikely that suicidal hijackers will identify themselves as such- how do we tell what kind of hijacker we have? Take them where they want to go, but don't give them an opportunity to take control. In the final analysis, if they're willing to destroy the aircraft to gain access to the controls, then givng them that access seems like a very bad idea. Once the aircraft is safely on the ground, throw the firearm out the window if you want to keep it away from the hijacker!

[Tripower455]

Gary, no flame intended!

Tripower455,

Most hijackers don't want to die, It's very very rare for a hijacker to die in the cause of whatever they are campaining for,

However, Most do take precautions to protect themselves and the pin-out grenade is a favoured one.

In that case, keep the door locked and land at the nearest suitable airport. No one will die, since he will not let the pin go. The gun is a moot point. See my analogy about the APU fire bottle.....

At the end of the day a pilot is paid to:

Aviate
Navigate
Commuicate

I don't see 'shoot' anywhere in that list.

If a pilot is dead, then how is he going to do those things? If you add shoot to the list, he might not be dead.

I don't see "act" in the list either, yet we must perform in the "security" show every time we go to work.

I don't see how a firearm can help a pilot keep control, The best way to retain control of the plane is to STAY ON THE FLIGHTDECK not running around pretending to be Steven Segal shooting people.

I agree with staying on the flightdeck. armed or not

If you are unarmed, and the bad guys breach the cockpit, you will not be on the flight deck very long after your throat is slit. You will likely be on the galley floor.

There are hundreds of thousands of potential terrorist scenarios, It's not just a matter of the good guy vs the bad guy, A pilot cannot be expected to be able to deal with all of those scenarios,

No, but an armed pilot can deal with a scenario that is not only likely, it has already happened. Several times. Why have we recently gotten cargo fire suppression systems on the aircraft? Because there was a cargo fire that took down an aircraft. Should we remove them since they won't have any effect on an engine fire? Every piece of emergency equipment on the aircraft is there for a specific purpose, usually because an incident occurred that could have been prevented had that piece of equipment been installed. Again, see my APU fire bottle analogy.

When an hostage situation happens on the ground there is a veritable army invovled in solving it with as little loss of life (both terrorists and civilians) as possible.

This is an option that we do not have in an aluminum cylinder six miles up in the air. Hostage crisises in this situation are currently solved with the business end of a missile.

If pilots start going armed then there will be more death and destruction in the skies than we have now.

Please back this statement up with fact.

Prior to 1987, many US pilots regularly carried guns at work. There had not been one problem to that point, in fact, the only time that I can recall a gun ever being used was to successfully thwart a hijacking. It was never a "problem" until the feds started treating pilots as passengers. Pilots, by nature and neccessity, are responsible people.

The reason that pilots stopped carrying guns circa 1987, was due to the PSA 1771 incident. After a ground ops person hijacked an aircraft, pilots had to submit to passenger screening. Of course, the "trusted" ground ops employees, (which is everyone except pilots and FA's), STILL don't submit to any type of screening to access the "secure" areas.......

Forgive me if my confidence in this Maginot Line security progam is lacking.

With any hijacking, the hijackers must now be kept away from the flightdeck, at any cost. It is unlikely that suicidal hijackers will identify themselves as such- how do we tell what kind of hijacker we have? Take them where they want to go, but don't give them an opportunity to take control. In the final analysis, if they're willing to destroy the aircraft to gain access to the controls, then givng them that access seems like a very bad idea. Once the aircraft is safely on the ground, throw the firearm out the window if you want to keep it away from the hijacker!

Very well said!

[flying paddy]

First guns in the cockpit, what next sidewinders under the wing. Guns are for cowboys not Professional Air Crew. It is only a matter of time before there is a so called friendly fire incident, Remember these are Yanks we are talking about.

P.S All British air crew keep your heads down we know what they are like.

[Bogner]

Another scenario to ponder (I don't think it has been raised before)...

Imagine a skipper who was qualified to carry a gun, and an FO that wasn't. If the skipper wants to go for a 'physiological' break he surely can't leave the gun in the cockpit with the FO as the FO isn't qualified to carry one. What does he do with the gun? If he leaves the flight deck with it he must be susceptible to being attacked, thus giving a weapon to terrorists.

Will there be a locker in the flight deck? If so, will the qualified crew member have their own padlock to ensure it is only they who can access it?

Likewise, on leaving the aircraft for a nightstop what is done with the gun then. It wouldn't be possible to leave the gun on the aircraft as chances are the same aircraft would not be waiting for them after 1/2/3... days. Does this mean aircrew hotels must now have 'gun lockers' on their list of facilities.

It also seems worrying that El Al apparently considered this option, yet decided against it...

[T_richard]

I don't know what is available in the UK, but in the US there are several brands of lock boxes available commercially that are designed to securely store a firearm yet provide access to an authorized individual quickly. Some use a rapid code entry access, others use a cylinder key. Can't one of theses boxes be bolted down on the flight deck? dimensions are approx. 18"x12"x4" I think

[T_richard]

Trip

I agree, I don't understand this passing around the box game. although a .40 cal pistol is a lot to carry in an underarm holster,(I've done it) compared to say a sm/med frame S&W revolver and a hip holster is awkward to access if you are sitting down in a five point restraint. Maybe TSA needs to rethink the choice of weapon, a small frame .38plus or a .357 in an ankle holster would be handy without all the handling, and since some S&W revolvers's are double action only the chance of accidental firing is reduced. Plus the new S&W's have titanium frames making them much lighter to carry.