Armed Pilots (Merged)

[Earl]

Very happy to see some more support here regarding this issue.Some seek to forecast or perdict all the Gloom an Doom here concerning carrying a firearm on the FD.
Some seek to make humour of the issue.
When it does work we should open a new thread saying"I told you so"
If some mishap would occur then a new directive would be put in place I am sure.
I am confident the program will work well with no risk to the law abiding passengers what so ever.

[Tripower455]

As for this locked/unlocked box issue, what 6 year old schoolboy dreamt up that one??

Thank the assorted genius' at the TSA. The same folks that mandate passenger screening for flight crews (the only employee group that does not need to carry a weapon to have control of the aircraft), yet gives every other employee at the airport back door access. Still.

[skidcanuck]

It will be interesting to see this included in sim training - fire the weapon at the instructor then don the mask for rapid depressurization

[Flap 5]

The point that has been missed by who ever dreamt up this idea is that the terrorists on Sept 11 2001 had undergone many months of intensive training to complete their task. With a gun now being available in the cockpit all of the weak points mentioned by bogner and others will be investigated thoroughly by the terrorists and after many months of training they will gain access to a cockpit and will have a better knowledge and training to access the gun than the pilots themselves.

The pilots are now puting themselves in more danger as the terrorist will have to 'disable' the pilot much more quickly than before to prevent them getting to the gun before the terrorist does. This increases the likelyhood of a severely incapacitated (dead) pilot and no one at the controls, and a terrorist with a weapon which has been provided for him.

[Max Angle]

The only time that the gun is allowed to be out of the box is when the cockpit door is closed and locked. This insures that the gun will be unavailable when the cockpit is most vulnerable.

So the gun is only allowed out of the box when the door is locked and there is no chance of anybody gaining access to the flightdeck. When the door is opened and there IS a chance of someone getting in the gun stays in it's box. Pure genius!. At least it means the only people likely to be shot are the pilots who wanted the damm guns in the first place and not the cabin crew or pax. Just don't take them out to stroke or clean them at the same time guys, bit of a problem if you both get shot.

[Tripower455]

This increases the likelyhood of a severely incapacitated (dead) pilot and no one at the controls, and a terrorist with a weapon which has been provided for him.

I can't see how it increases the likelyhood of a dead pilot. If you are unarmed, you are dead anyway. They are not in the cockpit to negotiate with you. With a firearm, you actually might have a chance of not being dead.

[Elmer the Monk]

"Go around."
"Nah, there's plenty of runway left."
"Go around!"
"C'mon, I can stop this baby on a dime!"
"Go around, mother f...er, or I'll blow your goddamn head off!"

Just out of interest, are there any US pilots out there who disagree with this new policy?

[steamchicken]

That list of departments is pure comedy! The Smithsonian Institution - I suppose it's one way of keeping pesky schoolkids' sticky fingers off the exhibits - do you feel lucky, punk? Well do you? STEP AWAY FROM THE FOSSILS OR I'LL BLOW YOUR PERP BRAINS OUT!!! Great stuff...if the ATF have to carry firearms, do they also have to drink and smoke?

Madness, anyway. Think of the distance from the back of your seat to the door - how quickly can you lunge it?

[Tripower455]

Just out of interest, are there any US pilots out there who disagree with this new policy?

I am a US pilot, and I vehemently disagree with this new policy.

That does not mean that I am against arming pilots, I am against the irresponsible carriage policy that the TSA has implemented as it is a potentially dangerous way to handle a firearm, day in and day out.

This topic comes up quite often, especially of late, and I have only spoken to a few US pilots since 9/11 that think that pilots should not be armed. I haven't spoken to one that agrees with the way that the TSA has implemented the policy, btw.

[Tex]

Yes, to answer your question. there are US airline pilots who do not agree this is a good program.

I have to carry my M-9 pistol while flying my military (reserve) aircraft, but that is for an entirely different reason. That is for self defense on the ground, while evading capture.

I believe that civilian airline pilots sjould have been trained, long ago, in resisting cockpit entries, rather than the passive approach which was chosen pre-911. The terrorist knew the passive approach and exploited it. Now, we are going to knee-jerk because ALPA has so much lobbying power, and it makes a Senator or Congressman look like he is doing something to combat terrorism. Don't misunderstand...I am a die-hard, gun-owning conservative, but totin' a pistol in the cockpit is the wrong approach.

I am licensed (American spelling) to carry in my state, but I will not even consider applying for the new FFAM program. It's the wrong approach, and I see it gone in a few years.

[T_richard]

TripowHow did TSA come to develop this particular method for introducing and securing a firearm on the FD? I have no flying experiance, but I have spent a lifetime around firearms which leads me to question everything from the choice of weapon to the means of storing it. Who did TSA look to for guidance? Anyone know?

[Tripower455]

TripowHow did TSA come to develop this particular method for introducing and securing a firearm on the FD? I have no flying experiance, but I have spent a lifetime around firearms which leads me to question everything from the choice of weapon to the means of storing it. Who did TSA look to for guidance? Anyone know?

I haven't a clue who they consulted on this, but I can assure you that actual airline pilots had no input in the matter. This has all of the earmarks of a typical, bureaucratic comittee decision. They have taken a fairly simple program, and tried to reinvent the wheel.

Congress wanted it, but the TSA didn't, so it appears that they have made the program as onerous and difficult as they can to discourage participation. I believe that the FFDO will be the ONLY federal LEOs that are not required (heck, not even allowed) to carry their weapons on their person at all times while travelling. I can't help but feel that the average pilot would be a lot less of a liability (more familiar in the environment makes for better SA) in the cabin than the average EEOC chicken inspector is riding armed

I have heard that the backround checks are more severe than those of the air marshalls, but don't know that for a fact.

The fact that the TSA has given itself the power to revoke the airman certificates of "security threats" without ANY recourse on the part of the pilot, makes me think twice about participating. In the interest of "security", they are not even required to tell you why you are considered a threat!

[T_richard]

Trippster

First of all you have my sympathies, in 23 years in business I have seen more than enough decisions by committee that turned a horse into a camel. Maybe a little commonsense refinement will smooth ou the rough edges. One can only hope. As a dyed in the wool gun nut, I think the following issues should be reviewed:

selection of firearm; a snub nose .38 or a.357 will be easier to maintain, operate and secure the a big glock .40 or similar weapon. If you don't get the bad guy at close range within say 4 shots, there isn't gonna be a gun battle.

storage/carry; an ankle holster fits the body configuration, maintains weapon security and minimizes handling by unauthorized staff.

I really want to see someon execute the "over the shoulder" shot with lights blairing, horns going off and bodies flying around. I am sure its not the only maneuver, but it has a high probability.

Finally, don't make fun of those chicken plucking fowl inspectors. You don't know what its like when the rooster is on the loose in the barnyard. A lot of cocks get hurt in these situations

[Flap 5]

Tripower,

To answer your question to me. The reason why it increases the likelyhood of a dead pilot is because the terrorist knows you may well have a gun in the cockpit therefore he will have to act much more quickly to incapacitate you. Previously he could just threaten you with a knife. Now the stakes have been raised. He knows he must get you before you get him.

Furthermore not all pilots or cockpits will carry guns. However the terrorist has to assume that there is one in the cockpit, as there is now the possibility of there being one. Therefore the terrorist will now be much more aggressive in his approach, with little chance of the pilots defending themselves, even when no gun is actually present.

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

Flap, remind me again: how many of the pilots on any of the aircraft hijacked on 11th September 2001 survived?

[Budgie69]

Type of gun

The difficulties of "over the shoulder shooting" have been well described.

I think a far better solution is to have a rearward facing blunderbus fixed to the cockpit coaming with a string linking the trigger to the cockpit door - what could be simpler and or more effective?

I am sure that suitable weapons could be unearthed from military museums etc. Just sharpen the flint and they will be ready to go. Instead of carrying guns pilots would only need to carry a little black powder to refil the priming pan every day or so - it could be part of the copilot's preflight checks.

[Tripower455]

To answer your question to me. The reason why it increases the likelyhood of a dead pilot is because the terrorist knows you may well have a gun in the cockpit therefore he will have to act much more quickly to incapacitate you. Previously he could just threaten you with a knife. Now the stakes have been raised. He knows he must get you before you get him.

I still don't believe that arming pilots will increase the chance of dying.

The stakes were raised on 9/11. "The Common Strategy" (placate the terrorist ) concept is what allowed the bad guys to get the upper hand. They knew what the flight crew would do and they played to those weaknesses.

Since 9/11, the bad guys have to assume that the pilots will resist a takeover attempt at all costs, whether they are armed or not, and will try to eliminate the pilots as quickly as possible. IMHO, the likelihood of a dead pilot is greater if the pilot is unarmed, since at this point, he will (or at least should) be resisting the bad guys. Having a weapon will give the pilot the edge. The baddies also know that there are future new hires in F-Teens waiting for the hijack code if they do actually get control of the aircraft. Again, whether the pilots are armed or not, they will try to eliminate them as quickly as possible to achieve their goal.

Furthermore not all pilots or cockpits will carry guns. However the terrorist has to assume that there is one in the cockpit, as there is now the possibility of there being one. Therefore the terrorist will now be much more aggressive in his approach, with little chance of the pilots defending themselves, even when no gun is actually present.

As I said before, the terrorist has to assume that the pilots will resist either way, and will act accordingly.

The days of "Take me to Habana" are over..........

[Flap 5]

Clearly there are a vocal minority of people out there who think that pilots should carry guns whatever the logic and evidence against it.

Charlton it is pure arrogance to think that a pilot, trained to fly, would overpower a terrorist, trained to kill, in a one on one in the cockpit. On Sept 11 it is highly likely that the terrorists would have overpowered the pilots and crew, even if the crew had guns, because the terrorists were highly trained to do so. Pilots are trained to fly. As we know that takes up quite enough of our time. We can never expect to achieve the level of expertise as the terrorist can who spend all of their time training to be a terrorist.

[Tripower455]

Charlton it is pure arrogance to think that a pilot, trained to fly, would overpower a terrorist, trained to kill, in a one one one in the cockpit.

That's why we need guns. It evens the playing field.

On Sept 11 it is highly likely that the terrorists would have overpowered the pilots and crew, even if the crew had guns, because the terrorists were highly trained to do so.

It wasn't just likely, they DID overpower the crew and take the aircraft. Had they known what we know now, some of them might still be alive, armed or not.

Pilots are trained to fly. As we know that takes up quite enough of our time. We can never expect to achieve the level of expertise as the terrorist can who spend all of their time training to be a terrorist.

So we sit quietly and accept our fate? I do not understand this line of thinking.

The powers that be will never (even if they actually tried to) be able to keep bad guys off the airplanes. Any cockpit door that can be opened, can be breached.

[S76Heavy]

All you gun fanatics are missing the point: The authorities should make a real effort (not a token one like nowadays) to keep terrorists from getting on board in the first place.

This gun program is just window dressing; "look all you voters, we are being tough on terrorism. We keep you safe and ignorant". Yeah right.
Te next step will be issuing parachutes so the pax can get of a hijacked plane. And I'm sure the politicians will call it something very impressive..