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
Clearly there are a vocal minority of people out there who think that pilots should carry guns whatever the logic and evidence against it.
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.
Last edited by Tripower455; 25th Apr 2003 at 08:41.
Does any pilot reading this honestly believe that security at their home airport is so tight that it would prevent them ,with their inside knowledge , from getting a weapon on board an aircraft if they really wanted to ?
I'm sure most of us have thought how it could be done.Who else knows some of these holes in the system?
An armed pilot is simply the very last line of defense ,ideally any threat would be dealt with before the pilot is forced to consider shooting.Improved screening ,better intelligence on threats ,a highly trained and armed sky marshall ,reinforced locked door to the cockpit etc. , but what happens when all this has failed ?
Imagine the following situation ;hijacked aircraft ,sky marshall over powered terrorists making for the flight deck ,you are on board with your family.Would you like the last chance offered by your pilots being armed or not ?
I'm sure most of us have thought how it could be done.Who else knows some of these holes in the system?
An armed pilot is simply the very last line of defense ,ideally any threat would be dealt with before the pilot is forced to consider shooting.Improved screening ,better intelligence on threats ,a highly trained and armed sky marshall ,reinforced locked door to the cockpit etc. , but what happens when all this has failed ?
Imagine the following situation ;hijacked aircraft ,sky marshall over powered terrorists making for the flight deck ,you are on board with your family.Would you like the last chance offered by your pilots being armed or not ?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Metro Man,
If I really believed that having armed pilots on the flight deck was a necessary last line of defense, I would find other means of transport or simply find somewhere else to go. Especially where the family is concerned.
These guns are just another accident waiting to happen, and I will not subject myself or my family to that risk. Fortunately, I live and work in Europe.
If I really believed that having armed pilots on the flight deck was a necessary last line of defense, I would find other means of transport or simply find somewhere else to go. Especially where the family is concerned.
These guns are just another accident waiting to happen, and I will not subject myself or my family to that risk. Fortunately, I live and work in Europe.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flap5, it doesn't bode well for your understanding of my argument that you can't even get my name right...
Whatever you think, I used to believe that pilots should not be armed... I was persuaded otherwise by reasoned argument over the last 19 months.
Is it? For a start I'm not proposing a fair fight... there are a few refinements you can make to an armoured flightdeck door to tilt the scales tremendously. Also, there is a reason why firearms have the nickname, Equalizers.
From as far back as the matchlock, a major advantage of firearms has been their ease of use. Here is a device that gives a semi-trained individual a good chance against an armoured knight- someone who has spent his lifetime learning to fight. Obviously, training would be required- personally I would prefer to have at least monthly practice sessions, after the initial course. It is also worth remembering that many airline pilots have some form of military training. Even for those with no military experience, given that professional pilots tend to be intelligent, motivated individuals, with acceptable hand-eye coordination- a good proportion will be capable of passing the course.
S76Heavy: I infer that I am one of the group you refer to as "gun fanatics"- I learnt to shoot as a child, on the farm where my grandfather lived and worked. From an early age I was taught that firearms are dangerous tools, to be handled responsibly and with care, but not to be feared. I have never found the need to own a firearm of any kind: in what way do I qualify as a fanatic? Other than disagreeing with you of course...
PENKO: it's a valid question- in my opinion, it would be a bad idea, because, unlike skymarshalls, cabin attendants are visible and automatically identifiable. Sure, so are pilots- but the pilots are locked inside the increasingly well-fortified flight deck.
Even as a last line of defence, armed pilots would not be my first choice. I would prefer an SAS man, wearing full body armour, sitting in a rearward facing seat just inside the flight door. Ideally HIS firearm would be coded to his fingerprints so that only he could fire it.... and no, none of this post is a joke.
Clearly there are a vocal minority of people out there who think that pilots should carry guns whatever the logic and evidence against it.
... 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.
From as far back as the matchlock, a major advantage of firearms has been their ease of use. Here is a device that gives a semi-trained individual a good chance against an armoured knight- someone who has spent his lifetime learning to fight. Obviously, training would be required- personally I would prefer to have at least monthly practice sessions, after the initial course. It is also worth remembering that many airline pilots have some form of military training. Even for those with no military experience, given that professional pilots tend to be intelligent, motivated individuals, with acceptable hand-eye coordination- a good proportion will be capable of passing the course.
S76Heavy: I infer that I am one of the group you refer to as "gun fanatics"- I learnt to shoot as a child, on the farm where my grandfather lived and worked. From an early age I was taught that firearms are dangerous tools, to be handled responsibly and with care, but not to be feared. I have never found the need to own a firearm of any kind: in what way do I qualify as a fanatic? Other than disagreeing with you of course...
PENKO: it's a valid question- in my opinion, it would be a bad idea, because, unlike skymarshalls, cabin attendants are visible and automatically identifiable. Sure, so are pilots- but the pilots are locked inside the increasingly well-fortified flight deck.
Even as a last line of defence, armed pilots would not be my first choice. I would prefer an SAS man, wearing full body armour, sitting in a rearward facing seat just inside the flight door. Ideally HIS firearm would be coded to his fingerprints so that only he could fire it.... and no, none of this post is a joke.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many pilots are/will be truely prepared for the consequences of shooting someone in order to conduct their flight safely? For if you are carrying a gun, ready to shoot you had better be thinking about it every minute of everyday, on and off work. Not just on the dreaded day you have to use it. I imagine we are going to end up with a new breed of pilot. I certainly do not take this issue lightly. If I am to be prepared to shoot for mine and others protection at work then maybe I should consider where else I am prepared to pull and use a gun for my and those in my cares' protection.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CBFO,
In my view everybody who is advocating guns on the flight deck or is prepared to give it a go, is guilty of allowing the government of the USA to get away with crap security at airports "because they have provided for extra security on board". That is why I used the term 'fanatics", because of the very limited scope of the discussion.
And yes, there will be a number of responsible adults with gun handling experience among the pilots, but it still is an accident waiting to happen. The pilot is the least capable person on board to handle a gunfight as far as position and location is concerned.
OTOH, an SAS trooper facing rearwards, now we're talking..
And Tenke, I agree wholehartedly. That is why I will resign from my chosen occupation should a similar system be adopted in my company (not very likely, though).
In my view everybody who is advocating guns on the flight deck or is prepared to give it a go, is guilty of allowing the government of the USA to get away with crap security at airports "because they have provided for extra security on board". That is why I used the term 'fanatics", because of the very limited scope of the discussion.
And yes, there will be a number of responsible adults with gun handling experience among the pilots, but it still is an accident waiting to happen. The pilot is the least capable person on board to handle a gunfight as far as position and location is concerned.
OTOH, an SAS trooper facing rearwards, now we're talking..
And Tenke, I agree wholehartedly. That is why I will resign from my chosen occupation should a similar system be adopted in my company (not very likely, though).
Yes! It is a bad idea arming the flight attendants, and yes I have serious doubts about armed pilots. But if there is to be a gunfight in the aircraft anyway, I would put my bet on the flight attendants.
- they are more in number
- they are everywhere in the cabin (well... at least more spread out as the pilots)
- more situational awareness than 'oh boy, oh boy, IF someone enters my cockpit, I shall blow his brains out'
Of course, as Carlton mentioned, a flight attendant is very visible in the cabin. True, but everyone know for sure where the pilots sit...even with the door closed...
Wouldn't you put your bet on a well trained flight attendant and let the pilots do what they do best behind a locked, bulletproof cockpit door?
edit for typo
- they are more in number
- they are everywhere in the cabin (well... at least more spread out as the pilots)
- more situational awareness than 'oh boy, oh boy, IF someone enters my cockpit, I shall blow his brains out'
Of course, as Carlton mentioned, a flight attendant is very visible in the cabin. True, but everyone know for sure where the pilots sit...even with the door closed...
Wouldn't you put your bet on a well trained flight attendant and let the pilots do what they do best behind a locked, bulletproof cockpit door?
edit for typo
Last edited by PENKO; 27th Apr 2003 at 07:48.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: where the money takes me
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armed Pilot,s
This arguement is going to go on for a long time, the minority who want to be heroe,s and blow the terrorist,s away and save the day, and qualify this absurd situation of armed pilot,s and FO,s , And the majority who find it utterly mindless, it will all come down to a major incident , in which many people,s lives will be at risk, a dedicated nutter/ terrorist will have no problem disarming a person male/female constrained in a harness. If the checks are done on the ground proffessionaly, there is no need for armed pilots it,s a no brainer. some of us on this site gained their education at places with quaint names like Forkhill, Goosegreen, wireless ridge, mostar and a few others. And we value professional attitudes and practical solutions not knee jerk pancho villa tactics and mindset.
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with "pilgrim", who sounds as though he knows what he's talking about. The results of the poll also endorses what many of us think; this is an appalling knee-jerk reaction that satisfies the lust of a few,and is not the professional answer to an essentially politcal problem.
Moderator
And the majority who find it utterly mindless, it will all come down to a major incident , in which many people,s lives will be at risk, a dedicated nutter/ terrorist will have no problem disarming a person male/female constrained in a harness.
If the checks are done on the ground proffessionaly, there is no need for armed pilots it,s a no brainer. some of us on this site gained their education at places with quaint names like Forkhill, Goosegreen, wireless ridge, mostar and a few others.
BTW, I've never heard of the places mentioned, but I assume that they are military training ares. With all due respect, being trained in the military does not automatically make you an expert on hijacking or cockpit security.
And we value professional attitudes and practical solutions not knee jerk pancho villa tactics and mindset.
I find it interesting that my peers (mainly in the UK), who hold positions of great responsibility (pilots), feel that they are not responsible enough or posess the judgement to safely and effectively handle a tool as simple as a weapon. Do you trust yourself not to pull the fire handle in flight? If you can be trained start the engines properly, you can be trained to handle a firearm safely. I also find the "leave it to the sky marshalls" etc puzzling as well. While they are highly (?) trained to thwart hijackings, the mere presence of the gun in the cabin is a liability, since that weapon can be taken from them and used to take over the airplane. It's even more of a liability when armed leos other than marshalls are carried, for the same reason, even if they have gone through "training" to allow them to carry on the aircraft (I used quotes, because I have personally seen the training, and it consists of a 2 hour videotape).
The fact that it is somewhat easy for an armed leo to board an airliner in the US makes me a bit uneasy as well. Without going into detail, I believe that it would not be much harder for a bad guy to impersonate an armed leo and board my airplane than it is for ME to board my airplane.....
Tactically, the cockpit is a simple situation. The argument that a pilot can be easily disarmed is moot, since even if he IS disarmed, is he any worse off than he would be if he weren't armed in the first place? If the bad guys make it to the cockpit, I would place them in the "goal oriented" hijacker category, since they've managed to overcome the passengers and a somewhat reinforced door (think: maginot line). At this point, you are truly a sitting duck, and if you end up struggling with him, there is a better chance of overcoming him with a weapon than without.
edited for typos and grammar.
Last edited by Tripower455; 27th Apr 2003 at 23:27.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed the pilot is worse off if he is disarmed. The terrorist is now armed. He does not need his own gun. If the pilot was not armed in the first place the terrorist would need to take his own weapon on board.
Therefore the carrying of a gun by the pilot is a double disadvantage - unless you can be certain that he will be able to use it affectively himself without the terrorist getting hold of it. I, and most others, are not convinced that the pilot could do so and it is clear from the arguments put forward on this chat site that the majority have thought the problem through.
I recently had the pleasure of going through Orlando Airport as a passenger. The security was chaotic. It was noticeable that the US emphasis on peoples 'rights' meant that certain groups of people had a more easy route through security than others. A terrorist can easily exploit this. I, being British, did what I was supposed to do, and suffered accordingly. If I had played the system I could have gone through quicker and more easily.
Therefore the carrying of a gun by the pilot is a double disadvantage - unless you can be certain that he will be able to use it affectively himself without the terrorist getting hold of it. I, and most others, are not convinced that the pilot could do so and it is clear from the arguments put forward on this chat site that the majority have thought the problem through.
I recently had the pleasure of going through Orlando Airport as a passenger. The security was chaotic. It was noticeable that the US emphasis on peoples 'rights' meant that certain groups of people had a more easy route through security than others. A terrorist can easily exploit this. I, being British, did what I was supposed to do, and suffered accordingly. If I had played the system I could have gone through quicker and more easily.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Penko, I still disagree with you about the flight attendants- they spend their time surrounded by passengers (all of whom must, sadly, be regarded as potential threats), and usually have their hands full. I suggest that you watch the cabin crew the next time you fly as a pax- sure, they will notice a passenger who acts abusively, especially as this behaviour tends to escalate with time. The passenger who sits quietly, watches the safety brief, then (after the seat belt sign is turned off) goes to the toilet- are you suggesting that the FA draws her weapon and covers him while he passes her in the aisle? And btw, sometimes we operate with only one flight attendant, and rarely more than two: I doubt any of our FAs would stay with the company another day if they were told they would be issued with firearms...
Flap 5 , you still haven't answered my question: how many of the pilots of the aircraft hijacked on 11/9/2001 survived? I queried your mis-spelling of my name because it implied that you hadn't read my posts properly...
S76 Heavy: you're assuming that anyone who advocates armed flight deck crew does so as an alternative to proper airport security. As several of us have said, armed crew are an additional precaution- indeed, without an adequately armoured flightdeck door and surrounding bulkhead, totally useless.
Pilgrim: I have no ambition to be a hero: heroics imply the lack of proper planning.
The carriage of a firearm in the aircraft is another ramping up of the onboard security level which have, necessarily, made this proffession a lot less fun. If anyone imagines I actually want to carry a firearm at work (or elsewhere) they are very much mistaken- as I have said previously, even when handgun ownership was legal in the UK I never felt the desire for one.
If I had known, before my first airline job, how rapidly the security environment would change, I think I would have stayed a flying instructor.
Flap 5 , you still haven't answered my question: how many of the pilots of the aircraft hijacked on 11/9/2001 survived? I queried your mis-spelling of my name because it implied that you hadn't read my posts properly...
S76 Heavy: you're assuming that anyone who advocates armed flight deck crew does so as an alternative to proper airport security. As several of us have said, armed crew are an additional precaution- indeed, without an adequately armoured flightdeck door and surrounding bulkhead, totally useless.
Pilgrim: I have no ambition to be a hero: heroics imply the lack of proper planning.
The carriage of a firearm in the aircraft is another ramping up of the onboard security level which have, necessarily, made this proffession a lot less fun. If anyone imagines I actually want to carry a firearm at work (or elsewhere) they are very much mistaken- as I have said previously, even when handgun ownership was legal in the UK I never felt the desire for one.
If I had known, before my first airline job, how rapidly the security environment would change, I think I would have stayed a flying instructor.
Moderator
Indeed the pilot is worse off if he is disarmed. The terrorist is now armed. He does not need his own gun. If the pilot was not armed in the first place the terrorist would need to take his own weapon on board.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dry Ridge, Kentucky, USA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots should definitely not be armed. Guns are very dangerous weapons and they do not belong on planes.
As a passenger, it does not make me feel more secure knowing the pilot is armed and dangerous, it actually makes me feel worse. The safety of the passengers should always be the number one concern, and arming pilots is very unsafe.
Armed pilots cannot prevent or stop a hijacking and/or terrorist attack, if anything they will make things more dangerous. The terrorist could easily disarm the pilot and take over the aircraft, or the pilot could go on a shooting spree.
Pilots should stick to flying the airplane, they should not be carrying guns.
As a passenger, it does not make me feel more secure knowing the pilot is armed and dangerous, it actually makes me feel worse. The safety of the passengers should always be the number one concern, and arming pilots is very unsafe.
Armed pilots cannot prevent or stop a hijacking and/or terrorist attack, if anything they will make things more dangerous. The terrorist could easily disarm the pilot and take over the aircraft, or the pilot could go on a shooting spree.
Pilots should stick to flying the airplane, they should not be carrying guns.
And as you're sitting in your seat with terrorists trying to break in to the cockpit you will no doubt think "Gee , I'm so glad I don't have a nasty gun to defend myself with ,I'll just sit here and get my throat slit then they can crash the aircraft wherever they like."
Some of us would rather be able to put a couple of rounds into a hijacker and have a chance of going home.
Some of us would rather be able to put a couple of rounds into a hijacker and have a chance of going home.
Last edited by Metro man; 30th Apr 2003 at 18:46.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carrying guns just serves to give a false sense of security. To passengers and crew alike, and especially to the morons who are responsible for airport security. THAT is the main problem.
Apart from that, there will be accidents, it's simply Murphy's law.
Apart from that, there will be accidents, it's simply Murphy's law.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone is entitled to an opinion and you are certainly entitled to mine.
What scares me is not that the cockpit crew may be wearing a sidearm but that a lot of the fruitloops on this particular thread and elsewhere on the PPRuNe forums are flying the plane!
What scares me is not that the cockpit crew may be wearing a sidearm but that a lot of the fruitloops on this particular thread and elsewhere on the PPRuNe forums are flying the plane!