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)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Morning All
Once the terrorist is on the plane, the probability of a safe and uneventful flight is quickly approaching ZERO. According to the APSA which sounds like a offshoot of the US airline pilots union, 25% of weapons carried on a plane by testers are getting through. They have a pretty picture of a synthetic dagger that would certainly get my attention if held to my neck. So the plane is in the air and there are from one to ? number terrorists onboard. They have a plan, they have weapons, they're ready to go. IMHO the scenarios run basically something like this: Terrorists launch attack-
F/A is armed, (s)he is trapped behind a cart, in a tight corner and disarmed with(out) prejudice. threat remains
Undercover skymarshall(s) respond to threat, if all goes according to training the terrorists are subdued and threat is removed. If skymarshalls meet Murphy's Law and they don't eliminate the entire threat, terrorists are about to seize control of the plane.
IF, they can get into the cockpit. They may use live hostages, sequential killings, a sledge hammer, C4 or what ever they have planed for to get that door open. If the pilot is unarmed, the entire plane now becomes their weapon. The Good Guys lose at this point.
But.. if the pilot is armed, the terrorists have to eliminate one more serious obstacle (the pilot) to take the plane. The pilot can't be taken by surpise like the F/A since (s)he heard all the commotion in the cabin, (s)he has had at least a couple of seconds to prepare because the T's have to blow, pry, intimidate the door open.
The point is the a/c gets one more chance.
Now I am not a pilot or an counter terroism expert, but it doesn't take a genius to sketch out the rough plan, I understand that the devil is in the details. But I do believe this, The more chances you have to take the plane back, the luckier you can get and if the T's take the plane it isn't going to be a "catch and release" affair. Every soul onboard will probably die.
Once the terrorist is on the plane, the probability of a safe and uneventful flight is quickly approaching ZERO. According to the APSA which sounds like a offshoot of the US airline pilots union, 25% of weapons carried on a plane by testers are getting through. They have a pretty picture of a synthetic dagger that would certainly get my attention if held to my neck. So the plane is in the air and there are from one to ? number terrorists onboard. They have a plan, they have weapons, they're ready to go. IMHO the scenarios run basically something like this: Terrorists launch attack-
F/A is armed, (s)he is trapped behind a cart, in a tight corner and disarmed with(out) prejudice. threat remains
Undercover skymarshall(s) respond to threat, if all goes according to training the terrorists are subdued and threat is removed. If skymarshalls meet Murphy's Law and they don't eliminate the entire threat, terrorists are about to seize control of the plane.
IF, they can get into the cockpit. They may use live hostages, sequential killings, a sledge hammer, C4 or what ever they have planed for to get that door open. If the pilot is unarmed, the entire plane now becomes their weapon. The Good Guys lose at this point.
But.. if the pilot is armed, the terrorists have to eliminate one more serious obstacle (the pilot) to take the plane. The pilot can't be taken by surpise like the F/A since (s)he heard all the commotion in the cabin, (s)he has had at least a couple of seconds to prepare because the T's have to blow, pry, intimidate the door open.
The point is the a/c gets one more chance.
Now I am not a pilot or an counter terroism expert, but it doesn't take a genius to sketch out the rough plan, I understand that the devil is in the details. But I do believe this, The more chances you have to take the plane back, the luckier you can get and if the T's take the plane it isn't going to be a "catch and release" affair. Every soul onboard will probably die.
Last edited by T_richard; 28th Apr 2003 at 22:19.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Secure Cockpit
El Al has reinforced double cockpit doors. This way there's never an "open" passageway between cockpit and cabin during entry and exit of a crewmember. Its pilots therefore don't need and don't carry guns. 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glue ball
If I read your post correctly, there is a area between the two doors for someont to stand in while the first door is closed and before the sedcond door is opened? Do I read your post correctly
If I read your post correctly, there is a area between the two doors for someont to stand in while the first door is closed and before the sedcond door is opened? Do I read your post correctly
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Desert
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has ANYBODY considered screening the cargo and the people who load it at airports around the world?
Were all looking the wrong way,classic "kneejerk" reaction.
Wake up all those authorities out there.
Were all looking the wrong way,classic "kneejerk" reaction.
Wake up all those authorities out there.
Grim Sleeper
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just heard that 10% of the first intake of pilots for weapons training in the US failed on the basis of the mandatory psychological / background checks.
Doesn't exactly fill one with confidence, does it??
Doesn't exactly fill one with confidence, does it??
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glueball
An airlock type passage to the flight deck, hmm.. adds some interesting wrinkles to the basic scenario. Pilot without a gun might have to be willing to sacrifice some bodies to hold onto the plane, but I think I leave those details to the experts. I do like the double door though.
Slim 20
What failure rate would make you happy 0%.... 100%? What? I think its a little premature to second guess a fledgling program?
An airlock type passage to the flight deck, hmm.. adds some interesting wrinkles to the basic scenario. Pilot without a gun might have to be willing to sacrifice some bodies to hold onto the plane, but I think I leave those details to the experts. I do like the double door though.
Slim 20
What failure rate would make you happy 0%.... 100%? What? I think its a little premature to second guess a fledgling program?
Moderator
Just heard that 10% of the first intake of pilots for weapons training in the US failed on the basis of the mandatory psychological / background checks.
A close friend of mine knows one of the guys that "failed" his backround check. He was ex air force, and held top secret clearance while overseeing the transportation of nuclear weapons. As a civilian, he (along with one of the other guys that "failed" his backround check) was one of the more vocal lobbyists for arming pilots, after the TSA said that they wouldn't do it. They convinced congress to override the TSA's decision, which angered a few folks in the TSA. I find that a pretty big coincidence.
Since the TSA doesn't have to tell you why you "failed", there is no accountability.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gentlemen, this article was recently in TIME magazine (FYI).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, Apr. 19, 2003
Armed Airline Pilots Rail Against the Rules
Flyers complain that TSA guns-in-cockpits plan is designed to fail
By VIVECA NOVAK/WASHINGTON
Days from now, some pilots could be packing heat behind the reinforced cockpit door of airliners filled with screened passengers, X-rayed baggage and, occasionally, an armed air marshal. After months of controversy, 46 of the airline pilots who have pushed for guns in the cockpit spent the past week in gnat-infested Glyncoe, GA, undergoing intensive firearms training. But despite an impressive display put on for the press, there were clear signs of the contentiousness that has plagued efforts by pilots to arm themselves.
Some participants accused the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) — which originally opposed arming pilots — of designing a program so rule-bound and cumbersome that it was guaranteed to fail. At one point, according to pilots who talked to TIME on background, there was even talk of a mass walkout.
The plan to arm pilots was passed by Congress in 2002 after more than a year of intensive lobbying by a group of flyers and the National Rifle Association, who outmaneuvered opponents including the airlines, other pilots, the TSA and, originally, the White House. The airlines see nothing but trouble in having a firearm — which could in theory be wrestled away by a hijacker, damage the aircraft if fired, or lead to the death of someone who meant no harm — in the same confined space as the plane's controls. Many pilots, on the other hand, want as much security as they can get. "It beats having an F-16 shooting you out of the air," said Steve Luckey, a security specialist with the Airline Pilots Association, referring to the government's solution of last resort when confronted with a hijacked airliner that could be used as a bomb. While TSA won't release numbers, the percentage of flights with an armed air marshal aboard is in the low single digits, Luckey said.
The congressional decision obliged TSA to drop its opposition and design a training program. Its technical aspects, including marksmanship and non-lethal self-defense, were excellent, pilots concurred. But after the 48 flyers — selected from a list of volunteers to bring diversity of gender, type of aircraft, corporation, age and experience — were two days into their training, they got into a combative exchange with a TSA lawyer, sharply questioning some of the rules he was laying out and at one point laughing at his response. That brought a reprimand from a TSA psychologist, and then from the TSA official who was heading the training, who reminded them that they were being watched and graded until the end of the week, said several of the pilots.
The whole program was so "unworkable," so bound by restrictions and conditions, said one pilot privately, that he planned to put his gun away when he finished the program and never take it on a flight. The pilots have also vigorously complained about how their .40-caliber semiautomatic handguns must be carried: in a lock-box, inside a bag, until they get into the cockpit and lock the door.
In addition, a day-and-a-half into the training, two of the pilots were bounced out, including one who previously transported nuclear weapons for the Air Force and is currently a union activist. They were told only that the decision was based on their background checks.
By the end of the week the air had cleared somewhat; pilots said that TSA officials were listening to their complaints and promising to make some revisions. This group of pilots were "guinea pigs," said TSA spokesman Robert Johnson. "We'll see what changes need to be made." But how many more pilots will be going through the voluntary program remains undecided. This session cost $500,000, and it's unclear if there's money for any further training this fiscal year — TSA has requested $25 million for the program in 2004. It's also unclear how many flyers will sign up. Future sessions will require them to pay their own travel, room and board, and they all must return to Glyncoe or its equivalent facility in New Mexico twice a year for requalification, again on their own dime.
Copyright © 2003 Time Inc. All rights reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, Apr. 19, 2003
Armed Airline Pilots Rail Against the Rules
Flyers complain that TSA guns-in-cockpits plan is designed to fail
By VIVECA NOVAK/WASHINGTON
Days from now, some pilots could be packing heat behind the reinforced cockpit door of airliners filled with screened passengers, X-rayed baggage and, occasionally, an armed air marshal. After months of controversy, 46 of the airline pilots who have pushed for guns in the cockpit spent the past week in gnat-infested Glyncoe, GA, undergoing intensive firearms training. But despite an impressive display put on for the press, there were clear signs of the contentiousness that has plagued efforts by pilots to arm themselves.
Some participants accused the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) — which originally opposed arming pilots — of designing a program so rule-bound and cumbersome that it was guaranteed to fail. At one point, according to pilots who talked to TIME on background, there was even talk of a mass walkout.
The plan to arm pilots was passed by Congress in 2002 after more than a year of intensive lobbying by a group of flyers and the National Rifle Association, who outmaneuvered opponents including the airlines, other pilots, the TSA and, originally, the White House. The airlines see nothing but trouble in having a firearm — which could in theory be wrestled away by a hijacker, damage the aircraft if fired, or lead to the death of someone who meant no harm — in the same confined space as the plane's controls. Many pilots, on the other hand, want as much security as they can get. "It beats having an F-16 shooting you out of the air," said Steve Luckey, a security specialist with the Airline Pilots Association, referring to the government's solution of last resort when confronted with a hijacked airliner that could be used as a bomb. While TSA won't release numbers, the percentage of flights with an armed air marshal aboard is in the low single digits, Luckey said.
The congressional decision obliged TSA to drop its opposition and design a training program. Its technical aspects, including marksmanship and non-lethal self-defense, were excellent, pilots concurred. But after the 48 flyers — selected from a list of volunteers to bring diversity of gender, type of aircraft, corporation, age and experience — were two days into their training, they got into a combative exchange with a TSA lawyer, sharply questioning some of the rules he was laying out and at one point laughing at his response. That brought a reprimand from a TSA psychologist, and then from the TSA official who was heading the training, who reminded them that they were being watched and graded until the end of the week, said several of the pilots.
The whole program was so "unworkable," so bound by restrictions and conditions, said one pilot privately, that he planned to put his gun away when he finished the program and never take it on a flight. The pilots have also vigorously complained about how their .40-caliber semiautomatic handguns must be carried: in a lock-box, inside a bag, until they get into the cockpit and lock the door.
In addition, a day-and-a-half into the training, two of the pilots were bounced out, including one who previously transported nuclear weapons for the Air Force and is currently a union activist. They were told only that the decision was based on their background checks.
By the end of the week the air had cleared somewhat; pilots said that TSA officials were listening to their complaints and promising to make some revisions. This group of pilots were "guinea pigs," said TSA spokesman Robert Johnson. "We'll see what changes need to be made." But how many more pilots will be going through the voluntary program remains undecided. This session cost $500,000, and it's unclear if there's money for any further training this fiscal year — TSA has requested $25 million for the program in 2004. It's also unclear how many flyers will sign up. Future sessions will require them to pay their own travel, room and board, and they all must return to Glyncoe or its equivalent facility in New Mexico twice a year for requalification, again on their own dime.
Copyright © 2003 Time Inc. All rights reserved.
Just one incident involving an armed pilot and the travelling public will lose confidence. Moreover the incident need not necessarily involve the firearm, drunkenness, garrolous behaviour, sexual misconduct, etc.. and they let him carry a gun, just think of the headlines.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's A No Brainer
The program eventually will implode on its own, because few pilots will want to spend their own (unpaid) time and money (for transportation and lodging) for initial qualification and for recurrent qualification.
No doubt, what most of those wannabe aerial rambos had anticipated was that they would be earning full flight pay during gunnery training.
And last but not least, there just aren't many potential terrorists who, under the new security measures, would be inclined to do battle with alert passengers while trying to work their way into the cockpit to takeover the airplane.
No doubt, what most of those wannabe aerial rambos had anticipated was that they would be earning full flight pay during gunnery training.
And last but not least, there just aren't many potential terrorists who, under the new security measures, would be inclined to do battle with alert passengers while trying to work their way into the cockpit to takeover the airplane.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just left the UK and was watching the news on Sky one.
They claim that fish feel pain and the anglers feel that they will try to ban fishing next.
This is big headline news their.
If this is banned will passengers with fishing poles be considered terrorist?
The world is getting out of hand here.
This Bin Laden fool does not even have to say another word, we are destroying ourselves.
Guns in the cockpit, fish feeling pain, Fishing banned, whats next?
Come on you pilots in the UK, if you let these radicals and this PETA orginazation get away with this one then you are going to be laughed at all over the world!
Dont worry about guns in the cockpit in the USA we will be doing our Bass fishing and hoping this stupid thinking does not travel across the Atlantic.
Here it seams that we are losing more rights everyday and guns Maybe is not a good idea, but no one will ever take our guns or fishing poles away.
Get it together or become a vegitarian!
They claim that fish feel pain and the anglers feel that they will try to ban fishing next.
This is big headline news their.
If this is banned will passengers with fishing poles be considered terrorist?
The world is getting out of hand here.
This Bin Laden fool does not even have to say another word, we are destroying ourselves.
Guns in the cockpit, fish feeling pain, Fishing banned, whats next?
Come on you pilots in the UK, if you let these radicals and this PETA orginazation get away with this one then you are going to be laughed at all over the world!
Dont worry about guns in the cockpit in the USA we will be doing our Bass fishing and hoping this stupid thinking does not travel across the Atlantic.
Here it seams that we are losing more rights everyday and guns Maybe is not a good idea, but no one will ever take our guns or fishing poles away.
Get it together or become a vegitarian!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sept 11 would not have had the same outcome with todays mind set. No cooperation with the terrorist and kill them if they attempt to breach the cockpit.
People are getting wrapped up about guns and forgetting the reason for arming the cockpit.
I laugh when people express concern about weapon discharge making a hole in the jet. The weapon discharge of the F-15 "escort" will do more than create a little "pressure squeal".
As to pilots just flying the jet and getting it on the ground, get real. If the cockpit is breached I will not be at the controls, I will be engaged in hand to hand combat with the crash ax. My weapon of choice would be a pistol...well placed shot to the heart, done deal.
Whats the old joke about bringing a knife to a gun fight?
Looking forward to my Federal Flight Deck Officer training class.
People are getting wrapped up about guns and forgetting the reason for arming the cockpit.
I laugh when people express concern about weapon discharge making a hole in the jet. The weapon discharge of the F-15 "escort" will do more than create a little "pressure squeal".
As to pilots just flying the jet and getting it on the ground, get real. If the cockpit is breached I will not be at the controls, I will be engaged in hand to hand combat with the crash ax. My weapon of choice would be a pistol...well placed shot to the heart, done deal.
Whats the old joke about bringing a knife to a gun fight?
Looking forward to my Federal Flight Deck Officer training class.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we really want to carry guns? If the Capt. or F/O have a gun then the hijacker may be able to get to it. What happens in a case of an accident? Either some one may get killed or hurt that should not have been or damage to the plane. I for one would hate to carry a gun. I'm a pilot not a police officer
Either some one may get killed or hurt that should not have been or damage to the plane. I for one would hate to carry a gun. I'm a pilot not a police officer
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: USA
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't browse through the whole thread, so I don't know if my concern has been discussed in this thread.
What we are trying to prevent are events similar to 9/11. However, by arming pilots, we have drastically increased the possibility of a repeat of the Silkair or (alleged) Egyptair crash. I simply don't think this is a good idea.
What we are trying to prevent are events similar to 9/11. However, by arming pilots, we have drastically increased the possibility of a repeat of the Silkair or (alleged) Egyptair crash. I simply don't think this is a good idea.