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)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The terrorists have boarded the aircraft with their kevlar and ceramic knives. They are more than a match for the plastic knives and forks carried by our passengers. The law-abiding Cabin Crew and the passsengers have been disarmed by security, since they are unlikely to be carrying ceramic nail clippers. The terrorists meet resistance from passengers. Some they will win some they lose.
Today the terrorists win. They now try to break down the fortified cockpit door. Today they succeed. If you are not armed with anything but bare hands you are going to die and your aircraft will be aimed at a suitable target. Your aircraft is then brought down with a sidewinder.
If the terrorist is lucky he hits a heavily populated target. Had you had a gun, you may not have saved your passengers but you may have kept control of your aircraft so that you could have landed it on a runway, saving a lot of lives on the ground.
To those of you who say you are not Police Officers, maybe so; but you expect your passengers and Cabin Crew to be experts in unarmed combat.
Put a gun on my flight deck. Let it be in a container which allows, if necessary, rapid disposal into the bowels of the aircraft. Draw up rules requiring a tech log entry whenever it is withdrawn from its holster and in such an event, let there be an enquiry conducted by the company
Today the terrorists win. They now try to break down the fortified cockpit door. Today they succeed. If you are not armed with anything but bare hands you are going to die and your aircraft will be aimed at a suitable target. Your aircraft is then brought down with a sidewinder.
If the terrorist is lucky he hits a heavily populated target. Had you had a gun, you may not have saved your passengers but you may have kept control of your aircraft so that you could have landed it on a runway, saving a lot of lives on the ground.
To those of you who say you are not Police Officers, maybe so; but you expect your passengers and Cabin Crew to be experts in unarmed combat.
Put a gun on my flight deck. Let it be in a container which allows, if necessary, rapid disposal into the bowels of the aircraft. Draw up rules requiring a tech log entry whenever it is withdrawn from its holster and in such an event, let there be an enquiry conducted by the company
If this poll had been taken BEFORE the attack on the World Trade Centre I doubt the percentage in favour would have reached double figures. At the moment it is 30% in favour ,after the next big one let's have another poll ,those in favour will probably be in the majority.
To those talking about EL ALs security procedures ,how do you know for sure that they're not armed ? Prehaps a current EL AL pilot on this forum could post a detailed list of their security measures
I think not.
To those talking about EL ALs security procedures ,how do you know for sure that they're not armed ? Prehaps a current EL AL pilot on this forum could post a detailed list of their security measures
I think not.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Larger Security Issues
After 9-11 and reinforced, armored cockpit doors, forced entry has become a virtual non issue. This security hole has long been plugged and is now dwarfed by much larger security concerns:
Shoulder fired Stinger type missles;
Remotely detonated plastic explosives in checked baggage;
Suicide bomber-passengers with undetected plastic explosives wrapped around their bodies;
Suicidal passengers spreading viruses like smallpox, or ...SARS;
Suicidal truck bombers crashing explosives ladden cement mixers through fragile airport perimeter fences...into taxiing jets....
Nothing that a pistol toting pilot could prevent.
Shoulder fired Stinger type missles;
Remotely detonated plastic explosives in checked baggage;
Suicide bomber-passengers with undetected plastic explosives wrapped around their bodies;
Suicidal passengers spreading viruses like smallpox, or ...SARS;
Suicidal truck bombers crashing explosives ladden cement mixers through fragile airport perimeter fences...into taxiing jets....
Nothing that a pistol toting pilot could prevent.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glueball
Wasn't the purpose of taking the planes on 9/11 to turn them into air to ground missiles. If they blow up a plane on the runway with a cement truck, its just another aviation accident. (don't read that the wrong way). A plane in the air under the control of a terrorist is a missile of serious proportions. I don't like TSA's handling of the first training class, but I can't imagine a plane under terrorist control getting down safely. It will either become said missile or the target of a F-18 sidewinder missile (or something). What do they have to lose by having a gun onboard?
Wasn't the purpose of taking the planes on 9/11 to turn them into air to ground missiles. If they blow up a plane on the runway with a cement truck, its just another aviation accident. (don't read that the wrong way). A plane in the air under the control of a terrorist is a missile of serious proportions. I don't like TSA's handling of the first training class, but I can't imagine a plane under terrorist control getting down safely. It will either become said missile or the target of a F-18 sidewinder missile (or something). What do they have to lose by having a gun onboard?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I support the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program. A armed pilot is the last line of defense in the event the cockpit door is breached. The new and improved cockpit door does not give me a warm fuzzy and TSA is no better now than before 9/11.
The cockpit door is more fortified but, will only slow a determined terrorist down. The added time afforded by the fortified door will allow armed pilots to draw the pistol and kill the terrorist when they attempt cockpit entry.
Many people argue that pilots should only fly the jet and not be expected to defend the cockpit, get real. If a terrorist enters the cockpit the last thing I will be is a "sitting" duck. I shall be out of my seat defending myself. My current weapon is the crash ax but, not for long. Soon I'll be able to place a few rounds into my attacker...done deal.
I know, what if I miss and shot a passenger or put a hole in the jet. If I miss and the cockpit is taken over my F-15 back up will finish the job. Result, all dead and more than just a little pressure squeal.
On the other hand if I kill the terrorist, with my pistol, the F-15 back up will not have to take action and we all live "happily ever after".
The cockpit door is more fortified but, will only slow a determined terrorist down. The added time afforded by the fortified door will allow armed pilots to draw the pistol and kill the terrorist when they attempt cockpit entry.
Many people argue that pilots should only fly the jet and not be expected to defend the cockpit, get real. If a terrorist enters the cockpit the last thing I will be is a "sitting" duck. I shall be out of my seat defending myself. My current weapon is the crash ax but, not for long. Soon I'll be able to place a few rounds into my attacker...done deal.
I know, what if I miss and shot a passenger or put a hole in the jet. If I miss and the cockpit is taken over my F-15 back up will finish the job. Result, all dead and more than just a little pressure squeal.
On the other hand if I kill the terrorist, with my pistol, the F-15 back up will not have to take action and we all live "happily ever after".
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On Sept 11 F-15s where enroute to "intercept" a United 757. At this point the twin towers where both in flames and the Pentagon had been hit. Thousands dead and dying. The United 757 was on it's way toward Washington DC.
It did not take rocket science to figure thousands more on the ground where about to die, killed by a 757 guided missile.
When it became obvious the F-15s would not "intercept" in a timely manner, two airborne F-16s where sent to "intercept". Before the F-15s or F-16s "intercepted", the United 757 guided missile crashed short of it's target, saving thousands of lives on the ground.
Once an airliner cockpit is taken over, the jet is now a weapon. That's the reality of 9/11. All the passengers and crew are dead people (once the cockpit is taken over). Do you really think an order will not be given to shoot down an airliner on a bee line for New York, Washington DC or Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant?
The choice is shoot down the jet or allow it to complete it's mission, the plane load of people on the 757 guided missile will die in either case. The shoot down will save thousands.
Conclusion, prevent the cockpit from being taken over. How? Arm the pilots with pistols.
Or would you rather just let the jet (guided missile) complete it's mission?
There's more important concerns than your unfounded fear of pilots carrying guns.
It did not take rocket science to figure thousands more on the ground where about to die, killed by a 757 guided missile.
When it became obvious the F-15s would not "intercept" in a timely manner, two airborne F-16s where sent to "intercept". Before the F-15s or F-16s "intercepted", the United 757 guided missile crashed short of it's target, saving thousands of lives on the ground.
Once an airliner cockpit is taken over, the jet is now a weapon. That's the reality of 9/11. All the passengers and crew are dead people (once the cockpit is taken over). Do you really think an order will not be given to shoot down an airliner on a bee line for New York, Washington DC or Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant?
The choice is shoot down the jet or allow it to complete it's mission, the plane load of people on the 757 guided missile will die in either case. The shoot down will save thousands.
Conclusion, prevent the cockpit from being taken over. How? Arm the pilots with pistols.
Or would you rather just let the jet (guided missile) complete it's mission?
There's more important concerns than your unfounded fear of pilots carrying guns.
Mike Jenvey,
Exactly where have you been 20 months?
Surely, no rash decision on shoot down orders will be made if a 747 is commandeered at 50W, but if clear evidence is at hand with an aircraft near any major east coast city, or many military and nuke plants, things will get very ugly very quickly.
Bureaucratic paperwork snafus are probably not going to be a problem if these radical islamic scumbags try it again. On 9/11, some unarmed interceptors briefed how they might have to ram an aircraft after what happened in the morning. Waiting for an aircraft to land to check on political viewpoints isn't likely to be high on the list if a 400,000lb aircraft is near any potential targets.
Here is a quote you would never hear as an aircraft is diving for a landing out of FL200 as the attackers start to successfully breach the door. CA:"I say First Officer, thank heavens with all that is going on, we don't have to worry about shooting a gun at those misguided chaps breaking through the door behind us!"
The world is a messy place, carry a mop.
Exactly where have you been 20 months?
Surely, no rash decision on shoot down orders will be made if a 747 is commandeered at 50W, but if clear evidence is at hand with an aircraft near any major east coast city, or many military and nuke plants, things will get very ugly very quickly.
Bureaucratic paperwork snafus are probably not going to be a problem if these radical islamic scumbags try it again. On 9/11, some unarmed interceptors briefed how they might have to ram an aircraft after what happened in the morning. Waiting for an aircraft to land to check on political viewpoints isn't likely to be high on the list if a 400,000lb aircraft is near any potential targets.
Here is a quote you would never hear as an aircraft is diving for a landing out of FL200 as the attackers start to successfully breach the door. CA:"I say First Officer, thank heavens with all that is going on, we don't have to worry about shooting a gun at those misguided chaps breaking through the door behind us!"
The world is a messy place, carry a mop.
Moderator
How realistic do you think a shoot-down scenario will be? Take the time-scale into account for verification of hijack, intercept, confirmation of “illegal” flight status, etc. Then order the USAF/ANG aircraft to engage, taking chain of command decisions into account.
I've had to stay at FL190 on my way up a lot longer than usual on many occasions since 9/11, due to our future F.O.s in the F-Teens. It doesn't happen as often any more, but for a while there, I had several escorts that I could see, every time I departed BWI!
Knowing that I was being tracked by an armed fighter did NOT give me a warm and fuzzy feeling! What would happen if he accidentally shot me down? I guess that it would be preferable to simply arming pilots........
And where were you for the years prior to 9/11 when everyone else was saying that aviation security in the USA was abysmal??
Flying like you and saying cockpit security sucked, procedures sucked and checkpoints in the US were manned by a bunched of illiterate, non-english speaking idiots.
Glueball and you are right on in one scenario of the terrorists goal being that of simple destruction of an aircraft. We all know the vulnerabilities due to the different methods to achieve that goal. A gun won't do any good against a whole list of threats if the goal is just wiping an aircraft out.
The other goals of mass destruction with an aircraft are something you and many others are somewhat in pathological denial of what could happen. A gun won't help your Stinger scenarios, but it can help prevent many other scenarios that could result in an aircraft pulling a split "S" into a crowded stadium or one of our goverments.
Personally, if you don't like guns, fine.
Just don't risk the lives of thousands, nor the functioning of my goverment just to make a political point.
Flying like you and saying cockpit security sucked, procedures sucked and checkpoints in the US were manned by a bunched of illiterate, non-english speaking idiots.
Glueball has a much more realistic approach to possible attacks in the future, especially the Stinger option
The other goals of mass destruction with an aircraft are something you and many others are somewhat in pathological denial of what could happen. A gun won't help your Stinger scenarios, but it can help prevent many other scenarios that could result in an aircraft pulling a split "S" into a crowded stadium or one of our goverments.
Personally, if you don't like guns, fine.
Just don't risk the lives of thousands, nor the functioning of my goverment just to make a political point.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For many years in the 70's and 80's, some US airline pilots carried guns in the cockpit. And they didn't have the advantage of the current TSA training. But there still weren't any of the incidents that the doom-and-gloom crowd here is predicting.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True about El Al security having guns on board and on the ground at all stations. Not true for El Al pilots, they are there to fly the plane 
and don't need guns.........and for Earl, ALL El Al pilots have served in the military and recieved similar training as yours if not better
T-Richard,
indeed you read GlueBall's post correctly. Although not "air locked" you must close one to be able to open the other, going in or going out. The double doors are not just "reinforced", the whole bulhead and double doors are armored, or in other words and without getting too much into certain details, bullets would not do much damage to such a system. Therefore no need for the operating crew to carry guns. That's the job of the fine young men that are strategically placed in the back on every flight
Just a quick recap on the last hijack attempt on El Al: Sept 1970's El Al 707 hijack attempt was foiled by the inability of the hijackers (Patrick Arguello and Leila Khaled) to enter the flt deck (even though they had hand grenades and guns, not "box cutters"), the quick thinking of Capt Uri Barlev (clicking the AP off and pushing the nose forward to destabilize Arguello & Khaled giving an oportunity to one of the fine young men in the back to shoot Arguello dead) and the tremendous courage of purser Uri Cohen who took 7 bullets while taking care of Khaled (he survived). The A/C landed safely in London and Khaled was handed over to the British authorities while in the mean time Swissair, PanAm and TWA were unfortunately succesfully hijacked.
Was that too much info MetroMan?
Pat
(Ktanim aval Hazakim!)
and don't need guns.........and for Earl, ALL El Al pilots have served in the military and recieved similar training as yours if not better T-Richard,
indeed you read GlueBall's post correctly. Although not "air locked" you must close one to be able to open the other, going in or going out. The double doors are not just "reinforced", the whole bulhead and double doors are armored, or in other words and without getting too much into certain details, bullets would not do much damage to such a system. Therefore no need for the operating crew to carry guns. That's the job of the fine young men that are strategically placed in the back on every flight
Just a quick recap on the last hijack attempt on El Al: Sept 1970's El Al 707 hijack attempt was foiled by the inability of the hijackers (Patrick Arguello and Leila Khaled) to enter the flt deck (even though they had hand grenades and guns, not "box cutters"), the quick thinking of Capt Uri Barlev (clicking the AP off and pushing the nose forward to destabilize Arguello & Khaled giving an oportunity to one of the fine young men in the back to shoot Arguello dead) and the tremendous courage of purser Uri Cohen who took 7 bullets while taking care of Khaled (he survived). The A/C landed safely in London and Khaled was handed over to the British authorities while in the mean time Swissair, PanAm and TWA were unfortunately succesfully hijacked.
Was that too much info MetroMan?
Pat
(Ktanim aval Hazakim!)
Last edited by Heilhaavir; 10th May 2003 at 19:42.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Where the family is
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I for one have seen a lot more psycotic captains than terrorists rescently. I think it's a great idea that they should be armed. Perhaps all co-pilots should be issued with cyanide tablets so that they can pop it after being accidentaly shot, as there is no chance that a medical crew will be able to get through the strong room doors that have to be fitted to aircraft.
THE TIME HAS COME TO BAN PASSENGERS FROM AIRCRAFT. BUS THEM. IT'S MUCH SAFER THAT WAY.
THE TIME HAS COME TO BAN PASSENGERS FROM AIRCRAFT. BUS THEM. IT'S MUCH SAFER THAT WAY.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
saywhat,
Do you realize a "psycho captain" does not need a gun to harm all on board? They may dive the aircraft into the ground and that's it, no gun required.
You think that the "psycho captain" being provided the gun will now allow them to carry out a desire to kill all on board? Get real.
Again, there are bigger threats than armed captains and first officers. Yes, first officers are allowed to be Federal Flight Deck Officers as well. Oh my god, psycho first officers!!!
It's all moot, the program is up and running. I'm looking forward to my Federal Flight Deck Officer training date.
I'll bet if you are ever on board a jet with terrorists battering the cockpit door, you'll be praying the captain and first officers are both armed. You would be foolish not to.
Do you realize a "psycho captain" does not need a gun to harm all on board? They may dive the aircraft into the ground and that's it, no gun required.
You think that the "psycho captain" being provided the gun will now allow them to carry out a desire to kill all on board? Get real.
Again, there are bigger threats than armed captains and first officers. Yes, first officers are allowed to be Federal Flight Deck Officers as well. Oh my god, psycho first officers!!!
It's all moot, the program is up and running. I'm looking forward to my Federal Flight Deck Officer training date.
I'll bet if you are ever on board a jet with terrorists battering the cockpit door, you'll be praying the captain and first officers are both armed. You would be foolish not to.
Last edited by gohogs; 11th May 2003 at 03:23.
The cockpit door seems to be the big factor in all this ,so let's do away with it. Weld a big piece of steel from one side of the aircraft to the other , that would require a cutting tourch to get through ,bit difficult to get one past security. Have a letter box system for passing meals through. Crew to enter and leave via emergency exits. Access to the flight deck impossible from the cabin , ever. Problem solved 
Guns no longer required .Anything short of this still leaves the possibility of hijacking open.
Guns no longer required .Anything short of this still leaves the possibility of hijacking open.
Heilhaavir
Assuming for the purpose of this reply that EL AL pilots aren't armed remember that they have the whole EL AL security apparatus behind them. As you said the double locked doors and armed sky marshalls , prevented the last hijack attempt. Would the 11 September attacks have succeeded with these security measures in place? I think not . Note that the hijackers didn't attempt to take over an EL AL aircraft and us it in the attacks ,too difficult ?
Alright then ,if you upgrade security EVERYWHERE , ALL THE TIME to EL AL level ,ie interviews with each passenger ,searches down to the toothpaste tube contents , double reinforced doors and skymarshalls on all flights ,with the 90 min check in times and additional costs involved , I will reconsider my opinion.So far you haven't changed my mind.
Assuming for the purpose of this reply that EL AL pilots aren't armed remember that they have the whole EL AL security apparatus behind them. As you said the double locked doors and armed sky marshalls , prevented the last hijack attempt. Would the 11 September attacks have succeeded with these security measures in place? I think not . Note that the hijackers didn't attempt to take over an EL AL aircraft and us it in the attacks ,too difficult ?
Alright then ,if you upgrade security EVERYWHERE , ALL THE TIME to EL AL level ,ie interviews with each passenger ,searches down to the toothpaste tube contents , double reinforced doors and skymarshalls on all flights ,with the 90 min check in times and additional costs involved , I will reconsider my opinion.So far you haven't changed my mind.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Where the family is
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a solution, I think. Lets issue all passengers with guns. That way we should be sure that the good guys with guns outnumber the bad guys with guns and then the bad guys will become as paranoid as us good guys and will be scared to use their guns. 42 GAZILION AIRMILES FLOWN SINCE 9/11 WITHOUT A GUN USED YET. Maby we're missing something here.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
saywhat,
Why are you so afraid of guns? I grew up with guns. Hunted food and killed the occasional varmit.
Worked for Dick Nixon as a trained protector of the USA. Airborne infantry.
A gun is no big deal.
Why are you so afraid of guns? I grew up with guns. Hunted food and killed the occasional varmit.
Worked for Dick Nixon as a trained protector of the USA. Airborne infantry.
A gun is no big deal.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Metroman,
I am not paid to figure out a system to keep YOU safe on an airplane as pax or crew and I don't really care if you are for or against guns on the flt deck
You questioned someone else's post (I think it was Glueball's) about El Al pilots not carrying guns in the cockpit: (To those talking about EL ALs security procedures ,how do you know for sure that they're not armed ?) and I answered ...... Now wether El Al's security procedures are costly, time consuming and whatever else you want to throw in there, you are free to think whatever you want. The fact is that if you were stupid enough to attempt to gain access to an El Al cockpit you would be neutralized in a matter of seconds and the pilots would never have to get involved
Pat
(Ktanim aval Hazakim)
I am not paid to figure out a system to keep YOU safe on an airplane as pax or crew and I don't really care if you are for or against guns on the flt deck
You questioned someone else's post (I think it was Glueball's) about El Al pilots not carrying guns in the cockpit: (To those talking about EL ALs security procedures ,how do you know for sure that they're not armed ?) and I answered ...... Now wether El Al's security procedures are costly, time consuming and whatever else you want to throw in there, you are free to think whatever you want. The fact is that if you were stupid enough to attempt to gain access to an El Al cockpit you would be neutralized in a matter of seconds and the pilots would never have to get involved
Pat
(Ktanim aval Hazakim)
If I've got the sort of back up that an EL AL pilot has I will be quite happy to concentrate on flying and leave my involvement with guns to the shooting range at the weekend. Im sure the sky marshalls are far more proficient with weapons than any pilot could ever hope to be.
It isn't going to happen though ,can you imagine businessmen in a rush having to check in 2 hours before a 30 minute flight ,trains would be quicker.And what about the cost of all this additional security ,airlines could never afford it. It would break the industry.
At the moment, 20 months on from the attacks, I believe less than 10% of flights in the USA carry sky marshalls. In other words there is a greater than 90% chance of NOT having armed back up on board ,very reasonable odds if you're a terrorist. All those boxes of tweezers and nail clippers confiscated from old ladies don't reassure me that a weapon couldn't be taken on board.
However 100% of flights carry pilots and in the absence of a massive security upgrade to defend us and our aircraft we should be trained and allowed to defend ourselves.
Prehaps some of those who answered the poll that guns were useless and the pilots should concentrate on getting the aircraft on the ground could explain how they are supposed to do it if they are dead.
It isn't going to happen though ,can you imagine businessmen in a rush having to check in 2 hours before a 30 minute flight ,trains would be quicker.And what about the cost of all this additional security ,airlines could never afford it. It would break the industry.
At the moment, 20 months on from the attacks, I believe less than 10% of flights in the USA carry sky marshalls. In other words there is a greater than 90% chance of NOT having armed back up on board ,very reasonable odds if you're a terrorist. All those boxes of tweezers and nail clippers confiscated from old ladies don't reassure me that a weapon couldn't be taken on board.
However 100% of flights carry pilots and in the absence of a massive security upgrade to defend us and our aircraft we should be trained and allowed to defend ourselves.
Prehaps some of those who answered the poll that guns were useless and the pilots should concentrate on getting the aircraft on the ground could explain how they are supposed to do it if they are dead.