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)
Paxing All Over The World
I have followed the whole thread with interest. Metro man raised a point that I have been waiting for:
"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."
We then got folks saying what about the toilet? Well, they can have one their side of the bulkhead. Food is through a double doored single access hatch as suggested.
The problem is that, doing so will take more space out of the cabin and then less room for all those lovely pax that you are all so desperate to protect! Placing a full bulkhead between the FD and cabin is the only way to prevent access.
However ... the next attempts at serious terrorism are unlikley to be aircraft. There are ships and trains and all sorts of fun and games they can have. Each event will cause more stable doors to be shut after the horse has gone.
Yes, there will be some attempts at a/c hi-jacking but I doubt if the big boys will bother for a while.
Guns on the flight deck? No. Not the answer.
"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."
We then got folks saying what about the toilet? Well, they can have one their side of the bulkhead. Food is through a double doored single access hatch as suggested.
The problem is that, doing so will take more space out of the cabin and then less room for all those lovely pax that you are all so desperate to protect! Placing a full bulkhead between the FD and cabin is the only way to prevent access.
However ... the next attempts at serious terrorism are unlikley to be aircraft. There are ships and trains and all sorts of fun and games they can have. Each event will cause more stable doors to be shut after the horse has gone.
Yes, there will be some attempts at a/c hi-jacking but I doubt if the big boys will bother for a while.
Guns on the flight deck? No. Not the answer.
"However ... the next attempts at serious terrorism are unlikley to be aircraft. There are ships and trains and all sorts of fun and games they can have"
"Yes, there will be some attempts at a/c hi-jacking but I doubt if the big boys will bother for a while."
PAXboy,
Sounds great. But how does your logic reconcile the fact that large terrorist truck bombings have not decreased after the 1983 US Marine Beirut bombing.
I suppose in 1984 you thought they wouldn't do any more large truck bombings in the future. Go ahead, make yourself feel better.
A question for the anti-gun crowd; How many have seen any banks converting their bank vault doors to the current design of reinforced cockpit doors? Surely they would be lighter and easier to open and close , and they must be just as strong and secure.
"Yes, there will be some attempts at a/c hi-jacking but I doubt if the big boys will bother for a while."
PAXboy,
Sounds great. But how does your logic reconcile the fact that large terrorist truck bombings have not decreased after the 1983 US Marine Beirut bombing.
I suppose in 1984 you thought they wouldn't do any more large truck bombings in the future. Go ahead, make yourself feel better.
A question for the anti-gun crowd; How many have seen any banks converting their bank vault doors to the current design of reinforced cockpit doors? Surely they would be lighter and easier to open and close , and they must be just as strong and secure.
Paxing All Over The World
Truck bombs will continue because they are easy! You can prepare them in a warehouse that you control and then drive them where you require. If you meet a road block that discovers the bomb - you can detonate it early. The driver is in control of the truck at all times.
By contrast, the a/c is beyond their control at all times. The hijacker has to first gain control of the a/c.
For an aircraft, if there is proper screening of the pax, their luggage, the servicing staff and there is no access to the flight deck, then you have covered as many bases as you can.
Banks are not changing their vault doors because they already exist. Over many years they have taken them as far as they reasonably can to counteract the threat. They also know that money can be insured against loss - human lives can be insured against loss but people are rather more concerned about losing people than losing money.
Besides, most financial theft these days takes place at small banks and shops that are not so protected. Once again, it is a judgement between cost of the safe and cost of defending it. In a bank or shop - anyone can walk in and demand money with a gun. They will probably get some of it too, in order to save lives. Comparing banks of money and aircraft of people is not an even comparison. Unless you think that people can be replaced just like printing more money? The big financial theft is electronic.
Next?
By contrast, the a/c is beyond their control at all times. The hijacker has to first gain control of the a/c.
For an aircraft, if there is proper screening of the pax, their luggage, the servicing staff and there is no access to the flight deck, then you have covered as many bases as you can.
Banks are not changing their vault doors because they already exist. Over many years they have taken them as far as they reasonably can to counteract the threat. They also know that money can be insured against loss - human lives can be insured against loss but people are rather more concerned about losing people than losing money.
Besides, most financial theft these days takes place at small banks and shops that are not so protected. Once again, it is a judgement between cost of the safe and cost of defending it. In a bank or shop - anyone can walk in and demand money with a gun. They will probably get some of it too, in order to save lives. Comparing banks of money and aircraft of people is not an even comparison. Unless you think that people can be replaced just like printing more money? The big financial theft is electronic.
Next?
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some folks seem to be forgetting that a tiny sharp object is still likely to get through airport security no matter how tight the screening surely? I mean, are we going to take our security measures to the stage of strip searching before being allowed to take a seat on board an aircraft? One can never be 100% safe just from increased airport security. It comes down to money at the end of the day like it always has done. Increased security at the airport means longer getting through security, delays, increased costs for the airline and the authorities and ultimately less passengers and less airlines in operation.
I must admit I haven't read all of this thread as it's 12 pages long! But I have read a few posts from the last couple of pages and some in between and in my view Earl had some good points as do the anti-gun side obviously.
I believe after talking to pilots in the US about this very issue in some depth that having pilots carry some form of self defence weapon has to be a good idea as a deterent against hijacking by terrorist organisations.
If the terrorists know that they'll get a bullet in the head as soon as they enter the flight deck before they have time to achieve another 911 then would they bother hijacking another aircraft ever again? Would seem very pointless to me but then again who knows how their heads work.
An armed pilot sat behind the flight deck door flying the aircraft has in the unlikely event that all security measures have failed, the last chance, end of the chain, buck stops here card in his hand - a gun. The fact that 99.9999% of flights he/she would never even need to get it out of it's holster is enough for me to realise that the arguments over the safety of having it aboard are for the most part redundant. One has to point out the bleedin' obvious here and say that the guys flying the AA flights on 911 would have wanted one would they not? Sorry to put it so blunt.
It really is a blunt deterent/message against having some nutter forcing their way into the flight deck and take control of the aircraft. To look the other way and shout "no guns please, we're British" to me sounds like some form of denial is going on.
Changes most definately need to be made to security in the airports first, I would not deny that for one second. These improvements need to be made now. But at the end of the day the responsibility for a flight will, as it always has done, land at the Captains feet.
It would sound a good idea to make it a Captain decision whether to carry a gun or not but if they're to be stored in a locked safe in the cockpit then this isn't possible is it?
VFE.
I must admit I haven't read all of this thread as it's 12 pages long! But I have read a few posts from the last couple of pages and some in between and in my view Earl had some good points as do the anti-gun side obviously.
I believe after talking to pilots in the US about this very issue in some depth that having pilots carry some form of self defence weapon has to be a good idea as a deterent against hijacking by terrorist organisations.
If the terrorists know that they'll get a bullet in the head as soon as they enter the flight deck before they have time to achieve another 911 then would they bother hijacking another aircraft ever again? Would seem very pointless to me but then again who knows how their heads work.
An armed pilot sat behind the flight deck door flying the aircraft has in the unlikely event that all security measures have failed, the last chance, end of the chain, buck stops here card in his hand - a gun. The fact that 99.9999% of flights he/she would never even need to get it out of it's holster is enough for me to realise that the arguments over the safety of having it aboard are for the most part redundant. One has to point out the bleedin' obvious here and say that the guys flying the AA flights on 911 would have wanted one would they not? Sorry to put it so blunt.
It really is a blunt deterent/message against having some nutter forcing their way into the flight deck and take control of the aircraft. To look the other way and shout "no guns please, we're British" to me sounds like some form of denial is going on.
Changes most definately need to be made to security in the airports first, I would not deny that for one second. These improvements need to be made now. But at the end of the day the responsibility for a flight will, as it always has done, land at the Captains feet.
It would sound a good idea to make it a Captain decision whether to carry a gun or not but if they're to be stored in a locked safe in the cockpit then this isn't possible is it?
VFE.
Last edited by VFE; 22nd May 2003 at 00:33.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If terrorists are willing to sacrifice their lives for their cause by crashing an A/C on purpose, a gun will not stop them. They will simply assign one, two, perhaps three of their number to take the first rounds as they break their way into the cockpit, and the terrorist pilot will use their bodies as shields.
In the ensuing melee they are likely to get hold of a/the gun, or incapacitate the cockpit crew in another way, and nothing will have been gained. Don't forget, these are dedicated peolpe we're dealing with.
No, the real security measures will have to be taken on the ground and in the factory. And yes, it will cost the airline industry dearly. But perhaps it is time for a radical shake up, just like the ocean liners experienced after WW2, when the long range aircraft started taking over their business over the Atlantic..
In the ensuing melee they are likely to get hold of a/the gun, or incapacitate the cockpit crew in another way, and nothing will have been gained. Don't forget, these are dedicated peolpe we're dealing with.
No, the real security measures will have to be taken on the ground and in the factory. And yes, it will cost the airline industry dearly. But perhaps it is time for a radical shake up, just like the ocean liners experienced after WW2, when the long range aircraft started taking over their business over the Atlantic..
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They will simply assign one, two, perhaps three of their number to take the first rounds as they break their way into the cockpit, and the terrorist pilot will use their bodies as shields.
Think about it.
VFE.
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well paxboy it appear your casual dismissal has been rather rudely disproved. Three armed hijackers caught yesterday attempting a 9/11 scenario. Glad your in the back,maybe you can talk them out of doing anything.
Welding doors shut and crating alternative entrances is hugely costly and probably unworkable for the present fleets.
It's here, it's now, and they will try it again. Sooner we grasp that and decide how to best deal with it the more likely it is that we will be able to keep the industry going.
Welding doors shut and crating alternative entrances is hugely costly and probably unworkable for the present fleets.
It's here, it's now, and they will try it again. Sooner we grasp that and decide how to best deal with it the more likely it is that we will be able to keep the industry going.
Paxing All Over The World
Paterbrat: Since they were stopped in the terminal building - glad that ground staff worked so well - we do not know what they might have done.
They might have been discovered before departure by another means.
They might have been capable of flying the machine.
They might not have been able to fly and planning an 'old fashioned' hijack and hostage.
They might have planned to simply crash the machine, rather than into a specific target.
We will never know what they had in mind or what they would have done or what resistence they might have met from crew and pax. It is impossible to say whether they would have succeeded or not. Under questioning, they have the chance to brag about what they were going to do and make out it was a really major event. We do not know and will never find the truth as we shall only hear information that governements want us to hear, since they now control these men.
I did not say that there would not be attempts. I said that there would be:
Yes, there will be some attempts at a/c hi-jacking but I doubt if the big boys will bother for a while.
We do not know if they were 'professionals' such as the 9/11 men or amateurs that have had a good idea and going off on their own without much planning.
However, the fact that they got caught for the (reported) simple reason of acting suspiciously, leads me to think that they were not the professional sort who succeeded so spectacularly on 9/11 and to whom I was referring.
So, I don't think that you can claim that a 'casual dismissal' that I did not make has been confounded. As you can see from my words, I specifically said that there would be more amateur attacks on a/c. Sadly, I was proved correct all to soon.
They might have been discovered before departure by another means.
They might have been capable of flying the machine.
They might not have been able to fly and planning an 'old fashioned' hijack and hostage.
They might have planned to simply crash the machine, rather than into a specific target.
We will never know what they had in mind or what they would have done or what resistence they might have met from crew and pax. It is impossible to say whether they would have succeeded or not. Under questioning, they have the chance to brag about what they were going to do and make out it was a really major event. We do not know and will never find the truth as we shall only hear information that governements want us to hear, since they now control these men.
I did not say that there would not be attempts. I said that there would be:
Yes, there will be some attempts at a/c hi-jacking but I doubt if the big boys will bother for a while.
We do not know if they were 'professionals' such as the 9/11 men or amateurs that have had a good idea and going off on their own without much planning.
However, the fact that they got caught for the (reported) simple reason of acting suspiciously, leads me to think that they were not the professional sort who succeeded so spectacularly on 9/11 and to whom I was referring.
So, I don't think that you can claim that a 'casual dismissal' that I did not make has been confounded. As you can see from my words, I specifically said that there would be more amateur attacks on a/c. Sadly, I was proved correct all to soon.
PAXboy,
If the Monty Python group ever starts a new TV series, I will be more than happy to highly recommend you as a writer.
By the way
Not one response to my earlier challenge of which scenario would one choose, the red or blue.
Too much mindless posturing to sooth ones own political beliefs.
If the Monty Python group ever starts a new TV series, I will be more than happy to highly recommend you as a writer.
By the way
Not one response to my earlier challenge of which scenario would one choose, the red or blue.
Too much mindless posturing to sooth ones own political beliefs.
Paxing All Over The World
WhatsaLizad?: There are clear instructions for all participants of PPRuNe, which is to discuss the subject and not impugn the person themselves, no matter how much you dislike what they are saying.
1) I made an observation.
2) You said that it had been disproved.
3) I pointed out what I had actually said, showing that I had said something different to your assertion. This demonstrated that I had not been 'disproved'
4) You insult me.
That is not how things are done in PPRuNe.
1) I made an observation.
2) You said that it had been disproved.
3) I pointed out what I had actually said, showing that I had said something different to your assertion. This demonstrated that I had not been 'disproved'
4) You insult me.
That is not how things are done in PPRuNe.
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just arrived in this evening. Our security source at the airport indicated that it was in fact the intention to do a number, despite what is now being claimed, and protestations to the contrary. It is being downplayed heavily by the authorities.
I am slightly taken aback at the overturning of the Stanstead hijackers sentences, not a good message to send. When is a hijack not a hijack ?????
Mike J I beg to differ there have been numerous incidents of incursions into the cockpit. In the past it was the thinking that one co-operated with the hijackers. The rules have changed and we may well have a situation where you would like something more than a cup of tea to protect yourself with. I certainly would. Your Wyatt Earp comment would seem to be a bit of the kettle calling the pot black?!
I am slightly taken aback at the overturning of the Stanstead hijackers sentences, not a good message to send. When is a hijack not a hijack ?????
Mike J I beg to differ there have been numerous incidents of incursions into the cockpit. In the past it was the thinking that one co-operated with the hijackers. The rules have changed and we may well have a situation where you would like something more than a cup of tea to protect yourself with. I certainly would. Your Wyatt Earp comment would seem to be a bit of the kettle calling the pot black?!
The general response of most governments to the Sept 11 attack seems to indicate that they're trying to milk this situation for all it's worth. I'm not surprised that someone would think of arming pilots, after all, this idea would be from the same people who decided that confiscating knitting needles and nail files would result in greater aircraft security.
If I were given the choice between the possibility of a terrorist hijacking and the absolute certainty of the madness that is being forced upon us by our own over-controlling authorities, ladies and gents-put me down for terrorist action. At least I've got a bloody good chance of not ever having to deal with them, and even if I did, the pain would be quite brief. With all the stupidity being thrust upon us in the name of our safety, there is no end, and there is no escape! And worse still, we're paying for it, whether it is in money or inconvenience or loss of freedom. And we'll pay for it regardless of the effectiveness of any proposal.
The quote "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees" seems somehow appropriate.
I suppose I don't buy the line that is being forced down our throats. Sorry, but I just don't think that something as big as Sept 11 will happen every day of the week unless we blast the snot out of every disgruntled Mossie on the planet and confiscate knitting needles from pregnant mums. In fact, it is just possible that blasting them will only stir them up further. Now who would have thought that those crazy ******s would react that way? I know that the idea is far-fetched but you just can't trust those loonies to behave like us civilised folk. We'd never react like that, would we?
I know, how about spending more of our money on hair-brained schemes that do little more than give more power to people who are ill-equipped to wield it while causing honest taxpayers to hate terrorists even more because of the drama they are putting them through for no good reason? You know, that idea just might get the nod.
Beware of Bureaucrats promising to look after your well-being!
If I were given the choice between the possibility of a terrorist hijacking and the absolute certainty of the madness that is being forced upon us by our own over-controlling authorities, ladies and gents-put me down for terrorist action. At least I've got a bloody good chance of not ever having to deal with them, and even if I did, the pain would be quite brief. With all the stupidity being thrust upon us in the name of our safety, there is no end, and there is no escape! And worse still, we're paying for it, whether it is in money or inconvenience or loss of freedom. And we'll pay for it regardless of the effectiveness of any proposal.
The quote "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees" seems somehow appropriate.
I suppose I don't buy the line that is being forced down our throats. Sorry, but I just don't think that something as big as Sept 11 will happen every day of the week unless we blast the snot out of every disgruntled Mossie on the planet and confiscate knitting needles from pregnant mums. In fact, it is just possible that blasting them will only stir them up further. Now who would have thought that those crazy ******s would react that way? I know that the idea is far-fetched but you just can't trust those loonies to behave like us civilised folk. We'd never react like that, would we?
I know, how about spending more of our money on hair-brained schemes that do little more than give more power to people who are ill-equipped to wield it while causing honest taxpayers to hate terrorists even more because of the drama they are putting them through for no good reason? You know, that idea just might get the nod.
Beware of Bureaucrats promising to look after your well-being!
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The general respons of most responsible Governments, MANWELL has been to urgently consider the ways in which to prevent other similar catastrophies, rather than 'to milk the situation'
Both a knitting needle and a nailfile could certaily inflict serious injury in the wrong hands.
The madness of extremism is presently loose amongst us and since you would seem to be somewhat slower than most if you haven't realised it already, one may excuse your confusion as to whom might have your wellbeing most at heart.
There will be many who would accept your right to 'die on your feet' also many who would rather not join you in your desire to apparently go quite so willingly. 'put me down for terrorist action'.
This thread is after all simply a solicitation of various ways in which it might be possible to keep the travelling public travelling, and those who are employed to do it, in gainful employment.
If the bureaurocrats were not actively looking for our well being they have no purpouse and we would be demanding their dismissal.
Both a knitting needle and a nailfile could certaily inflict serious injury in the wrong hands.
The madness of extremism is presently loose amongst us and since you would seem to be somewhat slower than most if you haven't realised it already, one may excuse your confusion as to whom might have your wellbeing most at heart.
There will be many who would accept your right to 'die on your feet' also many who would rather not join you in your desire to apparently go quite so willingly. 'put me down for terrorist action'.
This thread is after all simply a solicitation of various ways in which it might be possible to keep the travelling public travelling, and those who are employed to do it, in gainful employment.
If the bureaurocrats were not actively looking for our well being they have no purpouse and we would be demanding their dismissal.
Well, you are quick Paterbrat, I am a bit slow. In fact, I'm very slow when it comes to changing perceptions developed over a life time.
When governments and bureaucrats start behaving in manners contradictory to their established patterns then I'll consider changing. I don't see any real hurry to change you see.
Perhaps you feel the need to overreact to the terrorist threat but I still think that the possibility of becoming a victim is very slight, and as Chuck Yeager once said "If I can't do anything about it, I don't worry about it", or words to that effect.
Of course you could say that you can do something about it, and you'd be right, but it's probably not the sort of thing that you would think of doing. You can't extinguish hate with more hate, mate. And if someone hates you, hating them back seldom has the desired effect.
As someone else mentioned, terrorism doesn't have to confine itself to aviation. Open your eyes and see the big picture, if someone really hates us then there are literally thousands of ways for them to demonstrate that hate. P*ssing off pax in the name of security is a sure way to alienate the good guys as well!
Has the thought occurred to you that a good part of the reason for the global downturn in air travel may have something to do with the fact that pax are being treated like criminals when they try to board an aircraft?
When governments and bureaucrats start behaving in manners contradictory to their established patterns then I'll consider changing. I don't see any real hurry to change you see.
Perhaps you feel the need to overreact to the terrorist threat but I still think that the possibility of becoming a victim is very slight, and as Chuck Yeager once said "If I can't do anything about it, I don't worry about it", or words to that effect.
Of course you could say that you can do something about it, and you'd be right, but it's probably not the sort of thing that you would think of doing. You can't extinguish hate with more hate, mate. And if someone hates you, hating them back seldom has the desired effect.
As someone else mentioned, terrorism doesn't have to confine itself to aviation. Open your eyes and see the big picture, if someone really hates us then there are literally thousands of ways for them to demonstrate that hate. P*ssing off pax in the name of security is a sure way to alienate the good guys as well!
Has the thought occurred to you that a good part of the reason for the global downturn in air travel may have something to do with the fact that pax are being treated like criminals when they try to board an aircraft?
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike Jenvey your comment that ' Manwell has hit the nail on the head' puzzles me???
Manwell as far as I can make out does not want to ' P*ss the pax off in the name of security' and in the words of Chuck Yeager '..if I can't do anything about it I won't worry about it' !!!
'...the pain will be quite brief'
His choice between 'government action and terrorist action, was terrorist action.' Manwell's slowness/ inability to change his lifetime's reactions and perceptions is not the way to react to a dynamic and constantly evolving threat situation.
Inaction inertia and complacency will not ease the concerns of a traveling public or encourage bums back onto seats. It is instead a sad demonstration of complete and pathetic apathy in the face of a very real threat facing us all, and is not even the suggestion of a solution.
Sadly the reality of missile attacks are with us, and have been for some time, Joshua Nkomo proved that. All it takes is the willingness to step outside the normal bounds of civilised society, and we have had ample proof that there are many who will. It would seem that countermeasures for this eventuality may well be yet another cost factor that will squeeze the market yet further.
Manwell as far as I can make out does not want to ' P*ss the pax off in the name of security' and in the words of Chuck Yeager '..if I can't do anything about it I won't worry about it' !!!
'...the pain will be quite brief'
His choice between 'government action and terrorist action, was terrorist action.' Manwell's slowness/ inability to change his lifetime's reactions and perceptions is not the way to react to a dynamic and constantly evolving threat situation.
Inaction inertia and complacency will not ease the concerns of a traveling public or encourage bums back onto seats. It is instead a sad demonstration of complete and pathetic apathy in the face of a very real threat facing us all, and is not even the suggestion of a solution.
Sadly the reality of missile attacks are with us, and have been for some time, Joshua Nkomo proved that. All it takes is the willingness to step outside the normal bounds of civilised society, and we have had ample proof that there are many who will. It would seem that countermeasures for this eventuality may well be yet another cost factor that will squeeze the market yet further.
The idea of an accesible handgun on the FO's flightbag (because I would not want the headaches involved...) seems to me to be a Catch-22 situation. If it can be grabbed in one second, then where is it kept at the next airport-in a box that fits into a flightbag? If the bag stays in the cockpit as wander around, looking for processed or even unprocessed food in a US airport (!), where does he put the verdammten gun before he leaves the plane? We wear no uniform coats from May until September, except for the high-profile widebody crewmembers (and those who, ahem, want to look like one...). If the guy in the cockpit goes to the lav enroute, can he/she quickly lock it up when the Lead FA calls and says "the restroom is open", as I await the secret signal for the pilot's return entry? Where will the d****d gun be put (in Ops) on a layover? If every Ops agent knows the secret combination, then won't some of these get stolen, or will the number be changed every week? If a gun is stolen from company property, are replacements paid for by TSA or the airline?
In a nutshell, the idea of a crewmember keeping one while on duty might be a royal pain in the ass, and make our flightbags luggage tempting targets for a thief. A convicted burglar claimed that most US burglars look first for a pistol, and then jewelry (in which room do women keep most jewelry?! Only one guess is allowed. Many women [or men?] are clueless about how to hang on to it; let's keep it where it can be quickly found and dropped into a pillowcase...if the electric cables to your house get pulled OUT, your old security system might not function...).
In a nutshell, the idea of a crewmember keeping one while on duty might be a royal pain in the ass, and make our flightbags luggage tempting targets for a thief. A convicted burglar claimed that most US burglars look first for a pistol, and then jewelry (in which room do women keep most jewelry?! Only one guess is allowed. Many women [or men?] are clueless about how to hang on to it; let's keep it where it can be quickly found and dropped into a pillowcase...if the electric cables to your house get pulled OUT, your old security system might not function...).
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Existing technology is capable of producing a removable trigger mechanism which can be quickly slotted into the weapon. You carry the trigger mechanism, small and light, the weapon remains in a box in the cockpit. Box can be key (similar to cockpit door), or combination changed by maintainance on a scheduled basis and the combination issued to the Capt in ops prior to flight. Weapon is useless without trigger. I.O. You may now blithley wander on your search for fodder without having to pack heat. Weapon only assembled at Capt's discretion.
Nothing is foolproof. We cannot even prevent CFIT in a perfectly good machine so there will always be ways round any preventative measure. It is simply a small step towards taking care of one element of a problem facing us that is presently of concern to many, and may afford the cockpit crew some small measure of controlling an unpleasant situation getting many times worse.
Nothing is foolproof. We cannot even prevent CFIT in a perfectly good machine so there will always be ways round any preventative measure. It is simply a small step towards taking care of one element of a problem facing us that is presently of concern to many, and may afford the cockpit crew some small measure of controlling an unpleasant situation getting many times worse.
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There will be those amongst us who will belong to 'the horse has bolted' brigade, others who will only become believers when the apparition which appeared in the cockpit is only too unpleasantly real, and yet others who however reluctantly, acknowledge that once more we are faced with trying to look for ways to cope with yet one more additional problem in our chosen profession.
I am prepared to bet that had Wilbur turned to Orville and said ' now we have to start working on airspeed indicator/altimeter/ wheels/brakes' Orville may well have been a tad sceptical but also that he may well even have asked him why? and then followed that with how shall we begin? rather than telling him 'we probably won't ever need them!.
Terrorists in todays world pose us a multitude of questions moral, ethical and practical, it is up to us to find the answers, and saying it probably will not happen again won't hack it. These people are lethal, death is their aim, that is the point of their being what they are. Yes guns are dangerous, so is flying and so are the new fanatical hijackers.
I am prepared to bet that had Wilbur turned to Orville and said ' now we have to start working on airspeed indicator/altimeter/ wheels/brakes' Orville may well have been a tad sceptical but also that he may well even have asked him why? and then followed that with how shall we begin? rather than telling him 'we probably won't ever need them!.
Terrorists in todays world pose us a multitude of questions moral, ethical and practical, it is up to us to find the answers, and saying it probably will not happen again won't hack it. These people are lethal, death is their aim, that is the point of their being what they are. Yes guns are dangerous, so is flying and so are the new fanatical hijackers.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This debate is all very interesting, pros, cons, quid pro quo, QED.
All bloody marvellous.
But pointless anyway. Quite simply outside the USA pilots will not be armed. End of story.
In the USA with all it's enthusiasm for guns some will, in fact are being armed. But it will be a minority whatever happens. It won't last though. With locked armoured cockpit doors, passengers not willing to die for Allah and the relative difficulty in getting weapons on the aircraft. The 911 scenario will never happen again.
It's time to move the debate on and consider the next real threat, which is of course SAM missiles and bombs in the luggage.
One or other I suspect before the year is out.
All bloody marvellous.
But pointless anyway. Quite simply outside the USA pilots will not be armed. End of story.
In the USA with all it's enthusiasm for guns some will, in fact are being armed. But it will be a minority whatever happens. It won't last though. With locked armoured cockpit doors, passengers not willing to die for Allah and the relative difficulty in getting weapons on the aircraft. The 911 scenario will never happen again.
It's time to move the debate on and consider the next real threat, which is of course SAM missiles and bombs in the luggage.
One or other I suspect before the year is out.