Tripower,

I haven't read so much hogwash in a long time.

"it is really not that big a deal to hit a man sized target from 5 feet away."

Of course not. Just point the gun, pull the trigger, blast the hijacker's chest out - job's a good 'un. You can go home and sleep soundly in the knowledge of a job well done. And before any of you Yanks start yelping that they would rather kill a man than have your throat slit, stop and think about what you are saying. Soldiers in wars are trained, armed and ready to kill other men, and yet in the 20th century soldiers were shot for desertion rather than face combat. The proposal to arm pilots, even if it is 'only' with stun guns is something that will change the whole wolrd outlook on avaition. Which brings me to your next point.

"arm any pilots that had prior military or law enforcement training. As soon as the details could be worked out, train and arm the civilians that choose to do so"

Oh yes, I can just see Mr Bloggs the paranoid traveller. "Is my pilot armed? If not I'm not getting on." A 2 tier system is just about the most stupid thing you have propsed (after putting a gun on the aircraft at all, that is). The vast majority of pepole on this site arguing for guns are male Americans who have had some involvement in the military or law enforcement. Take a look at yourselves. Freedom for all is not all it cracked up to be. The children of numerous schools who have been killed by their classmates wouldn't say freedom to carry a gun is a good thing. And before you say I am anti american - I'm not. Just anti-stupidity.

So, Pandora, when the terrorists, intent on suicide, pushes his way past all the unarmed passengers on to your flightdeck, what do you propose to do. Poke his eye out with your ballpoint, maybe? When he has taken control of your aeroplane away from you, because you had no means of opposing his knife, will you walk sheepishly to the back of the aircraft, to be tied up, as were some of the crew on 11 SEP. At times like that you would regret not having had a gun in the first place.
Will the discussion move up a gear if they manage to pull a similar stunt, or are we all assuming that lightning will not strike twice.
As for Joe Public worrying about armed aircrew, would they rather a pilot had the means of preventing the suicide dive, or would they rather wait for the Sidewinder.
For those who feel that they would be unable to pull the trigger, there is not much I can say. However, that is no reason for denying the opportunity to the rest of us.

"OK Bob, nice handling of the efato and the de-pressurisation, now lets tie up the paperwork and get down to the gun range for your six-monthly target practice!"
Get real!
Loaded guns mean real trouble for people not regularly using them - and that means us I should hope. The only people carrying loaded guns should be military and police, and if we have an unloaded gun, what use is it?
Lets fix the cockpit door, get in cctv and get on with our lives.

Covenant me old.

I think you're wrong on this one. If we reach the stage where someone is breaking down the flight deck door, then if we lose the fight for the flight deck it is all over. It doesn't matter if the bad guys end up with a firearm or just a dangerously sharpened toothpick.

As far as winning the fight goes, I'd rather trust my strictly average skills with a handgun than my below average hand to hand capabilities with the crash axe. All your points about the stress of having to make that decision and do the deed for real are well made, but they apply even more so to hand to hand.

In a 'door breakdown' scenario, the door isn't going to evaporate. There is going to be a period of time where it is partially breached, allowing the crew to shoot out at a range of a perhaps 2 feet, but not permitting improvised clubs etc to be used in reverse. Simply bringing the weapon in the field of view of the terrorist would most likely make even the most dedicated suicidal attacker flinch and take cover for a while, even if you couldn't get a shot off, and every second will count because one of the good guys will be getting the aircraft on the ground ASAP.

Fundamentally, every defence can be breached
and this is why a layered, secret and unpredictable strategy is essential.

You'll remember the principles of war. Derivation of tactics depends on knowledge of enemy intentions. If the terrorist doesn't know our intentions, then it is difficult for them to come up with a plan.

CPB

Covenent - You're deeply challenged when it comes to critical thinking skills.

Could I kill a hijacker? ABSOLUTELY. It is obvious that you have no knowledge, experience, or even rational thought of self-defense, firearms, or anti-hijacking strategy.

You are one of those people that cower behind other men better than yourself for your defense.

The decision to defend oneself MUST be made ahead of time. No waffling, no doubts. Self-imposed self-doubt, irrevelent/false rationalizations like you present is a psychological cancer that will get you, you pax, crew, and thousands on the ground DEAD. If you can't handle it, it's a good thing you're not directly responsible for thousands of lives every month. Pilots must be self-reliant and decisive.

In my cockpit, the briefing between the pilots goes "UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL WE SURRENDER COMMAND OF THIS AIRCRAFT. WE WILL USE WHATEVER FORCE NECESSARY TO DEFEND OURSELVES, OUR PASSENGERS, CREW, AND AIRCRAFT.

You also obvious that you have no idea about firearms training in the military or police, either.

Being wrong??? If someone is breaking down the cockpit door, they not there to bring me coffee.

Covenent, you're critical thinking skills are deeply wanting and are typical of someone who spouts off opinions based on an emotional agenda without subject knowledge or rational thinking.

Obviously not..........

Don't tell me what I think...........You obviously have no idea what you're talking about! Posession of a firearm doesn't make anyone invincible, actually, I know that, because I have had posession of firearms my entire adult life. It is merely a tool. I realize that years of socialist education have made you think that you are too stupid to operate one, but I am of the opinion that if you'd get OFF your high horse, and actually think the situation through till the end, that there is no other choice!

Actually, just like any other emergency in the aircraft, there is a certain amount of mental prep needed for this as well.......I figured that since I was talking (presumably) to a fellow pilot, that this point would be obvious.

What if I have had years of experience (which I have.....I've been handling firearms at least as long as I've been flying).......the point is moot, since you either trust my judgement, or you don't. Just because it's a (gasp) gun that we're discussing, doesn't change my thinking patterns............

Bad analogy............I will once again repeat myself........If the terrorist gets in the cockpit, and we are unarmed, we have no chance of defending the aircraft. This is simple, folks! The choice is would you rather have your throat slit, or defy the years of brainwashing and use a little logic........

Actually, it is you that fail to grasp the practicalities of the situation........

Well, there you are probably right! Logic would dictate that the weapon be carried on the pilot's person, ready for immediate use. Governmental institutions are known for their logical thinking. Leaving an unattended weapon in the cockpit is asking for trouble. That is opening up a huge can of worms. I don't want to be responsible for or rely on a weapon that I've never shot, or have any clue about it's mechanical condition. Unless they will let us pop off a few rounds prior to accepting tha aircraft, I'd feel uncomfortable. If the pilot has his own weapon, that he is responsible for maintaining, then there is no confusion about safety catches, loading status etc......Last time I checked, there were no rules regarding the disposition of an LEO's weapon aboard my airplane. They are carrying concealed handguns in the back of my airplane. What kind of counter terrorist training do you think a postal inspector has? The FAA has no problem letting them on my airplane with a loaded gun! Why are pilots too stupid to have one?

I agree, it IS stupid to spend all these resources to confiscate toiletries. It would be much cheaper and effective to simply train and arm pilots.

How do you feel about the sky marshall program...........that plants a gun right in the middle of the cabin, where there are lots of tactical problems and liabilities, and a much greater likelyhood of the terrorists taking control of the weapon, or of a passenger getting hit. I don't care how well "trained" they are. If there are enough bad guys, they will get the gun..........

Not arming pilots as a last resort is so stupid, it makes MY head spin........

[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: Tripower455 ]

Tripower455, you asked where my "superdoor" was. Well have a look here Hardened Cockpit Security System and it can get even better.

All well and good (about the secure door)..... but what happens if you want to take a crap, or when the cabin crew bring you in some tea or a meal ?

The door only needs only be open for a split second for any nutter to make a dash & grab for it, and then where are you ?!

Certainly on a B737 (which I fly) a 'hardened door' will only work if we cocoon ourselves in the cockpit for the duration of the flight, which is not (as yet, due to the overall aircraft flight-deck / galley design) practicable, i.e. the B737-NG's have a seriously long endurance (3500Nm's), one which is almost certainly longer than my bladders !

That said, I like the idea of the add-on video system, it'd certainly come in handy for checking out the top-totty ;)

Ps. If we're gonna have shooters, make mine either a Browning 9mm (10 in the clip, plus 1 in the chamber) or a good'ole Colt45 (plus an extra clip please, as I might need more than 8 rounds - hope I don’t though), all with soft-nose / hollow-point ammo. Ta.

[quote[Ps. If we're gonna have shooters, make mine either a Browning 9mm (10 in the clip, plus 1 in the chamber) or a good'ole Colt45 (plus an extra clip please, as I might need more than 8 rounds - hope I don’t though), all with soft-nose / hollow-point ammo. Ta.

[/quote]


While I prefer the ergonomics of the single action autos, imho, a DAO auto or a Glock type would be more appropriate for cockpit defense. I am right handed, but sit in the left seat. Trying to manipulate the safety, while bringing the gun to bear with the left hand would use up valuable time.

[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: Tripower455 ]

Devils, a bucket in the corner should do the trick.

I can just see the headlines "Airliner hijacked, Pilot cought with his pants down." ;)

Those doors would be awesome. BUT WHERE ARE THEY? They certainly are NOT in my aircraft!

The bucket in the corner is also an interesting idea........Not too different from the pax lav in the DHC-7! It WAS a bucket!

To come back to BA's stun gun suggestion which started this thread, I have to say it sounds like a damn good idea. It would certainly maker it much harder for anyone -either terrorist or drunken git -to force their way into the flight deck, but if it fell into the bad guys hands it would not allow them to fend off 100 plus passengers for long.

You might as well GIVE the stun gun to the hijacker/drunk. One needs to actually TOUCH the assailant with the stun gun. While sitting strapped in your seat with the yoke between your legs, reach behind you and try to touch a guy thats standing up behind you. He will merely back up out of the way until he can grab your wrist. Your arm WILL be broken as soon as he gets hold of your wrist, and hyperextends it around the seat back. He has all of the advantage by standing behind you. If you give it to him, then MAYBE your arm won't get broken before you are shocked with it. ..... Stun guns are worse than nothing at all.......

Until something more permanent can be installed, perhaps the only fool-proof solution is to seal the cockpit completely from the cabin with a three-inch thick hardened metal wall aft of L/R 1. Then it wouldn’t matter what happened in the cabin, the only way to access the cockpit would be on the ground via a separate entry door. No guns required, stun or otherwise.

I was just out looking at buckets, Devil, and some of them come in very eye-pleasing colours. (I even saw one with a bulls-eye painted on the inside bottom.) You just have to go easy on the hotter curries the night before.

Capt Pit Bull

Your argument about trusting your hand to hand skills less than your weapons skills overlooks an important point. When the terrorist is armed with a gun, they have a tactical advantage over everyone else on the aeroplane. When no one has a weapon, you now have at a hundred or more able bodied passengers able to assist you in your hand-to-hand fighting. That evens the odds up somewhat over the scenario where a firearm is involved.

Isn't that the whole point of any weapon? It amplifies your physical power. My argument is that we must ensure that there is absolutely no chance of any such "amplifier" being let onto an aircraft because it allows a minority to impose its will on a majority. Just the fact that there is one on the plane allows for the possibility that it can be used to gain control of the flight deck.

Maybe I can illustrate this point mathematically. I hasten to add that the figures I use are arbitrary and only meant to demonstate a point.

Let us suppose that, for any given flight, despite your best attempts and your military or law-enforcement training, with proper planning, intelligence and assistance, a terrorist has a 5% chance of disarming you before you manage to incapacitate him.

Now we need to look at the probablitis of an armed and an unarmed terrorist securing control of the flight deck. I believe that since Sept 11, the chances of an unarmed terrorist securing control of the flight deck are very small - say 1%. I think that recent events support my theory. However, the chances of an armed terrorist securing control of the flight deck are pretty high - let's say around 80%.

So, doing the maths: If a firearm is on board, the net probability of the terrorist gaining control of the flight deck is

0.05 x 0.8 = 0.04 or 4%

If a firearm is not on board the best chance the terrorist has is 1%, according to my estimate above.

Now, you may argue with my figures - that's fine, but it doesn't invalidate my argument, only my conclusion. If you can prove to me that my estimates are wrong then I may change my mind. Until then, I believe rationally - not emotionally - that the very presence of a firearm on board an aircraft increases rather than decreases the danger of hijack.

Roadtrip
You appear to be even more deeply challenged in analytical skills than I since you obviously are unable to distinguish betwen an emotional argument and a rational one. I defy to you point out one sentence of mine that even mentions or alludes to emotion.

The true sign of someone who is incapable of rational thought is one who descends to insult in lieu of argument. If you read back through the thread, you may get my point - assuming your critical thinking is as good as you suppose it is.

Tripower
You're ranting. Please try and calm down a little. If you get this excited about an on-line discussion, I dread to think how you would respond to a cockpit emergency.

You don't know anything about my background with firearms, so you are in no position to make reference to what I know about it. As to the "socialist" gibe, Capt Pit Bull knows me personally, and he could tell you how laughable that is.

To answer your quesiton about sky marshals, I thought my previous posts would have made that clear. I am against the idea of having any firearms whatsoever permanently on board an aircraft (or, more specifially, "predictably on board an aircraft") . If it makes you feel any better, if I was to give a list of people on an aircraft who could potentially legally posses firearms, the order of how bad an idea I think it is goes as follows:

1. Cabin Crew
2. Sky Marshals
3. Flight Crew

Discussing the merits of handguns/stun guns etc. people are missing an important disadvantage. If you are driving you are looking and facing forward. To use a weapon you have to:
1. react to disturbance by turning round
2. decide what is happening
3. decide to reach for your gun
4. fire it
Important time is lost, so how about a simple automatic system?
I propose a blunderbus rigidly attached to the cockpit coaming facing aft, with a string leading from the trigger via a pulley to the cockpit door. Anyone opening the door would then be automatically deposited in small pieces in the aft toilet, and no reaction/thinking time would be lost.
Simple really.

Forget the idea of a separate entry door for crew members which would go directly to the cockpit. The factors are cost, extra weight to the airframe, engineering problems and the amount of interior pax space that would be required for the installation.

It may be possible to devise a "dual use" door that can accomodate crew and pax but which can then be left in the pax mode only but this raise very serious evacuation emergency issues.

The strengthened cockpit door (repositioned to include a crew toilet on long endurance aircraft) is the most feasible idea. A double "airlock" type door would be best but once again the airlines are going to scream because it would probably cause them to need to remove some pax seats.

To get back to the theme of this post. I remember reading a report unconnected with recent events - probably by a police dept. somewhere, that stun guns were ineffective against very big people or people operating under a high state of arousal caused by drugs, boose or adrenalin etc. Anybody know the facts?

My bet is with a large caliber, low velocity soft lead bullet. It is understandable that people brainwashed to the "evils" of handguns feel uncomfortable about the idea of arming pilots but the basic logic is incontrovertible, it is the same as medical triage logic. Why let everyone die because you may have limited deaths or injuries due to misdirected bullets? What we are talking about here is not arming crews for immediate heroic intervention in a terrorist act but arming them as a last ditch defence should the flyability of the aircraft and the lives of the pax be undubitably in danger.

Non americans please consider that in the US the urge for individual action and self reliance is strongly ingrained. This is not just a psycho., macho reaction. Many americans, and a large proportion of pilots, are hunters and survivors in a way more restricted europeans cannot imagine (I know one fellow who hunts deer with a traditional bow - but only in winter on snowshoes to keep things fair). This will probably start a whole new comment campaign but after you have shot a few deer or elk etc. you tend to lose the undesirable excitement (called "buck fever" over here) that prevents you making a considered and accurate shot. Despite the comments from some respondents about poor shooting and inability to act sensibly during stress let me assure you I personally know several pilots I would not want to tangle with in a hijacking. This number includes some who, in previous jobs, were actually permitted to carry loaded firearms into the pax cabin of an aircraft but are now considered unworthy ("go figure" as they say over here).

The only real problem I see with using a firearm on the flight deck is that of adopting a firing position from a pilot seat. Consider, though, that with the new cockpit doors we are promised and improved access procedures we would have at least 30 seconds of warning to take up a commanding firing position. That is plenty of time to remove a pistol from your flight bag and get into position.
In case you think I am another american looney I should add that this is the opinion of a twenty year UK expat.

[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: BOING ]

Boing

Let me just clear something up here. I am not against arming pilots because of a belief that guns are "evil". I actually think the UK laws on guns are stupid in the extreme, and I certainly have no objection to the American desire to own guns. I'm not a pacifist, I'm not a socialist, I'm not even a liberal. I am concerned that we don't make hasty decisions that will lead to more problems in the future.

This shouldn't become a Europe/USA argument because it's not about attitudes to handguns - whether pro or anti - which I'm sure Roadtrip would rightly describe as emotional arguments. This should be a rational argument purely on the basis of safety.

With regard to your paragraph about Americans as "hunters/survivors", I just had to do a double-take. Maybe you move in more elevated circles than I, but in my experience, the majority of hunters are not some kind of Rambo/Delta Force hard guy. The case you quoted of the person who hunted with a bow has to be the exception that proves the rule. Most hunters that I've met have high-powered rifles with telescopic sights, usually sitting around in hides with all sorts of high-tech gear to make the experience rather akin to a video game. Hunters they are not. Survivors they most certainly are not. Again, I'm not an animal rights type, but if you were to characterise hunting in the USA, I don't think "fair" would be one of the words that leaps to mind.

Shooting a deer with a hunting rifle at 100 yards is a world apart from shooting a human being with a handgun three feet away from you. Strange as it may sound, I think that paintballing probably prepares you better for combat better than "hunting" - which is to say not very much at all.

Furthermore, what you appear to be saying is that Americans are culturally better equipped to handle firearms than Europeans (or, I presume, any other national). What are you implying then? That only American pilots should be armed?

[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: Covenant ]

Ranting? If I post a differing opinion on a subject that it is quite obvious you are unfamiliar with, is that ranting? By refuting an opinion that I disagree with, is that ranting?

If your responses and observations of this issue are any indication of the rest of your analytical thought process', then I dread to think how you would respond to a cockpit emergency.........I already KNOW how I respond.........

BTW, I like Budgie's blunderbuss idea......

[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: Tripower455 ]

First of all, Covenant, you should be more careful in your choice of hunting partners. I am referring to the people who are the subject of this discussion, the pilots. What slob hunters do is no concern of this thread. The pilots I hunt with are honourable, responsible and skilled and, indeed, they look with disgust on the type of hunters you describe.

I would argue, since you raise the point, that some americans are more culturally equipped to use a firearm than some other national groups (not all, take the tribal Afghanis as an example). The reason is that the effective use of a firearm requires ABILITY and RESOLVE. Since more american members of our subject pilot group have received official training in firearm use, have experience in hunting, have family exposure to firearms, take part in shooting sports and have no official prohibition on the use of firearms it is inevitable that they will have greater ABILITY in the use of firearms than other less practiced groups. Sorry, but as a practical matter there it is. In addition, since these same people have often been trained in the use of firearms to resolve confrontations and since the US culture in general accepts firearm use in self defence there is a greater RESOLVE to use a firearm in this group than in other groups (individual moral choice honoured, respected and accepted) . Therefore, I think we can say that US pilots are culturally better equipped to use firearms than some other national groups. No GENETIC difference here, just the national or cultural matter of practice and exposure which encourage skill in use and determination to use.

Never had the need to shoot anybody myself, at least not with a handgun when I could see their face. I can tell you, in my case, that in hunting you quickly get over the "overexcitement" of your first shot at game. After recovering from that first twitching session it did not recur regardless of what the target has been. Never know, of course, but I suspect that in an emergency and not having time to reflect on the morality of the situation I would probably treat a terrorist just like a funny shaped Kangaroo. After effects may not be pleasant but better than the eternal alternative.

Tallyho, judy, splash

Covenant,

I've recieved your private message, and want to apologize for appearing to "rant". I use capital letters because I am too lazy to try to figure out bold or italics in UBB. As for me jumping on anyone that disagrees, I suggest you re read the entire post and see who has been jumped on. Even you have questioned my judgement, based on my posts that disagree with you. My opinion is that you are not that knowledgable re: firearms usage based on your posts, despite your military service.......Prove me wrong!

This is a subject that hits very close to home.

I spend 75-80 hours a month in the cockpit of several types of B-737's. I can see what works and what doesn't as far as security goes, and I can tell you, even with all of the eyewash at the airports, they could repeat their performance of 9/11. BTW, Atta, and a few of the other "suspects" were frequent flyers on my airline prior to 9/11..........

I also spend a lot of time in the leo community. A close friend is a narcotics detective for our local PD. For the last 5 years, I have assisted them in their close quarter firearms training, as well as unarmed training. I (among others) play the bad guy. Suffice it to say that I have a few bruises.........I feel that this experience, coupled with almost 13,000 hours in the air, most of that in scheduled airline service, gives me some big picture perspective on the issue. I harbor no illusion of gunfights at FL 350. I merely see a problem that needs to be solved.

When the subject of arming pilots was brought up in the wake of 9/11, I was originally against the idea, for a lot of the very reasons brought up here. After talking to many of my fellow pilots, and thinking the problems through to the end, the only conclusion I can come to is to arm the flight deck. I am not alone in this thinking. I can name just 2 of my fellow pilots that I have spoken to in the last month who are against arming pilots. I work for a major US carrier. Maybe that is the reason for consensus among my peers. See Boings post.......

I can also say that I am not very comforted by the fact that my future co-pilots in the F-Teens are waiting for me to sqwawk hijack.

There needs to be an effective means to defend the cockpit against suicidal wackos. The last line of defense is currently the aforementioned F-Teen driver. I'd like to see something between that and the ex fast food workers manning the "security" points! The door is a great start. Better pax screening would be nice (especially if they'd start targeting likely terrorists rather than little kids, pilots and octagenarians!)and x-ray of checked bags are all part of defending against the type of terror we saw on 9/11.

The bottom line is that if they make it into the cockpit, all of this is for naught. The only hope we have is that one of us can get out of the seat and meet Mr. Atta head on with the crash axe, and hope that the pilot flying can make it somewhere, or at least cage the engines before the terrs take over.......

[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: Tripower455 ]

Boing

You missed the point of my question. I wasn't debating whether indeed Americans are more culturally able to handle firearms. This sidesteps the issue, because not all airline pilots are Americans. Again, are you suggesting that we only arm American pilots?

Tripower
Likewise, I apologise if any of my comments denigrated you or your opinions.

There is a world of difference between arguing your point and accusing someone of being ignorant or incompentent simply because they disagree with you. I think I hold a valid opinion, and it contributes nothing to the argument to claim that I only hold it because I'm stupid or know nothing.

My first post, 10/16/01 16:49, contained no derogatory remarks, simply an opinion with some questions and some argument. For that, I received from you the following:

From Roadtrip I got the following:

This isn't argument, it's abuse. Yes, I reacted to it, that is one of my failings. I know it's not a very good defence, but all I can say is that I didn't start it.

What I object to most is that because I express an opinion that is against pilots being armed, I get jumped on as if I were some kind of gun-hating, pinko, liberal European wimp who has never seen or handled a gun in his life.

By the way, I don't think there is a consenus among your colleagues about this, Boing's opinion notwithstanding. This thread proves that.

[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: Covenant ]

This thread is hardly indicative of any consensus, either way.

Who on Pprune is a pilot and who isn't? I might not be a pilot!

Consensus among my fellow US airline pilots is for arming pilots. Heck, APA (AAL's pilot's union) is officially behind arming pilots. My union (which represents over 4000 pilots) is also considering going that route. Every poll given to the American public supports arming pilots.

APA Security Proposals


Try not to be so sensitive there Covenant.....

[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: Tripower455 ]

Gentlemen,

I share the anger and bewilderment felt by most of us in the profession. Allow me, however, to point out something which may seem far-fetched, but nevertheless remains a disturbing possibility.

At the risk of sounding alarmist, does your company know the complete background, list of acquaintances past and present, personal habits, and any other relevant detail of each and every pilot in its employ. Is it possible that a sleeper cell of terrorists already have in place one or more pilots working for a Western carrier, awaiting a signal from Bin Latte. And if not, is each and every pilot in the Western world immune to recruitment by these people via coercion, blackmail, large sums of money, or the well-known methods of persuasion and brainwash in use by various religious cults

For these reasons alone, perhaps sealing off the cockpit completely and avoiding weapons of any kind is the sensible thing to do.

We live in a changed world.

bugg smasher,

im not a pilot, but surely if terrosists have reached so far as to actually have their men employed by airlines then we are screwed either way.

what difference does having a gun make?

if they are in control of 300tonne a/c loaded with fuel without highjacking the a/c, gun or no gun we are dead.

Covenant.

Sorry mate - You're analysis is faulty.

I assume an organised group of terrorists attempting a replay of 11/09/01.

If the flight crew are armed (as opposed to Sky Marshalls or anyone else in the Cabin), then the terrorists only gain possession of the weapons after they have secured the flight deck.

My preferred response to their attempt to do this would be to order the cabin crew to defend the flight deck door, (from the outside) to prevent the terrorists from reaching a point where they could batter it down. This means hand to hand fighting, in which the remainder of passengers are available to assist in exactly the manner you describe. Probably, total chaos ensues.

If the terrorists manage to subdue everyone, and break the door down, we then quite likely have a situation where quite possibly they still have strength of numbers. If so, by your own analaysis, I need a 'Force multiplier' to prevail.

Fundamentally, if cabin crew plus passengers have already been defeated in hand to hand, what chance does flight crew have?

CPB

Capt Pit Bull

I don't agree with this. Take the following two scenarios:

Flight crew are unarmed. Terrorists rush the cockpit and proceed to subdue the flight crew by hand-to-hand. Cabin crew and passengers respond and should be able to subdue the terrorists. As you say, chaos might ensue, and God knows what will happen to the aircraft while this is going on, but nevertheless, it is a feasible scenario.

Second scenario: Flight crew armed. Terrorists storm the cockpit and manage to wrest control of a firearm before it can be used effectively by flight crew. Agreed, there is an undefined chance of success, but once again, this is a feasible scenario. Now, the terrorists can do what they want with impunity, and on top of it all, they have the force multiplier to even the odds against the cabin crew and passengers whose weight of numbres is now nullified.

I don't see how these two perfectly conceivable situations tie in with your assertion that I quoted above.

I don't think my analysis is faulty. On the contrary, I think your premise is faulty! :)

Well back to the topic gents.
I've got a $1000 that says you won't be seeing stun-guns or TASERS in a FBW Airbus or BA. Any takers?
And I'll let you guess why (or if lazy, read my earlier post).

DD http://www.iasa-intl.com/RoboLander.htm

Covenant still intentionally ignores the fact that armed pilots must be behind a hardened, breach-resistant cockpit door that would give the pilots at least 30 seconds of decision time. With that time and two firearms, it is highly unlikely that the cockpit crew would lose command of the aircraft.

No concensus about arming pilots among the profession? Since you know so much about this topic, I am surprised that you don't know that in the US, which by far has the largest aviation industry and is currently the targeted area, both ALPA and the APA endorse arming of pilots for last-ditch cockpit defense. Or maybe, you don't know what those organizations are.

Got any opinions on brain-surgery, Covenant? You probably know about as much about that as aviation security.

[ 18 October 2001: Message edited by: Roadtrip ]

Covenant,

Looking back I see that I implied, but did not expressly state, that a solid door with a locked during flight regimen would need to be in place. Without that, yes, I agree with you.

Peaople have commented on this thread and others that, for a variety of reasons, a reasonably sturdy locked door will not prevent terrorist entrance to the flight deck. Due to the public nature of this forum I am not going to get into detailed discussion on these point other than to say that every problem I've seen mentioned so far is solveable.

CPB

And Roadtrip,

Notwithstanding that we agree with one another, your final comment to Covenant is just plain rude.

I've known him for years and rest assured he is no dummy. If he thinks there a problem with something you'd be advised to listen carefully. He might well be wrong but rudeness is not necessary.

CPB

CPB -
When it comes to issues of life & death and my family's livihood, I don't easily suffer fools or those with blind agendas.

Covenant has about as much business telling pilots how to fly and defend their command of the aircraft as I have telling mechanical engineers how to design gas turbines.

Roadtrip

I would not dream of telling you how to fly an aeroplane, but that's not what we're talking about. This is about dealing with terrorists, and my qualifications are no better and no worse than yours in this respect. It might have escaped your attention, but holding a pilot's license does not make you an expert on security, terrorism or firearms.

Whether you like it or not, the decision will not be taken by pilots or by engineers, but by politicians and lawmakers who have just as little right in your eyes as I to make a judgement on the issue.

You might do better to refine your arguments so that you convince them, rather than hiding behind the elitism of your profession and asserting that no one else is qualified to hold an opinion.

Capt Pit Bull
I defer to your sensible wish not to discuss the efficacy of locked/reinforced cockpit doors on this forum. A lot depends on this point however, and I hope it is being considered in conjunction with the question we have been discussing.

I was going to phone you and say my last words on this matter, but it's getting a bit late now so I'll write them here. I think there are good arguments on both sides of this debate. A lot depends on the risks of arming pilots compared to the actual benefit to security.

It may be that, in the final analysis, the benfits outweigh the risks, but in my mind, the jury is very much still out on the issue, and I have yet to be completely convinced otherwise.

Relaxez-vous.... ;)

Surely this is about the pros and cons of arming our chosen profession, not directing abuse at our colleagues!

As one who opposes the introduction of any weapon onto my aircraft -in any form- I would consider that the two main forms of security on board are:

1. Prevent certain individuals from boarding.
2. Prevent any that slip through the net from getting anywhere near the flight deck.

I think we refer to this as a swiss cheese model...? ;)

As to how we go about achieving those two objectives that is of course up for discussion... but I do not believe that arming us at the sharp end is the answer. In fact, it does seem rather foolish and would not make me feel at all safe at work.

I for one, hope we do not see any weapons introduced ever.

A message to my fellow countrymen.

-----------
"Since more American members of our subject pilot group have received official training in firearm use, have experience in hunting, have family exposure to firearms, ...

Boing"

By "family exposure" Boing, I suppose you do not refer to the heavily armed gentlemen that walk into family restaurants and vent their deranged anger in the form of multiple rounds per minute, or perhaps, God forbid, to the high-school children that borrow Mom & Dad's semi-automatic corner-store weapon plus a clip or two to settle teenage scores with the peer group.

------------

"The bottom line is that if they make it into the cockpit, all of this is for naught...

Tripower455"

Surely, Tripower, the solution lies in preventing access to the cockpit in the first place.

---------------

"gun-hating, pinko, liberal European wimp who has never seen or handled a gun in his life...

Covenant"

Pardon me? I am sure you do not wish to be seen as exactly that, Covenant, but somewhat carelessly paraphrased, no doubt, from one of the many educated and illuminatingly profound speeches given by NRA spokesman of note Charleton Heston. That very famous person acquired his initial fame in "Planet of the Apes", and if the rest of us are to be given a reasonable chance at continued survival, that is most squarely where he must remain.

I am appalled by the trigger-happy nature of this exchange, and wonder why our European brothers haven't reacted strongly to this thread. The body-bag count is already horrifically high, and increasing in leaps and bounds by each and every blood-thirsty day. If you truly wish to wield the weapon of your fondest desires, I believe the FAA is in the process of recruiting Air Marshals.

We, as a professional group, have miserably failed the world at large by not performing due diligence in anticipating the unspeakably rapacious obscenities of the 11th. And for that, my friends, we shall not be forgiven any time soon. So, let's get on with it, put the penis multiplier away, let's leave that to those that are trained for it, our business is to get the wives, kids, fathers and mothers safely from A to B. We have a fair bit of work to do.

Well, if the terrorists just agree to stay off our aircraft, wouldn't that be an effective solution? Why don't we just ask them not to hijack aircraft!

As I have repeatedly said, we can take all of the preventative measures one can think of, but it is all for naught once Abdul enters the cockpit..........

Frisking pilots (as well as other low threat passengers) at the gate, placing National Guardsmen (with unloaded weapons) at the "security" checkpoints, making people take their laptops out of bags to go throuh an X-RAY machine, checking the Captain's ID ON THROUGH FLIGHTS (!), checking the same fake ID 12 times, giving ramp workers unfettered access to secure areas/aircraft, etc, etc, etc, will DO NOTHING to prevent another tragedy like 9/11.

Stronger cockpit doors will increase the safety factor a lot. They just need to be installed in order to be effective........

Profiling possible terrorist passengers would likely be effective.

The sky marshall program is a zero equation. I'll (generously) give that a 50/50 chance of successfully thwarting a hijacking. A gun in the cabin is much more of a wild card than one in the cockpit. I'd prefer the sky mashalls were unarmed........THAT willl keep guns from the terrorists. While we're at it, why not restrict all of the other Federal LEO's from carrying guns on our airplanes. As I've stated before, how many USDA chicken inspectors, IRS agents or postal workers have had the much talked about (on Pprune, anyway) training to deal with jijackers on board an aircraft. They are not special forces :rolleyes:. Anyone that thinks that these fine individuals are OK in the back of a commercial airliner, CAN'T have a valid reason for keeping pilots unarmed........

Stun Guns? Give me a break!