If I'm not mistaken, I believe that actually occurred at the ending of Debt of Honor, serving as a prelude to Executive Orders.

Dangers of a ND notwithstanding, it appears the FFDO program may be designed as a last resort before the fast jets take over with their own weaponry. Gruesome though it may be, is that not the likely fate of any commercial aircraft in the West that doesn't comply with ATC etc.? Whether it reached that point by someone overcoming an air marshall, a reinforced door or armed pilot seems a bit academic once it has occurred. :uhoh:

CB - I guess you are right about the title, it was along time ago when I read it. The point is that is was in print before 911.

Re your 2nd para.
The main question on the thread is guns on the flight deck or not??

What happens after the terrorists have control is another matter entirely.

And I hope to hell that an a/c is not shot down in the European part of the West for not 'complying with ATC'.

There could be many genuine reasons for that.

Interesting question. For many years I carried arround a square foot of ballistic kevlar in one of my carry-on side compartments that had been well used in ballistic testing against all sorts of arms. Most of the bullets were still embedded in the kevlar. I finally decided that in this day and age that the simple discovery of it by some security inspector would raise more questions than I had time to answer trying to catch a flight, So I took it out of my carry on.

In the interests that this thread has gotten so broad in content I respectably decline to answer further questions about this in this thread.:O

Lead heads
 

A bullet proof vest is not visible if worn under a shirt.
You won't know if the bad guy is wearing one or not so you have to go for a head shot. It doesn't have to be worn to get past security, 'nough said.

Reliance and or over confidence that the bad guy can be defeated with a single shot (because thats all you may get) is a mistake because rather than grappling with the guy in the cockpit you'll be doing a quick draw Mc Graw, most likely with a unsuccessful outcome unless you get him/her in the head.

I'm not against inflicting deadly force on the bad guys but their (must be) other strategies and devices that require less pilot currency, technical training and self control to reliably implement.



Mickjoebill

Nicely put, I couldn't agree more.

MJB - 100% agree with your last piece.
But I cant believe that US pilots would be trained to go for a head shot on a moving target, even at close range. No way.

AirScrew

Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: EGHP
Posts: 17
http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/misc/im_yahoo.gif http://mystatus.skype.com/smallicon/jonathan.airey

MJB - 100% agree with your last piece.
Quote:
I'm not against inflicting deadly force on the bad guys but their (must be) other strategies and devices that require less pilot currency, technical training and self control to reliably implement.
But I cant believe that US pilots would be trained to go for a head shot on a moving target, even at close range. No way.

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

Hopefully no one every details to you what is, or isn't, included in the training.

The nice thing about any self defense training at this level is that it's not on the 1000 yd, 500 yd, or 1000 inch ranges. Shoot, even practicing on a 100 inch range would be unrealistic. This isn't urban, or open terrain, combat with a sidearm. It's spitting distance, or closer, depending upon the aircraft cockpit.

P.S. CA Bud Flagg was EXTREMELY well liked at AA.

I just couldn't help it I had to post (Specialy when people with no knowledge or intelligence at all go on an US bashing spree..). How about this, TSA misses gun (Human error or stupidity), or gun is introduced by accomplices working in the secure area of the airport or a "special" composite gun is assembled in the plane (after being carried by several different passengers). Hijacker (s) takes control of the passenger cabin and then shoots the lock to the cockpit to gain access. so for all the fools out there, maybe you should go and live in some hippie community with peace forever.... this is a very real and dangerous world. So the last line of defence is the crew inside the cockpit an the gun they carry give them a better chance. this is reality.

I see a lot of problems with "shooting the locks out."
Have you ever tried shooting a lock? Are you sure this procedure works?

Sorry pro-gun guys, but some of the arguments here for armed pilots are really really reaching. I think it reflects poorly on the pro-gun crowd.

And please, no "cars kill people too". I don't think pilots want to park their cars in the cockpit either. :}

TSA procedures bad?

See link. :ugh:

Erm...no offence meant, Melax, but do you mean discharging a firearm in order to shoot the lock off...an armoured door???

How about this. I am said to have some intelligence (my day job is, after all, as university professor) and I did live in California for 18 years, so maybe I am qualified to answer?

The particular hippy community I live in is called Western Europe, way away from the "very real and dangerous world" that Philadelphia may be. Indeed, I am citizen of a country in which all forms of private ownership of firearms, except for shotguns, is illegal. And nobody here in Western Europe has felt the need to arm pilots. That seems to be a situation which you are far away from being able to comprehend. So be it.

Let me suggest that, when entering an international discussion, one try to comprehend and engage the arguments, rather than spit on them. It leaves a much better impression.

PBL

As much as I despise the TSA I agree wholeheartdly with them on their reluctance to arm pilots.

Unfortunately politics stepped in..

TSA Forces Armed Pilots To Use Booby-Trap Holster
 

Check out the video on www.liveleak.com. Its titled TSA Forces Armed Pilots To Use Booby-Trap Holster. If you go to Media Map (new) and scroll down the right side to find TSA Forces Armed Pilots To Use Booby-Trap Holster.

"Like saying "sulphuric acid isn't dangerous - scientists with slippery hands are dangerous"

Love that quote...but of course only a fool would gie a beaker of sulfuric acid to a scientist who is know to have slippery hands.

The same can be said of humans - they are dangerous, some even psychotic - so why keep giving them obvious means with which to kill????

I certainly don't have a solution, but I have enjoyed the debate all the same.

Bullets & Guns & Cockpits?
 

"EISH"

This is the word one will get used to when you get any error in anything down here in South Africa.

So many opinions - but if I may add mine, for what it is worth, if any?

- It sounds as if our pilot friends in the US have something that was imposed on them. No matter what we argue it has to be dealt with in the most professional way they can.

- My appreciation of the situation: What ever they have to do with these .40 cal hand guns they have to do as safe as possible.

- Yes there are multiple very sensitive pieces of equipment etc... in the cockpit but from my little knowledge of the layout of a cockpit and the pictures we were shown in this thread that is now trying to become "a threat to national security" :D it is clear that:

1. If the pilot was indeed handling the said fire arm for whatever reason he was supposed to according to reports we were given - he was pointing it in the direction of the part of the cockpit (from his assumed position in the aircraft) where it would affect no harm to any systems or equipment and definitely people in case of an accidental discharge. So what is the fuss? (Murphy: "If something can go wrong - it will". Me: "If something does go wrong - make sure the least amount of harm can result") Maybe the pilot listened to me???:D

- Before you want to crucify me - I am only stating and interpreting the facts as they were presented and I am not taking the responsibility for their factual correctness.

- I don't think I will appreciate being a Captain or First Officer at this time in the USA as I am not particular comfortable with guns in the cabin or cockpit - but I appreciate the differences in situations accross the world.

- I do however appreciate the facts and try to stay away from the emotions? (Very hard to not get emotional in Africa)

- But then again who cares about them if we can rant on and on about safe and unsafe guns?

- As for airport security and scrutiny of apron staff - maybe Europe is different but I understand the apprehension of pilots to accept that nothing can go through - although it is again just my opinion. There are too many examples of security missing small detail or not paying attention. There is no guarantee - no fail safe system anywhere in the world.

VG300

Do our Euro friends realize that hundreds of armed passengers fly on U.S. airlines every day in the form of traveling Federal agents and assorted law enforcement personnel? They aren't directly connected in any way to protecting the aircraft (i.e. Sky Marshalls and FFDO's) their flying on?. Their weapon is a job-required tool they have to carry with them, even though most of them never have cause to use them in the performance of their duties, and qualifying with their weapons certainly doesn't involve tactics particular to an aircraft cabin.

The fear of armed pilots despite screening and training borders on the Irrational, no matter the atempt to drape that fear with a facade of rational debate. I'm convinced it's a cultural thing, and never the two opinions shall meet.

Euro pilots should certainly refrain from applying for airline jobs in the U.S., given that their fellow crewmember or some passengers in the cabin may be armed. I would think the fear would create in them a mental situation where they couldn't perform their duties.

CNN is now reporting that the pilot involved is to be fired.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/17/pilot.gun/index.html

For this Captain, the gun was, indeed, terminal.

..first people he called was ALPA......not USAPA....for obvious reasons!!!