U.S. pilots allowed to carry guns.
 

As part of the new security bill, one of the attachments will let individual airlines decide weather to allow their pilots to carry guns. This being the case, you can bet that all the airlines will allow it. I can just see the marketing slogans now; Our pilots carry guns, fly with us.
This business will never be the same.

First, let me say that I enthuastically support pilots being able to carry a (real) gun in my flight bag. I hope my airline doesn't wimp out on this issue.

There has been some discussion on this in a previous thread "United pilots to carry taser guns."

I am sure thee will be lots of (non-crewmembers) who will bemoan this possibility. But I think it is a great idea. I just hope they don't make it prohibitively difficult to be individually authorized. The head of ALPA said on TV he thought a pilot shoud take a TWO WEEK training course at a MILITARY FACILITY to become qualified.

Nonsense.

That's my story and I'm stickin to it.

:)

Hi , I have a question about guns on an airplane, what is the effect on the airframe if it is punctured by a .45 cal Black Talon ( a very mean round to be shot with).

There is no reason for Pilots not to carry guns. Pilots have the lives of many passengers in their hands anyway. A gun plus a lead loaded wooden baseball bat or High Tech Baton and a Gun. Soft Point 9mm bullets with a 15 shot mag suggested. Also support Video Camera viewing Cabins with Cockpit monitors. And give free first class upgrades to other Pilots and concealed weapon Permits if they pass a extened Background Check similar to a military EBI.

Doubt a .45 cal could bring down an airliner from within - just can not happen - even a depressure from a puncture - not serious - because a hole like that can be plugged - but then again the gun goes off passes thru the skin - the pilot would probably land at the nearest airport safely.

well if a round won't cause big problems to the skin and if it won't shatter a porthole, the I say let everyone who can meet the background check and training required for a CW permit bring a pistol on board. Even if one of those is a nut/ terrorist is he really going to be brave enough to try and take over the plane when every third passenger is armed?

Hollow Point ammo is the way to go. Minimum damage to structure.

At the range we are dealing with, missing is all but impossible.

A Dum Dum in his hody causes devestating effects.

There is precedent for this. Back when we first started carrying US Mail, pilots were REQUIRED to carry a sidearm.

There are legal obstacles most air carrier managements will shy away from: Additional company time for recurrent weapons training and law enforcement qualification; Passenger liability issues if an innocent passenger is shot; Airframe insurance issue if a bullet damages expensive on board equipment or flight controls/hydraulics; Concealed weapons permits in foreign countries; Air carrier liability for death or injury of a person in a foreign country by one of its armed pilots; Multiple complex bilateral agreements vis-a-vis firearms protocols and regulations. Additionally, unless the firearms remain in the cockpit, as United's "stun guns" will, pistol toting pilots in foreign countries will be individually responsible for weapon security whether at hotel, at sightseeing or at restaurants.

Overall, professional law enforcement and the carrying of a loaded weapon in public across state lines and across international borders is in itself a full time job. And the professional pilot who wants to take on those additional duties will neither be a professional cop nor a professional pilot.

Besides, given the events of Sept 11th, there is a new mind-set; It's about crew and passenger survival instinct! And given the new inflight security training, reinforced cockpit doors and bulkheads, the probability of another hijack in the USA is practically zero. To be sure, passengers fearing for their own survival will no longer sit idle during any air rage incident, nor will passengers allow any terrorist or other mentally challenged person to attempt to storm into the cockpit. The curtains in the aisles will remain open. :cool:

Guns in the cockpit? Sounds like an interesting idea, but it certainly adds a new dimension to cockpit resource management. :D

Hmm, intresting topic raasman.

Wonder what the ideal size firearm would be?
A small Derringer to take out a terrorist rag-head at a very short range?
Or something more powerful to make sure one bullet is enough?

Used to carry weapons while flying bush in Alaska, but not to protect a/c and self against the pax.
Stange times ahead.

In the wake of 9-11 the flying public in the USA wants the highest security possible. Arming pilots adds a level of security. About two-thirds of Americans are in favor of arming airline pilots (68%) according to a recent Gallup poll.

If you can trust a properly trained pilot with a B-747, you should also be able to trust a properly trained pilot with handgun.

I like a .380 for cockpit defense.

At the risk of upsetting some of our American cousins (and I am a big fan of America), I feel the need to urge caution. I realise that 'the right to bear arms' etc is a big deal over in the States, but it can only lead to disaster if people start carrying guns on aircraft. The sad fact is that the hijackers of Sep 11 were only lightly armed and relied on a combination of surprise plus creating an atmosphere of terror disproportianate to their actual capabilities. Perhaps more crucially, the conventional wisdom of the airline industry also advised flight crews to aquiesce in the face of terrorism in order to save all lives on board, and get the aircraft on the ground to let the authorities sort the problem out. That doctrinal error played directly into the hands of the hijackers, because the pilots ultimately (and totally understandably) handed control of their aircraft to these guys believing that they were saving lives. The chances of a successful hijack in the USA now are virtually non-existent because all passengers will rise up and fight to the death - a situation that was inconceivable before Sep 11.

Where does this lead? Simply that there is now no need to have guns on board because you are potentially providing hijackers (who as we now know are happy to die in achieving their aim) with real guns to fight with after they have overpowered the crew.

I know this is a very sensitive subject in the States, but I have to say that the evidence is simply overwhelming that 'good people' with guns for self protection end up killing far more people than they save. There will be accidents, as can be seen from the statistics in the USA. Here in the UK we are simply not allowed guns, and that is almost universally accepted as being the 'right thing' to do. We have about 100 firearm-related deaths each year. In the USA, where guns are freely available you have about 40,000 deaths (can't remember the exact figure but it is about that) each year. The vast majority of those are silly arguments or accidents. I suggest that if the FAA are foolish enough to permit guns on aircraft, there will be far more tragedies than rescues. It would be a highly retrograde step to contemplate carrying guns on flight decks. Maybe you should rather be fighting to remove guns from your society as the evidence is overwhelming that it will save thousands of lives.

With all due respect, Sir,
(Norman Stanley)The media prints out what they want you to know about guns and how many are killed as a result of crime. When was the last time the media printed a story about a crime being thwarted by the responsible use of a gun by a citizen? It plainly never gets printed in a national newspaper. Does it happen? yes, all the time!
Getting qualified to carry and use a gun is not that difficult. Just look at some of the pilots we have fying around!!!! Some are good and some are , well, not so good.You'll have good and bad in any field! But the majority of the pilots we have flying around are very capable. Why would we, as fairly intelligent folks, not be able to use a gun with skill? we are just as capable as anyone else, and we understand what makes planes tick. We have to use judgement more than most folks do. We would not be the ones that would be too ichy to fire one off.

I think if we have an actual federal air marshal on board, they would be designated as the primary gun toteing individual, and everyone else would be a secondary tool.we all should know who is carrying, so we all know who's who!
Had there been one or two armed folks on board those planes, I would be willing to bet, that at least two would have survived.
Just my humble opinion from an avid believer in firearms. ( for those individuals who didn't figure out what side i'm on)

Electric "stun-guns" as part of the cockpit equipment, as at United, is as far as it may go at some carriers. The logistics and safety of loaded weapons in the cockpit are impractical reality in a civil aviation environment. Ex military and other wannabe aerial Rambos are a loud reactionary minority inside ALPA and APA that has stirred a disproportinate amount of media hyped fear and desperation among the shocked traveling public; ...as if more suicidal terrorists armed with pocket knives and boxcutters might be on the next flight....

I have recently read the repeated conventional wisdom that there will never be another attempted (or successful) hijacking of a US transport aircraft.

That is sensible.

The trouble is - not everyone is sensible.

Respectfully - Flying Guy :(

[ 20 November 2001: Message edited by: Flying Guy ]

Interesting to note that up until a couple of years ago it was legal for pilots to carry a handgun in the cockpit. The new law is just a re-institution of the expired one.

New security door; fire axe; Taser and handgun. Pax ready to use pillows; blankets; books/magazines; briefcases, etc. FAs ready with hot coffee metal pots; wine bottles; carts, etc.

Explosive devices are all that worry this SLF today! PanAm is still a memory.

dAAvid -

I've tried to get this message out to a few news organizations but maybe they're influenced by the NRA and didn't print it. If we are going to arm Pilots (and I think we should) why not use the technology developed a few years ago in making sure that the only person that can fire a particular weapon is the registered owner of that weapon. If I recall there were more than a few systems that detected the hand print/pressure, thumb print etc of a registered owner of a weapon and only allowed that person to fire that weapon. If the weapon was taken away or the owner disabled, the weapon would not fire. this seems to be a simple solution. Develop the technology further so it works well, arm all cabin personel (in case one airline employee whacko decides to take over the plane as someone did on a commuter carrier a few years ago here in Ca. others are still armed) and let it be known to one and all, that all cabin personel are armed with weapons that only each individual can fire. Anyone want to commment on this, or help spread the word to the powers that be about using these types of weapons for airline saftey?

This is total and utter bullock !!!
I've seen a lot of pilots in my life time I sure would hate to see with a gun in their bags !!!
Listening to you, you'd think we are some kind of super dudes able to do just about anything on top of our flying duties.
Law enforcement is a full time job, not a hobby !! And as stated above, it will certainly make CRM a lot more..........interesting !
This is really the rash kind of measure only designed to please the public. I find nothing reassuring in that and I'm glad I won't have to put up with this kind of nonsense.
And don't forget, aim high, as good Clint would say !

I feel the need to add a quote here. This is from an Aviation Week article that was published before this bill was signed in to law. The article is titled; Airline Pilots: Arm us and they will come. In it they published the remarks of a Northwest captain that I found both humorous and telling. Quote: " When an 18 year old National Guardsman can stand around an airport with an M16 and a semiautomatic pistol with a 15 round clip" the Northwest pilot said. "I'm 43 years old, have years of military service, been around nuclear weapons, had higher than top secret clearences, am an expert with a pistol, M16 rifle and a grenade launcher, have 26 years of flying experience and am an airline captain. Now, let me get this straight. you'll trust an 18 year old with a Berretta, but not me with a gun? I think that's an insult."
Ladies and Gents. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, and I have yet to make up my mind, that's a tough point to argue against.

Hi all
The issue is not truly about who is more trustworthy: it should instead be in minimising the requirement for placing sole trust in any one individual.
A single individual with a hand gun can 'control' an aeroplane more easily than any one individual without. This is a big problem with the sky-marshal concept as well. The first sky-marshal to get bent or escape background checks will kill the other onboard, then have free access to the crew. Even with better cockpit door procedures a sky-marshal on the lose would have a better idea of how to bluff or con his/er way through it than an outsider.
Face it, repetition of Sept. 11's exact method has been impossible even by the finish of that day, and quite possibly by the finish of the fourth crash. Without much better cockpit doors, an armed pilot caught by surprise just makes it possible again: not at all the desired option. A second problem is that it makes the single pilot suiciding the plane that much easier. A third person on a secured flight deck would be a safer 'change', IMO.
Off to do some work now.