OK 28th I will bite even though I know I should ignore your post. Please tell me which is the worst situation even accepting the dismal outcome of your scenario. Two dead pilots with throats cut and six live terrorists or two dead pilots with throats cut and four live terrorists? Does not make much difference does it? In either case the aircraft is lost. With any luck, or judgement, the first two dead terrorists will be jammed in the cockpit doorway slowing down the entry of the others and giving our pax time to react. In reality, who knows how these things could unfold, we can speculate as much as we want but I bet the real thing will be different to what we ever imagined..

Re-training. When I was in a certain airforce a senior NCO used to "misdirect" 9mm ammo which was supposed to have been used for light machine gun training to me so I could practice 9mm pistol for the station shooting club. In UK it was impossible for me to buy enough pistol ammo to practice for our events. Now, in the US I buy my 9mm ammo in cases of 1,000 ($6.95 for 50 rounds and 10% off for case prices). I get through 100 or 200 rounds in an afternoon in serious practice on my home shooting range. (It is still cheaper than playing golf!). I do not pretend to be a great shot but I bet I can do better than two out of six. The point is that keeping in a pretty high level of currency is much easier in the US than elsewhere and it is a thing many people do for fun in the same way some people practice their golf. Currency is not such a great problem as you might anticipate.

Its interesting seeing the views on both sides - some good comments. Here is another rant from myself…

Looking at the vote results, you have to acknowledge there is seemingly widespread acceptance amongst US pilots. Of course, such acceptance comes from having a different attitude (and background) to firearm ownership – for people living in environments where firearms are heavily restricted/prohibited, there will always be a different attitude.

The strong “yes” vote indicates pilots want more protection on the flightdeck (FD)…should the carriage of a firearm therefore be considered as “standard” equipment for the aircraft? Rather than have individuals carry weapons in nav bags (all kinds of potential problems), why not have a firearm locked in a safe on the FD. To access the FD safe would require selection of the discrete TX code, which would unlock the safe and alert ATC at the same time.

I appreciate this may not have worked pre 9/11, however since then, the way in which potential hijackers demands are followed has completely and irrevocably changed. There should also be more time for the crew to advise ATC of the actual threat given more secure doors, severely restricted FD access and in some cases, cameras at the door entry and throughout the cabin.

And although this may sound harsh, no matter what is happening in the cabin (eg. cabin crew and/or pax being physically assaulted), the tech crew must not try and intervene in the dispute…just get the aircraft on the ground ASAP and keep the terrorists out of the FD. What happens if a pilot decides he/she can “take em out” and so leaves their position attempting to neutralise the threat but ends up in a gun fight and worse case scenario, dead with the FD door open and another gun available?

And don’t forget the other “friendly” weapons available in the cabin – other pax! Since 9/11, how many pax have assisted crews with unlawful behaviour?

I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that BOING doesn't seem to find anything peculiar about concept of an "armed Housing and Urban Development officer" :eek:

If thats the land of the free, they can keep it. Belfast sounds a much safer place to be free in.

This topic was discussed in detail earlier this year (15 pages). All the same arguments being put forth at this time therefore a peek at past arguments may prove to be enlightening, or at least help to bring forth new material.U.S. Pilots will not be armed...

Although I could probably insist in the "Housing" fellow checking his firearm you need to realise that he had met the federal criteria for carriage of a firearm - whether I thought it was necessary or not.

Certain personnel in the US are ALWAYS allowed to carry a firearm on an aircraft. Others are PERMITTED to carry a firearm. To get this permission they undergo approved verification procedure. This person was not required to carry a firearm for the performance of his employment on the flight. On the other hand, although his possession of the firearm may not have been needed I had no reason to deny his permission (unless it was as a case of potential loss of the firearm to a troublemaker).

In this case I agreed to the situation after I had discussed the reason he was travelling on duty and what operations he had been carrying out. A few friendly questions usually helps clarify these situations. It just shows that you never know what members of what government agencies may be permitted to carry arms. I figure if all of these folks can travel armed surely pilots can do so also.

In my state 4% of the population are permitted to carry concealed weapons. For all you know a dozen people in the supermarket with you could be carrying concealed firearms. Nothing to get neurotic about. The people checked out and approved to carry firearms are not the risk, it is the unlicenced firearm carriers you need to worry about.

In the real land of the free, the licensed and authorised carriers of firearms are the ones in uniform and flak jackets, and thats the way we like it. :p

Simple answer, go for an international flight, the pilots won't be armed! Unless there is a housing development officer on board of course, maybe they should be made compulsory pax on all flights!! Amazing that an apparently sane bunch of legislators deems arming pilots a viable deterent. Frightening.

Opinions about whether or not to arm pilots inside the USA are fairly irrelevant if we are not living there and/or don't fly a N-reg aircraft. It's their country and they can do as they please inside it (just as others get to decide what happens in their countries - that's democracy!).

Unfortunately(?), guns do not make you safe. The US has the largest defense expenditure/forces in the world and could reduce most if not all countries to rubble if they so chose. That didn't stop Sept 11 just in the same way as guns in the cockpit won't stop all terrorist attacks on aircraft. To a certain extent, arms are simply there to make people feel more secure. Dangers and threats still exist and people think that we can get rid of them all. We can't. Life doesn't work like that.

So take guns into the cockpit. But you will find that:

1. This will not stop terrorist acts on aircraft.

2. Accidents happen and therefore, in all probability, someone will be accidently shot (this will be put down "acceptable loses to achieve a given outcome").

3. You can't plan for every eventuality. Life is dangerous (it will kill you in the end :D ) and that while you may think arming yourself is going to make you safer, this is probably not the case.

On a final note, the US needs to accept the idea that other countries don't want guns in their aircraft's cockpits (even in aircraft going to the US) and that is their choice! If you flying Europe, Asia or Africa let your feelings be known to your country's aviation authority. Be vocal about what you want. Don't accept guns in the cockpit just because the US does it.

Just logged on to excite.com, which has a poll on pilots with guns;
What’s frightening to us Brits is no less than 71% said yes to pilots being given artillery in the cockpit! Only 25% said no and the rest neutral.

1/there must be some way 'Q' can come up with a 'gizmo' to use
other than low velocity/cal. firearms?

2/If we have to have them, then they must be isolated 'airside' either in a safe in the flight deck or what ever.

3/ they would only be reasonably safe if the gun had some sort of personal recognition system like an arm bracelet that worked like
those fancy new car keys.

4/they need to be holstered in such a way you could draw them while facing front.

5/Proper training for the use of such weapons.

6/given that if it comes to it you've gotta do some thing, instead of carrying guns why not just 'lamp' them with the crash axe! That works for me!

"Shirley you can't be serious" (stop calling me Shirley!)
:D

David, the interesting thing about your post is that the percentage of the US public advocating firearms appears to be increasing. The figure was 68% immediately following 9/11. Could be polling error I suppose but the figure would at least seem to be remaining constant. This demonstrates how much faith the general public have in the security measures applied so far.

Guns in the cockpit, what is the world coming to? The next thing you know, people will be trying to break down the cockpit door to try and take over the airplane. They will probably even try to crash an airplane into a building or something.
Wow, it sure would have been nice to have a gun on 9/11. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot you guys overseas can safely land an airplane while someone tries to slit your throat from ear to ear. Give me a F**king break.
The weapon is the last resort to try and prevent another 9/11. Do you have a better idea? Maybe you could convince the bad person that they don't really want to harm you. Let's face it, If someone is breaking down your door................they don't want to join you for a cup of tea.

>>Let's face it, If someone is breaking down your door................they don't want to join you for a cup of tea.<<

Now, now...

After several incidents, the locked cockpit door was still a foreign concept in many countries a year ago...

Now they are worried about not having granny on the jumpseat.

That’s right Airbubba, we’re also asking for details of how the FAA policy of flight deck doors being locked prevented the 9-11 atrocities? But guess what, no one seems to be willing to step up and explain how that brilliant strategy foiled the terrorists.

Unlike some, we don’t go for the Hollywood hype. If a procedure has proved ineffective then we ask why implement it? We’re not interested in window dressing for the travelling public, or banning family members so that the politicians can go on TV and say “look, we’ve improved security, we’re the party to trust…vote for us”.

This threat is far too serious for that. We’ll ridicule and bitch, until we force the powers that be to take real and effective measures. If that means profiling then so be it. Individual rights will (on this occasion) have to be subservient to the collective security of the majority. But this is going to cost lots of money to implement…that I suspect is why we keep getting these stupid, irrelevant and ineffective (but cheap) edicts from the idiots in power.

Tony Blair is willing to pay the “blood price” to go to war in Iraq. I bet he won’t be there in the Warrior armoured vehicles with the rest of the boys and girls, (Perhaps we should insist that all MP’s are the first in, in any shooting war they get us into) just like he won’t pay the “blood price” when the next attack happens and the new security measures prove ineffective again.

David - As I said above. Let them have guns in the cockpit IN THE US!. We just don't want them over here. Accidents will happen and the US has to decide whether or not those accidents are an acceptable price to pay for the level of safety achieved, real or otherwise. Over here, we don't want them, so let your boss know, let the CAA know, maybe even let "The Sun" know (but then again, maybe not :D ). Guns may be great in the US, but not here!

I can see your point. It didn't happen over here, so we don't need guns. For us, it did happen over here. We're the ones seeing the children attending events all over the country with only ONE parent. Mothers and fathers talking about their lost sons and daughters. And let's not forget the countless young couples that lost their partners just as their lives were beginning.

Yes, there probably will be someone that needs mental help that breaks down the cockpit door and pays the ultimate price. On the other hand, there will be those insane terrorists that sit quitely in their seats (on our airplanes) just waiting to make that connection to travel overseas. Enroute overseas is where they'll do their dirty work...........because the foreign carrier's doors won't be protected. They know for certain, that foreign carriers are way too civilized to need a weapon.
For your sake, I hope you have passengers on board similiar to United flight 93. Because I'm sure, your pilots will have their heads stuck in the sand................That is, if their heads are still attached.

Excuse my ignorance, but surely it must be possible to make a cockpit door that cannot be opened by man force? There was a demonstration by a Dutch chemical company (DSM) that could make lite weight panels that are able to absorb bullets....

DSM’s Dyneema fiber in first FAA-certified bulletproof cockpit door

Video cameras will be able to give the pilots information whats going on in the cabin, so they can inform the ground about the situation.

Of course it wouldn't stop the hijackers to threaten pax or inflight personal, but it would take away the threat and attraction to use the a/c as a projectile.

At the other hand terrorists will always find another targets like nuclear power-station or refinery, but that's a complete different discussion I'll leave to the political experts......

Cheers

Acap.TOSK

http://www5.dsm.com/en_US/images/Dyn...pit1-small.jpg

That’s the worry for flight crews. In an emergency the door has to be breakable.

Statistically we’re far more likely to have an in-flight emergency than get hi jacked.

Solving one problem about security creates lots more about operational safety.

It would seem it’s politically acceptable for flight crews to burn to death in an accident because the fire crews can’t get to us, but not if we die at the hands of the terrorist. Well since this directly affects me, I reserve the right treat it the same way as friendly fire. That’s to say I believe there’s no such thing. It’s either incoming or outgoing and if it’s coming in, I’m damn well going to send some out.

The solutions that are required are very expensive, but neither the government nor the companies want to pay for it.

Mayby you that don't think guns in the cockpit are good, should take a look at this.

Stun Guns vs Firearms

Excellent video. It shows the speed at which a situation can develop without any detectable weapons being used.

I personally have no confidence in the $5 bolts on the doors or the projected armoured doors (if and when they ever arrive) - what is the point of a bulletproof door if the terrorists don't have guns? - thinks I. They can kick them in just as easily. Even if the doors are made of Kevlar - the side frames are just alloy.

It may slow them - but not stop them. The stun guns - as demonstrated here - are a total waste of time. It needs a 9mm minimum or better a nice high mass, slow 44 stopper to do the job. Sorry folks but this whole topic is a PR blow job. If "they" are not prepared to do the whole job on the ground - then the last line of defence must be in the cockpit. And I can't defend my patch at all well with a ball point pen and a clipboard (which is all I am allowed right now).

The cockpit door is a high tech Thermopolie - it's narrow and I have a very good chance of stemming the tide. But I do need a weapon that works at close quarters and can be used from my seat. So don't come all this weak kneed, liberal, PC ballshiite. If you are kicking down my door - you are history. If it turns out you are (were) a grande-mal autistic with a direction problem - I will happily deal with that in a earthbound court at a later time. But I really would wait until I saw the colour of your eyes first - honest. And if you had the determination to break down the door - well - sorry.....

These must be the new rules. You breach the cockpit door - you get shot bad/dead - QED. I don't have a problem with that.

So I go to work every day in harms way to my mind. And I can tell you I don't like it very much. I am not too mobile strapped to my seat and I really wouldn't have much of a chance if a person of evil intent started banging down my door. It's a sorry world that comes to this - but until we solve the bigger problem - I want a gun. At least I can, hopefully, take a few (if not all) with me. And remember - if I go down - everyone does...

As an aside I have (in the past) carried a gun for 12 years - and I can tell you, from a personal viewpoint - that I would much rather not. They (guns) are a pain in the arse. They need cleaning and servicing and the security issues are a nightmare. But if I need to do this as part of my bigger task - I will do so. Not happily - but needs must - I will.


MG

I too carried a gun. I tried to explain how fast thing would happen in the original thread on this subject.

I do have an issue with this advertisement. When trained teams go into an enclosed situation the first thing through the door is a flash-bang…well several actually. I also prefer a bit of CS in the atmosphere as well.

On the aircraft we have equipment that when utilised properly will

A)Stop the pilots breathing
B)Stop the pilots seeing
C)Cut down the pilots reaction time
D)Physically inflict damage so that the firearm wielding hero’s ability to defend the plane is significantly reduced or cancelled altogether.

We have just watched a breach by trained personnel. It can get even better than that. I suspect they were not permitted to demonstrate how they would win in the lethal firearm scenario

Don’t make the mistake of believing that the terrorist does not have specialised training to help him achieve his aims. One man/woman is not going to stop a team of properly trained and motivated terrorist, who are willing to die to achieve their goal.

If you watched the video from the APA, the weapons that simulated terrorists used were all parts of the aircraft. Not Flash bangs, grenades etc. It was assumed that security on the ground worked as advertised.

If the pilot's are cut down with machine guns that the terrorist brings on board, the pilots gun's haven't made the situation worse have they? But they certainly improve the odds against a knife weilding terrorist, which is something far more difficult to prevent from an airport security point of view.

What's your point?
So we should just give up?
Fly the plane into the building ourself?

Cheers
Wino

In one fail swoop the US knows more about the consequences of terrorism than any other nation.You think of terrorism in terms of a pub bombing that kills ten or twenty.We dont have that luxury.These terrorists are dedicated,resourceful and out to get us.This is the justification for such a controversial move.
The arming of pilots in the US is workable,contrary to what you might think.This is why:
i)Guns are,for better or worse,part of our daily lives.There is no familiarity problem here.Most of us own at least one personal firearm.The training required for such a program,although rigorous,will really only have to be supplementary,an add-on if you will.The arming of European pilots would pose a far greater problem.Training would,for the most part,have to be from scratch.And thats just the technical side of the training.The mental block to firearms,borne of ignorance and fear,would have to be addressed.No such address is required in the States.
ii)A strong sense of responsibility and sobriety are de facto attributes of the experienced airline pilot.Recent alcohol-related incidents have detracted from this but the assumption is still a valid one.This mental approach lends itself well to the responsibility of carrying a firearm in the workplace.The childish comments made by some about some sort of John Wayne shoot-em-up scenario just would not materialize.Bear in mind that US commercial pilots were authorized to carry firearms until relatively recently.
iii)The purpose of arming pilots is one of deterrence,which is a proven principle in crime prevention.Pilots are not being asked to fight the front line.Air Marshalls and airport security will do that.This fourth line of defence(airport security-air marshalls-flight deck door being the first three)is important in light of the evidence that some lines of defence have been and continue to be breached.However,terrorists are not unintelligent:they dont like overwhelming odds.They will consider an attempt to breach one or two lines of defence.But four?

And background to what we are facing:

The US has become extremely zenophobic, and maybe is about to plunge the world into a major conflict (but then again maybe it will be a cake walk).

The Air Marshal service is losing personnel fast, due to the tough rosters, and they have reduced the qualification training, so the standard is dropping, and very few flights have air marshals on board.

25 to 40% of all 'weapons' are missed at the security checkpoints.

The FBI, police forces and even the Secret Service are losing qualified persons who are going to join the new TSA. So now, instead of hunting murderers, robbers, kidnappers and the like, the country's finest will be hassling grandmothers and confiscating nail files at the airport.

But the traveling public believes that things are safer than before 9/11.

Am I the crazy one, or is it everyone else?

Blue and White - Do you think that the US is the only country that has had orphans and widows due to terrorist attacks? I think that it is you who needs to take your head out of the sand. Maybe you could even talk with some other nations about their experiences with terrorism and how they have delt with it?

Max_cont - I think you might like to ask the families of the people killed by friendly fire. If you need to research it, a lot of incidents seem to involve the US - see Afghanistan, The Gulf 90/91, etc. I understand wha you're saying, but i believe that outside the states, guns in the cockpit pake things more dangerous rather than safer. Inside the States, it's probably the same, but I'm not going to tell them what to do just as I expect the US to respect the opinion of others.

Rananim - At first I though you were being sarcastic. It seems that you think that because Sept 11 had a lot of deaths at once, the US is suddenly "the Guru" on terrorism and and anti-terrorism. In the words of John McEnroe "You cannot be serious!". The US has been exposed to what the rest of the world has been dealing with for the last 50 years and suddenly it's the expert? :rolleyes: This sort of arrogant attitude is exactly why people get pi$$ed of with the US and it's foreign policies. Maybe if the US listened a little more to others rather than bathe in the sunshine streaming out of it's rear-end, it'd get a little more respect!

I'm d@mned if 'll have someone in another country tell me that I have to comply with their standards, that I disagree with, because it makes them feel better. I'm sure that you'll agree.

Cheers, LP

I didn't read through the whole thread. So, I hope I'm not repeating what others might have said. If I am, I apologize. Here's my 2 cents:

Obviously, this is to prevent another 9/11. By having firarms, those pilots who flew the four hijacked planes on 9/11 might have had a chance to change the outcome. However, 9/11 does not happen all the time. It took those terroists few years of planning and training to pull it off. Better intelligence would have averted the disaster. By allowing the cockpit crew to have firearms, I'm afraid it would increase the possibility of some lunatic, suisidal pilots to do something drastic. In the past five years, we had at least two, namely, Egyptair and Silkair. I honestly think this is a very dangerous policy.

Low Pass,
Did I mention the word "expert"?I dont think so.Knowing more about the consequences of terrorism doesnt necessarily mean you know more about dealing with terrorism and I never implied otherwise.Read.Think.Then write.

Reservations and concerns about the when and where factors still exist.Do we want armed pilots in the terminal environment and at the security gates?Or do they have the firearms delivered direct to the flt deck by Air Marshalls at the pre-flight stage?

Guns were carried by airline pilots for many years with no security risk as a result, and were used to prevent criminal acts. If it worked then, why not now?

Rananim - Apologies for misunderstanding you. I still disagree with you.

Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting you this time. You seem to be saying that because there was a huge loss of life on 11/09/01 (greater than any other singular terrorist attack to memory), that America knows more about the concequences of terrorism. This seems pretty bizarre to me as England and Northern Ireland have been dealing with it's threat and incidents for over 30 years! Israel too has had similar experience, if not more so. You also discount the Basque sepratist movement in northern Spain and terrorist attacks have also been happening in the disputed Kashmir region between India and Pakistan for years. This is by no means a comprihensive list.

I'll agree with you if you say that the US has had the biggest shock from a single terrorist event but then it shocked the world. Your reaction is understandable. I can't imagine how I'd feel if it happened here. Never the less, I still believe that guns in the cockpit represent a reduction rather than and increase in the level of safety. But you get to choose over there - just not over here.

Low Pass: Ever thought about taking guns and blowing the holy!!!! out the guys (their families and all the support) that are attacking you...............there might not be a problem. Diplomacy can only go so far.
Obiviously, if your country has been dealing with terrorists for that many years and you haven't solved the problem. May I suggest you try another method..............because the one you're using ain't working for !!!!!.

Funny Gun Story
 

When I was a brand-new F/E on the B-727 , I had this old, senior Captain who told me stories of carrying a 9mm pistol in his flight bag in the early 1960s, when no metal-detectors were in use. He carried it for 2 reasons: to kill hijackers who wanted to go to Cuba and to shoot wildlife out his sliding cockpit window! He even told me he killed a deer at the end of runway 19L at KMCI one night, after shining the taxi light on it!
https://image.jetnet.aa.com/imageser...ure_ribbon.jpg

I think we should all remeber what is that we are trying to prevent the terrorists from doing... our primary concern is not to protect the lives of the people on board, but those on the ground. If the terrorists are determined to kill the 300 people on board (either by executing them one-by-one or by damaging the aircraft to the point it will crash) nobody can stop them, not even armed pilots. But then again, if what terrorist want to do is kill 300 innocent lives they can do that VERY easily by simply driving to a stadium, club, movie theater or any densly-populated area and blow up everybody. Lets say each terrorist can kill 200 people (many movie theaters on saturday night contain even more people), then the 19 terrorists can easily kill 3800 without the need of years of planning, flight instruction and all they had to do to execute the 9-11 attack. In other words, its relatively easy to kill a large number of people, especially if you are very determined and are willing to give your life. Just look at what's happening in Israel. And considering how easy it is to buy guns and build bombs in the US, the terrorist could probably achieve even "better results".
My point is that the 911 attacks were targeting certain american symbols, and were not done to kill the maximum number of people. However, should the terrorist's objectives change, we need to stop them from flying an aircraft into a nuclear power station which could potentially kill millions. This is why our only main concern is to protect the people on the GROUND, not in the air. We can't do more to protect the people in the air in the same way we can't protect the people going to a movie theater... if they want to kill them, and are appropriately trained, they will succeed. period.
The only and only way to protect the people on the ground is prevent the terrorist from acquiring control of the aircraft.
I was thinking about installing a button with close reach of both pilots which can be activated in a matter of split seconds. Once this button is pressed, a previously programmed "hyjack mode" of the FMS takes over the control of the aircraft and at the same time informs ATC. This computer program will first of all take the aircaft away from densely populated areas as well as certain predetermined targets (such as nuclear stations). The aircraft must cruise along a route where, should the hijackers damage the aircaft to the point it will crash, only the people on board would be killed. The second priority for the computer would be to land the aircaft at the closest airport that meets certain criteria such as runway length and the presence of a precision approach that would always keep the aircraft away from densly populated areas. The autopilot would then land the airplane and the good guys would be waiting on the ground.

I know this might sound like a weird idea, but if you think about it, the FMS flies the aircraft most of the time anyways, and it has the capability of performing all of the task I listed above. All we need is a software, thats it. A computer program that will totally exclude every control device in the cockpit and fly the airplane following a previously pre-programmed procedure. At every single stage of the flight this program would always have a "Hijack produre" ready to implement, depending on the location of the aircaft. We all know both Boeing and Airbus have all the computer geeks they need to devise such program.
Of course, an identical copy of the program would be installed in the ATC stations. This way ATC would already know exactly what the entire procedure the aircraft will follow up to the new destination airport including the approach procedure. (without the need of communicating with the aircraft) This means they can easily clear the skies below you with very little consequences on other traffic.
This is very important because it would reduce the problems associated with a false alarm. For example, assuming we have the autistic passenger who starts kicking the door... the pilots can immediately activate the "hijack procedure" knowing that the consequences of a false alarm would only be a couple hours of delay, nothing more. They would not have to shoot and kill a disabled passenger. The same would apply to many other situations where armed pilots might kill someone by mistake.

We all know autopilots can fly the plane (in many cases even better than pilots). So in the event of a hijacking why not let it fly the plane if that could save the lives of thousands, if not millions on the ground? The technology is there, all we need is a bunch of computer geeks to develop a very complex application which takes into considerations all the hundreds of different variables. It can be done, and should terrorists ever think about hijackacking another aircraft, they will know it will be IMPOSSIBLE for them to take control of the aircraft. They might still crash it, but as we said before if a group of determined terrorists wants to kill 300 civilians they will always be able to do so in a society with still has a few civil liberties left. What we want to avoid is having an aircraft blow up a nuclear or chemical plant, and guns in the cockpit cannot prevent that with 100% certainty. However, an effective computer program connected to the FMS would be able to stop them.

palgia

To all the Americans out there who think that the only terroorist attack in the world ever happened in New York last year. I have seen first hand the aftermath of terrorist attacks in the UK and N Ireland. I lived in Manchester at the time of the bombing there and actually heard it go off. I was in my house 9 miles away at the time. Good luck and a bit of hard work on behalf of the local police and fire services meant no one was killed, although many were seriously injured. Later I moved to Ealing. The IRA promptly blew up the town centre there. And the railway line. I have comforted and Irish friend after he has seen the devastation and death on the TV of people from his home town bombed, and have worked in Portadown and had to stop work because I was prevented by burning cars from driving down the street. (I feel angry enough to make the comment here that a great deal of the IRA's funding came and is STILL being provided by Christian Americans who seemingly think the death of UK citizens is somehow different to the death of US citizens.) We have learnt over the years that terrorism is the result of a bunch of breakaway fanatics. That going to their country of origin and shooting all of their families will not work. After trying to deal with a difficult situation for decades we then get Bill Clinton striding round telling us how terrorism should be deal with. And when it isn't happening to his own country you can bet your bottom dollar he didn't advocate violence and war.

The world has changed for the worse since last year. There is no doubt about that. Americans thinks so, Europeans thinks so, certainly your average Afghan in the street thinks so. And yet still the US has not looked inside itself to think about why the Arab world hates it so much. I can tell you one thing for nothing. US gunships strafing weddings doesn't help.


So in the end the US will arm its pilots to prevent a hijack happening again. The terrorists are intelligent. They have probably already moved on. We know in Britain that even without killing people the entire destruction of the centre of a major city can have a devastating effect on the economy. And these people just want to hurt America. They could attack so many things that are not even aviation linked and still kill thousands of people in one go. America was so convinced of its own invulnerability at the time that it did not even check hand luggage. Be aware they have probably already identified other weaknesses.


I, for one, will never support the introduction of guns onto the flight deck. However being an oiky European not used to handling guns I probably wouldn't be allowed one anyway. As I mentioned before - it is ludicrous to arm one group of pilots with guns when another lot isn't even allowed a proper metal spoon to eat breakfast with. If the flight deck and guns are going to be so secure why can't I even have a firkin spoon?


One last thing for the US pilots out there - where is the 't' in Bovingdon?

Blue and White - Hmmmm, do you mean like in Israel at the moment? Your solution doesn't seem to be working as there are still many Israelis and Palistineans dying on a weekly basis.

Do you mean like the years of a "zero tolerance" type policy attitude from the British Government towards the IRA? That didn't work to well either.

Terrorism is much less of a problem in the UK now than it used to be. Yes, we still have bomb scares, but nothing like it used to be. In fact, it's only since there has been communication between the various parties that some sort of peace has come about. The gun-totting "blowing the holy!!!!" out of 'em approach didn't work - doesn't work in the long-term.

Looks like the US has a lot to learn and insists on doing it the hard way rather than learn from others who have been through it. Fair enough, but please don't expect everyone else to do exactly the same things as the US government as many have made those mistakes before and are loath to make them again.

Pandora,


I would like you or anyone else knowledgable about the Middle East situation to clarify a few things before you throw out the tired statement that the US has slighted the Arab world and Muslims in general.

How many of the Palestinian refugees since 1948 have become full citizens, with voting rights and mobility equal to native born citizens, of the countries they fled to such as Kuwait ,SA, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon ect? If you could, also compare that to those who fled to the US and other groups such as the Cubans who became US citizens. Does the Arab world really "care" about the Palestinians, or is it just a" red herring" to avoid looking at their own problems?

As an American, I have gotten a little tired of the terrorist equivilation game. Continual whining that "our terrorists are the same" and "look inside yourselves Americans" is pathetic. The Isrealis started this chant right after 9/11. The little point overlooked is that the Isreali and Northern Ireland conflicts are based on outsiders moving onto land alleged to be owned by others. The U.S. wasn't forcibly building houses in Mecca or Kabul, got it? As much as I can't stand the Isreali method of assasination in a crowded apartment with a 2000 lb bomb, the Arabs seem to make them look good not long afterwards.

Pandora, after reading the opinions of the Arab world regarding 9/11, I do not care for much of it at all. In Egypt, the majority of educated citizens say the Mossad and others are responsible, and that we "deserved" 9/11. My humble response is that I do not "care" to send another dollar of money to the Egyptians (rivaling Isreal on aid), nor do I "care" for the structural integrity of the Aswan dam.