Armed commercial pilots.......
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: Canada
gravity victim, many commercial airliners have peep-holes in the cockpit door. I think you may be on to something with cabin surveillance. What do other pilots think of being able to monitor the cabin with monitors in the flight deck. It may provide valuble seconds...
As for arming pilots, I'm a little weary about having anything that can be turned against the flight crew, guns, tazers, etc. Personally I'd like to armed, but once the hijackers know that all pilots carry weapons I think that ultimately flight crews would be in greater danger should the unthinkable occur.
Hijackers wouldn't have to smuggle guns through airport security, they'd already be on the aircraft.
As for arming pilots, I'm a little weary about having anything that can be turned against the flight crew, guns, tazers, etc. Personally I'd like to armed, but once the hijackers know that all pilots carry weapons I think that ultimately flight crews would be in greater danger should the unthinkable occur.
Hijackers wouldn't have to smuggle guns through airport security, they'd already be on the aircraft.
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,689
Likes: 0
From: England
Do any airlines issue flight crews with mace? If not, I think they should do so and the quicker the better. I believe mace to be a far more appropriate weapon for use onboard a pressurised aircraft.
The air marshalls who travel onboard US airliners the world over have been very highly trained in knowing when, where and if to shoot. It is a large job in itself.
VFE.
The air marshalls who travel onboard US airliners the world over have been very highly trained in knowing when, where and if to shoot. It is a large job in itself.
VFE.
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
From: London UK
ARMING PILOT'S?? This isn't the F****** Wild West!! I am an airline pilot, NOT a security guard, NOT a soldier, NOT a policeman. You forget that hand guns are ILLEGAL in the UK, on the ground, in the air, ANYWHERE.
I do NOT want the job of killing someone. If you must put guns on board, then with TRAINED sky marshalls who are trained to make a decision whether to kill someone without it being murder. Even then, having guns on board is just asking for trouble, all it takes is for him to be discovered, over-powered, and you now have armed terrorists. What if one of the marshalls is corrupt, a nutter, what if his family are taken hostage and he is told to hand over his weapon on his next flight etc etc.
I think you are forgetting the vast differences of opinion towards guns in the UK (and Europe) and the USA.
Mace, not such a bad idea, but the danger is
a) A good chance of knocking out both Captain and F/O in the comfined space of the cockpit unless both already on O2.
b) Also, in the event of a rapid decompression, a canister of mace might well explode or fracture - THE LAST THING you need at that moment.
The other problem is only one terrorist will be in the cockpit, the others down the back. You might be able to shoot one, but the rest will then start shooting back.
I do NOT want the job of killing someone. If you must put guns on board, then with TRAINED sky marshalls who are trained to make a decision whether to kill someone without it being murder. Even then, having guns on board is just asking for trouble, all it takes is for him to be discovered, over-powered, and you now have armed terrorists. What if one of the marshalls is corrupt, a nutter, what if his family are taken hostage and he is told to hand over his weapon on his next flight etc etc.
I think you are forgetting the vast differences of opinion towards guns in the UK (and Europe) and the USA.
Mace, not such a bad idea, but the danger is
a) A good chance of knocking out both Captain and F/O in the comfined space of the cockpit unless both already on O2.
b) Also, in the event of a rapid decompression, a canister of mace might well explode or fracture - THE LAST THING you need at that moment.
The other problem is only one terrorist will be in the cockpit, the others down the back. You might be able to shoot one, but the rest will then start shooting back.
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,689
Likes: 0
From: England
Thanks for replying BMpilot.
Would it be possible for mace to be dispensible from another form of container other than a pressurised canister?
Interesting point about the confined space of a cockpit. Wish there was a way round that one.
VFE.
Would it be possible for mace to be dispensible from another form of container other than a pressurised canister?
Interesting point about the confined space of a cockpit. Wish there was a way round that one.
VFE.
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: Biloxi, MS,USA
WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THE NEW SECURITY PROCEDURES WILL PREVENT SOMEONE FROM BOARDING AN AIRCRAFT WITH PASTIC OR CERAMIC KNIVES CARRIED ON THE PERSON? THESE NEW SECURITY MEASURES ARE INSANE! THEY WOULD NOT EVEN PREVENT THE SAME HORENDOUS ACT OF TERRORISM FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
From: USA
Historically in the U.S. pilots flying the U.S. Mail were required to be armed, as was anyone else with custody of the mails.
The state law in Alaska is interesting and I understand causes problems sometimes when an aircraft flies from Alaska to Canada and lands in Canada while carrying a (God Forbid!) rifle.
Some kind of security is needed for aircraft and aviation. Practically speaking I do not believe the pilot/copilot should be required to "ride shotgun" as in the old west of our Hollywood fantasies because it would distract from other pilot duties and result, overall, in a less safe situation. Armed law enforcement personnel, properly trained, could fly on more aircraft, better security on people and cargo coming on the aircraft and the servicing and maintenance areas will be needed. It will all cost money and the passengers/cargo shippers will have to pay for it.
Bright side is there will be no more air rage incidents. How much air rage does El Al have?
The state law in Alaska is interesting and I understand causes problems sometimes when an aircraft flies from Alaska to Canada and lands in Canada while carrying a (God Forbid!) rifle.
Some kind of security is needed for aircraft and aviation. Practically speaking I do not believe the pilot/copilot should be required to "ride shotgun" as in the old west of our Hollywood fantasies because it would distract from other pilot duties and result, overall, in a less safe situation. Armed law enforcement personnel, properly trained, could fly on more aircraft, better security on people and cargo coming on the aircraft and the servicing and maintenance areas will be needed. It will all cost money and the passengers/cargo shippers will have to pay for it.
Bright side is there will be no more air rage incidents. How much air rage does El Al have?
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
From: Copenhagen
First, my condolences to the families and friends of those who was made victims by these madmen.
I am not in favour of arming flightcrew, be it cockpit or cabin. The essence of my reservations is two-fold. Neither cockpit nor cabin are properly trained for this, and whats more we were not hired to be police officers. Being a police officer is a very demanding job under the best of circumstances, and I have nothing but respect for those who choose this walk of life. But I did not, and have no intention to do so.
There is also the training to be considered, not just gun practice, but the whole concept of being mentally prepared to put a bullet in another person. Finally, as many here have already mentioned, putting firearms onboard could serve as a means for hi-jackers to obtain control over weapons.
But it will be possible, on wide-body jets, to make the cabin a safer place by having doors replacing the curtains as cabin dividers. I do appreciate the practical problems with cabin crew needing to move back and forth. However, if each cabin was seperated from another any would-be terrorist group would have to be of substantial size to control all areas of the cabin. Would that serve as a deterrent, or does these groups have an infinate supply of members willing to die for their cause ? Would it be easier for airport security to spot these people if they were forced to show up in strength (say 8 to 10) ?
Physically seperating the cockpit from cabin would require radical rebuild of the fleets, and would not enhance the cockpit-cabin cooperation. Installing heavy doors might serve as a deterrent, but is it technically possible to design them with due regard to depressurization ?
But at the end of the day, if a hi-jacker is holding a knife to the throat of a cabin crew member, shouting through the intercom that he will kill him/her if the door is not opened what would reinforced doors help ? Would you be able to disregard a collegues screams and land the aircraft ? Maybe here on this board you'll "Yes" but what about real life ? Maybe a crew member you've known for years .. might be a friend even ... impossible odds.
I am convinced that this problem needs to be addressed on a political level at first, erasing these madmen from the face of the earth. And then work hard to create a political climate in their home countries, which does not drive young men into the arms of fanatical groupings. Probably Utopia ..
I am not in favour of arming flightcrew, be it cockpit or cabin. The essence of my reservations is two-fold. Neither cockpit nor cabin are properly trained for this, and whats more we were not hired to be police officers. Being a police officer is a very demanding job under the best of circumstances, and I have nothing but respect for those who choose this walk of life. But I did not, and have no intention to do so.
There is also the training to be considered, not just gun practice, but the whole concept of being mentally prepared to put a bullet in another person. Finally, as many here have already mentioned, putting firearms onboard could serve as a means for hi-jackers to obtain control over weapons.
But it will be possible, on wide-body jets, to make the cabin a safer place by having doors replacing the curtains as cabin dividers. I do appreciate the practical problems with cabin crew needing to move back and forth. However, if each cabin was seperated from another any would-be terrorist group would have to be of substantial size to control all areas of the cabin. Would that serve as a deterrent, or does these groups have an infinate supply of members willing to die for their cause ? Would it be easier for airport security to spot these people if they were forced to show up in strength (say 8 to 10) ?
Physically seperating the cockpit from cabin would require radical rebuild of the fleets, and would not enhance the cockpit-cabin cooperation. Installing heavy doors might serve as a deterrent, but is it technically possible to design them with due regard to depressurization ?
But at the end of the day, if a hi-jacker is holding a knife to the throat of a cabin crew member, shouting through the intercom that he will kill him/her if the door is not opened what would reinforced doors help ? Would you be able to disregard a collegues screams and land the aircraft ? Maybe here on this board you'll "Yes" but what about real life ? Maybe a crew member you've known for years .. might be a friend even ... impossible odds.
I am convinced that this problem needs to be addressed on a political level at first, erasing these madmen from the face of the earth. And then work hard to create a political climate in their home countries, which does not drive young men into the arms of fanatical groupings. Probably Utopia ..
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
From: Sweden
here´s an idea guys!
Lets asume that we can stop a potential terrorist from bringing firearms abord the aircraft. Couldn´t we then strengthen the door to the flightdeck so that a potential hijack situation would come to the flightdecks attention before the hijackers actually enters the cockpit. This would give the flightdeck time to defend themselves, and against ceramic knives an electric stungun would do, wouldnt it?
These stunguns could even permanently be stored in some safe way on the flightdeck.
Wouldn´t that be enough?
Regards//Preflight
Lets asume that we can stop a potential terrorist from bringing firearms abord the aircraft. Couldn´t we then strengthen the door to the flightdeck so that a potential hijack situation would come to the flightdecks attention before the hijackers actually enters the cockpit. This would give the flightdeck time to defend themselves, and against ceramic knives an electric stungun would do, wouldnt it?
These stunguns could even permanently be stored in some safe way on the flightdeck.
Wouldn´t that be enough?
Regards//Preflight
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
From: New York
Psychodad -
If the cockpit crew had been armed, do you think the outcome could have been worse?? Once the door closes, you're on your own. We must now assume that any hijacking is a suicidal mass-murderer.
If one doesn't have the guts to protect yourself, your crew, and your pax in a last ditch defense situation, maybe one should find a nice job in a library basement. I and thousands of others don't want to be slaughtered like chickens for some gun-phobic liberal's discredited theories.
If the cockpit crew had been armed, do you think the outcome could have been worse?? Once the door closes, you're on your own. We must now assume that any hijacking is a suicidal mass-murderer.
If one doesn't have the guts to protect yourself, your crew, and your pax in a last ditch defense situation, maybe one should find a nice job in a library basement. I and thousands of others don't want to be slaughtered like chickens for some gun-phobic liberal's discredited theories.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
From: 38N
If you look at the possible range of aircraft hijacking scenarios, a percentage will lead to unhappy results for some or all souls on board.
The best possible management of a hijacking is to prevent it's happening altogether by making the chances of success so obviously low that even methodical, focussed, disciplined and trained suicidal maniacs will spend their opportunity elsewhere rather than attempt an aircraft takeover.
Prevention is accomplished in part by serious methods and in part by theatrics.
Arming flight crew members falls more into the latter category - adding unpredictable and dangerous components to the arsenal of adversities the hijacker must confront in the course of her mission.
Various creative anti-hijack means might be incorporated (i.e. bolted) into the aircraft itself, whether projectile firing, gas dispensing, skewering, etc. This integrated approach can permit automatic notification of authorities by generation of radio-link alarms on arming or activation, and also permits design of projectiles, line of fire, chemistry, etc. for the geometry and constraints of the airborne environment. Since the weapons would never leave the aircraft without all hell breaking lose from the alarm systems, local laws probably would not be an obstacle. A variety of defensive measures could be available, to increase uncertainty. Personal blasters for cowboy aviators might be similarly secured, yet still handy.
Yes, more junk in the cockpit - dangerous junk. But to a purpose.
The best possible management of a hijacking is to prevent it's happening altogether by making the chances of success so obviously low that even methodical, focussed, disciplined and trained suicidal maniacs will spend their opportunity elsewhere rather than attempt an aircraft takeover.
Prevention is accomplished in part by serious methods and in part by theatrics.
Arming flight crew members falls more into the latter category - adding unpredictable and dangerous components to the arsenal of adversities the hijacker must confront in the course of her mission.
Various creative anti-hijack means might be incorporated (i.e. bolted) into the aircraft itself, whether projectile firing, gas dispensing, skewering, etc. This integrated approach can permit automatic notification of authorities by generation of radio-link alarms on arming or activation, and also permits design of projectiles, line of fire, chemistry, etc. for the geometry and constraints of the airborne environment. Since the weapons would never leave the aircraft without all hell breaking lose from the alarm systems, local laws probably would not be an obstacle. A variety of defensive measures could be available, to increase uncertainty. Personal blasters for cowboy aviators might be similarly secured, yet still handy.
Yes, more junk in the cockpit - dangerous junk. But to a purpose.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
From: below sea-level . . . (and on page 32).
I don't want a gun.
I'd prefer a trained person along for the ride.
I don't even want to be trained to use one.
Do I take it home with me ? and to the Hotel ?
Do I leave it in my room when I go swimming or to the bar ?
Or do we leave them on-board. How do we check if it will function properly ?
Do the locals then guard it on a ground stop ?
Do we open up large weapon depots at our crew-centres ?
You might even be able to take it from me in an unsuspecting moment.
No, thank you. Surely there are alternatives.
I'd prefer a trained person along for the ride.
I don't even want to be trained to use one.
Do I take it home with me ? and to the Hotel ?
Do I leave it in my room when I go swimming or to the bar ?
Or do we leave them on-board. How do we check if it will function properly ?
Do the locals then guard it on a ground stop ?
Do we open up large weapon depots at our crew-centres ?
You might even be able to take it from me in an unsuspecting moment.
No, thank you. Surely there are alternatives.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
From: St. Paul, MN USA
Although I am a bit of a gun collector, I would prefer to keep them out of the cockpit. Considering the amount of training needed to use a handgun properly in a stressful situation, I think this is just asking for trouble. We would have them right up to the point where an innocent passenger was accidentally killed. The taser idea is interesting, but that too, can be turned on the user. Not to mention the fact that it would be one more thing to prepare for on your next PC. I can see it now, shoot a few approaches, do a few V1 cuts, then hit the range. I have to agree that barricading the flight deck is the probably the most realistic alternative. Now if only I could get my leatherman tool back....
[ 21 September 2001: Message edited by: Do28 ]
[ 21 September 2001: Message edited by: Do28 ]
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
From: Africa
What about a gel based oleoresin capsicum spray to limit ventilation problems? Effective range 10-15' and easily carried. Larger units would give more range and if you hit a few pax they can be easily cleaned up while you keep a firm foot on the would be hijackers larynx.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
From: Oxford, UK
Isn't it possible to kill with your bare hands?
Hmmm. Maybe we'd better just strap everyone to their seats for the duration of the flight, then? Deep vein Thrombosis or not? Those needing to visit the bathroom will have to be taken under armed guard? Nah, why take risks? how about an armed escort fighter for every flight? (With every crew member being armed in case his colleage is a wrong-un?)
Seriously, though. It is a tough one. Low-velocity 22's are an option (although they are in no way reliable for a clean kill - or to hit who you were aiming at). Tasers are perhaps a better option but A) can only be used once for practical purposes B) sometimes are ineffective, if people have been able to prepare to be hit by them.
I know a lot of pilots come from the military, but not all pilots would want to carry guns and many would not be any good if asked to use one. Maybe give selected pilots the option, if they voulenteer, for additional training in hostage situations and subseqent arming but i'd go for seperate armed air-marshals posted at the flight-desk doors if you really MUST have guns on planes. At the end of the day, you can't both fly a 747 AND fight a pitched gun battle with terrorist hijackers at the same time. And being strapped into your seat on the flight deck in front of all the instruments, shooting back into the passenger lined cabin is NOT a good position to be fighting from.
oh, why can't we all just get along?
or is that a bad idea, too?
[ 23 September 2001: Message edited by: gdb1973 ]
[ 23 September 2001: Message edited by: gdb1973 ]
Hmmm. Maybe we'd better just strap everyone to their seats for the duration of the flight, then? Deep vein Thrombosis or not? Those needing to visit the bathroom will have to be taken under armed guard? Nah, why take risks? how about an armed escort fighter for every flight? (With every crew member being armed in case his colleage is a wrong-un?)
Seriously, though. It is a tough one. Low-velocity 22's are an option (although they are in no way reliable for a clean kill - or to hit who you were aiming at). Tasers are perhaps a better option but A) can only be used once for practical purposes B) sometimes are ineffective, if people have been able to prepare to be hit by them.
I know a lot of pilots come from the military, but not all pilots would want to carry guns and many would not be any good if asked to use one. Maybe give selected pilots the option, if they voulenteer, for additional training in hostage situations and subseqent arming but i'd go for seperate armed air-marshals posted at the flight-desk doors if you really MUST have guns on planes. At the end of the day, you can't both fly a 747 AND fight a pitched gun battle with terrorist hijackers at the same time. And being strapped into your seat on the flight deck in front of all the instruments, shooting back into the passenger lined cabin is NOT a good position to be fighting from.
oh, why can't we all just get along?
or is that a bad idea, too?
[ 23 September 2001: Message edited by: gdb1973 ]
[ 23 September 2001: Message edited by: gdb1973 ]
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
From: Tampa Florida USA
Regardless of anything else, I know several pilots at my airline that would consider it
a wet dream come true to carry a firearm.
And would beyond a shadow of a doubt, be just
as dangerous to themselves, the aircraft and others than any terrorists.
a wet dream come true to carry a firearm.
And would beyond a shadow of a doubt, be just
as dangerous to themselves, the aircraft and others than any terrorists.
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 245
Likes: 94
From: yes
I've been trained to shoot, and am familiar with firearms, was even shooting yesterday. But I would be against guns in the cockpit, most pilots would hate the idea and as many people pointed out there are other ways of dealing with hijackers, particularly if they are locked outside closed flight deck doors.
In any case, the hijacker might just resort to the classic movie scene and hold a knife to someones throat, trained as I am. I doubt if I could get a clean shot in the circumstances.
In any case, I've come to believe that any attempted hijack in the near future is doomed from the start. Pax and crew will automatically assume it's a suicide mission and act accordingly. We would have nothing to lose. I also suspect the incidence of air rage will decline too for much the same reason. The next drunk that storms the cockpit will undoubtedly die. With or without firearms.
That's the new reality.
In any case, the hijacker might just resort to the classic movie scene and hold a knife to someones throat, trained as I am. I doubt if I could get a clean shot in the circumstances.
In any case, I've come to believe that any attempted hijack in the near future is doomed from the start. Pax and crew will automatically assume it's a suicide mission and act accordingly. We would have nothing to lose. I also suspect the incidence of air rage will decline too for much the same reason. The next drunk that storms the cockpit will undoubtedly die. With or without firearms.
That's the new reality.