guns on the flight deck!
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
From: u.k.
guns on the flight deck!
I was very disturbed at the balpa response to the security issue, i e ,"we want to see better pax screening instead" . I'm sorry to sound a bit surprised at this.
I think that security can always be beaten,so I think the best security will always be the unpredictable, i e some pilots with guns,some sky, marshals,unpredictable seat allocation, strong doors on the flight deck, cctv cameras etc etc, so that nobody can predict the level of security for any given flight.
as for the idea, that a flight deck weapon will just arm a terrorist,is I think,laughable. Because if they are in the flight deck, your in trouble.A gun is a last resort,the very last resort,and if you need to resort to a lethal force to retain control of your a/c then so be it, it has no downside, and just might save the day,
The noise and blast, that comes out of the hole of even a lightly loaded .45 is awesome, and we could use a safety slug.
come on balpa I WANT ONE NOW.
I think that security can always be beaten,so I think the best security will always be the unpredictable, i e some pilots with guns,some sky, marshals,unpredictable seat allocation, strong doors on the flight deck, cctv cameras etc etc, so that nobody can predict the level of security for any given flight.
as for the idea, that a flight deck weapon will just arm a terrorist,is I think,laughable. Because if they are in the flight deck, your in trouble.A gun is a last resort,the very last resort,and if you need to resort to a lethal force to retain control of your a/c then so be it, it has no downside, and just might save the day,
The noise and blast, that comes out of the hole of even a lightly loaded .45 is awesome, and we could use a safety slug.
come on balpa I WANT ONE NOW.
Moderator
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 5,805
Likes: 47
From: Florida
The noise and blast, that comes out of the hole of even a lightly loaded .45 is awesome, and we could use a safety slug.
come on balpa I WANT ONE NOW.
come on balpa I WANT ONE NOW.
Don't you think that you are letting your EGO get in the way of common sense?
It is MUCH better to die with dignity at the hands of an islamic fundamentalist, than to compromise SOMEONE ELSE'S principles and common sense!
BTW, I fully agree with you on this subject.......Nice to see some common sense coming from your side of the pond........
Guest
Posts: n/a
Passenger screening has been looked at for some time, but is likely to get some kind of trial in the near future. All problems with Data Protection Act, etc, seem to be vanishing.....
If the bad guys don't get on a flight, then it makes life so much easier.
If the bad guys don't get on a flight, then it makes life so much easier.
Union Goon
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
From: New Jersey, USA
Highvolt,
While what you say may be true, if he has already made it into the cockpit to take the gun, the pilot is no worse off than he would have been, and atleast he had a CHANCE to defend himself.
Pax screening will never work. In prison where convicts have NO rights and regularly submit to strip searches and worse, they get knives all the time to fight with.
Saw a flight attendant yesterday carrying around a plastic knife for protection (this was a real weapon, not a plastic eating utensil)
Armor the cockpit, provide guns incase the armor fails. The armor will provide enough time for the pilots to pull out their guns and shoot anyone that makes it through the door.
Cheers
Wino
While what you say may be true, if he has already made it into the cockpit to take the gun, the pilot is no worse off than he would have been, and atleast he had a CHANCE to defend himself.
Pax screening will never work. In prison where convicts have NO rights and regularly submit to strip searches and worse, they get knives all the time to fight with.
Saw a flight attendant yesterday carrying around a plastic knife for protection (this was a real weapon, not a plastic eating utensil)
Armor the cockpit, provide guns incase the armor fails. The armor will provide enough time for the pilots to pull out their guns and shoot anyone that makes it through the door.
Cheers
Wino
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
From: Lancs, UK
Speaking as a former professional pistol instructor the thought of a pilot with a gun is frightening and probably increases the likelihood of loss of life. I have personally witnessed and heard of enough instances of 'professionals' letting a round off accidentally to know that it will be a matter of 'when' and not 'if'that a firearm is acccidentally (negligently) discharged inside an aircraft or on the ground. Despite what you read of in the papers and see on film, I also know that so-called 'safety slugs' will have no problem penetrating an aircraft skin. They are only 'safe' in that they don't penetrate a secondary target after passing through the first solid item they hit! A trained sky marshall uses a modified pistol and ammunition and spends many, many hours in practice- not a realistic prospect for a pilot.
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
From: UK
Cat.S
What is the problem of the bullet passing through the aircraft skin? Ever had a look at the physical position of the outflow valves at max. diff.? The danger of firearm discharge in the cabin is overplayed compared with the event it is intended to prevent. I do not approve of carriage of firearms on airliners, but if they are to be carried then operational considerations are paramount, i.e. a hit must be a stopper and the round must be adequate for the purpose. Finding .38 SPL bullets lodged in the plywood of the target did nothing to give me confidence in my first issued PPW.
RAGBAG
What is the problem of the bullet passing through the aircraft skin? Ever had a look at the physical position of the outflow valves at max. diff.? The danger of firearm discharge in the cabin is overplayed compared with the event it is intended to prevent. I do not approve of carriage of firearms on airliners, but if they are to be carried then operational considerations are paramount, i.e. a hit must be a stopper and the round must be adequate for the purpose. Finding .38 SPL bullets lodged in the plywood of the target did nothing to give me confidence in my first issued PPW.
RAGBAG
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
From: Lancs, UK
Ragbag,
The point I'm trying to make is that accidents WILL happen and a hijacking MAY happen. I'm not an expert on airliners, so correct me if I'm wrong, but a round passing through the side of a pressurised aircraft at high altitude is a bad thing? As to actual bullet- at low velocity so-called expanding bullets don't, therefore the greater the calibre, the greater the chance of hitting something vital, so for serious social use you are talking about .45. I don't know who loaded your .38 special rounds, but none of mine ever lodged in the plywood target backing. What really matters is bullet placement, and only an expert, in constant practice is likely to deliver this under stressful conditions. Mossad use a low velocity .22, which is devastatingly effective when delivered to the back of the head at 3 feet! Actual statistics gathered by the American police about the effectiveness of .38 special make gloomy reading. (The best performing rounds 9mm hollowpoint and .45 are about 80% effective with a central body hit- .38 half that). In close confines if I had the choice between a handgun or a proper knife, the knife would be my choice. It never jams, is always loaded, has a much better stopping effect and is far less likely to harm an innocent party. Possibly the best argument for arming aircrew is as a deterrent, but IMHO the advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages.
The point I'm trying to make is that accidents WILL happen and a hijacking MAY happen. I'm not an expert on airliners, so correct me if I'm wrong, but a round passing through the side of a pressurised aircraft at high altitude is a bad thing? As to actual bullet- at low velocity so-called expanding bullets don't, therefore the greater the calibre, the greater the chance of hitting something vital, so for serious social use you are talking about .45. I don't know who loaded your .38 special rounds, but none of mine ever lodged in the plywood target backing. What really matters is bullet placement, and only an expert, in constant practice is likely to deliver this under stressful conditions. Mossad use a low velocity .22, which is devastatingly effective when delivered to the back of the head at 3 feet! Actual statistics gathered by the American police about the effectiveness of .38 special make gloomy reading. (The best performing rounds 9mm hollowpoint and .45 are about 80% effective with a central body hit- .38 half that). In close confines if I had the choice between a handgun or a proper knife, the knife would be my choice. It never jams, is always loaded, has a much better stopping effect and is far less likely to harm an innocent party. Possibly the best argument for arming aircrew is as a deterrent, but IMHO the advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages.
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
From: UK
Cat.S
A pistol calibre bullet will make a hole in the skin, but the effect will be neglible, even at max diff. To do any real damage to aircraft structures you need 23mm as a minimimum, and that includes an HE component. As for component damage, highly unlikely, aircraft are not dense structures and systems have a high degree of redundancy.
The MoD supplied my ammunition, I would have thought that it was obvious by my use of "PPW"
RAGBAG
A pistol calibre bullet will make a hole in the skin, but the effect will be neglible, even at max diff. To do any real damage to aircraft structures you need 23mm as a minimimum, and that includes an HE component. As for component damage, highly unlikely, aircraft are not dense structures and systems have a high degree of redundancy.
The MoD supplied my ammunition, I would have thought that it was obvious by my use of "PPW"
RAGBAG
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
From: Cydonia
With proper training a firearm WILL NOT discharge unless you want it to. Beats the !!!!! out of having my throat slit and my 727 turned into a cruise missle. Maybe you Europeans don't like guns, but I'm from New Hampshire. Everybody's got a gun. I can't remeber the last time one accidentaly discharged. As for deterrence, our crime rate is unbelievably low.
If you don't want a firearm on your flight deck ;fine. I want one on mine.
If you don't want a firearm on your flight deck ;fine. I want one on mine.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
From: Lancs, UK
Thanks for the info Ratbag- I thought any hole at cruising altitude would cause a violent decompression. I take it you mean .380 if you are talking issue Walther?, a less powerful round than .38 special, but still capable of penetrating plywood! As someone who obviously has some familiarity with firearms how many civilian aircrew would you trust with a pistol? Although it's four years since I last ran a pistol course, the gun handling of experienced military, police and civilian shooters filled me with horror and I can't believe it's improved much since! However, I'm sure that if I was in your position, I'd want my Glock back!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am a currently operating Captain and I want a gun as a defence of last resort we were allways told to co-operate with these bastards but no way now. Whats the problem with us having regular handgun training same as all the other training we undertake.If we are both armed it is unlikly we would get taken out simultaniously and now we operate a locked cockpit door policy there is going to be some comotion prior to entry thus giving us a chance to deploy said weapon
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
From: Eagan, MN
Hi Cat.S
A bullet hole has .x square inch of exposure to outside. All aircraft have 2 (two) outflow valves exposure of at least 5-6 square 'FEET' exposure. If a bullet hole were introduced to the hull, a VERY slight closing of the outflow valves would compensate for the outflow. Maybe 30 or 35 bullet holes (and I'm being conservative) would result in no pressure being lost due to total closure of both outflow valves.
I hate guns personally, but, in this case, let the guys up front (whose judgment I trust much more than politicians) BLAST AWAY!
Sam
A bullet hole has .x square inch of exposure to outside. All aircraft have 2 (two) outflow valves exposure of at least 5-6 square 'FEET' exposure. If a bullet hole were introduced to the hull, a VERY slight closing of the outflow valves would compensate for the outflow. Maybe 30 or 35 bullet holes (and I'm being conservative) would result in no pressure being lost due to total closure of both outflow valves.
I hate guns personally, but, in this case, let the guys up front (whose judgment I trust much more than politicians) BLAST AWAY!
Sam
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
From: New York
Cat S sounds like an elistist "teacher" that trusts no one but himself with lethal force. When faced with a dedicated suicidal terrorist trying to break down my cockpit door, I'll take my chances with miniscule possibility of an accidental discharge. As a matter of practicality, flightdeck firearms should be aircraft equipment kept in quick reaction safes at each pilot position. In practice, they'd never be touched except by armourers during B checks or in the case of a terrorist breaking through the cockpit door to commandeer the aircraft. It's the last defense after all the bureaucrats and airline executives have failed. This is a no brainer to anyone capable of weighing risk/reward, critical thinking, and without a blind ajenda.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
From: Yorkshire
So what you going to do when the terroist has hold of your crew of pax outside the flight deck as on Sept 11TH? Not much use then...
Gearup sounds like someone who should definitely not be in charge of a firearm!
Gearup sounds like someone who should definitely not be in charge of a firearm!
