View Poll Results: Should Airline Pilots Be ARMED?
Yes
111
34.69%
No
209
65.31%
Voters: 320. This poll is closed
***arm Airline Pilots Now***
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From information above, it appears only 1/3 would consider being armed.
In that case, make it optional and have standards for those who wish to be armed.
The bad guys can play: guess who is armed.....
In that case, make it optional and have standards for those who wish to be armed.
The bad guys can play: guess who is armed.....
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: USA or Surrey
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely agree, STOP STOP! A pilot should never leave the cockpit to shoot at a hijacker. However, this scenario is a smokescreen raised by the anti-gun faction. Truth is, a gun in the cockpit would be used only as a last-ditch effort to prevent hijackers from entering the cockpit. What are YOU going to do while the door is being kicked off it's hinges? If anyone has a workable idea other than arming the pilots, they're keeping it mighty quiet.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice dive, pullup and -ve g thena bit of nasty manoevures that don't break the g-limits. Should keep them off their feet.
Voluntary guns isn't going to work as I don't want to be working next to a guy WITH a gun, and most of the 2/3 will probably agree with me.
Voluntary guns isn't going to work as I don't want to be working next to a guy WITH a gun, and most of the 2/3 will probably agree with me.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LUCIFER,
To get control of the guns, they have to already have control (IE killed) the pilots. At that point, 2 guns don't matter, the terrorists have a weapon of mass destruction. How hard is that to figure out? If the pilots lost controll of the aircraft 2 guns don't matter, but if the two guns help the pilots keep controll of the aircraft, they have saved the lives of everyone on the aircraft and thousands more on the ground.
Futhermore, I know of many people that were carrying guns in the cockpit right up till the mid 80s when they were required to go through security like everyone else. That exemption that the airlines didn't apply for was irrelevant till the mid 80s.
As to pilots coming to blows which someone somewhere else mentioned, that was something that was MORE common in the days before CRM. Columbine is a non player. We aren't talking about children here either...
Cheers
Wino
To get control of the guns, they have to already have control (IE killed) the pilots. At that point, 2 guns don't matter, the terrorists have a weapon of mass destruction. How hard is that to figure out? If the pilots lost controll of the aircraft 2 guns don't matter, but if the two guns help the pilots keep controll of the aircraft, they have saved the lives of everyone on the aircraft and thousands more on the ground.
Futhermore, I know of many people that were carrying guns in the cockpit right up till the mid 80s when they were required to go through security like everyone else. That exemption that the airlines didn't apply for was irrelevant till the mid 80s.
As to pilots coming to blows which someone somewhere else mentioned, that was something that was MORE common in the days before CRM. Columbine is a non player. We aren't talking about children here either...
Cheers
Wino
Bottums Up
Surely the answer is better security on the ground NOT arming pilot's to the teeth for a reenactment of shoot out at The OK Corral!
I'd love to see a pilot strapped in to the seat, flying a demanding ILS, grab the gun, turn to his/her right to shoot the intruder.
In Aus for example, the Govt is spending dollars on sky marshalls, adding surcharges onto the price of tickets to pay for it, yet to the best of my knowledge, they still don't x-ray checked luggage. So, any suicide bomber has free reign. Yet I can't take a small screw driver (used to tighten spectacle frames) or my leatherman on!!!
Time to get real methinks.
No guns on my aircraft!
I'd love to see a pilot strapped in to the seat, flying a demanding ILS, grab the gun, turn to his/her right to shoot the intruder.
In Aus for example, the Govt is spending dollars on sky marshalls, adding surcharges onto the price of tickets to pay for it, yet to the best of my knowledge, they still don't x-ray checked luggage. So, any suicide bomber has free reign. Yet I can't take a small screw driver (used to tighten spectacle frames) or my leatherman on!!!
Time to get real methinks.
No guns on my aircraft!
Last edited by Capt Claret; 24th May 2002 at 01:45.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt, Claret,
How can you know how an airline works and say such a thing? The proper way to do it would be to have one person fly the aircraft and the other handle the emergency. We do it with engine failures, fires, smoke in the cockpit etc, Why would this be different? It is just another Emergency Procedure!
Does the mear thought of a gun turn your brain to that much jello?
We both know that security will never be perfect. IF you can't keep knives out of prisons where everyone is regularly stripped searched and has no rights, how will you keep them off of aircraft? ANd even if you keep most weapons off the aircraft, if you put 10 people on the aircraft that are SKILLED in hand to hand fighting, they are going to be able to force their way forward and breach the cockpit, atleast untill the permanent doors are installed which will take years.
Sky marshals wont work because there will never be enough and they also interfer with the revenue of the airline. Do you really want to take 2-4 seats out of every airplane in such a marginal business? Plus who would pay for it all?
Cheers
Wino
How can you know how an airline works and say such a thing? The proper way to do it would be to have one person fly the aircraft and the other handle the emergency. We do it with engine failures, fires, smoke in the cockpit etc, Why would this be different? It is just another Emergency Procedure!
Does the mear thought of a gun turn your brain to that much jello?
We both know that security will never be perfect. IF you can't keep knives out of prisons where everyone is regularly stripped searched and has no rights, how will you keep them off of aircraft? ANd even if you keep most weapons off the aircraft, if you put 10 people on the aircraft that are SKILLED in hand to hand fighting, they are going to be able to force their way forward and breach the cockpit, atleast untill the permanent doors are installed which will take years.
Sky marshals wont work because there will never be enough and they also interfer with the revenue of the airline. Do you really want to take 2-4 seats out of every airplane in such a marginal business? Plus who would pay for it all?
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino, please don't start to insult people whose opinions differ from yours.
You have stated your opinion. Fair enough. The vast majority of the remainder here disagree with you. I am among that number.
I cannot envisage any situation in which firearms on board an aircraft will improve the situation. Further, knowing that firearms may be on board will simply persuade any potential terrorists to modify their method of attack.
The number of possible cases in which firearms will assist are so few and those in which they will not so large, plus those cases in which they will actively degrade the chances of a successful completion of the flight so large, that I cannot see any half-way decent case to be made for it.
You have stated your opinion. Fair enough. The vast majority of the remainder here disagree with you. I am among that number.
I cannot envisage any situation in which firearms on board an aircraft will improve the situation. Further, knowing that firearms may be on board will simply persuade any potential terrorists to modify their method of attack.
The number of possible cases in which firearms will assist are so few and those in which they will not so large, plus those cases in which they will actively degrade the chances of a successful completion of the flight so large, that I cannot see any half-way decent case to be made for it.
Bottums Up
Wino
I can say 'that' simply because it's what I believe. My job as Captain of the aircraft is to fly it safely, first and foremeost.
It's not to try and shoot someone in a confined space, whilst strapped into a seat that greatly restricts my movement.
As for one flying and one attending to the terrorist, great idea, but I'll bet that very few people would remain completely unfazed whilst sitting in a control seat and having the other pilot exchange shots with said terrorist.
I remain convinced that the idea of pilots trying to be the last line of defence with a gun is ludicrous. I much more favour an earlier suggestion of some unsettling manoeuvres, as I believe that as a pilot I have a greater chance of succes than I would with a gun.
To the best of my knowledge the USA has the highest rate of gun deaths in the world. It seems obvious that gun ownership and the carrying thereof, doesn't really improve one's chances. There must be a lesson there somewhere!
I can say 'that' simply because it's what I believe. My job as Captain of the aircraft is to fly it safely, first and foremeost.
It's not to try and shoot someone in a confined space, whilst strapped into a seat that greatly restricts my movement.
As for one flying and one attending to the terrorist, great idea, but I'll bet that very few people would remain completely unfazed whilst sitting in a control seat and having the other pilot exchange shots with said terrorist.
I remain convinced that the idea of pilots trying to be the last line of defence with a gun is ludicrous. I much more favour an earlier suggestion of some unsettling manoeuvres, as I believe that as a pilot I have a greater chance of succes than I would with a gun.
To the best of my knowledge the USA has the highest rate of gun deaths in the world. It seems obvious that gun ownership and the carrying thereof, doesn't really improve one's chances. There must be a lesson there somewhere!
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain sable,
The post was so lacking in common knowledge of how things are done in the cockpit (IE one flies the plane, and one carries out the EP) that I think it was a fair question. I wasn't attempting to play the player, just point out that the post was unfair and slanted. I felt that assuming Captain Claret is a pilot (and I assume that he is) the he simply typed something designed to get a response and that it was knowingly false or overly simplistic. I should have just said so, Mea Culpa.
Captain Claret,
Very few people would remain unfazed if an engine blew up on the wing. The difference is that PROFESSIONAL PILOTS train for it so that they aren't unfazed when it happens. The same thing would be done with the arming of pilots. You don't introduce ANYTHING into an airline envirnment without procedures and training and proving runs... We are nitpicking procedures that would be implemented, but my guess would be that as one person unstraps and heads towards the door to be ready to fire in response to the assault on the door, the other pilot would make sure the aircraft was on autopilot to minimize the effect of flinching...
Manuevering the aircraft to put the pax off balance is an extremely dangerous idea, far more dangerous than firing a properly trained and loaded firearm at a short distance. You should take a look at the injury patterns through out the aircraft during upsets. You will hardly spill the drinks in the front while you are turning all the people in the back of the aircraft to strawberry Jam. Furthermore, the aircraft is not tough, just ask my two friends Ed States and Sten Molin who died at the controlls of AA flight 587. The FDR readout did not have much violence at all BEFORE the tail departed the aircraft. Not to mention the effects of 400 pound drink carts landing on babies etc...
If you were properly trained with a firearm, you would have a far greater chance of resolving the situation without injuring your passengers (Who would most definately sue)... Is it fair to kill 20 or 30 people in the back of your jet because you are squeamish? Or take sidewinder and lose the whole aircraft?
Yes the USA has gun deaths. So do Germany, the UK and everywhere else. IF you can't honestly trust the people you are flying with to use a firearm in a resposible manner with proper training and supervision, you better not climb into an airplane with them at all. And this is most certainly a fair statement in view of EGYPT Air 990 and Silk Air.
Cheers
Wino
The post was so lacking in common knowledge of how things are done in the cockpit (IE one flies the plane, and one carries out the EP) that I think it was a fair question. I wasn't attempting to play the player, just point out that the post was unfair and slanted. I felt that assuming Captain Claret is a pilot (and I assume that he is) the he simply typed something designed to get a response and that it was knowingly false or overly simplistic. I should have just said so, Mea Culpa.
Captain Claret,
Very few people would remain unfazed if an engine blew up on the wing. The difference is that PROFESSIONAL PILOTS train for it so that they aren't unfazed when it happens. The same thing would be done with the arming of pilots. You don't introduce ANYTHING into an airline envirnment without procedures and training and proving runs... We are nitpicking procedures that would be implemented, but my guess would be that as one person unstraps and heads towards the door to be ready to fire in response to the assault on the door, the other pilot would make sure the aircraft was on autopilot to minimize the effect of flinching...
Manuevering the aircraft to put the pax off balance is an extremely dangerous idea, far more dangerous than firing a properly trained and loaded firearm at a short distance. You should take a look at the injury patterns through out the aircraft during upsets. You will hardly spill the drinks in the front while you are turning all the people in the back of the aircraft to strawberry Jam. Furthermore, the aircraft is not tough, just ask my two friends Ed States and Sten Molin who died at the controlls of AA flight 587. The FDR readout did not have much violence at all BEFORE the tail departed the aircraft. Not to mention the effects of 400 pound drink carts landing on babies etc...
If you were properly trained with a firearm, you would have a far greater chance of resolving the situation without injuring your passengers (Who would most definately sue)... Is it fair to kill 20 or 30 people in the back of your jet because you are squeamish? Or take sidewinder and lose the whole aircraft?
Yes the USA has gun deaths. So do Germany, the UK and everywhere else. IF you can't honestly trust the people you are flying with to use a firearm in a resposible manner with proper training and supervision, you better not climb into an airplane with them at all. And this is most certainly a fair statement in view of EGYPT Air 990 and Silk Air.
Cheers
Wino
Last edited by Wino; 24th May 2002 at 04:23.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On my aircraft we are already armed... but not with guns.
I reckon I could do more damage with my nice sharp crash axe with x mg of adrenaline floating through my veins as I could with a little handgun.
And there would certainly be time to be ready for it as they kicked the secured cockpit door off its hinges.
But lets be realistic. None of us would stand much of a chance, guns or no guns, if we were up against a team of vaguely organised terrorists even with minimal weaponry.
I agree totally with previous posts as to stopping these guys getting on in the first place. Intelligence and security at the terminal is where its at, boys and girls. THAT is the last line of defence, as far as I'm concerned. Everything we do on board is playing succour to the media frenzy. Faced with a situation, I don't think guns would help one iota.
I reckon I could do more damage with my nice sharp crash axe with x mg of adrenaline floating through my veins as I could with a little handgun.
And there would certainly be time to be ready for it as they kicked the secured cockpit door off its hinges.
But lets be realistic. None of us would stand much of a chance, guns or no guns, if we were up against a team of vaguely organised terrorists even with minimal weaponry.
I agree totally with previous posts as to stopping these guys getting on in the first place. Intelligence and security at the terminal is where its at, boys and girls. THAT is the last line of defence, as far as I'm concerned. Everything we do on board is playing succour to the media frenzy. Faced with a situation, I don't think guns would help one iota.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are getting self defense courses at my airline. The crash ax has too wide an arc and is not recommended in a confined space. The Perp will simply step inside the arc and you are screwed...
Other things are recommended but I won't talk about them.
You guys should atleast take a close quarters self defense course, then get back to me.
CHeers
Wino
(PS the intructors say the same thing, never bring a knife to a gun fight <G>)
Other things are recommended but I won't talk about them.
You guys should atleast take a close quarters self defense course, then get back to me.
CHeers
Wino
(PS the intructors say the same thing, never bring a knife to a gun fight <G>)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: us
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino and others,
Its no use trying to convince the euros that carrying guns is the solution(or part of the solution)...guns arent part of their culture,never will be.Its just not in them.Add to this,they only experienced 911 by watching CNN.
Pilots(US at least) should be armed so that if ALL ELSE fails,they have something in which to defend themselves and their people.Its a clear case of self preservation.
The rules of the game are changing..we must change too.Somebody pompously stated that pilots are there for the safety of the aircraft and should just stick to their traditional role...yeah fine,but how would you say that to the pilots of 911?
Its no use trying to convince the euros that carrying guns is the solution(or part of the solution)...guns arent part of their culture,never will be.Its just not in them.Add to this,they only experienced 911 by watching CNN.
Pilots(US at least) should be armed so that if ALL ELSE fails,they have something in which to defend themselves and their people.Its a clear case of self preservation.
The rules of the game are changing..we must change too.Somebody pompously stated that pilots are there for the safety of the aircraft and should just stick to their traditional role...yeah fine,but how would you say that to the pilots of 911?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Planet Wibble
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Boys and Girls and fellow Citizens of Wibble,
Just thought I'd express my views on this subject.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.
do you get my point?
This is the craziest idea I've ever heard.
Oh, I've got an idea lets get a gun in the cockpit and give the potential terrorist/s a good incentive a reward for when they get into the flight deck, oh yes when they get there at 37,000 feet and the trigger gets pulled and puts a hole in whoevers head is in the way and, lets face it probably shoot the aircraft consoles (which I think could effect the flying of the aircraft) and then let the bullet penetrate the fuselage and, oh yes - cause a decompression.
No, I have changed my mind, this is a great idea, lets get the flight deck armed, while we do that we could get the crew armed. oh to hell with it we might as well give each passenger a gun each as they board the aircraft.
COME ON, WHOEVER THINKS THIS IS A GOOD IDEA NEEDS TO GET THEIR HEAD READ.
Now I think I made my point, I hope.
Just thought I'd express my views on this subject.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.
do you get my point?
This is the craziest idea I've ever heard.
Oh, I've got an idea lets get a gun in the cockpit and give the potential terrorist/s a good incentive a reward for when they get into the flight deck, oh yes when they get there at 37,000 feet and the trigger gets pulled and puts a hole in whoevers head is in the way and, lets face it probably shoot the aircraft consoles (which I think could effect the flying of the aircraft) and then let the bullet penetrate the fuselage and, oh yes - cause a decompression.
No, I have changed my mind, this is a great idea, lets get the flight deck armed, while we do that we could get the crew armed. oh to hell with it we might as well give each passenger a gun each as they board the aircraft.
COME ON, WHOEVER THINKS THIS IS A GOOD IDEA NEEDS TO GET THEIR HEAD READ.
Now I think I made my point, I hope.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Wibble is a textbook case of a person unable to think clearly and logically, nor has any subject knowledge.
"Oh, I've got an idea lets get a gun in the cockpit and give the potential terrorist/s a good incentive a reward for when they get into the flight deck,"
If they take command the flight deck, Mr. Wibble, they already have what they want, and will either be able to carry out their mass murder plan, or at very least crash the airplane if the pax try and intervene.
"oh yes when they get there at 37,000 feet and the trigger gets pulled and puts a hole in whoevers head is in the way and, lets face it probably shoot the aircraft consoles (which I think could effect the flying of the aircraft)"
Frangible ammunition will likely do non-critical damage to the aircraft. Ok, somebody gets hurt by a stray round. How many get hurt if command of the aircraft is lost? Again, the alternative is losing command of the aircraft and subsequent mass murder and mayhem.
"and then let the bullet penetrate the fuselage and, oh yes - cause a decompression. "
Obviously, Mr Wibble doesn't understand anything about aircraft pressurization, weapons, or special ammunition, either. Mr Wibble, do you know how large the outflow valve is? Do you even know what it is? I thought not.
Mr. Wibble, why don't you go over to the Brain Surgery forum and spout off your opinions there as well. They'll be about as intelligent and coherent as they are here.
"His Royal Highness, King Wibble, Supreme Ruler, Planet Wibble.
--------------------
The Wibble army WILL get you, They're everywhere................"
Please beam back to home planet, King Wibble.
"Oh, I've got an idea lets get a gun in the cockpit and give the potential terrorist/s a good incentive a reward for when they get into the flight deck,"
If they take command the flight deck, Mr. Wibble, they already have what they want, and will either be able to carry out their mass murder plan, or at very least crash the airplane if the pax try and intervene.
"oh yes when they get there at 37,000 feet and the trigger gets pulled and puts a hole in whoevers head is in the way and, lets face it probably shoot the aircraft consoles (which I think could effect the flying of the aircraft)"
Frangible ammunition will likely do non-critical damage to the aircraft. Ok, somebody gets hurt by a stray round. How many get hurt if command of the aircraft is lost? Again, the alternative is losing command of the aircraft and subsequent mass murder and mayhem.
"and then let the bullet penetrate the fuselage and, oh yes - cause a decompression. "
Obviously, Mr Wibble doesn't understand anything about aircraft pressurization, weapons, or special ammunition, either. Mr Wibble, do you know how large the outflow valve is? Do you even know what it is? I thought not.
Mr. Wibble, why don't you go over to the Brain Surgery forum and spout off your opinions there as well. They'll be about as intelligent and coherent as they are here.
"His Royal Highness, King Wibble, Supreme Ruler, Planet Wibble.
--------------------
The Wibble army WILL get you, They're everywhere................"
Please beam back to home planet, King Wibble.
Last edited by Roadtrip; 17th Jun 2002 at 20:52.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right holden, we do not have a gun culture in Europe, consequently we have fewer homicides and drive past shootings!
I cannot imagine anything quite as useless as a gun in the flight deck.
I cannot imagine anything quite as useless as a gun in the flight deck.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armed Flight Deck
Seriph, try imagining a gun on the flight deck as a deterrent to a suicide hijacker(s) breaking down the door,murdering the pilots & then using the acft as a missile to murder hundreds more.
Defence in Depth is what is required.
Defence in Depth is what is required.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt. Stable - To me, it seems you make the point that Wino has tried to advance even as you are seeking to rebut it.
The possibility or probability of weapons and other means of resistance being available to the flight deck has the effect of requiring attackers to come up with more complex and difficult strategies for the same goal. If the good-guys in the planning department are doing their homework, they will anticipate and bolix the process for those other strategies as well.
At some point it just won't be worth the trouble to pick on aircraft, so the thugs will turn to terrorizing something simpler. Is not so hard for mischief makers to identify alternative punchbowls.
Meanwhile, it could be right handy to have the wherewithal to dispatch amateurs who might not have done the full analysis.
OTHERS have made issue over the immense training required to keep pilots proficient in use of their weapons. But guns are actually very simple and reliable tools to operate, especially as compared to large passenger aircraft.
The inference is that armed pilots would need skills comparable to commandos or police. This is really a stretch, since only a very small number of situations are likely, all would have a high level of motivation built in, and none of them require real sharpshooting to make a useful "impression" at 5 or 10 paces. Some training, yes - but not so very complicated or frequent.
Psychological attitude is a scary issue, as many spouses can attest, but at some point the system has to entrust the flight crew with things much more dangerous than popguns, so they better be good for it.
Overall, I think WINO is close to right about this.
(FOOTNOTE) Virtually all passenger aircraft contain some controlled force explosives for doing the right thing at the right time in emergency situations. Mil birds are full of 'em. Even cars have them. So let's not overlook the benefits to be derived from some extra toggle switches (covers would be a good idea) attached to well-placed slicer-dicers. It's nice to have a multi-disciplinary approach to really important problems.
(and a wee bit of a REMINDER)
As for the alleged 'U.S. gun culture', a fair part of that may come from the experience and trauma of several generations of American kids who have had to put their lives on hold - or worse - to cross the drink so as to pry not-so-peace-loving Europeans from each-other's throats. Let's not be so sanctimonious - mein geheerter Herren, cari amici, et toutes des votre copains. It doesn't fit the facts.
The possibility or probability of weapons and other means of resistance being available to the flight deck has the effect of requiring attackers to come up with more complex and difficult strategies for the same goal. If the good-guys in the planning department are doing their homework, they will anticipate and bolix the process for those other strategies as well.
At some point it just won't be worth the trouble to pick on aircraft, so the thugs will turn to terrorizing something simpler. Is not so hard for mischief makers to identify alternative punchbowls.
Meanwhile, it could be right handy to have the wherewithal to dispatch amateurs who might not have done the full analysis.
OTHERS have made issue over the immense training required to keep pilots proficient in use of their weapons. But guns are actually very simple and reliable tools to operate, especially as compared to large passenger aircraft.
The inference is that armed pilots would need skills comparable to commandos or police. This is really a stretch, since only a very small number of situations are likely, all would have a high level of motivation built in, and none of them require real sharpshooting to make a useful "impression" at 5 or 10 paces. Some training, yes - but not so very complicated or frequent.
Psychological attitude is a scary issue, as many spouses can attest, but at some point the system has to entrust the flight crew with things much more dangerous than popguns, so they better be good for it.
Overall, I think WINO is close to right about this.
(FOOTNOTE) Virtually all passenger aircraft contain some controlled force explosives for doing the right thing at the right time in emergency situations. Mil birds are full of 'em. Even cars have them. So let's not overlook the benefits to be derived from some extra toggle switches (covers would be a good idea) attached to well-placed slicer-dicers. It's nice to have a multi-disciplinary approach to really important problems.
(and a wee bit of a REMINDER)
As for the alleged 'U.S. gun culture', a fair part of that may come from the experience and trauma of several generations of American kids who have had to put their lives on hold - or worse - to cross the drink so as to pry not-so-peace-loving Europeans from each-other's throats. Let's not be so sanctimonious - mein geheerter Herren, cari amici, et toutes des votre copains. It doesn't fit the facts.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Miami
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should Airline pilots be armed
Boy, oh boy........this subject really gets us going. Some food for thougt: What do I do with my "issued handgun" when I get to Madrid, Rio, Buenos Aires, Bogota (OK I might need it in Bogota), but the point is; are we going to have armories at every station to check guns in & out. Just the logistics og that........and what about that crazy capt who wants to impress the F/A and ends up shooting the F/O or the hot head who runs to the back during boarding to throw off a misbehaving pax etc. etc. and where to we keep it while flying? In the kitbag, under lock & key (No), shoulder holster? I don't know. Personally I think we are better off securing the cockpit to a satisfactory level. What do you think?