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***
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Zealand
Age: 73
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A handgun in the cockpit is just too much of a hassle. I had to carry a sidearm and a longarm for many years and they are a pain in the butt for, if nothing else, security and safety issues. The hassles involved with a sidearm around the planet, around airports etc, is just too much to imagine. As for keeping one in a flight deck lockup - too hard.
However that is not to say that pilots shouldn't have a weapon - just that a handgun is the wrong one.
My company have been looking at and talking about Tasers - well that's a flawed approach also IMHO. These are cranky things and they are burdened with many problems in a confined space.
With a little training a nice pointed stick can be very effective as can many other things found on the flight deck. The axe, as was said earlier, is a bit limited - but if it had a nice spike on the head then it could be more useful.
There are people on this planet with some very special and unpleasant (for those on the wrong end) skills that could be very useful in resolving this issue. I have yet to read of a company or authority that has invited a few SAS / RANGER / ADD YOUR OWN people to do a study on this. Give a half dozen of these people a cockpit mockup and they would - I am sure - come up with a credible and effective defence plan that would be usable by pilots in the space, situation and time available.
I have my own take on this as best I can, as I am sure most have. But it is not for discussion here. But it would be nice to have some real experts have a look at the problem and give me and us a "heads up" on the possibilities. That this has not happened is not certain - but no-one has mentioned it to me yet. And I would like to know...
MG
However that is not to say that pilots shouldn't have a weapon - just that a handgun is the wrong one.
My company have been looking at and talking about Tasers - well that's a flawed approach also IMHO. These are cranky things and they are burdened with many problems in a confined space.
With a little training a nice pointed stick can be very effective as can many other things found on the flight deck. The axe, as was said earlier, is a bit limited - but if it had a nice spike on the head then it could be more useful.
There are people on this planet with some very special and unpleasant (for those on the wrong end) skills that could be very useful in resolving this issue. I have yet to read of a company or authority that has invited a few SAS / RANGER / ADD YOUR OWN people to do a study on this. Give a half dozen of these people a cockpit mockup and they would - I am sure - come up with a credible and effective defence plan that would be usable by pilots in the space, situation and time available.
I have my own take on this as best I can, as I am sure most have. But it is not for discussion here. But it would be nice to have some real experts have a look at the problem and give me and us a "heads up" on the possibilities. That this has not happened is not certain - but no-one has mentioned it to me yet. And I would like to know...
MG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Secure Flight Deck
It sure does Skibum - and justifiably so.
The consequences of a suicide hijack are horrendous to say the least.
It it also brings out a lot of hypothetical & bizarre reasons for leaving the flight deck defenceless.
No ground security system is 100% & the terrorists are not to be under estimated in their ingenuity to breach any system.
An armed flight deck gives defence in depth.
Defence in depth makes a hijack most unlikely,as someone has pointed out in a previous thread/post.
Don't fret about the detail , concentrate on the consequences.
The consequences of a suicide hijack are horrendous to say the least.
It it also brings out a lot of hypothetical & bizarre reasons for leaving the flight deck defenceless.
No ground security system is 100% & the terrorists are not to be under estimated in their ingenuity to breach any system.
An armed flight deck gives defence in depth.
Defence in depth makes a hijack most unlikely,as someone has pointed out in a previous thread/post.
Don't fret about the detail , concentrate on the consequences.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Two hundred baro
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the people I work with would be more a danger to themselves if armed than a deterrent to terrorism. If a terrorist knows there is a gun on board, why bother trying to smuggle one through security? I'm convinced it's only a matter of time until we have an incident where an armed pilot shoots out a window or shoots a steward as he brings in the coffee....
If you want to play with guns then join the military.
If you want to play with guns then join the military.
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,
How about the possibility that the mentally unstable people are not always the hi-jacker or the terrorist but the pilot and crew ocassionally as well. Wasn't the Silk Air recently and I'm sure there was another one over the past 2 or 3 years which was a case of the Pilot being mentally unstable. Now if that Unstable pilot or crew member has access to a gun, makes alot of sense doesn't it?
Although the hijacker and terrorist in this day and age poses the bigger risk and threat to the airline industry, it maybe worth looking at the other unlikey or overlooked possibilities.
As someone has already said on this topic, if the is a gun on board already, surley that is an reason why the potential terrorist or hi-jacker will not smuggle one on board.
And surley if Mr Bin Laden (or anyone else for that matter with a big enough resource) wants to infiltrate somewhere he will probably have someone there now and in place for the future, now for example if someone who works for him is in place working for an airline already, surely Mr BL would be rubbing his hand together if the was a gun on the aeroplane.
I am only expressing my views and thoughts and don't want to offend anyone. If these are my thoughts and concerns, how many other people who don't use the forum are thinking the same thing? Surley I am not the only one who thinks this way.....
How about the possibility that the mentally unstable people are not always the hi-jacker or the terrorist but the pilot and crew ocassionally as well. Wasn't the Silk Air recently and I'm sure there was another one over the past 2 or 3 years which was a case of the Pilot being mentally unstable. Now if that Unstable pilot or crew member has access to a gun, makes alot of sense doesn't it?
Although the hijacker and terrorist in this day and age poses the bigger risk and threat to the airline industry, it maybe worth looking at the other unlikey or overlooked possibilities.
As someone has already said on this topic, if the is a gun on board already, surley that is an reason why the potential terrorist or hi-jacker will not smuggle one on board.
And surley if Mr Bin Laden (or anyone else for that matter with a big enough resource) wants to infiltrate somewhere he will probably have someone there now and in place for the future, now for example if someone who works for him is in place working for an airline already, surely Mr BL would be rubbing his hand together if the was a gun on the aeroplane.
I am only expressing my views and thoughts and don't want to offend anyone. If these are my thoughts and concerns, how many other people who don't use the forum are thinking the same thing? Surley I am not the only one who thinks this way.....
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys aren't thinking about colateral benefits of being armed as pilots.
If you are gonna arm pilots, you are gonna have to have some sort of universal ID that will allow you to avoid security (What is the point if you can carry a gun?). This is probably the ONLY way we are going to be able to get back to the good old days of not being strip searched before every flight.
By mandating an armed pilot force, the government will be REQUIRED to issue the flight deck an ID that will be sufficient to allow us to bypass security.
If we don't get the guns we won't ever get the ID. We haven't had one yet, the government simply doesn't care if a few pilots are inconvienienced. Infact they like having us strip searched in front of the public. It is all part of the visual bandaid that has become security. So what is the moral of the story? Guns WILL get us respect.
Cheers
Wino
If you are gonna arm pilots, you are gonna have to have some sort of universal ID that will allow you to avoid security (What is the point if you can carry a gun?). This is probably the ONLY way we are going to be able to get back to the good old days of not being strip searched before every flight.
By mandating an armed pilot force, the government will be REQUIRED to issue the flight deck an ID that will be sufficient to allow us to bypass security.
If we don't get the guns we won't ever get the ID. We haven't had one yet, the government simply doesn't care if a few pilots are inconvienienced. Infact they like having us strip searched in front of the public. It is all part of the visual bandaid that has become security. So what is the moral of the story? Guns WILL get us respect.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: yes
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Underboost accidentally gave us excellent reasons why guns are not needed in the cockpit while arguing in favour of guns.
Quite simply any hijackers have to subdue the cabin crew, any marshall on board and the entire passenger complement, Then break down the now reinforced flight deck door, before finally facing the pilots now fully armed with the crash axe.
Just how likely is that scenario these days. Personally were I to find myself on a flight with hijackers. I would attack, what have I got to lose? Hijacking as a means to an end is finished. If anything positive was to come out of the whole thing, that's it. Nothing like 911 can happen again.
Guns are not needed now and wouldn't have prevented 911.
Arming pilots isn't going to happen anyway.
One thing HOLDEN, we Euros had to put up with terrorism when all you had was 'DIE HARD' one, two and three. Heavier security at airports is a long standing issue over here. Even in Britain a normally unarmed police force patrolled the airports with assault rifles for a very long time. Most terrorism is a series of bombings and shootings by some disaffected minority. That continues to go happen on an almost daily basis somewhere in Europe. America has so far escaped this kind of grinding terror. But the easy availability of guns in the States means more people get killed by a disaffected individuals with guns every year than are killed by terrorists either in America or Europe.
At the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland it was safer to be a combatant there, statisticly speaking than to be a civilian in certain American cities.
Terrorists have a long way to go before they can match the carnage of the gun culture.
Just a thought, the NRA shares two initials with another armed organisation. Interesting don't you think?
Quite simply any hijackers have to subdue the cabin crew, any marshall on board and the entire passenger complement, Then break down the now reinforced flight deck door, before finally facing the pilots now fully armed with the crash axe.
Just how likely is that scenario these days. Personally were I to find myself on a flight with hijackers. I would attack, what have I got to lose? Hijacking as a means to an end is finished. If anything positive was to come out of the whole thing, that's it. Nothing like 911 can happen again.
Guns are not needed now and wouldn't have prevented 911.
Arming pilots isn't going to happen anyway.
One thing HOLDEN, we Euros had to put up with terrorism when all you had was 'DIE HARD' one, two and three. Heavier security at airports is a long standing issue over here. Even in Britain a normally unarmed police force patrolled the airports with assault rifles for a very long time. Most terrorism is a series of bombings and shootings by some disaffected minority. That continues to go happen on an almost daily basis somewhere in Europe. America has so far escaped this kind of grinding terror. But the easy availability of guns in the States means more people get killed by a disaffected individuals with guns every year than are killed by terrorists either in America or Europe.
At the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland it was safer to be a combatant there, statisticly speaking than to be a civilian in certain American cities.
Terrorists have a long way to go before they can match the carnage of the gun culture.
Just a thought, the NRA shares two initials with another armed organisation. Interesting don't you think?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Havent read all the replies as of yet but has no one thought of installing Tazers or what ever the correct term may be these days, ellectronic stun guns, to the doors or other areas which could be activated by both cabin crew and pilots, COVERTLY, to down anyone attempting to enter an aircrafts off limits areas?
What a shock (sorry) a terrorist might get to find himself on the floor bound and in opperative for the duration of the flight....
There are ways to do this so come on ladies and gents think of appropriate areas (flight controls, door handles, just think of the possibilities... ) where these could be fitted and opperated from....
What a shock (sorry) a terrorist might get to find himself on the floor bound and in opperative for the duration of the flight....
There are ways to do this so come on ladies and gents think of appropriate areas (flight controls, door handles, just think of the possibilities... ) where these could be fitted and opperated from....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
International Logistics Of Gun Control
WINO your point about getting some sort of Universal ID card is easily understood. But the carriage of weapons by ordinary (non law enforcement) pilots across international borders as a means to that end is impractical reality. Keep in mind that reciprocating multinational and bilateral agreements would also have to permit pistol toting pilots of foreign air carriers to enter the US of A. How would you manage the logistics of concealed weapon permits for literally hundreds of thousands of airline pilots operating cross border flights?
Just because the U.S. Congress had approved it, doesn't mean that the U.S. Senate will approve it, nor does it mean that the White House will approve it, nor does it mean that the managements of the airlines will approve it, and most importantly, nor does it mean that individual foreign governments will allow pistol toting aerial cowboys of U.S. carriers to land their airplanes in their country.
Think about it. And then think some more about it. The bottom line is that domestically it might be possible; internationally, the issue is deader than dead.
Just because the U.S. Congress had approved it, doesn't mean that the U.S. Senate will approve it, nor does it mean that the White House will approve it, nor does it mean that the managements of the airlines will approve it, and most importantly, nor does it mean that individual foreign governments will allow pistol toting aerial cowboys of U.S. carriers to land their airplanes in their country.
Think about it. And then think some more about it. The bottom line is that domestically it might be possible; internationally, the issue is deader than dead.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I'll open a book now on who gets shot first:-
Hostie bringing tea/coffee 5/4 favourite
The other pilot 7/4
Innocent pax 15/1
Flight Dispatcher (in fit of rage) 50/1
Herb Kelleher 200/1
Terrorist 1500/1
Hostie bringing tea/coffee 5/4 favourite
The other pilot 7/4
Innocent pax 15/1
Flight Dispatcher (in fit of rage) 50/1
Herb Kelleher 200/1
Terrorist 1500/1
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
on a simpler note..
how about wiring up the cockpit door to a serious amount of volts..
ok you could still toast the hosties if it went wrong, but at least it wouldnt make too much noise...just a faint aroma of burning flesh!
apologies to tracy.
how about wiring up the cockpit door to a serious amount of volts..
ok you could still toast the hosties if it went wrong, but at least it wouldnt make too much noise...just a faint aroma of burning flesh!
apologies to tracy.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glueball,
You would need an armoury at every foreign airport that you serve, or else the weapon would have to be part of the aircraft. Either is quite doable as the maint is required to keep similar levels of controlls on their spare parts (you can't just leave em lying around the ramp, You have to know where and when the tire came from and how it was stored etc...)
Untill the door to the cabin is done away with once and for all this is the single best short term solution. In the long term access to the cockpit is gonna wind up being like the baggage compartments. From outside the aircraft only, no pass through to the main cabin. Then it doesn't matter what rude thing you do to the pax/flight attendants, you won't be able to get into the cockpit. There is nothing back there that we need, and everything we need to see can be done with camera's some hard wired and even a portable one for the F/A to bring around and point at the unanticipated problem.
In the meantime, the first mandatory step would be the vetting and issuing of ID to the flight crews, followed shortly by extensive training. The only way we will get those ID is as part of the arming process.
Huggy, if you think that Pilots are unable to maintain control and discipline of a simple tool like a gun, I certainly wouldn't want to be a pax on your airline where those same people you are afriad of are operating complex, dangerous AIRCRAFT.
As to your ods.
I am placing a bet right now on Hijacker (which I will include in the category of terrorist) I am putting up 100 dollars.
You now owe me money, make it payable to pprune for more bandwith please. I will have Danny send his boys around to collect
Hero in the cockpit
Pistol served pilot well in '54
By EVAN MOORE
Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle
FORT WORTH -- Until now it was largely forgotten, a brief, tragic incident
that lay buried in fading newspaper accounts and the memories of only a few,
but the shooting of a hijacker by an airline pilot almost 50 years ago has
taken on a new significance today.
It occurred shortly before noon on July 6, 1954, when a strapping teen-ager
armed with a pistol commandeered an American Airlines DC-6 at the Cleveland
Airport, only to be shot and fatally wounded by the captain.
The shooting ended the life of Raymond Kuchenmeister, 15. It made a
reluctant hero of the late Capt. William "Bill" Bonnell of Fort Worth and
left an indelible mark on Bonnell's psyche that he could never successfully
erase.
Moreover, in light of the recent terrorist attacks and the ensuing debates
over whether pilots should be armed, the 1954 incident illustrates a
forgotten time when pilots not only routinely carried pistols, but were
required to carry them.
On that Tuesday, 47 years ago, Bonnell was carrying his, a small,
.380-caliber Colt semiautomatic, holstered in his flight bag.
Bonnell, a tall, quiet man, was a former Army Air Corps pilot who had served
three stints in the service, two of those flying transport planes over China
and Burma during World War II.
He also was ambidextrous.
"Bill could use either hand equally well," Jean Bonnell, his widow,
recalled. "He used to play jokes on the shooting instructors in the
military. There'd be a line of officers, all in the same stance, shooting at
targets. One time, the instructor would walk down the line and Bill would be
shooting right-handed. The next time, he'd be shooting with his left. He
shot the same score with both hands."
Bill Bonnell joined American Airlines in 1936, and that airline, like
others, transported U.S. mail.
"Back in those days, the pilot or co-pilot had to hand-carry the mail from
the plane to the terminal," recalled George Patten, 85, a retired American
pilot and a friend of Bonnell's. "Postal regulations required that you be
armed. We all had to have guns, and American had us buy little .380s."
Bonnell's pistol remained in his flight bag. His widow recalled that he had
not removed the weapon in years before the day of the hijacking.
On that day, Bonnell had flown from Fort Worth to Cleveland in the morning
and was preparing for the return flight. The plane was carrying almost a
full load, 58 passengers, and all had been seated.
Bonnell stopped and spoke to a young mother with two small children seated
at the front. He then entered the cockpit and had already locked himself,
his co-pilot and the engineer inside when Kuchenmeister approached the
airplane ramp.
Police said Kuchenmeister, the oldest of seven children, was a troubled
youth who had stolen a pistol and persuaded his 12-year-old brother to run
away from home with him. He hatched his plan to hijack a plane earlier in
the day, but once at the airport, the 12-year-old declined to accompany him.
So, alone, clad in dirty denim pants and a leather jacket, Kuchenmeister
left his little brother in the terminal and walked out on the tarmac. There
he pushed past an airline agent and was headed up the stairs to the plane
when the agent demanded his ticket.
"This is my ticket," the burly youth reportedly said, and pointed the pistol
at the agent.
The agent retreated, and at the entrance to the plane, Kuchenmeister told a
stewardess he needed to see the pilot. Thinking he was part of the ground
crew, she opened the cockpit, where Kuchenmeister, unnoticed by the
passengers, stepped into the cramped quarters, closed the door and turned
the gun on Bonnell.
"I want to go to Mexico," Kuchenmeister told Bonnell and his crew. "No
stops."
Bonnell and the co-pilot attempted to explain to Kuchenmeister that the
plane did not have enough fuel to reach Mexico, but the youth would not be
deterred.
Finally, flight engineer Bob Young told Kuchenmeister they would take off
but that it was necessary to throw a switch behind Kuchenmeister before the
plane could taxi.
As the hijacker turned to look for the switch, Bonnell reached into his
flight bag with his left hand, removed the pistol, swung around to his right
and shot Kuchenmeister. The wounded hijacker then attempted to shoot
Bonnell, but his pistol misfired and Bonnell shot him again.
"I shot him in the hip," Bonnell later recalled. "He sagged a bit. I let him
have it again, a little higher.
"I had a maniac on my plane. We had women and children. What the hell could
a guy do?"
Kuchenmeister was taken to a hospital, and Bonnell, the only qualified
American pilot in Cleveland at the time, flew the plane back to Fort Worth.
In midflight, he received word from Cleveland that the hijacker was only 15
and that he had died.
When Bonnell stepped from the plane, reporters described him as ashen and
shaking.
"Bill told me later that the first thing he thought about when he was
reaching for the gun was that woman and her two children at the front of the
plane," Jean Bonnell said. "I said, `Why didn't you shoot him in the head
with the second shot?'
"Bill said, `Because I didn't want to kill him.' "
Bill Bonnell returned to Cleveland the following day. "He wanted to go out
and talk to the boy's family, to pay for the funeral," Jean Bonnell said,
"but the police talked him out of it."
Bonnell received hundreds of letters from the passengers on that flight and
their relatives, commending him for his actions.
"But Bill was never proud of what he'd done," Jean Bonnell said. "He'd been
in the service, and he'd had to fight, but this was different. He told me it
took him a day to convince himself that hijacker was really 15. He told me,
`My God, Jean, we have a 13-year-old son.'
"After the first few weeks, he stopped talking about it and would never talk
about it again. I don't think he ever completely got over it.
"But what if he hadn't had that gun? What if he hadn't shot? What would have
happened to all those passengers?"
The event was front-page news for two days, then faded away, and for 47
years the Bonnell family refused to discuss it publicly. Jean Bonnell said
she agreed to speak about her husband now only because of the recent
terrorist attacks and requests by pilots associations to be armed.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Airline Pilots Association and the Allied
Pilots Association proposed allowing pilots to carry handguns loaded with
lightweight projectiles. The first group modified its proposal to include
only stun guns, but the Allied association has not altered its stance.
President Bush has opposed the idea, as have the Airports Council
International and the Association of Flight Attendants, though a number of
legislators from both parties have supported the pilots' groups. The Senate
passed an aviation security bill Thursday that would allow pilots to carry
handguns. A similar bill is pending in the House.
In the meantime, congressional action on the proposal could be unnecessary,
according to the Code of Federal Regulations governing aviation. That
document, Chapter 11, Part 108, provides that no person can carry a weapon
onto a plane unless that person is "authorized to have the weapon by the
certificate holder (airline) and has completed a course of training in the
use of firearms acceptable to the Administrator (FAA)."
That regulation was adopted in 1981 and has not been changed. Federal
Aviation Administration officials acknowledged that the regulation is "on
the books" and that it provides for armed pilots, but refused to answer more
questions about it.
Bill Bonnell quit carrying his weapon July 7, 1954.
"He never carried it again," Jean Bonnell said. "Bill retired (in 1970). We
moved, and we burned all the letters he'd received and any news clippings.
We didn't want to remember it, but he could never really put it behind him.
"He died in 1991, and I'm afraid his later years were not very happy ones.
"A lot of people thought he was a hero, but Bill never considered himself
one."
You would need an armoury at every foreign airport that you serve, or else the weapon would have to be part of the aircraft. Either is quite doable as the maint is required to keep similar levels of controlls on their spare parts (you can't just leave em lying around the ramp, You have to know where and when the tire came from and how it was stored etc...)
Untill the door to the cabin is done away with once and for all this is the single best short term solution. In the long term access to the cockpit is gonna wind up being like the baggage compartments. From outside the aircraft only, no pass through to the main cabin. Then it doesn't matter what rude thing you do to the pax/flight attendants, you won't be able to get into the cockpit. There is nothing back there that we need, and everything we need to see can be done with camera's some hard wired and even a portable one for the F/A to bring around and point at the unanticipated problem.
In the meantime, the first mandatory step would be the vetting and issuing of ID to the flight crews, followed shortly by extensive training. The only way we will get those ID is as part of the arming process.
Huggy, if you think that Pilots are unable to maintain control and discipline of a simple tool like a gun, I certainly wouldn't want to be a pax on your airline where those same people you are afriad of are operating complex, dangerous AIRCRAFT.
As to your ods.
I am placing a bet right now on Hijacker (which I will include in the category of terrorist) I am putting up 100 dollars.
You now owe me money, make it payable to pprune for more bandwith please. I will have Danny send his boys around to collect
Hero in the cockpit
Pistol served pilot well in '54
By EVAN MOORE
Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle
FORT WORTH -- Until now it was largely forgotten, a brief, tragic incident
that lay buried in fading newspaper accounts and the memories of only a few,
but the shooting of a hijacker by an airline pilot almost 50 years ago has
taken on a new significance today.
It occurred shortly before noon on July 6, 1954, when a strapping teen-ager
armed with a pistol commandeered an American Airlines DC-6 at the Cleveland
Airport, only to be shot and fatally wounded by the captain.
The shooting ended the life of Raymond Kuchenmeister, 15. It made a
reluctant hero of the late Capt. William "Bill" Bonnell of Fort Worth and
left an indelible mark on Bonnell's psyche that he could never successfully
erase.
Moreover, in light of the recent terrorist attacks and the ensuing debates
over whether pilots should be armed, the 1954 incident illustrates a
forgotten time when pilots not only routinely carried pistols, but were
required to carry them.
On that Tuesday, 47 years ago, Bonnell was carrying his, a small,
.380-caliber Colt semiautomatic, holstered in his flight bag.
Bonnell, a tall, quiet man, was a former Army Air Corps pilot who had served
three stints in the service, two of those flying transport planes over China
and Burma during World War II.
He also was ambidextrous.
"Bill could use either hand equally well," Jean Bonnell, his widow,
recalled. "He used to play jokes on the shooting instructors in the
military. There'd be a line of officers, all in the same stance, shooting at
targets. One time, the instructor would walk down the line and Bill would be
shooting right-handed. The next time, he'd be shooting with his left. He
shot the same score with both hands."
Bill Bonnell joined American Airlines in 1936, and that airline, like
others, transported U.S. mail.
"Back in those days, the pilot or co-pilot had to hand-carry the mail from
the plane to the terminal," recalled George Patten, 85, a retired American
pilot and a friend of Bonnell's. "Postal regulations required that you be
armed. We all had to have guns, and American had us buy little .380s."
Bonnell's pistol remained in his flight bag. His widow recalled that he had
not removed the weapon in years before the day of the hijacking.
On that day, Bonnell had flown from Fort Worth to Cleveland in the morning
and was preparing for the return flight. The plane was carrying almost a
full load, 58 passengers, and all had been seated.
Bonnell stopped and spoke to a young mother with two small children seated
at the front. He then entered the cockpit and had already locked himself,
his co-pilot and the engineer inside when Kuchenmeister approached the
airplane ramp.
Police said Kuchenmeister, the oldest of seven children, was a troubled
youth who had stolen a pistol and persuaded his 12-year-old brother to run
away from home with him. He hatched his plan to hijack a plane earlier in
the day, but once at the airport, the 12-year-old declined to accompany him.
So, alone, clad in dirty denim pants and a leather jacket, Kuchenmeister
left his little brother in the terminal and walked out on the tarmac. There
he pushed past an airline agent and was headed up the stairs to the plane
when the agent demanded his ticket.
"This is my ticket," the burly youth reportedly said, and pointed the pistol
at the agent.
The agent retreated, and at the entrance to the plane, Kuchenmeister told a
stewardess he needed to see the pilot. Thinking he was part of the ground
crew, she opened the cockpit, where Kuchenmeister, unnoticed by the
passengers, stepped into the cramped quarters, closed the door and turned
the gun on Bonnell.
"I want to go to Mexico," Kuchenmeister told Bonnell and his crew. "No
stops."
Bonnell and the co-pilot attempted to explain to Kuchenmeister that the
plane did not have enough fuel to reach Mexico, but the youth would not be
deterred.
Finally, flight engineer Bob Young told Kuchenmeister they would take off
but that it was necessary to throw a switch behind Kuchenmeister before the
plane could taxi.
As the hijacker turned to look for the switch, Bonnell reached into his
flight bag with his left hand, removed the pistol, swung around to his right
and shot Kuchenmeister. The wounded hijacker then attempted to shoot
Bonnell, but his pistol misfired and Bonnell shot him again.
"I shot him in the hip," Bonnell later recalled. "He sagged a bit. I let him
have it again, a little higher.
"I had a maniac on my plane. We had women and children. What the hell could
a guy do?"
Kuchenmeister was taken to a hospital, and Bonnell, the only qualified
American pilot in Cleveland at the time, flew the plane back to Fort Worth.
In midflight, he received word from Cleveland that the hijacker was only 15
and that he had died.
When Bonnell stepped from the plane, reporters described him as ashen and
shaking.
"Bill told me later that the first thing he thought about when he was
reaching for the gun was that woman and her two children at the front of the
plane," Jean Bonnell said. "I said, `Why didn't you shoot him in the head
with the second shot?'
"Bill said, `Because I didn't want to kill him.' "
Bill Bonnell returned to Cleveland the following day. "He wanted to go out
and talk to the boy's family, to pay for the funeral," Jean Bonnell said,
"but the police talked him out of it."
Bonnell received hundreds of letters from the passengers on that flight and
their relatives, commending him for his actions.
"But Bill was never proud of what he'd done," Jean Bonnell said. "He'd been
in the service, and he'd had to fight, but this was different. He told me it
took him a day to convince himself that hijacker was really 15. He told me,
`My God, Jean, we have a 13-year-old son.'
"After the first few weeks, he stopped talking about it and would never talk
about it again. I don't think he ever completely got over it.
"But what if he hadn't had that gun? What if he hadn't shot? What would have
happened to all those passengers?"
The event was front-page news for two days, then faded away, and for 47
years the Bonnell family refused to discuss it publicly. Jean Bonnell said
she agreed to speak about her husband now only because of the recent
terrorist attacks and requests by pilots associations to be armed.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Airline Pilots Association and the Allied
Pilots Association proposed allowing pilots to carry handguns loaded with
lightweight projectiles. The first group modified its proposal to include
only stun guns, but the Allied association has not altered its stance.
President Bush has opposed the idea, as have the Airports Council
International and the Association of Flight Attendants, though a number of
legislators from both parties have supported the pilots' groups. The Senate
passed an aviation security bill Thursday that would allow pilots to carry
handguns. A similar bill is pending in the House.
In the meantime, congressional action on the proposal could be unnecessary,
according to the Code of Federal Regulations governing aviation. That
document, Chapter 11, Part 108, provides that no person can carry a weapon
onto a plane unless that person is "authorized to have the weapon by the
certificate holder (airline) and has completed a course of training in the
use of firearms acceptable to the Administrator (FAA)."
That regulation was adopted in 1981 and has not been changed. Federal
Aviation Administration officials acknowledged that the regulation is "on
the books" and that it provides for armed pilots, but refused to answer more
questions about it.
Bill Bonnell quit carrying his weapon July 7, 1954.
"He never carried it again," Jean Bonnell said. "Bill retired (in 1970). We
moved, and we burned all the letters he'd received and any news clippings.
We didn't want to remember it, but he could never really put it behind him.
"He died in 1991, and I'm afraid his later years were not very happy ones.
"A lot of people thought he was a hero, but Bill never considered himself
one."
Guest
Posts: n/a
I was told, but never able to confirm it, that Aeroflot carried a gun or guns in a locked box on the flight deck. Not sure if it was to stop hijackers or the crew from defecting to the West.
In todays scenario a locked box on the flight deck, keys with the crew, possibly collected from crew reporting or handed over from crew to crew, would be feasible and no one would have to pass security with a gun in their possession.
SOP would dictate where the weapon was kept during flight, transit etc.
In todays scenario a locked box on the flight deck, keys with the crew, possibly collected from crew reporting or handed over from crew to crew, would be feasible and no one would have to pass security with a gun in their possession.
SOP would dictate where the weapon was kept during flight, transit etc.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 57
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on guys, arming pilots is not the solution. Before long we will be arming bus drivers and train conductors!
The solution is to stop these people before they get near the aircraft.
However, if someone does get onboard and decides to start some thing then lets face it, we all have a duty to take control of our own destiny. If someone stands up and starts a problem they should find themselves faced with a number of angry pax. Let's not just sit there like terrified sheep and be led to the slaughter.
The cockpit door should stay closed regardless of what goes on in the cabin, land at the nearest airfield and if you are somewhere that precludes this, then dump the cabin pressure. Running around is a bit more difficult if you don't have any O2 or you have a mask stuck to your face.
Something else to be considered should be an ID card for someone in a uniform such as Police/Military/Fireman etc.. They could identify themselves to the cabin crew as someone to be counted on during a problem. The reward for this is a discounted airfare ,but they would not be allowed to drink alcohol on the flight.
The old idea of "let's just do what they say and we will all be OK" no longer applies. It is now"you do something and I will stand up and kick your @ss or die in the attempt."
I owe my wife and child nothing short of that or I am a pathetic excuse of a man.
The solution is to stop these people before they get near the aircraft.
However, if someone does get onboard and decides to start some thing then lets face it, we all have a duty to take control of our own destiny. If someone stands up and starts a problem they should find themselves faced with a number of angry pax. Let's not just sit there like terrified sheep and be led to the slaughter.
The cockpit door should stay closed regardless of what goes on in the cabin, land at the nearest airfield and if you are somewhere that precludes this, then dump the cabin pressure. Running around is a bit more difficult if you don't have any O2 or you have a mask stuck to your face.
Something else to be considered should be an ID card for someone in a uniform such as Police/Military/Fireman etc.. They could identify themselves to the cabin crew as someone to be counted on during a problem. The reward for this is a discounted airfare ,but they would not be allowed to drink alcohol on the flight.
The old idea of "let's just do what they say and we will all be OK" no longer applies. It is now"you do something and I will stand up and kick your @ss or die in the attempt."
I owe my wife and child nothing short of that or I am a pathetic excuse of a man.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saudipc-9 - You will probably die in the attempt. Have you ever done any anti-terrorist training within the confines of an aircraft?
Very easy to say what you will do, much harder to do it, as, very sadly, the gallant lads who tried to retake the aircraft on Sept. 11th discovered.
One terrorist, with a gun and the will to use it, will quickly subdue a cabin once he has shot dead a ringleader or two, even if he is armed only with a knife he will inflict serious damage before being overpowered by which time his accomplices will have disabled the flight crew and have control of the aircraft.
I agree with the idea that the weapon should be a part of the aircraft and not a matter of individual choice, to be toted around the airport at will. If tech crew can be trained and trusted to fly a 400 tonne aircraft which contains 400 pax and 173 tonnes of fuel all around the World, taking off and landing in all weathers and coping with various problems as they arise then surely, after the appropriate training in the use of small arms in confined areas, (cockpit mock-up for example), they can be trusted to have pistols in their custody as a measure of last resort?
Very easy to say what you will do, much harder to do it, as, very sadly, the gallant lads who tried to retake the aircraft on Sept. 11th discovered.
One terrorist, with a gun and the will to use it, will quickly subdue a cabin once he has shot dead a ringleader or two, even if he is armed only with a knife he will inflict serious damage before being overpowered by which time his accomplices will have disabled the flight crew and have control of the aircraft.
I agree with the idea that the weapon should be a part of the aircraft and not a matter of individual choice, to be toted around the airport at will. If tech crew can be trained and trusted to fly a 400 tonne aircraft which contains 400 pax and 173 tonnes of fuel all around the World, taking off and landing in all weathers and coping with various problems as they arise then surely, after the appropriate training in the use of small arms in confined areas, (cockpit mock-up for example), they can be trusted to have pistols in their custody as a measure of last resort?
Bruce Schneier in this Crypto-gram newsletter is worth a read on this subject.
The original poster was not - he / she / it was a troll.
The Crypto-grams immediately after 11/9/2001 are also well worth reading:
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0109.html
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0109a.html
The newsletters are mostly about computer security but they make many good points about aviation security - for example why passenger profiling / face recognition schemes are fundamentally flawed.
The original poster was not - he / she / it was a troll.
The Crypto-grams immediately after 11/9/2001 are also well worth reading:
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0109.html
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0109a.html
The newsletters are mostly about computer security but they make many good points about aviation security - for example why passenger profiling / face recognition schemes are fundamentally flawed.
Armed and dangerous
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 57
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BlueEagle,
Your probably right, I might die in the attempt. However, the rules have changed. Anyone who finds themselves facing a terrorist on an aircraft had better face up to the fact that they are dead anyway. What good is an anti-terrorist squad of SAS or SEAL's when the jets are being used as missiles.
If you are going to die you might as well go as the United Airlines flight did. By doing what they did and sacrificing their lifes, I have no doubt that they saved hundreds of others. God bless them.
Sitting in my seat hoping that everything turns out alright is no longer an option. We have to take control over our own destiny.
Even if aircrew do have a weapon, the training you are talking about takes a very long time to get proficient. Most likely the result would be someone shooting themselves in the foot.
Your probably right, I might die in the attempt. However, the rules have changed. Anyone who finds themselves facing a terrorist on an aircraft had better face up to the fact that they are dead anyway. What good is an anti-terrorist squad of SAS or SEAL's when the jets are being used as missiles.
If you are going to die you might as well go as the United Airlines flight did. By doing what they did and sacrificing their lifes, I have no doubt that they saved hundreds of others. God bless them.
Sitting in my seat hoping that everything turns out alright is no longer an option. We have to take control over our own destiny.
Even if aircrew do have a weapon, the training you are talking about takes a very long time to get proficient. Most likely the result would be someone shooting themselves in the foot.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Valley
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots with Guns? Oh how we laughed....
Maxmet I am with you. Pilots and guns... I remember boring hours spent in the cold war on exercise. The guns we had been issued with, Browning 9mm if I remember, were like magnets. We couldn't help but be drawn to then and to play with them. The usual game was to strip it down whilst in the crew room on standby way beyond one's level of knowledge. Then later to try to put it back together from a hastily collected handful of bits.
Variations on a theme were that a group of pilots (and navigators) would do said demolition exercise to a number of weapons. The bits would be mixed up whilst on top of the coffee table or Uckers board, and the race would be to see who could put their gun together again quickest. It made the hours fly by.
Maybe it would be a good addition to the cockpit for those long trans-siberian legs after all?
As for the temptation and dangers of fiddling with the damn things, read Wino's reported account again. The pilot with the gun got lucky when the bad guy's gun misfired. Otherwise it wouldn't have worked out too well.
Love
Roger
PS. Talking of Aeroflot, forget axes etc, I understand they have developed a nice range of only mildy poisonous knock-out gasses which might be very effective in the cabin.
Variations on a theme were that a group of pilots (and navigators) would do said demolition exercise to a number of weapons. The bits would be mixed up whilst on top of the coffee table or Uckers board, and the race would be to see who could put their gun together again quickest. It made the hours fly by.
Maybe it would be a good addition to the cockpit for those long trans-siberian legs after all?
As for the temptation and dangers of fiddling with the damn things, read Wino's reported account again. The pilot with the gun got lucky when the bad guy's gun misfired. Otherwise it wouldn't have worked out too well.
Love
Roger
PS. Talking of Aeroflot, forget axes etc, I understand they have developed a nice range of only mildy poisonous knock-out gasses which might be very effective in the cabin.