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: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
USA says 'Yes'
According to the BBC internet page the Americans have said, "Yes, arm the pilots" - A part of the pro argument was to do with the number of pax who might change carriers, depending on which ones were armed.
Glasgow's Gallus Gigolo .... PPRuNeing is like making love to a beautiful woman ... I take hours.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wibble, I appreciate that parts of your posts were intended to be humorous (I hope they were anyway) : taking the posts as a whole, you might like to be careful whom you accuse of mental instability... on a more serious note, in the case of Silkair, or Egyptair, or indeed 9/11: how exactly would a firearm in the flightdeck have made anything any worse?
Bert, I have probably said this before, but not all Europeans are automatically anti-gun: many pilots in particular have had some element of military training.
Max-met, I would suggest you give up all your connections with aviation and travel by train. Underground train.
Bert, I have probably said this before, but not all Europeans are automatically anti-gun: many pilots in particular have had some element of military training.
Max-met, I would suggest you give up all your connections with aviation and travel by train. Underground train.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Senate passes bill to arm pilots
WHAT UTTER NONSENSE! I will never agree to carrying a gun in my cockpit. Fortified/armored doors and aft video surveillance are the best and only defense for the cockpit.
The chance of me getting out of my seat, turning around to face a standing intruder while concurrently pulling, aiming and firing a gun at him/her - all in one or two seconds, mind you - would be a greater miracle than the second coming of Christ.
The knowledge that pilots may be armed will only convince a would-be terrorist to shoot first and ask questions later and he'll know exactly whom to shoot. The only people who should carry guns on airliners are Sky Marshals who are thoroughly trained in their use and who cannot be easily identified and singled out by terrorists.
The chance of me getting out of my seat, turning around to face a standing intruder while concurrently pulling, aiming and firing a gun at him/her - all in one or two seconds, mind you - would be a greater miracle than the second coming of Christ.
The knowledge that pilots may be armed will only convince a would-be terrorist to shoot first and ask questions later and he'll know exactly whom to shoot. The only people who should carry guns on airliners are Sky Marshals who are thoroughly trained in their use and who cannot be easily identified and singled out by terrorists.
foxtrot xray
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This survey should indicate whether responders are commercial pilots flying the line every day or others.
What possibly could have been worse on 9/11 if the crews were armed?
If the cockpit door is being breeched, any crew will have time to draw and aim given the recent reinforcements. It only takes a few seconds....if the door is being foricibly opened, shoot first ask questions later.
These bleeding hearts will keep coming -up with endless lists of what-ifs. In the end there is only one way to deal with the bad guys...it's you(me) or them. If the bad guy is intent on destroying the aircraft as in 9/11 there's no way to make the situation worse.
If the guy wants to go to Havana and live to talk to the TV cameras he needs the crew to take him there and land so he's not going to want to take the crew out.
Accidents happen......Question: How long or how many accidents does it take to equal the 3000 deaths of 9/11? How about a millenium for starters?
Teaching responsible people the basic elements of gun safety and handling can be accomplished in 8 to 16 hours of training depending upon extent of prior experience with gun handling...this includes 4 hours of legal and situational awareness training.
Guns in the cockpit ...........great idea which will soon happen. If the bleeders don't like US types packing heat, don't fly on 'em.
What possibly could have been worse on 9/11 if the crews were armed?
If the cockpit door is being breeched, any crew will have time to draw and aim given the recent reinforcements. It only takes a few seconds....if the door is being foricibly opened, shoot first ask questions later.
These bleeding hearts will keep coming -up with endless lists of what-ifs. In the end there is only one way to deal with the bad guys...it's you(me) or them. If the bad guy is intent on destroying the aircraft as in 9/11 there's no way to make the situation worse.
If the guy wants to go to Havana and live to talk to the TV cameras he needs the crew to take him there and land so he's not going to want to take the crew out.
Accidents happen......Question: How long or how many accidents does it take to equal the 3000 deaths of 9/11? How about a millenium for starters?
Teaching responsible people the basic elements of gun safety and handling can be accomplished in 8 to 16 hours of training depending upon extent of prior experience with gun handling...this includes 4 hours of legal and situational awareness training.
Guns in the cockpit ...........great idea which will soon happen. If the bleeders don't like US types packing heat, don't fly on 'em.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I tell you what copter . . . . if I'm ever your copilot and I'm authorized lethal defense, I'm going to have it. If you don't like it you can walk off the flight deck and we'll get another captain with balls.
foxtrot xray
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Training
Roadtrip I understand your concerns but all this QRM about comparisons with military training is not germane. Military combat involves relatively long range firing as in tens of yards or more. Defending the cockpit is a close range problem as in a few feet....point and shoot. They aren't going to be trying to take out a bad guy in Row 30 from the cockpit door. I have the feeling that some of you guys have never handled a firearm and if that's the case you shouldn't be talking like experts. Try it .......you'll like it!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots in the US (and elsewhere) carried guns routinely for many years and there were no problems with this policy. Guns in the hands of the pilots (the good guys) did deter crime, as they still do in other situations. Nothing has changed, and allowing pilots to carry weapons would improve safety, not degrade it.
The same people who decry armed pilots accept armed sky marshalls, presumably because those marshalls have been highly trained in the use of guns on airplanes. Yet reports of the sky marshall program show many are resigning or taking sick days because of the lack of training and over-work. The new security bosses have introduced a dress code that would allow a potential hijacker to easily identify the marshalls. The firearms training and skills required to qualify for the program have been markedly reduced, to the point that many marshalls are now hardly more able to handle a hijacking than a layperson.
Yet only pilots cannot be trusted to handle a gun safely?
Surely before posting comments here it would help to research the situation a little and have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the facts.
The same people who decry armed pilots accept armed sky marshalls, presumably because those marshalls have been highly trained in the use of guns on airplanes. Yet reports of the sky marshall program show many are resigning or taking sick days because of the lack of training and over-work. The new security bosses have introduced a dress code that would allow a potential hijacker to easily identify the marshalls. The firearms training and skills required to qualify for the program have been markedly reduced, to the point that many marshalls are now hardly more able to handle a hijacking than a layperson.
Yet only pilots cannot be trusted to handle a gun safely?
Surely before posting comments here it would help to research the situation a little and have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the facts.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is quite germain, A310 driver. The key point is familiarity and sober approach to lethal defense. Close order lethal defense can be taught, especially to someone already familiar with firearms.
The virulent anti-gun crowd will always come up with an excuse based upon a half-truth assumption, a complete lie, or, better still, an emotional diatribe with no basis in truth. Their objective is not safety, but rather a political agenda.
The salient points in the lethal cockpit defense are:
1. It is the last ditch resort when all others (profiling, screening, physical security) etc, have failed.
1. Training in lethal defense of the cockpit for cockpit crews.
2. Strict ROE, including not EVER leaving the cockpit with a weapon or during crisis. Lethal defense is a last ditch attempt to retain command of the aircraft. After all, if you don't retain command, then the rest is irrelevant. Retaining command of the aircraft seems to a point easily acquieced by many Europeans and British. I suspect, however, that only a fraction of the people on PPRUNE are airline pilots at all, but rather, far distant wannabees with a lot of opinions and (obviously) not much knowledge to back them up.
3. Cockpit doors are reinforced and breach resistant to provide reaction time from the cockpit team.
The virulent anti-gun crowd will always come up with an excuse based upon a half-truth assumption, a complete lie, or, better still, an emotional diatribe with no basis in truth. Their objective is not safety, but rather a political agenda.
The salient points in the lethal cockpit defense are:
1. It is the last ditch resort when all others (profiling, screening, physical security) etc, have failed.
1. Training in lethal defense of the cockpit for cockpit crews.
2. Strict ROE, including not EVER leaving the cockpit with a weapon or during crisis. Lethal defense is a last ditch attempt to retain command of the aircraft. After all, if you don't retain command, then the rest is irrelevant. Retaining command of the aircraft seems to a point easily acquieced by many Europeans and British. I suspect, however, that only a fraction of the people on PPRUNE are airline pilots at all, but rather, far distant wannabees with a lot of opinions and (obviously) not much knowledge to back them up.
3. Cockpit doors are reinforced and breach resistant to provide reaction time from the cockpit team.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike, you create the picture of guns being waved around the cockpit on every flight regardless - it simply won't be like that. As has been mentioned, it is the last line of defence and was not available to any of the flight deck crew on 9th September 2001.
Had pistols been available it is just possible that the outcome would have been different. To suggest that guns in the cockpit would lead to abnormal behavioural responses is not fair or reasonable. I too am highly skilled with small arms and have used them under the most adverse of conditions.
Pilots cope with the continuing introduction of new equipment and systems and would easily handle small arms training - if it takes time to stay current so what? Better than losing all pax, crew, aircraft and high rise just because the option of arms was not available.
Had pistols been available it is just possible that the outcome would have been different. To suggest that guns in the cockpit would lead to abnormal behavioural responses is not fair or reasonable. I too am highly skilled with small arms and have used them under the most adverse of conditions.
Pilots cope with the continuing introduction of new equipment and systems and would easily handle small arms training - if it takes time to stay current so what? Better than losing all pax, crew, aircraft and high rise just because the option of arms was not available.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But you have to give Mike credit for a logical argument. When things go bad, the F16 will be there to shoot the airplane down, which is obviously better than having the crew defend the flight deck with their evil .38.
I see reference to "the rules have changed" in dealing with hijackers, but have not seen any official notice of the new rules. Can anyone point me to a source of these new rules?
I see reference to "the rules have changed" in dealing with hijackers, but have not seen any official notice of the new rules. Can anyone point me to a source of these new rules?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike, when did you last use the fire axe for real? Well, I think you will find a fire arm on the flight deck would be used just about as much.
Don't think I am avoiding any real questions at all, just sticking with reality.
Don't think I am avoiding any real questions at all, just sticking with reality.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know if guns are the right answer to the problem of security, but when they were regularly carried they did not cause the type of problems posited here, and in general were probably a positive way to offer security. Why would they not be the same now? What has changed?
It is my opinion that guns are not dangerous in themselves, and if every passenger on board was armed surely the chance of a criminal or hijacker being able to carry out his nefarious plot would be nil. More practically, if every airplane had a sky marshall or armed crewmember, the safety of the flight would not be in doubt. We walk around public areas such as airports, city squares, banks and so on with armed persons all around us, some obvious and some concealed, and we do not give it a second thought. But if it is on an airplane we shiver and cower. Maybe it is a perceptual problem and we should get over it.
Meanwhile the airlines are being destroyed by the way our governments have made it so difficult to simply get on an airplane and fly. Passengers loads are down 20% since 9-11 and the main reason (not the only one of course) is the extreme hassles and delays we must now face at the airports.
The recent series of hijackings (funny, I thought the new procedures were meant to stop them) show that even the dumbest criminal can get around airport security. So what is the point? If it doesnt work we do the same things, only more?
Don't we ever learn?
It is my opinion that guns are not dangerous in themselves, and if every passenger on board was armed surely the chance of a criminal or hijacker being able to carry out his nefarious plot would be nil. More practically, if every airplane had a sky marshall or armed crewmember, the safety of the flight would not be in doubt. We walk around public areas such as airports, city squares, banks and so on with armed persons all around us, some obvious and some concealed, and we do not give it a second thought. But if it is on an airplane we shiver and cower. Maybe it is a perceptual problem and we should get over it.
Meanwhile the airlines are being destroyed by the way our governments have made it so difficult to simply get on an airplane and fly. Passengers loads are down 20% since 9-11 and the main reason (not the only one of course) is the extreme hassles and delays we must now face at the airports.
The recent series of hijackings (funny, I thought the new procedures were meant to stop them) show that even the dumbest criminal can get around airport security. So what is the point? If it doesnt work we do the same things, only more?
Don't we ever learn?
