Pilots with guns

This is not realy fair.
It shouldn’t have been moved. The last post from WD was merely to support his opoint of view.

I agree that it shouldn’t have been moved either, but I don’t care either way, to be honest. I also agree that WD made an excellent point, as well.

Oh yes….I’m just an ordinary punter in here, greekdude. 🙂

And Sandy…..look at my very first posting on the thread and stop whingeing, there’s a good chap. 😀

This is not realy fair.
It shouldn’t have been moved. The last post from WD was merely to support his opoint of view.

I’m curious. Once you moved it to the general discussion, Grey Area, did you officially lose moderation power over it at that point?

As they say, Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

OK – that’s the first and last NRA slogan in Commercial Aviation. 🙂

The debate has broadened now – time to move it to GD, I feel.

Guns in aircraft will get people killed.

Cars on roads will get people killed. or Guns in banks will get people killed.

See how idiotic such a comment is? As they say, Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

Guns have been on aircraft for decades with FAMs and now FFDO’s yet it isn’t the wild west up there. The problem has been that there haven’t been enough for even the lowest of ratio’s of armed pilots/FAM’s vs. flights.

If a terrorist had a choice of air carriers which do you think he would chose, the one that has armed pilots or the one without? I would guess the one without.

If you had a choice of air carriers which do you think you would chose, the one that has armed pilots or the one without? From your answers I would also guess the one without. Why you would chose to travel on an airline that has a better chance of terrorists attempting a hijacking is beyond me.

I put my money in a bank with armed guards rather than one without (and that’s just money, which is nothing compared to the value I put on my life).

Jees, Sandy, are you deliberately ignoring everyone else’s comments from earlier?

What you are failing to understand is that once terrorists are on board, with the mindset displayed by current terrorists, it’s game over anyway. People will die, by whatever method the terrorist can employ. Yes, it’s likely that passengers would revolt and take on the terrorists and some will die. Let’s say that the terrorists can’t get into the cockpit, so the crew divert to the nearest airfield. Would for instance the American authorities allow that to happen or would they shoot the aircraft down? These are the imponderables that we may have to face. It’s not like in the 70’s with the likes of Baader-Meinhoff et al. They had political purpose which was mainly ensuring the release of some political prisoners. They had no wish to die. They wanted success and the ability, if not the opportunity, to do it all again.

Guns in aircraft will get people killed. I don’t think my view will ever change. Whatever psychiatric testing is employed is no guarantee that the person tested will react in the programmed manner. Are you envisaging that there will come a time when pilots will be employed because of their extra prowess with a firearm? Or perhaps those who are proven to be good with weapons should be cross trained as pilots?

Use intelligence and get them on the ground.

Regards,

kev35

yadda yadda

I still support arming pilots. :p

jees, are you purposely ignoring my comments from earlier?

I repeat, for the second time:

• Terrorist tries to enter cockpit
• Cockpit door re-enforced
• Terrorist delayed in accessing cockpit
• Meanwhile Pilots hear noise of attempted entry
• Delay allows Pilots to ready weapon
• Pilots shout warning
• Terrorist gains entry bang s/he is dead
• Or Terrorist aborts attempt to access cockpit
• In either situation Pilots land asap

With a re-enforced door it will take a moment for any would be hijacker to gain entry.

Jees, Sandy, are you deliberately ignoring everyone else’s comments from earlier?

What you are failing to understand is that once terrorists are on board, with the mindset displayed by current terrorists, it’s game over anyway. People will die, by whatever method the terrorist can employ. Yes, it’s likely that passengers would revolt and take on the terrorists and some will die. Let’s say that the terrorists can’t get into the cockpit, so the crew divert to the nearest airfield. Would for instance the American authorities allow that to happen or would they shoot the aircraft down? These are the imponderables that we may have to face. It’s not like in the 70’s with the likes of Baader-Meinhoff et al. They had political purpose which was mainly ensuring the release of some political prisoners. They had no wish to die. They wanted success and the ability, if not the opportunity, to do it all again.

Guns in aircraft will get people killed. I don’t think my view will ever change. Whatever psychiatric testing is employed is no guarantee that the person tested will react in the programmed manner. Are you envisaging that there will come a time when pilots will be employed because of their extra prowess with a firearm? Or perhaps those who are proven to be good with weapons should be cross trained as pilots?

Use intelligence and get them on the ground.

Regards,

kev35

Guns are fairly common in the US albeit a bit blown out of proportion by the media.

Bowling for Columbine no doubt. :rolleyes:

For the most part most of the ground security checks are just about useless. For example, folks who cater the aircraft don’t have to go through security. So some high school educated idiot can apply for a job and find himself plane-side in a few weeks with little or no supervision. Wonder how the weapons the 9/11 hijackers got on board the aircraft? Little, if anything at all, has changed.

I agree.

I came back from LAX the other day and the security girl didn’t even check our crew ID and she was on her mobile phone. We walked all the way to the aircraft without having our ID’s checked. This happens everyday at LAX.

For the most part most of the ground security checks are just about useless. For example, folks who cater the aircraft don’t have to go through security. So some high school educated idiot can apply for a job and find himself plane-side in a few weeks with little or no supervision. Wonder how the weapons the 9/11 hijackers got on board the aircraft? Little, if anything at all, has changed.

That’s my point!!! That’s where the security fails. Most of the plane hijacking came with weapons brought by some ground staff member.

Boy, I’m gone for a few days and I end up missing quite a bit. I’m doing some catch up now…..

So I suppose you think it’s smarter to arm the pilots instead of a well trained cabin crew? Then it must be smarter to take the risk of loosing two pilots instead of two cabin crew members acting like guards?

Trained cabin crew aren’t the answer IMHO. With the locked cabin door it makes no difference what is happening on the cabin side. The plan is to protect the cockpit at all costs which means the terrorists can kill everyone on the other side but the door will never open. Training cabin crew would be for their own peace of mind but do little in the over all scope of things. The pilots are the only ones that matter (unfortunately), you lose them and you lose the airplane.

Many reasons to that:
1) Pilots are not gun experts (or shouldn’t be). Even if they received a couyple of hours of training does it make them experts in gun fighting in a jet cabin?

Training is by far more than a “couple of hours” and they also have annual recurrent training similar to any other Federal Law Enforcement Officer. Training is also more than just firearm training as it includes intensive hand to hand combat in close quarters.

2) The “need” of a gun in the cockpit implies that all the ground so called security checks are useless. Why bother the pax about a tiny nail clipper in a hand luggage if anybody can hide guns in an airliner? The best way to insure safety is to prevent terrorist (and weapons) to board in.

For the most part most of the ground security checks are just about useless. For example, folks who cater the aircraft don’t have to go through security. So some high school educated idiot can apply for a job and find himself plane-side in a few weeks with little or no supervision. Wonder how the weapons the 9/11 hijackers got on board the aircraft? Little, if anything at all, has changed.

Yeah, just like the terrorists have ample time to grab a few passengers to act as improvised bulletproof vest. Besides, if only the pilots are armed while hiding safely behind their paranoia-door, that won’t stop the terrorists to use their sharpened knitting pins against the cabin crew and the passengers. I don’t think airliner pilots are the sort of people we want to burden with such psychological pressure.

Armed with a gun or not, the door never opens if there is trouble in the back. Like I said before, the terrorists can kill ever person on the other side of the door but the door will never open.

Arming the Flight Attendants is a rather stupid idea. FAMs (Federal Air Marshalls) go through an even more intensive training than FFDO’s as they must be able to work in teams and hand the complexities of disturbances in varying cabin sizes. The only thing arming a FA does is provide the terrorists with a gun on the “other side” of the cockpit door.

What the FAM’s do and what the FFDO’s prepare for are 2 separate things and they are training accordingly.

You’re going to have two men, or two women, or a man and a woman who are flying an airliner. Pilots – not law enforcement agents or members of the armed forces – plain old everyday pilots.

Armed pilots are NOT “plain old everyday pilots”, they are Federal Flight Deck Officers and have been selected through psych. evals, testing, interviews, etc. as well as well trained to the appropriate standards. Folks in the armed forces receive no training on how to engage in combat in their aircraft and do little if no training above learning how to shoot the gun.

__________

From a good portion of those that are against the gun issue I’m seeing a lot of simple fear of the weapon. ….it’s an accident waiting to happen, it causes more harm than good, it takes a marksman to handle the weapon/situation, etc. I can understand the hesitation as I know guns aren’t for everyone. Guns are fairly common in the US albeit a bit blown out of proportion by the media. Most States have a Concealed Weapon Permit that allows regular citizens to carry a firearm (with plenty of restrictions though) with a bit of training.

A lot of it stems from a fear of the unknown and comes from lack of exposure. I think in such cases you have to eliminate the extremes and find the truth somewhere in the middle. Ignore the “errant bullets will bring the plane down” to the “there are no problems with the practice” extremes. Is it a perfect solution? No, but the hazards can/have been greatly minimized to the point where it is believed that such “risks” are worth taking to prevent any cockpit attack from being successful.

Not every pilot can/will carry a firearm in the US but as someone said, the possibility that 1 of the 2 pilots up front is carrying a gun could be enough to deter any future hijacking. If that’s the case then we win without having to fire a single shot.

Really, skycruiser?

Obviously you know what you’re talking about, so why would this be the case?

Without going into different cultures too much, let’s just say that some Asian cultures would be to sit back and do nothing compared to a Western culture which would be prepared to stand up for themselves.

“You can take a complete novice and teach them to fly a 200 tonne aircraft. No one questions this. But everyone questions the training a man to aim a gun and pull the trigger.

Double standards or hipocracy or ignorance??”

Whose ignorance?

You are training people to fly an aircraft safely. How can you ever be certain that a person will react in the correct manner when asked to kill someone? Show me the testing required for that Sandy. It’s a one-off call, can that person be relied upon to pull the trigger? Shoot first and ask questions afterwards? We would all like to think that we could pull that trigger without compunction. The point is 99.99999% of us will never be faced with that. So, to salve our conscience and make us feel better we ask someone else to do that on our behalf?

Stop them before they get to the aircraft, don’t pass the extra pressure to the flight crew in that if terrorists get through lax security, we can always rely on the flight crew.

Regards,

kev35

My exact point of view … in a better English.
I don’t think that 9/11 will happen again and this for one abvious reason. Ben Laden has much easier targets!!! Trains (see Madrid) , I wrote a few years ago that trains would be the next target. Boats, tankers , Pipelines , buses etc. Why would they take the risk of an attack where they are expected.

As for the guns it’s an US response to a fear. I have the feeling that most of the Europeans don’t approve this decision. I certainly flew on planes with weapons on baord but I do prefer not to know it. Anyway I prefer the “Marshall” solution than armed pilots.

As ever, Kev35’s response is the most reasoned. If you were ever in a situation on a commercial aircraft when that level of force is required, then EVERYONE, from MI5 through to airport security has totally let you down. Far better use your resources in preventing the nutters getting anywhere near the jet, than the highly dangerous step of placing firearms onboard.

The fundamental question is, are firearms in the aircraft a greater danger than the perceived threat from terrorists? I believe they are, mainly for the reason that I suspect that the ‘threat’ has been hugely exaggerated for purely political reasons. There clearly is a level of threat, but I think it is far lower than President B. Liar would like to admit.

In South Africa , we flew capetown-Joburgh on a 737 and the cockpit door was open all the way
kevin

My last flight with AF , the door was open most of the time.

A solution?

Could it be possible to re-design future aircraft with a sealed cockpit and crew compartment, with only external access? No-one from the passenger compartment could then get into the cockpit.

I know that this may cause some problems, but i don’t think there are any that aren’t fairly easy to overcome. Just a thought.

Really, skycruiser?

Obviously you know what you’re talking about, so why would this be the case?

In South Africa , we flew capetown-Joburgh on a 737 and the cockpit door was open all the way
kevin

I’m just on my way out the door, but had a quick scan over this and didn’t think anyone else had mentioned it. On the fact about the pilots not having enough time to put up with a terrorist if they storm in the cockpit, don’t they still have cameras in the galleys? If this is the case, then surely this would give them an either longer time to prepare for what’s about to happen, before the terrorists even get to the cockpit door.

Really, skycruiser?

Obviously you know what you’re talking about, so why would this be the case?