Armed Pilots For Commercial Flights

[quade 3]

This is pretty old territory and has been discussed -many- times in the aviation community since 9/11. Is there a reason you're bringing it up at this point? Did I miss something?

I don't think it's a bad idea as long as it is at the descretion of the flight crew and there are practical issues solved to ensure they'd actually be somewhat effective.

I do NOT think it should be mandatory.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

Quote

But, what would a weapon do to the controls of an airplane with a misfire or scuffle?

The basic concept is that this is the LAST line of defense on the aircraft.

In other words, if the pilot pulls the weapon, it's pretty much a them or us situation and the issue isn't really saving the lives of the people on the plane, but rather the lives of the people in the buildings. What happens next to the lives in the plane doesn't really matter. Seriously.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Ron 7]

Quote

Inside of seven feet, they are cumbersome, and tend to take way too much time, which a surprised pilot won't have against a prepared hijacker

The FAA requires doors that are very hard to get through. They have a three way lock on them. One setting is unlocked, one setting can be unlocked with a key, and the third is not able to be unlocked from the outside even with the key. There are polices that require them to be locked, when they must be totaly locked and when they can be unlocked.

The Armed Crew Members would have weapons. Their primary job in the case of an attack would be to lock the door so that not even a key would open it, call an inflight emergency, and set the plane down as fast as they can. They are armed in case a hijacker manages to break through the door...Trust me, it CAN be done if they have the time/intent.

If a hijacker is trying to break through the door a crew member will have PLENTY of time to ready a weapon.

Quote

Why not have something similar to a DB cooper switch to make it impossible to breach the cockpit during flight?

Pilots have to pee ya know. Sometimes they like the flight attendants to bring them something to drink or eat as well. Also at one time the pilots were required to have the door open for takeoff and landing. (To be honest I don't know if that has changed, I have not flown in a Jump Seat since 9/11).

Quote

Guns are like big hammers. There are very few problems they won't solve, but they are rarely the best solution.

All the pilots that support this want to do is add another layer of protection to the cockpit. They will not open the door and try to handle the situation.

Their job will be to lock the damn door and land as fast as they can...As bad as it sounds they are trained to NOT OPEN the door even if they hear the passengers being cut into little pieces.

The gun is a last ace. If a terrorist manages to get through the door the pilots have one last chance to protect the plane.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

Ensuring the cockpit door is unpenetrable seems like a much smarter choice of paths.

There is no such door. The new doors are quite nice...Maybe I can try and post a pic of how thick and well built they are. But trust me, they can be broken.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

I'm not sure how credible this is - but on the show Mythbusters they fired a gun thru the bulkhead and window of a presurized airplane and no structural damage appeared. Of course the plane wasn't in flight when this happened, so it's not foolproof.

I have seen several studies about this. Most rounds will do little to no harm.

I know people think that a small hole will cause a rip in the plane...And it *could*. But thinking a normal bullet will rip a plane apart is like thinking when we open the door on jump run we get sucked out. But the chances of a regular bullet taking down a plane is small at best.

Quote

But, what would a weapon do to the controls of an airplane with a misfire or scuffle?

Not much unless it hits a few really important parts. But think about it this way...If there is a scuffle in a cockpit...You have bigger problems.

Quote

If you do give a gun to a pilot they should be required to pass small quarter training first.

I can't go into the details, but there is a training program, recurrency training, approved type and caliber of weapon, trained procedures, non descript bag that the weapon is carried in....ect. There is only one way for me to know if a crew member is armed....And I can't tell you what that is.

Trust the people in this program are trained.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[killler 2]

Ron.....

I think you have told us to much already....
The only one needing to see the door and how it's built and locked is someone looking to get in that should not be there....

A pilot with a pistol and training is a great last line of defense....

Killer.....

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Does your company use these doors as well?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Ron 7]

Quote

Does your company use these doors as well?

Yes, it was mandated by the FAA. We are no longer allowed to ride in the cockpit, and before we could ride in the back jumpseats ALL of the aircraft had to be upgraded.

We also have to pass a 10 year background check to fly on our Aircraft.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[YahooLV 0]

if the pilot has to do anything, everyone is dead anyway.


(my humble opinion)

http://www.curtisglennphotography.com

[rickjump1 0]

I jumpseat to work, but no longer ride up front after 9/11 (we have a 121 operation in addition to the 135 operation I fly for).Not long ago I had a Southwest captain tell me, "welcome aboard, plenty of seats in the back, don't let anyone come through this door". Gulp, first time a captain told me this. I spent the entire flight wondering how a 130 lb ex-airborne ranger without a weapon was going to stop some 200 lb asshole terrorist: hit him over the head with my laptop, bite his nuts, and jump up with a choke hold and ask the 160 lb flight attendent to help. Thankfully, I never had to go into action.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

So with everything about the TSA, the terrorists, and anything else you think might be relevant, what do you think?

Arm everyone (including passengers) who can pass a qualification test with handguns and Glaser safety slugs. No terrorist is going to live to storm the cockpit.

The pilots are a good place to start. If they're going to go nuts and kill people they'll do a lot better flying the plane into something. If some nut is going to break into the cockpit and take their weapons, he can do the same thing. There's no safety decrease from armed pilots.

[Dazzle 0]

Would a better idea be to allow free (or discounted) flight (maybe with limitations) to police officers (and families) and they be allowed to carry? On any given flight there would be some or many officers on it unknown to anyone (depending on how it was implemented).

Hard to plan a terrorist operation with unknown opposition. Fairly cheap to operate, especially in comparrison to employing marshals. Trained officers and a reasonably good perk for the police.

Thoughts?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Post: Would a better idea be to allow free (or discounted) flight (maybe with limitations) to police officers (and families) and they be allowed to carry? On any given flight there would be some or many officers on it unknown to anyone (depending on how it was implemented).

Hard to plan a terrorist operation with unknown opposition. Fairly cheap to operate, especially in comparrison to employing marshals. Trained officers and a reasonably good perk for the police.

Thoughts?

With all respect to law enforcement officers, that is really not exactly what they are trained to do. I think the problem might be addressed differently, with more success.

When I was in the Army, I was stationed with a Filipini who was somewhat of a celebrity in his own country for his martial arts skills. One day, while I was talking with him, a couple of soldiers got into a heated debate nearby, about ten feet away. To make a short story shorter, a knife was pulled, and this guy disarms the other soldier who had it before anyone else even knew it was out. I'd have never known if I hadn't seen my friend walk back over with the knife.

Now if someone has a weapon on a plane, and someone well trained in martial arts wants it, if he can get near it without being suspected, the rest is much easier than trying to get the gun onboard himself. Now you have a dangerous, armed man, and the first line of defense just gave up his weapon to arm him.

Someone trained to work without firearms could be significantly more effectivethan someone who is going to rely on one when faced with a dangerous situation. They are not risking escalating violence, and can be just as effective at diffusing a crisis.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[gmanpilot 0]

Quote

Someone trained to work without firearms could be significantly more effective than someone who is going to rely on one when faced with a dangerous situation. They are not risking escalating violence, and can be just as effective as diffusing a crisis.

Proficiency with an edged weapon is a great skill set to have, and I have trained with a Phillipino Master, but I still prefer to have a gun handy. Faced with a hijacking scenario, escalating the level of violence is exactly what you want to do (ie. kill the hijackers). I can do that alot better with a pea shooter than I can with an edged weapon, and so can most people who get paid for that kind of thing.

_________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.

[Zenister 0]

in close quarters? anecdotal evidence consistantly says something different.

you run towards a gun, and away from a knife....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Yeah, well, you let me know when they come up with the billions to recruit and train enough marshalls.

Canceling the useless so-called missile defence shield would free up many $billions.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lizard 0]

I don't think pilots should be allowed to have guns. Everyone knows that alcohol and guns are a bad combination. Seriously though, the cockpit is a confined space... and there is a crash ax if things get bad.

[aerohaga 0]

Quote

Quote

But, what would a weapon do to the controls of an airplane with a misfire or scuffle?

The basic concept is that this is the LAST line of defense on the aircraft.

In other words, if the pilot pulls the weapon, it's pretty much a them or us situation and the issue isn't really saving the lives of the people on the plane, but rather the lives of the people in the buildings. What happens next to the lives in the plane doesn't really matter. Seriously.

I totally agree.
If I have to resort to my gun, then the defecation has already hit the air oscillator. My shooting someone will hopefully keep others from having to deal with the same situation.

For my part, I know nothing with any certainty,
But the sight of the stars makes me dream.
-Vincent Van Gogh

[Ron 7]

Quote

in close quarters? anecdotal evidence consistantly says something different.

you run towards a gun, and away from a knife....

It's cause the gun WILL kill you, so you had better stop that.

Also a gun has a range that running will not protect you. A knife has a very limited range.

Run from a gun and you will only die tired.

Give me the choice between a gun as a last defense weapon and a knife, I'll take the gun.

Guns also require less training. I doubt we could train people to a standard to be good enough in a knife fight, and I doubt anyone would want to train enough to be good at MA's.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Give me the choice between a gun as a last defense weapon and a knife, I'll take the gun.

Not me, I am familiar with the limitations and the speed of both. If I am within 7 ft, I can use pull and use a knife faster than I can pull, point, and pull the trigger on a handgun. And a knife is just as lethal in the hands of a properly trained individual, if that is the necessary end.

Quote

Guns also require less training. I doubt we could train people to a standard to be good enough in a knife fight, and I doubt anyone would want to train enough to be good at MA's.

That is exactly my point. If the gun is onboard, it can be lethal in the hands of pretty much anybody who's seen enough television to know to switch off the safety. It would be better to arm the martials with weopons that require training to be used effectively. It helps that martial arts require lots of training. Not everyone is going to be an air marshall, and it would be nice to know that the air marshall is a bad ass when he needs to be, and isn't just going to reach for a gun on reflex.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Ron 7]

Quote

Not me, I am familiar with the limitations and the speed of both. If I am within 7 ft, I can use pull and use a knife faster than I can pull, point, and pull the trigger on a handgun. And a knife is just as lethal in the hands of a properly trained individual, if that is the necessary end.

Key words being trained individual. I am trained with a knife and a gun. If I had one guy, I *might* use the knife, but rush me with 5 guys and I want the gun.

Quote

That is exactly my point. If the gun is onboard, it can be lethal in the hands of pretty much anybody who's seen enough television to know to switch off the safety. It would be better to arm the martials with weopons that require training to be used effectively.

We are not talking about marshalls, we are talking about PILOTS and a last line of defense.

Quote

It helps that martial arts require lots of training. Not everyone is going to be an air marshall, and it would be nice to know that the air marshall is a bad ass when he needs to be, and isn't just going to reach for a gun on reflex

Again PILOTS, not Air Marshalls.

If I were in charge I would make all air marshalls be trained in hand to gland combat. They would however also be trained and armed with a pistol since a pistol is a better weapon against many targets than anything else I can think of.

Remember these terrorists were planning on dying anyway, I doubt a kinfe would have kept them at bay, but killing them would.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Zenister 0]

actually the sub discussion was in relation to allowing 'normal' LEOs to carry onboard vs an Air marshal who (hopefully) has been thru specific training for the close quarters high density 'non-tgt' enviroment in an aircraft....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

We are not talking about marshalls, we are talking about PILOTS and a last line of defense.

No, actually the subject was changed to off duty cops as air marshalls in this particular branch of the thread.

Quote

Remember these terrorists were planning on dying anyway, I doubt a kinfe would have kept them at bay, but killing them would.

Most hijackers are not suicidal terrorists. Think D.B.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Ron 7]

Quote

Most hijackers are not suicidal terrorists. Think D.B.

That was then, this is now.

Sorry if I mised the thread shift...I still think that Armed pilots is a good thing.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

actually the sub discussion was in relation to allowing 'normal' LEOs to carry onboard vs an Air marshal who (hopefully) has been thru specific training for the close quarters high density 'non-tgt' enviroment in an aircraft....

I would still rather trust an LEO than hope that an Air mashal is ont he flight.

I still think the *best* option is good screening and armed pilots as a last resort.

Sorry if I didn't follow the thead.

Quote

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

• Quote