Armed Pilots For Commercial Flights

[jumpwally 0]

My wife is a flight attendant for one of the big guys.On one of her flights ,after landing some big fat fuck tripped in the isle on exit and put his shoulder into cockpit door,,broke it and good. So as Ron say's they can get broken.

Also there is a reason why they changed the drinking age to 21,,it didn't work the other way. My .02 ,and mine only. wally

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[gmanpilot 0]

Quote

in close quarters? anecdotal evidence consistantly says something different.
you run towards a gun, and away from a knife....

Not in an airplane. If a someone is hijacking an airplane with a gun, you kill him. If he has a knife, you kill him. No warning, no discussion, no hesitation...just shoot him. The best way to kill bad guys in an airplane is with a pistol, not a knife.

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

[rehmwa 2]

Let's just take an air marshall and give him some classes in calculus.

Then they can fly the plane and defend against terrorists.

---sorry, wrong thread

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Post: Let's just take an air marshall and give him some classes in calculus.

Then they can fly the plane and defend against terrorists.

LMAO

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

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

in close quarters? anecdotal evidence consistantly says something different.
you run towards a gun, and away from a knife....

Not in an airplane. If a someone is hijacking an airplane with a gun, you kill him. If he has a knife, you kill him. No warning, no discussion, no hesitation...just shoot him. The best way to kill bad guys in an airplane is with a pistol, not a knife.

and you miss the point.. its much harder to effectively use a gun at a distance of less than 5 feet than it is a knife...guns are very useful, very lethal items... in the right enviroment, with the right circumstance..... you dont use a 155 mm howitizer at less than 500m either...

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

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

you dont use a 155 mm howitizer at less than 500m either...

A 155mm HE round makes short work of trees inside 500m!

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

[killler 2]

A 155wp round with a time fuse for airburst is great for troops at 500m.... Crispy critters

I think it's funny how far off a thread can go on this site....

Killer.......

[Ron 7]

Quote

and you miss the point.. its much harder to effectively use a gun at a distance of less than 5 feet than it is a knife...

Not in this case as for as arming pilots go. They will hahve time to ready the weapon and the terrorist would have to breach a door.

As for Air Marshals...I think that as an offensive attack it is better to have a gun. You have more range, can take down more targets quickly (You could do well with a knife or hand to hand if you are REALLY trained...But lets face it, very few folks are able to execute that well).

Think multiple targets at various ranges with possible firearms....I'd rather have a gun.

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

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Also there is a reason why they changed the drinking age to 21,,it didn't work the other way. My .02 ,and mine only. wally

I've watched children under 10 drinking in Europe, and German drinking age is 16 for beer and wine without parents present (no minimum with parents, 18 for hard alcohol). It's 16-18 in much of the world.

It works fine.

When drinking is illegal for children living at home with their parents it becomes a forbidden fruit that they abuse once out on their own. At least four college students in Colorado have died from alcohol poisoning this year.

[akarunway 1]

Uh huh. You're going to say that to pilots flying NYC to LA? LA to Honolulu? "Sorry boys, no drinks, no piss breaks, just fly."

Good luck with that one. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So why can't we subsidize the airlines to modify the cockpit doors w/ a double entry like my bank has? Let trained pilots carry and have a couple FM's w/ MP5/10's aboard to boot somewhat like the Isrealis. We've spent how many billion since 9/11? What's a couple more?.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Let trained pilots carry and have a couple FM's w/ MP5/10's aboard to boot somewhat like the Isrealis.

I don't think I'd want to give them something capable of shooting full automatic. I believe in acceptable risk but we are in an airplane at 40,000ft. Some training and a pistol should do fine.

[billvon 2,380]

>You're going to say that to pilots flying NYC to LA? LA to Honolulu?
>"Sorry boys, no drinks, no piss breaks, just fly."

There's no problem doing this logistically. Some aircraft even have separate crew quarters complete with bunks and heads for long flights; you just have to do it. Such an idea probably wouldn't fly because airlines would lose revenue (lost room for seats) unless it was implemented equally, and it wouldn't be.

[akarunway 1]

I don't think I'd want to give them something capable of shooting full automatic. I believe in acceptable risk but we are in an airplane at 40,000ft. Some training and a pistol should do fine.
______________________________________________________________________________________ Worse case senerio they might come in handy. Better the plane go down than another 9/11. I'll take the risk

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Kennedy 0]

That works real well on intercontinental 747s, I'm sure.

What about 707s? What about puddle jumping commuter flights?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,380]

>What about 707s? What about puddle jumping commuter flights?

Name an aircraft. Any part-121 aircraft out there could be modified to remove the first row of seats and to add an impregnable door with a separate crew compartment, from a Saab 340 to a CRJ to a 707. It is nothing more than an engineering exercise. It will be expensive, of course - but then when your standards are that you'll spend $10 billion a year on a missile defense system that doesn't work, expense is clearly not the primary consideration.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Name an aircraft

727

Quote

Any part-121 aircraft out there could be modified to remove the first row of seats and to add an impregnable door with a separate crew compartment

How would you get the passengers off of a 727 if you take over the are where the main entry door is? Let them walk on the wing?

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

[billvon 2,380]

>How would you get the passengers off of a 727 if you take over the
>are where the main entry door is? Let them walk on the wing?

A new door is built (to any standard of strength you want) behind the main cabin door, between the first class head and the first class area. The first row of seats is removed and replaced with a service area/head. In the crew area is the original service area, the head and a crew rest area that can be used for sleeping/deadheading/crew changes on long flights.

On boarding, both the new door and the cabin door is opened. Before takeoff the crew locks the door between the cabin and the crew area. During takeoff, release of the WOW switch (weight-on-wheels) engages a second set of locks on the security door, such that it cannot be opened in flight even with a key/combination.

[Ron 7]

Alright, you can do it.

My bad.

Lucky for me, boxes rarely try to hijack a plane.

Although we did get a TSA message after that jackass shipped himself to Texas via Airborne.

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

[tunaplanet 0]

Horrible idea. Pilots can barely fly from point A to point B let alone trust them with firearms in a combat situation. I mean have you taken a look at the morons recently?

Tell you what. When they can show up for work without their blood alcohol level higher than the Eifel Tower I'll consider it. Until then let's give these geniuses as little responsibility as possible.

Forty-two

[Ron 7]

Quote

Horrible idea. Pilots can barely fly from point A to point B let alone trust them with firearms in a combat situation. I mean have you taken a look at the morons recently?

Tell you what. When they can show up for work without their blood alcohol level higher than the Eifel Tower I'll consider it. Until then let's give these geniuses as little responsibility as possible.

I'd agree with you, but considering that it would be a last ditch effort to save the plane and they are not supposed to act like a CAG guy....If it comes down to the pilots going hand to hand to save the plane, or give them a gun....I can't see much harm at that point in giving them a gun....Hell at that point I'd like a 4 year old to have a gun. Its not like they could do much more harm.

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

[LearningTOfly 0]

I think it's a pointless idea... hostage taking is so 1980, and hijacking no longer has the element of surprize. Give it ten years until we forget, and then it might be effective once more, but until then...

I saw someone say that they'd rather have the pilot flying the plane than trying to defend the paxers. Well, just for those who don't spend much time in the cockpit... pilot's don't actually do much active flying at all... it's too much work... the trusty autopilot can handle the plane just fine all by it's self. They might do the landing, but just for fun

Which brings up an interesting idea... what if it's possible to program a flight path into that trusty Honeywell that intercepts a fairly tall building. No human hijackers necessary... the pilots wouldn't have much of an idea of what's going on or how to stop it... I guess they could take out their guns and blast away at the control panel, but I doubt that that would do much more than frighten the paxers. That 737 would then be no less of a guided missile than a Tomahawk...

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Horrible idea. Pilots can barely fly from point A to point B let alone trust them with firearms in a combat situation. I mean have you taken a look at the morons recently?

Tell you what. When they can show up for work without their blood alcohol level higher than the Eifel Tower I'll consider it. Until then let's give these geniuses as little responsibility as possible.

What generalized, baseless crap.....

[bch7773 0]

ok the pilots obviously have to leave the cockpit for bathroom breaks correct? And if they are carrying the gun with them to the bathroom, conceivably a terrorist could ambush him, get the gun, and bad things would happen.

So I am ok with pilots carrying guns, but only if they are qualified, and if they leave the gun in the cockpit during the flight.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

ok the pilots obviously have to leave the cockpit for bathroom breaks correct? And if they are carrying the gun with them to the bathroom, conceivably a terrorist could ambush him, get the gun, and bad things would happen.

So you're afraid a hijacker could take the gun form the pilot, but don't think the passengers could take the gun from the hijacker?

Quote

So I am ok with pilots carrying guns, but only if they are qualified,

Well, more would be qualified if bureaucrats would stop impeding the will of congress and just trian the pilots like they were directed to do. Mineta and his ilk think they know better.

Quote

and if they leave the gun in the cockpit during the flight.

So somehow you think leaving the gun sitting in the cockpit outside the pilot's control is somehow safer than leaving it concealed on his body as he goes about his job of flying the plane?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[pajarito 0]

Quote

So somehow you think leaving the gun sitting in the cockpit outside the pilot's control is somehow safer than leaving it concealed on his body as he goes about his job of flying the plane?

Sure Kennedy...
You know how "guns" kill people. Better leave that thing in the cockpit so it can't do any damage. It's libel to jump up and shoot somebody. Kidding aside. I don't think anyone put in the position of protecting others should leave their weapon anywhere. It should be on their person and ready to fire or they shouldn't carry at all. What's the point? I don't believe in the intimidation theory where the passengers are simply aware that the pilot is in possession of a gun in the cockpit and that's supposed to deter them. I don't think anyone should carry a weapon who doesn't have the will to actually use it. We can all “what if” this thing to death (i.e. What if the pilot gets it taken away from him?) but the alternative has proven much more catastrophic than that. Any way you look at it these days, risks have to be taken to ensure the safety of others.