Good posts all. I think the argument should be based on the fact that, should some terrorist/hijacker etc. take over a cockpit, gov't authorities may opt to have the plane shot down. I would much rather implement a system of last-ditch defense of the flight station, and that would of necessity involve weapons, and most importantly, the training to use them without mercy. No problem for me, but then again, I've used weapons against people I didn't even know. It's a matter of discipline. And speaking as an engineer (aero structures), fears of one or ten stray bullets causing a catastrophic hull failure are, frankly, silly. It is a matter of stringer support for skin structure, 8.6psi differential pressure, and the diameter of the hole(s), and is 'way beyond the scope of this thread. I personally think most opposition to pilot-guns is opposition to any-guns. think about the choice: some poor schmo in an F-16 having to knock down an unarmed air transport, or a few scary moments at 35K. OTOH, the weapons need to be tethered to the flight deck. Solves a lot of transport problems.
Government O.K's Pilots W/Guns???
- Thread starter mastermechanic
- Start date
Pilots carring guns will require some training, however a good percentage of the industry is ex-military (Already trained) and of the non-military types that I know, most are skilled with firearms and shoot for sport and fun. (Many of these have already completed firearm courses.) A good percentage have probably already aquired a concealed weapon permit from their state. (The states that allow it.)
Personally, I grew up an avid shooter, and have formal training that pre-dates my first flight lesson by almost 3 years. (I was 17 when I started flying.)
However, having said this I do acknowledge that I grew up in the southeast where firearms and recreational shooting is more common than it is in the northeast or the large metropolitan areas. So for sure there needs to be training for all who will carry the weapons on board.
One point to think about is this. Had we (the pilots) been armed prior to 9-11 it is very likly that the Trade Center would still be standing.
Regarding damage to the aircraft, a stray bullet MAY cause some damage or MAY hit someone that it should not. In contrast a Sidewinder or Aim 9 Missle from an F-15 WILL destroy the plane and WILL kill all on board. Do not have any misconceptions, the Airforce will shoot down any airliner that is a threat to repeat a 9-11 type of event. The armed pilot would be the last line of defense and his weapon would only be used if the cockpit is breached.
We live in a different time now. A large percentage of the worlds population would love to kill you, Mr and Mrs American, this is not new. What is new is that now they are no longer afraid to try!
I'm sure I will draw a lot of heat over my views on this subject but sooner or later we have to say enough is enough! Last September was enough for me.
Good luck to all the furloughed employees and their families!
Personally, I grew up an avid shooter, and have formal training that pre-dates my first flight lesson by almost 3 years. (I was 17 when I started flying.)
However, having said this I do acknowledge that I grew up in the southeast where firearms and recreational shooting is more common than it is in the northeast or the large metropolitan areas. So for sure there needs to be training for all who will carry the weapons on board.
One point to think about is this. Had we (the pilots) been armed prior to 9-11 it is very likly that the Trade Center would still be standing.
Regarding damage to the aircraft, a stray bullet MAY cause some damage or MAY hit someone that it should not. In contrast a Sidewinder or Aim 9 Missle from an F-15 WILL destroy the plane and WILL kill all on board. Do not have any misconceptions, the Airforce will shoot down any airliner that is a threat to repeat a 9-11 type of event. The armed pilot would be the last line of defense and his weapon would only be used if the cockpit is breached.
We live in a different time now. A large percentage of the worlds population would love to kill you, Mr and Mrs American, this is not new. What is new is that now they are no longer afraid to try!
I'm sure I will draw a lot of heat over my views on this subject but sooner or later we have to say enough is enough! Last September was enough for me.
Good luck to all the furloughed employees and their families!
CAETravl-
No, I wasn't referring to you at all, and I certainly wouldn't make fun of anyone for asking. It's a valid question/concern. I am not an expert when it comes to bullet holes going through the side of pressurized fuselages, but from common sense, from what I have read and from I have learned after having talked to the air marshalls and their experts, it won't be a catastrophic event but I don't think it should be taken lightly either!
Oldpilot-
Yeah, I agree with you about the part of us actually carrying the guns on our person. Maybe they should stay locked in the cockpit unless we pilots receive training similar to what a professional law enforcement person would receive? Also, using your logic, that terrorist could just attack a police officer in the terminal and get a gun the same way!
I doubt many pilots would flunk a psych test and not be able to carry guns. I guess if there were such a test and a pilot failed it, he/she wouldn't be carrying a gun? I don't know.
What if a hostage is shot? I guess you could make the same argument about the Air Marshall program. Should we get rid of Air Marshalls so as to not risk an innocent person's life?
From my experience, most pilots very rarely travel with their family while acting as flight crew. In my seven brief years at UAL, I've done it on two or three flights. I'm not opening the door, just don't tell my wife that
No, I wasn't referring to you at all, and I certainly wouldn't make fun of anyone for asking. It's a valid question/concern. I am not an expert when it comes to bullet holes going through the side of pressurized fuselages, but from common sense, from what I have read and from I have learned after having talked to the air marshalls and their experts, it won't be a catastrophic event but I don't think it should be taken lightly either!
Oldpilot-
Yeah, I agree with you about the part of us actually carrying the guns on our person. Maybe they should stay locked in the cockpit unless we pilots receive training similar to what a professional law enforcement person would receive? Also, using your logic, that terrorist could just attack a police officer in the terminal and get a gun the same way!
I doubt many pilots would flunk a psych test and not be able to carry guns. I guess if there were such a test and a pilot failed it, he/she wouldn't be carrying a gun? I don't know.
What if a hostage is shot? I guess you could make the same argument about the Air Marshall program. Should we get rid of Air Marshalls so as to not risk an innocent person's life?
From my experience, most pilots very rarely travel with their family while acting as flight crew. In my seven brief years at UAL, I've done it on two or three flights. I'm not opening the door, just don't tell my wife that
What is the fixation with carrying guns in the cockpit? I can think of at least three far more pressing threats to commercial airliners than a repeat of 9/11. The gun wouldn't help at all when a terrorist decides to place a bomb inside an unscanned bag, for example.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/5/2002 11:39:10 PM avek00 wrote:
What is the fixation with carrying guns in the cockpit? I can think of at least three far more pressing threats to commercial airliners than a repeat of 9/11. The gun wouldn't help at all when a terrorist decides to place a bomb inside an unscanned bag, for example.
----------------
[/blockquote]
So you're advocating taking care of just the bag thing? Why can't we do the gun thing AND the other three things (what are the other two?).. We've seen since the government took over security at some airports that it's no better. I've flown extensively with a gun. I've had 18 year old gung ho soldiers in the back with friken SAWs. never has one gone off, never has the airplane blown up. Silly hollywood fears. If given the opportunity to carry a gun, I will decline. But having a gun is like having a nuke. The point is NOT using it. Avek, I know you spent time around Corzine, so your understanding of economics is prob an elitist one, but read some of Thomas Sowell's work. He'll explain the whole deterence thing to you. Those of you who worry about a deranged pilot need to understand that on most airliners, one guy could put the jet down at will. On the 727 even the FE could, with three little switches that the Capt or F/O can't reach, turn the 727 into a very bad glider. Worried some lunitic could hold someone hostage to get me to give up a weapon on the jet? That's INSANE. That lunitic would have to have some sort of weaon to do it, and if the crew WASNT armed, he'd have access to a MUCH MORE DEADLY WEAPON. AN AIRLINER WITH FULL FUEL TANKS! Modern Airliners have significant levels of redundancy. No one, or even a clip full of bullets, will bring it down. Evidently though, a well orginized group against an unarmed crew, CAN!
----------------
On 9/5/2002 11:39:10 PM avek00 wrote:
What is the fixation with carrying guns in the cockpit? I can think of at least three far more pressing threats to commercial airliners than a repeat of 9/11. The gun wouldn't help at all when a terrorist decides to place a bomb inside an unscanned bag, for example.
----------------
[/blockquote]
So you're advocating taking care of just the bag thing? Why can't we do the gun thing AND the other three things (what are the other two?).. We've seen since the government took over security at some airports that it's no better. I've flown extensively with a gun. I've had 18 year old gung ho soldiers in the back with friken SAWs. never has one gone off, never has the airplane blown up. Silly hollywood fears. If given the opportunity to carry a gun, I will decline. But having a gun is like having a nuke. The point is NOT using it. Avek, I know you spent time around Corzine, so your understanding of economics is prob an elitist one, but read some of Thomas Sowell's work. He'll explain the whole deterence thing to you. Those of you who worry about a deranged pilot need to understand that on most airliners, one guy could put the jet down at will. On the 727 even the FE could, with three little switches that the Capt or F/O can't reach, turn the 727 into a very bad glider. Worried some lunitic could hold someone hostage to get me to give up a weapon on the jet? That's INSANE. That lunitic would have to have some sort of weaon to do it, and if the crew WASNT armed, he'd have access to a MUCH MORE DEADLY WEAPON. AN AIRLINER WITH FULL FUEL TANKS! Modern Airliners have significant levels of redundancy. No one, or even a clip full of bullets, will bring it down. Evidently though, a well orginized group against an unarmed crew, CAN!
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/5/2002 11:39:10 PM avek00 wrote:
What is the fixation with carrying guns in the cockpit? I can think of at least three far more pressing threats to commercial airliners than a repeat of 9/11. The gun wouldn't help at all when a terrorist decides to place a bomb inside an unscanned bag, for example.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Terrorist have been placing bombs on aircraft for many years with very limited success. On 9-11 they had a 100% success rate (As far as we know.) and killed more people than all the prior airline attacks combined.
We cannot leave any gap for them to exploit, ANY weakness in the system will be found sooner or later. Someone who knows that they will die accomplishing their goal is extremely hard to stop. The only way to end this type of threat is to make it almost certian that they will not be allowed to accomplish their goal.
Deterrence is the name of this game. The idea is for it to be so hard for the terrorist to complete his goal that he/she does not attempt it!
When was the last time you heard of any problems on El-Aal (sp?) The Israeli's approach seems to work, even in one of the most volitile regions of the world. We could never implement all the security procedures that they use for their airplanes, the U.S. system would slow to a crawl, but clearly the window dressing that we used for years failed horribly. We must remove the air system from the bad guys list of viable targets!
If you appear weak you will be targeted, If you look like the meanest S.O.B. on the block the bad guys tend to pick on someone else.
----------------
On 9/5/2002 11:39:10 PM avek00 wrote:
What is the fixation with carrying guns in the cockpit? I can think of at least three far more pressing threats to commercial airliners than a repeat of 9/11. The gun wouldn't help at all when a terrorist decides to place a bomb inside an unscanned bag, for example.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Terrorist have been placing bombs on aircraft for many years with very limited success. On 9-11 they had a 100% success rate (As far as we know.) and killed more people than all the prior airline attacks combined.
We cannot leave any gap for them to exploit, ANY weakness in the system will be found sooner or later. Someone who knows that they will die accomplishing their goal is extremely hard to stop. The only way to end this type of threat is to make it almost certian that they will not be allowed to accomplish their goal.
Deterrence is the name of this game. The idea is for it to be so hard for the terrorist to complete his goal that he/she does not attempt it!
When was the last time you heard of any problems on El-Aal (sp?) The Israeli's approach seems to work, even in one of the most volitile regions of the world. We could never implement all the security procedures that they use for their airplanes, the U.S. system would slow to a crawl, but clearly the window dressing that we used for years failed horribly. We must remove the air system from the bad guys list of viable targets!
If you appear weak you will be targeted, If you look like the meanest S.O.B. on the block the bad guys tend to pick on someone else.
- Thread Starter
- #23
HEY...HEY....HEY!!!! two words for our sky protectors...Egypt Air!
Moderator's Note: Mastermechanic, you've been warned before. If you're intent on being permanently blocked from this website, keep it up.
Moderator's Note: Mastermechanic, you've been warned before. If you're intent on being permanently blocked from this website, keep it up.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/6/2002 2:55:41 AM mastermechanic wrote:
HEY...HEY....HEY!!!! two words for our sky protectors...Egypt Air you moron's
----------------
[/blockquote]
Egypt Air....Hmmmmm...Caused by a rogue suicidal pilot....Not really relevant to the discussion here, However if you want to follow that line of reasoning you cannot forget to mention Alaska Airs MD-80 which was caused by a mechanics failure to replace a known worn elevator jackscrew.
----------------
On 9/6/2002 2:55:41 AM mastermechanic wrote:
HEY...HEY....HEY!!!! two words for our sky protectors...Egypt Air you moron's
----------------
[/blockquote]
Egypt Air....Hmmmmm...Caused by a rogue suicidal pilot....Not really relevant to the discussion here, However if you want to follow that line of reasoning you cannot forget to mention Alaska Airs MD-80 which was caused by a mechanics failure to replace a known worn elevator jackscrew.
- Thread Starter
- #25
Not relevant??? Just what the heck is then, if an armed suicidal pilot is now sitting in the flightdeck....
I use to fly for a company that found many bullit holes in the aircraft durring inspections. All of which was attributed to people shooting at the aircraft on short final, especially on New Years Eve. Not one crashed. That same thing can be found on many military aircraft operating throughout the world today. Television is Television and you should not bring all that Wyatt erp stuff into reality. Sure Anything is possible. Next thing you know you will hear that West nile is caused by mosquitoes on transcon flights.
The poit is that in TODAYS world (post 9/11) A gun in the cockpit is a LAST resort, That being that if a person breaches the cockpit he recieves the mobile part of a 9mm. While the other pilot LANDS the aircraft. Plain and simple. Time is the key here, and if guns mean more time to safly get the aircraft on the ground then so be it. It is not the only soultion but it is part of the solution.
A wise friend told me once: It is always better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than to be in the air wishing you were on the ground.
The poit is that in TODAYS world (post 9/11) A gun in the cockpit is a LAST resort, That being that if a person breaches the cockpit he recieves the mobile part of a 9mm. While the other pilot LANDS the aircraft. Plain and simple. Time is the key here, and if guns mean more time to safly get the aircraft on the ground then so be it. It is not the only soultion but it is part of the solution.
A wise friend told me once: It is always better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than to be in the air wishing you were on the ground.
- Thread Starter
- #27
Folks...this is part knee-jerk, part special interests agenda. Yes, the air marshall plan has apparently hit snags, partly why Bush has reversed his position on this. But the pilots lobby has pushed this to the hilt, it has yahoo's who have some personal convoluted idea about carrying guns. I am a gun advocate, I believe in the second admendment. I also was trained and have alot of experience involving this area. We could list scenario after scenario on this, and all could be greatly reduced IF WE JUST KEEP THE GUNS OFF THE AIRCRAFT AND OUT OF THE TERMINALS. Pilots need to fly, thats it. We all need to stay alert and observant. Many security issues could be improved, all of which the government has failed miserably. I'm telling you now, this is a bad idea.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/6/2002 1:05:28 PM mastermechanic wrote:
Not relevant??? Just what the heck is then, if an "armed" suicidal pilot is now sitting in the flightdeck....
----------------
[/blockquote]
A suicidal pilot, or Deranged mechanic for that matter, already has the ability to kill everyone in the aircraft with no problem at all. The presence of a weapon in the cockpit neither increases nor decreases the risk.
What it would do is greatly decrease the risk of a deranged passenger or terrorist from being able to kill his/her fellow passengers and then using the aircraft as a guided missle!
If you truly think that having a weapon in the cockpit will increase the risk from a lunatic pilot then I am surprised that you even leave your house everyday, what with all the carjackers, murderers, Crazy drivers, drug dealers, and such out in the world!
So far I can only think of one case of a suicidal pilot and he had no problem crashing without the use of a gun. The list of successful terrorist attacks however, is long and distinguished. USS Cole, Beruit, Lebanon, multable embassey's, car bombs....etc. We need to focus on the risks that can be reduced. I guess if we had robots that could maintain and fly the aircraft we could quit worrying about it......Oh wait..what about those deranged computer programmers!!!
----------------
On 9/6/2002 1:05:28 PM mastermechanic wrote:
Not relevant??? Just what the heck is then, if an "armed" suicidal pilot is now sitting in the flightdeck....
----------------
[/blockquote]
A suicidal pilot, or Deranged mechanic for that matter, already has the ability to kill everyone in the aircraft with no problem at all. The presence of a weapon in the cockpit neither increases nor decreases the risk.
What it would do is greatly decrease the risk of a deranged passenger or terrorist from being able to kill his/her fellow passengers and then using the aircraft as a guided missle!
If you truly think that having a weapon in the cockpit will increase the risk from a lunatic pilot then I am surprised that you even leave your house everyday, what with all the carjackers, murderers, Crazy drivers, drug dealers, and such out in the world!
So far I can only think of one case of a suicidal pilot and he had no problem crashing without the use of a gun. The list of successful terrorist attacks however, is long and distinguished. USS Cole, Beruit, Lebanon, multable embassey's, car bombs....etc. We need to focus on the risks that can be reduced. I guess if we had robots that could maintain and fly the aircraft we could quit worrying about it......Oh wait..what about those deranged computer programmers!!!
- Thread Starter
- #29
And do you know how I know this can happen...years ago when we got the 777 someone wanted to see if Doom would load in the cabin maintenance system. Wiped out the whole thing, we had to change out alot of hardware to get that system back online...
