Aviation Jerk of the week

[LearLove]

I was reading the Correspondence in the June 2, 2003 issue of Aviation Week Space and Tech, I can't believe this Britt said this $hit.......


His Letter:

"GUNS NOT WELCOME IN THE COCKPIT

News that the first group of pilots allowed to carry handguns were swarn in last month is not welcome in Europe. Not only do handguns have no place in the cockpit of a commercial aircraft, but we should remember that American pilots seem to have problems differentiating friend from foe. How long before we read about the first "friendly fire" incident on a U.S. airliner? Pilots should be left to do what they're employed to do: fly the airplane.

Paul Ellis
London, England"


"but we should remember that American pilots seem to have problems differentiating friend from foe"

Holly crapola, is this guy looking for a A$$ kickin or what ?


Don't know about the friendly fire thing Paul, however my American grandfather and great grandfather seem to know that your beloved England seems to have a problem when it comes to defending itself.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Originally posted in Aviation Week
American pilots seem to have problems differentiating friend from foe.

The TSA is subjecting eighty year old chemotherapy patients to enhanced screeneing, and this tool thinks we have trouble telling friend from foe?

Mister Ellis needs to be cancelled.

 

[kabz]

There's plenty of reasons for not having guns .... I think the biggest one is that if pilots carry guns, then it means that there are likely to be at least two on every airplane ...

Watch the TSA screw the whole deal up anyway ... locked box my ass.

 

[LearLove]

"American pilots seem to have problems differentiating friend from foe."

Yeah, I don't think he's referring to the TSA or lockboxes but rather Illni Guard guys who hit I believe english special forces by mistake in Afganistan a little while back. Anyway what an a$$hloe thing to say.

 

[Snakum]

Illni Guard guys who hit I believe english special forces

Hmmm .... an Illinois National Guard Infantry company v.s. the Special Air Service? Who won, anyway?



Minh

 

[EagleRJ]

It was an Air Guard F-16 that accidentally dropped on a group of British vehicles.
Besides being a cheap shot by the writer, that event has nothing to do with airline security.

I can't believe the level of ignorance over guns in the cockpit, even from some airline pilots. One wrote in to the ALPA magazine several months ago worried that his FO might crack on him and start shooting. Morons.

 

[Flying Illini]

One wrote in to the ALPA magazine several months ago worried that his FO might crack on him and start shooting.

I think we all learned that an airplane is a much more dangerous weapon (in the wrong hands) than a handgun could ever be. Why would the FO start shooting when he could just nose the airplane into the ground? I just don't see that captain's point.

 

[spitfire1940]

for the record


an Illinois Guard F-16 dropped a bomb (or two) on a group of CANADIAN soldiers in 2002 in Afghanistan ... the trial of the pilots (the one who dropped the bomb and his wingman) is, I believe, still going on.

Looks like it was a dumb accident.

Otherwise, the Brit might have been referring to the Patriot missile crew that shot down a British Tornado fighter in Iraq at the beginning of OIF. At any rate, Patriot launch dudes are not pilots.

But I agree with the rest of you that this is Brit is an uncircumcised heathen and an a$$hole to boot.

 

[EagleRJ]

I was mistaken- it was an A-10 that attacked the two British vehicles.

There was also a British Challenger tank that shot another Challenger, killing two crewmen. I guess the British are not infallible either.

 

[spitfire1940]

yeah, and if you want to go back to Gulf War One, we (it was either A-10s or Apaches) lit up a bunch of Brits

But the larger point is, that these fratricide issues are wasting the wrong Brits--we need to put a Maverick on Mr. Paul Ellis--aka, the Royal Dickhea#

 

[avbug]

This isn't exactly germain to the thread, but previously EagleRJ indicated that someone who thinks their copilot might go ballistic is a moron (or words to that effect).

Not long ago I had a brief discussion regarding fuel for the next leg with an individual who sat in my right seat, while going into LAX. I won't divulge the details, but he was fine one moment and then snapped, and began yelling that he was going to hit me in the mouth. He said he wanted to throw me out of the airplane and told me I was lucky he didn't draw a gun, put it in my mouth, pull the trigger and blow my brains all over the cockpit.

Until that moment we had been flying a routine ILS approach with a sterile cockpit. He was working through the checklist, became preoccupied with something, started muttering to himself, and the next thing I knew, there was a new and different person sitting next to me. From a few civil comments to out of control, with no reasonable explaination for the switch, and no warning.

The matter was handled by the company internally, he was let go and then brought back in what was tantamount to unpaid probation. He was forced to attend anger management classes, and he's back on the line. Accordingly, I won't discuss the details, but the point is, yes, it does happen.

Scary thing is that individual owns something like 200 firearms, including a number of NFA Class III items (automatic weapons).

I'm not in opposition to carriage; I own weapons, posess a concealed permit, and even handload. However, I do recognize that there is a great deal of concern and diversity of opinion. I believe that the way to combat this is through edcuation. Calling those with dissenting opinions uncircucised heathen assholes, or kicking their ass, won't help. Just an observation.

 

[EagleRJ]

Avbug-
I'm sure every airline has its characters. The fact remains that you would be hard pressed to find a more stable, more thoroughly researched group in society than airline pilots. Anyone with the intelligence and moral character to be responsible for hundreds of lives every day should automatically be considered capable of being armed on duty. The mental requirements for the two duties are identical.

The issue of returning guns to the cockpit has been polluted by the politics of the 'Guns beget violence' crowd. Many of the outspoken critics in the media and industry publications are simply carrying over their previous arguments from the gun control debate. I stand by my opinion about the writer who is worried about an argument escalating into a shootout in the cockpit. This crewmember evidently has no problem sharing the cockpit with someone who they apparently think is teetering on the edge, even though the person has access to the crash axe, fire extinguisher, flares, and the control column. Add a gun, though, and evidently now we have a dangerous situation. A gun on the flight deck is just another piece of safety equipment that has never been more needed than now.

Has the person you described been screened by a mental health professional? If his behavior indicates bipolar disorder or something else, that would preclude his possession of both an aviation medical and a Class III permit.

 

[spitfire1940]

I appreciate Avbug's rather scary story and agree with everything he said.


BUT--I think we're making fun of the Brit not because we don't see potential problems with firearms (people can and do snap) but because I don't like the knee-jerk anti-Americanism upon which his "opinion" is based.

Ask someone from Ireland what they think of the oh-so-cultured and-humane, tea-loving, animal-hugging @#$%^!! Limeys.