Bush rethinks opposition to armed pilots

[jackofdiamonds]

bullets

hey piper, if someone gets into the flightdeck of a 121 airliner I dont think you should be concerned about the 10 9mm rounds he has but the guided missle he now commands. If there are confirmed FAM's on board every flight then I have no problem with them handling any situation (which they are very well equipped to do)but that will never be the case. Think how many jets take off each day just on the eastcoast!!!!!!

 

[kilomike]

FINALLY!!

This liberal who FAVORS arming the pilots is glad that finally our weakling president has the guts to at least think about having that crucial last line of defense.....

 

[nosewheel]

DON"T SHOOT!!!!

I was just jokeing (a little) about the FE haveing the gun BUT for those of us who have flown 121 how many times has a flight attendant walked through the door and None of us heard her/him come into the cockpit. I do realise that now the door is locked at all times and we would have more warning of one wanting to enter the cockpit . I do however know from experience that the two guys sitting up front with there seat belts and SHOULDER HARNESS on are very limited to movement such as being able to turn in there seat and fight off an intruder then fire a weapon into the unwanted guest. I do understand though that just knowing that the crew may be ARMED may just be a deterrant so, with that said, the flight engineers seat on most three man aircraft turn towards the door so Give the gun to the FE. HA HA. (I know they turn towards the door cause thats one of the prefered sleeping positions.

 

[enigma]

Has anyone seriously considered what would happen if a hijacker was able to get hold of the gun from two whimpy pilots?? Sure, it might be a messy fight getting the gun, but if they were able to succeed, they would have their weapon of control compliments of the FAA. There are a large number of police officers killed by their own weapons (and they aren't trying to fly a plane wearing a seatbelt). I believe that secure cockpit doors and unusual attitudes are the best deterrants. Just my $0.02...............

First, the situation that presents itself is this: suicidal hijackers attempt to take over an airliner for the specific purpose of turning said airliner into a guided missle. If they succeed, hundreds, if not thousands of innocent lives will be lost and millions more will be affected.

In order for the suicide hijackers to succeed, they must gain control of the control cabin. Which brings us to the obvious question, How can we prevent them from taking over the controls? First, we can attempt to keep suicidal hijackers off of the airplanes, but liberal political correctness doesn't allow us to deny boarding based upon any sort of racial/religous profile. So, we attempt to ensure that no weapons get on board. We train the FA's in self defense techniques, just in case a bad guy decides to try to take over the airplane. We send AirMarshalls on flights to deter takeover attempts, and to defend the aircraft if necessarry. We concoct elaborate procedures just to allow the pilots to take a whiz. We develop Fort Knox type cockpit doors to attempt to keep the bad guys out.
Finally, the President (and others in the proper chain of command) can order one of our own fighter aircraft to shoot down an airliner if it is apparent that said airliner is under control of suicidal terrorists.

Now to your points. First, the purpose for arming pilots is solely to defend the cockpit. The bad guys ability to take away the pilots gun depends upon having already defeated every defense up to that point. In other words, the worst possible outcome has already occured, and getting the pilots gun can't make it worse. On the other hand, if the bad guys defeat every defense and are now using a drink cart to batter down the cockpit door, the pilot can use his firearm to deny entrance into the cockpit and thereby thwart the terrorist. I prefer the later scenario.

Next, I agree, secure doors are paramount. If I could choose between a 100% guaranteed secure cockpit, and a gun; I'd choose the secure cockpit. But I see no reason to not have both secure doors and lethal force inside the cockpit.

Finally, unusual attitudes are a stupid plan unless you know that every last patriotic passenger and FA are dead. Because, while the unusual attitude may knock the bad guys around, it will also disrupt your first line of defense. You see, the FA,s and the pax are your first line of defense and you need to do everything possible to help them defeat the bad guys and defend the cockpit. Knocking them against the roof could/will disable them and allow the "sleeper" hijackers who have remained seated and belted in, a tremendous advantage in the ensuing hand to hand combat.
One more thing. A Colt1911 (or whatever you like) carried in a rear facing shoulder holster needn't even be drawn in order put a bullet into the doorway behind me. Captains carry under their right arm, and FO's carry under their left. Leave it cocked and locked and one only needs one hand to defend the cockpit. It's a beautiful thing.
regards
8N

 

[wil]

If the 9-11 pilots had been armed and authorized to protect the cockpit at all costs the tragic events of that day would not have happened. The news media would have had a field day with white male pilots killing oppressed muslim "freedom fighters" seeking a "voice" but the innocents would still be here and the Trade Center would still be standing. Reread the first sentence again, there is no argument!!!

 

[Phrogs4ever]

"If the 9-11 pilots had been armed and authorized to protect the cockpit at all costs the tragic events of that day would not have happened"

Wil, you bet there is still an argument. We don't know what would have happened on 9-11 if there were guns in the cockpit. Keep in mind, until after the events that day, the hijacking paradigm was to follow the hijackers instructions and land the plane somewhere and deal with their political demands while safe on deck. Even if the pilots were armed, I believe that is the scenario they envisioned getting played out. If they did have the presence of mind to cap the first guy through the door, what do they do when the next guy starts cutting passenger throats one at a time until you turn the plane over? Before 9-11, you would have turned the plane over. Now we know we have to sacrifice every life on that plane before we put it in the hands of terrorists and risk thousands of lives.

It's a grim reality, and I don't think anyone could have predicted what was going to happen that day. It's not as easy as saying "if only they had a gun." Personally, I think the X-factor are the passengers themselves. Passengers will always outnumber the terrorists, and if individuals (much like the ones who actually did this!) realize that no matter what happens next, some of us are going to die, but others will survive! Humans are basically selfish when it comes to giving up ones life; we only seem to be able to do it for those we are emotionally attached to and not for a plane full of strangers.

I wish there was any easy answer, but there isn't. I'm not so much concerned about 999 pilots being armed in the cockpit. It's the one bigoted pilot with a chip on shoulder who jumps the gun and uses poor judgement in a situation that doesn't require lethat force. That's when the media and lawyers have a field day, and point the finger at pilots and say "see, we gave you guns and see what happened? We knew you couldn't handle it!" The industry takes another blow, and the net result is we are one step behind where we started. Hopefully this never happens, time will tell.