Go on strike pilots! You need guns!!!

Mogus

Eh?
Joined
Dec 15, 2001
Posts
157
Total Time
90
This is sickening! The government will allow an F-16 to launch a missile at a jetliner filled with passengers but won't give the pilots guns. Why not? Because the pilot may shoot a passenger by mistake, or even bring the plane down. It's OK for the government to kill every person aboard that plane, but it's not OK for the pilot to use a gun as a last line of defense. Does anyone know how stupid that sounds? Correct me if I'm wrong but it's very unlikely that a shot through the fuselage will bring down a modern jetliner.
Maybe it's part of the New World Order. Don't let civilians have guns, only government employees. What kind of BS is this? Pilots have every right to use any means necessary to protect their cargo and/or passengers, uncluding firepower.
Sure, there may be an air marshal on the majority of flights nowadays and he/(she?) may, for the most part, be able to take care of most situations. But what about those situations which, for one reason or other, they can't take care of? That's where the pilots' "last line of defense" comes in.
"... The cockpit in the aircraft is for the pilots to maintain positive control of that aircraft." said John Magaw under Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta on their decision not to allow pilots to have weapons. That's their reasoning for not arming you pilots (I'm 15 and haven't flown but this really pisses me off)! Hmm. Ever hear of autopilot?
Anyway, the government won't let you protect yourselves. What are you going to do? What can you do? You could and should go on strike. Go to your pilots' union and go on strike until they give you guns to protect your passengers and planes.
 

bigr

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
142
Total Time
.
I agree. when mineta and his ilk say that the pilot should concentrate on flying the aircraft they should revisit the Fedex incident in memphis back in '94.

for those that don't recall that incident, a disgruntled pilot tried to hijack a Fedex DC-10 by attacking the pilot and co-pilot with a claw hammer and spear-gun. his intent was to crash the aircraft into the Fedex hub in memphis. it would have been a holocaust.

it was a desperate struggle for survival. the aircraft was on autopilot while the 2 pilots fought for their lives.

in the end it was a bloody mess and one of the pilots was permanently brain damaged, losing his medical and job for life.

so to say that a pilot can't keep control of the aircraft and defend the aircraft at the same time should look at this incident.
 

ShawnC

Skirts Will Rise
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Posts
1,481
Total Time
-5Z
Remember that thos FedEx pilots were unarmed, being attacked by some one that was. On top of that it was someone that they trusted that attacked them.

Pilots with a gun would have a weapon that is better or equal to an attacker and they would still have someone to fly the plane. On top that the attacker would have confirmed his idenity of being a bad guy before even being able to attack the pilot.
 

skydiverdriver

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
869
Total Time
5000+
Good point. Read the book "Hijacked," for a full account of the story.
 

TWA Dude

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
3,666
Total Time
9999+
I guess I'm going to be the one dissenting opinion here. I don't want guns in the cockpit and I'm glad for the gov't decision. I'm not an anti-gun freak either. I've fired M16s and all kinds of handguns on target ranges and I've considered owning one -- for sport purposes. But in the cockpit I believe a gun causes more problems than it solves.

Of course I'm speculating but I doubt that a gun in the cockpit would've saved the 9/11 airplanes. They wouldn't have had the opportunity to use it. Just as we all know the new airport screening procedures wouldn't have prevented 9/11 neither would a gun. It just ain't worth the trouble.
 

bigr

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
142
Total Time
.
TWA dude your point is noted. perhaps the world trade center and pentagon could not have been avoided because in the pre-9/11 world a hijacker was supposed to be negotiated with.

however, UAL 93 did have advanced notice of a possible hijacking.
company dispatch sent a strip message to the pilots as follows:

"Beware cockpit intrusion".

the message was confirmed as received from the cockpit. if a gun was in the cockpit then their would have been time for the first officer or captain to get in position.
 

TWA Dude

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
3,666
Total Time
9999+
bigr said:
the message was confirmed as received from the cockpit. if a gun was in the cockpit then their would have been time for the first officer or captain to get in position.
Yes, but in position for what? The hijackers were no doubt willing to do anything to gain control of the plane. So on one side we have a pilot aiming a gun at a terrorist and on the other the terrorist is holding a boxcutter against someone's throat. Oh, and there's an unknown number of additional terrorists waiting to take more hostages should Mohammed in front get blown away.

I'm not saying a gun would've been useless, in fact, it might well have saved the day. But probably not. We can't really know. To me that's not reason enough to go through whatever it would take to allow a gun in the cockpit. Can you just imagine what it would take?

Remember that if we can keep the bad guys out of the cockpit in the first place a gun ceases to be an issue. But despite the Katy bars and our new procedures I think it's obvious that a well-coordinated group of attackers could surprise any of us and gain access to the cockpit. The key word is surprise. A gun is only useful if one knows one will need it. And of course the attackers will know about it.
 

FR8mastr

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2002
Posts
803
Total Time
13000+
TWA Dude would you please enlighten me on how a would be terrorist is going to attack with a .45 slug in his head? Also because of the improved doors the crew will have notice as the hijackers are breaking down the door. I'm quit sure the crew will hear that. Even if I'm wrong and ammunition is effective only against non terrorists, at least we would have a chance. As far as boxcutters and hostages, in this worst case scenerio a few people get killed, but the rest of the pax as well as the people on the ground are saved, either from the debris from our caring governments F-16 or from the terrorist smashing the aircraft into something. Your statement about the terrorist knowing about crews and guns is correct. they will know and because of that they will also know their chances of success are extremely remote. Consequently, they will attack something else. and that sir, is the whole point.
 
Last edited:

TWA Dude

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
3,666
Total Time
9999+
FR8mastr:

I know what guns can do and I'm not saying that a gun in the cockpit is useless. I will say that when needed most the pilots probably won't even get the opportunity to use it.

I wouldn't expect terrorists to try to knock down the door. They can just cleverly wait untill it's opened for physiological reasons.

Guns in the cockpit as a deterent? Are homicide rates in Death Penalty states lower? Suicidal terrorists tend not to be deterred easily either. If there are numerous attackers on board willing to be shot they'll get their way eventually.
 

FR8mastr

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2002
Posts
803
Total Time
13000+
As a matter of fact crime and murder rates are lower in states with concealed carry laws. If you don't believe me I can dig up the stats and list them for you. I will need some time though as I start a 4 day at 0530 tomorrow.
 

TWA Dude

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
3,666
Total Time
9999+
FR8master:

That's okay, I trust you on the stats. But we weren't discussing street crime. And Islamic or other crazy terrorists aren't street thugs.
 

FR8mastr

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2002
Posts
803
Total Time
13000+
TWA dude, no they are not street thugs, but they die just the same. They are there to make whatever statement they think they are making. If their chances of success are greatly reduced, like the street thug they will look for other targets. I have got to get some sleep, I look foward to debating you later in the week.

take care,
 

Ty Webb

Hostage to Fortune
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Posts
6,525
Total Time
11000+
TWA Dude:

Sorry, pal, but you are way off base here. If you are content to let screeners and the present procedures safeguard the lives of you, your passengers, and the future of our industry- great. The rest of us who have a more realistic outlook know better.
 

flint4xx

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2001
Posts
374
Total Time
10000+
I'm more worried about surface to air missles, or machine gun fire from the ground after rotation or something like that. While we worry about another hijacking, they'll slip under our noses and do something different.
 
3

350DRIVER

Folks this is a pointless debate, fortunately for everyone who reasons "logically" and lives in reality the right choice was made by the Govt. As much as you hate to admit it, the majority has had their way regarding this issue and I am very pleased as many other people are with the outcome.

TWA Dude would you please enlighten me on how a would be terrorist is going to attack with a .45 slug in his head?
YOU are "assuming" that under ideal circumstances that the pilot will have the time not only to get his safety belt undone, get to the lock box, get the gun, load the gun, all in a matter of seconds-BUT.....Don't worry about it since this will never be an issue or debate since this is "dead" "over" "done deal"... IF you like guns so much possibly the FBI, police, or Secret Service may be the right career path for you to take.(just a thought)..OR if you are so anti-US gov't then possibly you should look into moving to Mexico or another country where this "gun" debate may still have a chance.(just a thought)...

Once again the flight deck is no place to have guns-Fortunately a few(maybee 1 or 2 people) in DC also agreed. Last time I had checked the pilots don't get extra pay to be security guards and play GI Joe at FL370. The problem is with the airport security and IF they do their jobs properly then that should be the end of the story and won't turn out to be an enroute problem or concern. YOU can continue to degrade,ridicule, and fault these "low" people as someone put it which is only a cop out- I am sure their are going to be many many more changes with the people who are your last line of defense.Time shall tell though-who knows...
I highly doubt that "now" any passenger would ever allow a potential cockpit intruder to make his way past the first class section after what has taken place not to mention (last time I checked)that their are "2" people up front and I am sure 1 of those 2 would deter/stop any attempt to take the aircraft over...All airlines have implemented some sort of "action plan" into effect just in case any attempt would ever happen again.- If my memory serves me correct an attempt had taken place a few months ago where a crash ax did some facial damage to someone who did disturb the flight crew.(by the way their was no gun up front for this first officer to use)- Plane landed without further incident. IF you research this you can look at many other positive outcomes like this one without a "magic" gun as part of the equation..


C H E E R S

3 5 0
 

TWA Dude

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
3,666
Total Time
9999+
Ty Webb said:
TWA Dude: Sorry, pal, but you are way off base here.
Does that mean you disagree with me?

If you are content to let screeners and the present procedures safeguard the lives of you, your passengers, and the future of our industry- great.
The screeners are practically irrelevant. The new Common Strategy II isn't. Am I content with it? Of course not. There's always room for improvement.

The rest of us who have a more realistic outlook know better.
Who exactly are "the rest of us"? The pro-NRA Republican Administration is against guns in the cockpit. How many Congressmen, Cabinet Secretaries or Bush Administration officials spoke out in favor of it?
 

ShawnC

Skirts Will Rise
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Posts
1,481
Total Time
-5Z
The only proper way to deal with a terrorist is to allow the CIA to infiltrate the orginizations and deal with them before they have a chance to strike.

Anything else is just a way to deal with a problem that has already been set in motion.
 
3

350DRIVER

Sorry, pal, but you are way off base here. If you are content to let screeners and the present procedures safeguard the lives of you, your passengers, and the future of our industry- great. The rest of us who have a more realistic outlook know better.

The so-called "present" procedures are irrelevant due to the fact that their have been many changes regarding airport security, screeners. I agree with you that we have a long way to go and their is plenty of room for improvement BUT things will change and have changed for the better and once again the "correct" path was taken by the gov't in my opinion as well as many others. As for the "rest of us" as you put it - let me once again reiterate that I am in no way anti-guns or against them IF they would help a situation out and make it a "safer" environment which in this case I cannot see how a gun being on the flight deck would help at all. You are "assuming" without any knowledge or factual evidence of my beliefs and feelings regarding this.

I agree with Flint- IF this would ever be attempted again I am sure the would be hijackers would use a different way, different method- Don't think a gun is going to stop someone who is wrapped in explosives sitting in the back who decides to blow himself up. Although maybee you can explain how a gun would stop this attempt.....

I will never be "content" until all precautions have been taken, security procedures have been revamped and changed, risks have been "minimized", and we have more educated and highly trained screeners who are our last life line of defense. I do feel rather stongly however that we are going in the right direction and this is a much more logical way of tackling the problem than keeping a gun on the flight deck BUT once again this is a "dead" issue since the decision has already been made to prevent guns on the flight deck.

Once again you can continue to degrade and ridicule the screeners BUT you can also support them and ensure we are being protected and help the process out by standing behind these people who in "reality" are here for us NOT here to attempt to harm us. (just a thought)

C H E E R S
3 5 0
 
Top