Go on strike pilots! You need guns!!!

[Mogus]

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]

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.

 

[Two-9-9-TwoSet]

..

 

[ShawnC]

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]

Good point. Read the book "Hijacked," for a full account of the story.

 

[TWA Dude]

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]

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]

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.

 

[HERCDRVR]

Tell your congressman now, allow guns in the cockpit!

 

[FR8mastr]

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.