Go on strike pilots! You need guns!!!

[350DRIVER]

with that said I owe you a cold one

3 5 0

 

[FR8mastr]

350 I noticed that,in your expert opinion the airlines have in place procedures for terrorist attack. Well I work for an airline and I'll tell you other than the new and improved (ha ha) federal security and orders to blow the plane out of the sky with a sidewinder there is no plan!!!

 

[enigma]

Here is some logic that I don't think can be disproved:

It is better to have a gun and never need it than it is to need a gun and not have it.

Have no fear. I'm sure that some leftist/elitist person who really does think that the average person needs someone to guide them through life, will attempt to argue the logic of that statement.

Hillary, Chuck Schummer and Sarah Brady are out somewhere having a party.

regards

 

[Saabslime]

I just received my "Qualified to fly, qualified to defend" sticker from ALPA in the mail. Thats about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. I must have been absent the day they taught marksmenship in flight school. But if this holds true then I guess I'm also qualified to perform brain surgery so at least now I have something to fall back on in case this airline pilot gig doesn't pan out.

 

[lancair1]

saabslime,
Yet another pilot to fall into the "you must have magic hands and government salary to protect yourself with a handgun" group.

Congrats!

 

[TWA Dude]

Re: : to TWAdude

As to this being opinions, your right; but some opinions can be backed up with fact and precident. Politically correct though has a basis in wishes/dreams/etc. It's just symbolism.

Sorry for not responding sooner but I just returned from a trip.

I've noticed whenever you feel backed into a corner you defend yourself by labeling people as leftist/liberal/PC/etc. It seems to make you feel better to think that there's some kind of organization or movement that opposes your every move. Have I labelled you a rightest/conservative/NRA/militia-loving radical? No, because I don't need to. You have your opinion, which I can't help but notice is shared by the majority of airline pilots. And I have my opinion which I actually thought up all by myself without the help of my tree-hugging liberal friends. People without arguments here result to insults and labelling is but a short step behind.

Next, Citizens can be trusted with guns.

Some citizens can be trusted. Heck, the government gives out drivers licenses to lots of people that shouldn't be driving. How many children must die because the gun owner in their house is irresponsible?

Once again the facts prove that the safest areas to live are counties that allow the most legal firearms. Vice-versa, the most dangerous places have a total ban on firearms. Washington DC is the best example.

The safest counties would probably be safe with or without legal gun ownership. You've failed to present any stats that demonstrate that liberalizing (isn't it great that I used that word) guns laws actually effects a lower crime rate.

BTW I've seen the movie "Death Wish" and I realize a good vigilante can have a desirable effect, but if everyone decided to be a vigilante then a lot of innocent people will be accidentally killed.

The reason that there is not a FAM in every fwd jumpseat is simply money.

I didn't mean a FAM in every jumpseat. I meant why doesn't one of the two existing FAMs sit in the jumpeat instead of the cabin as a final defense?

Now there is an area where the government has made a choice of money over safety.

It's very simplistic to use that argument. Everything costs money and there's always a choice to made as to the perceived benefit. If every recommondation the NTSB ever made were immediately and fully implemented no airline would remain in business. Choices have to be made and I don't believe a gun in the cockpit is a no-cost item and hence that money is better spent elsewhere.

Your info says that you fly DC9s. If so, you know full well that the bulkheads are nigh near impossible to bulletproof.

Maybe, maybe not. Don't forget installing bulletproof doors is solving a perceived rather than an actual threat. How many pilots have been killed by guns fired from the cabin? I agree with the idea of bulletproof doors but even if a gun should somehow make it onto the plane it would take a lot of luck to get a bullet to pass unobstructed through the bulkhead and hit its target.

Later

 

[Captain Over]

350Driver, TWA Dude, and like thinkers:

Your theories of having security/screeners identify, catch, detain, arrest, and deport all would-be terrorist/hi-jackers, thus leaving the pilots fly the planes in ignorant bliss and the passengers to enjoy the smooth flights and on-time arrivals--are valid and desirable, but at this very second, are unattainable. I might be wrong, but aren't the current screeners and security folks the same people as before 9/11? I'm sure some have left the business and new and improved screeners have joined the game, but the majority are still the same. Somebody suggested basically firing all screeners and hiring "the right ones", in a sense. That might be next to impossible since they are all now federal employees.

Let me ask you this: why to we fly multi-engine airplanes? Is it because we like to burn more gas? Spend more money for inspections? No, silly! It's for safety! For REDUNDENCY. If one part of the system fails, you have backup. Well, why can't we have the same for airport/airplane security? What if, and this is a BIG what if, a would-be hi-jacker or terrorist gets past the security and screeners?!?!?! Oh my gosh, that would never happen, you would say. Yes, I can hear you saying it. Now, the chances of our friend Mr. Terrorist getting through our beloved security would be on the order of me winning the lottery. But guess what--people win lotteries all the time, and I just might be next.

Now that Mr. Terrorist has gotten past the highly skilled and always attentive screeners and is making his way towards the jetway, who is going to stop him? Not the friendly folks at the gate. They're supposed to assume that since he made it through the extra sensitive metal detector, he's a-okay to fly. Who's next? The rampers? Naw! They're too busy going through my bags looking for loot. Can't bother them. I guess that just leaves the Federal Air Marshall. But guess what, he/she is not on this flight because the federal gov't didn't want to spend the money to put them on all flights. Oh shucks!

The moral of the story is: the current system does not work. It will take a very long time to fix/revamp/or whatever buzzword you like. An extra layer of protection is needed, a second or third engine, if you will.

At first I was thinking, we could install a system just inside the cockpit door. It would be a series of "laser" beams that criss-crossed. If the "laser" beams were broken, dozens of poisonous darts would shoot out, striking the intruder, rendering him, well dead. The system, of course, could only be activated and deactivated by a Federal Employee.

Or, we could arm someone we already trust with multi-million dollar pieces of equipment and thousands of human lives thousands of times daily--the pilots. But you might argue, what if the pilots decide they want to randomly start shooting passengers? Or, what if a passenger(s) gets hit with a stray bullet during a shoot out? Then I would counter with: what if a passenger gets killed during a bout with clear air turbulence because he wasn't wearing his seatbelt? Which is most likely to happen?


As always, bad spelling and even worse grammar should be ignored--I went to public schools.


Save the tuna--eat more dolphins.

 

[machspeed]

First of all how many 9/11 terrorist brought guns on board.
none
So maybe security is working on keeping guns from getting on aircraft. The terrorist found a weakness in our security an exploited it but maybe now we plugged that weakness.
Second how many of the passengers or flight attendents will you shoot to get to the terrorist because you know they will use them as shields. Law enforcement officers have to make that decision every day but can a few gun courses to pilots that most likely won't be in this situation in thier lifetime perform correctly. Experience and practice make perfect.
I have numerous expert NRA certifications in an assortment of weapons including the M-16. I'am also a conservative republican that doesn't believe in gun control but I sure know places that inexperienced gun handlers shoudn't be armed like the cockpit. I have read many of the comments from the RAMBO types on this board and I don't want them handling a gun in my cockpit. They tend to comment irrespossibly and thats I how think they will handle a weapon in a kaos situation.


Machspeed

ps. good post Twa dude

 

[dash8driver]

we cant go along putting band-aids on everything.. "plugging the hole" every time just allows us to get beat in different ways each time. so now our screeners are looking for box cutters... great because thats probably not what they'd use next time. here's one of many holes to plug in the future. next time they might put the knives in the film compartment of their camera, when they go thru security they can just asked to have it manually inspected instead of going thru the x-ray machine. the screener wont dare open it because it would expose the film thats supposed to be in there. so now we have mr photographer terrorist on the plane with knives (or whatever else he wants to get on board) again.

you dont have to shoot through pax or FAs to get to the terrorist... the gun is to defend the cockpit. as long as they are in the back cutting up pax, you can land the plane. if they break through the door, thats when you can shoot em. if they bring a hostage up front, well ya cant fly the plane and hold a hostage at the same time... especially if there is someone up there between you and the controls with a gun, while the other pilot is making an emergency landing.

after all the psych testing and training, there should be no more rambos in the armed pilot groups than there are in the air marshall group. most people can be trained and proficient in more than one skill. it doesnt take a special race of people, groomed from birth to be able to be an air marshall.

p.s. if "pilots arent cops and shouldnt have guns", then wouldnt it stand to reason that cops arent pilots and shouldnt have helicopters or airplanes?

 

[TWA Dude]

The moral of the story is: the current system does not work. It will take a very long time to fix/revamp/or whatever buzzword you like. An extra layer of protection is needed, a second or third engine, if you will.

Over: I realize many voices on this board start to sound like one, but I've never made any argument to the effect that our current security measures are fullproof and thus we don't need guns. The security measures of the day weren't designed to prevent 9/11. The Common Strategy II is the single thing that will prevent 9/11 from happening again. Though you'd have to read far back here to find it my argument is that to allow guns up front would create more problems than it'll solve. One can never say there's zero chance of whatever happening and a gun up front saving the day.

Despite a few trying to make this into a Bill of Rights argument it really just comes down to the perceived need for a gun versus the trouble we'd all have to go through to make it happen. To those (not necessarily you) who think guns would be a no-cost item are forgetting how the FAA regulates everything. I'm still required to carry a plotter in my flight kit. Even if only pilots who go through FAM training get to bring guns there'll be reams of regs and procedures and yes, training for all flight and cabin crews for how to deal with the new security "option".
Bottom line: more trouble than it's worth; concentrate security efforts where they're needed.

Thanks for listening.

 

[list2002]

They should allow all passengers to carry firearms if they want, and if we want to carry more than two carry on bags we should be able to, and weight restrictions, who do these guys think they are? Everyone should reserve the right to deny permission to be screened and if "the man" tells we have to in order to fly then our constitutional rights have been violated...

If the airliners themselves are going to arm a person, arm a pro, whose only job is to hide out in some trap door and wait for any wrong doer to approach the cockpit, no multi-tasking pilot/rambo. Either pilot OR rambo positions only. If you would rather fly, fly. What a pain it would be to add a security cam to your instrument scan.
Or have an overhead trap door that releases a company pitbull on anyone who messes with the cockpit door.

 

[list2002]

And the new ATP exams could include a gun maintenance, range and kill zone section...
You'd bust your checkride if you can't "cap" the FAA examiner while doing a single-engine ILS.
And if you haven't recieved your "magic hands" endorsement the ride won't even take place.

 

[LAZYB]

"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." --Ted Nugent"

 

[LAZYB]

fwd

http://www.capapilots.org/

"We believe that airline security, if it is to be effective, should not rely on just one or two security measures. In order to foil would-be terrorists, security should be multi-layered. We conceive of proper airline security as consisting of multiple 'concentric circles' of security defenses. This will insure that if one or more of the 'layers' are compromised, then other defenses are in place to avoid a catastrophic occurrence such as the events of September 11, 2001.
Should the above layers of defense be penetrated, the cabin crew and pilots form a final security perimeter.

As a final defense, after all of the above defenses have failed, we advocate the ability of pilots to have access to lethal weapons in the cockpit."

- Captain Robert M. Miller

 

[kilomike]

Excellent posts by Machspeed and TWA Dude.

Machspeed spoke well from his perspective having had extensive training with guns. Inexperience and guns just do not mix. I do not own a gun now because I have not had the training to handle it right. When I do buy one in the future for sport use, you can bet I will get some training in how to use it safely and responsibly.

TWA Dude put it better than I could, that it is a cost issue as well.

While I favor the right of individuals to own guns, I believe that there are responsibilities involved with gun ownership, that is knowing how to use it, maintain it and store it properly so a child does not find the gun unsecured.

Managing guns in the cockpit would not be a simple matter from a cost, training, and experience standpoint. I also feel that the pilots' job is to focus on flying the aircraft and not trying to fly and shoot at the same time.

Fly safe,

Kilomike

 

[350DRIVER]

Your theories of having security/screeners identify, catch, detain, arrest, and deport all would-be terrorist/hi-jackers, thus leaving the pilots fly the planes in ignorant bliss and the passengers to enjoy the smooth flights and on-time arrivals--are valid and desirable, but at this very second, are unattainable. I might be wrong, but aren't the current screeners and security folks the same people as before 9/11? I'm sure some have left the business and new and improved screeners have joined the game, but the majority are still the same. Somebody suggested basically firing all screeners and hiring "the right ones", in a sense. That might be next to impossible since they are all now federal employees.

I am not convinced that this is "unattainable" and IF anything I feel that we are in a better position now than we have ever been in with regards to "changing"the way airport security is handled as a whole BUT we must disect the serious problems, issues, and concerns first. Most if not all airports have been given a "deadline" for implementing the various changes that MUST be done by a set date.( PIT for example has till Nov. I believe to get everything into place and adhere to the "new" federal procedures) It won't be an overnight change by any means however I do like the odds and the way this is going so far.

I wouldn't make any bets concerning that the "current" employees will be around WHEN each airport meets or comes close to its deadline.- For kicks I was wasting time at (PIT) and would pose different questions to the "current" renta- security and NOT 1 person I spoke with was confident at all about their "job security" and couldn't even speculate...- Should be a very interesting next few months to say the least.

I do anticipate to see the hiring/firing trend to become a major factor however how much this will come into play for the best interest of "safety" should be interesting to see. Most of the workers at (PIT) are being kept on the outside- only thing that is for sure is that the "head" of security is well respected soldier as well as a Instructor at Annapolis..

who knows what to expect BUT don't wager too much that once the airports truly become "federalized" ALL workers pre-911 will be around for the cake & ice cream...

3 5 0

<good post mach>

 

[FR8mastr]

Kilomike, I have said all this before and this will probably be the last. How on earth is anyone going to concentrate on flying an aircraft with somebody trying to kell them? Guns in the cockpit are LAST RESORT ONLY!!!!!!!!! and the pilots WILL BE TRAINED!!!!! to HIGHER STANDARDS than the marshalls are now. Me personally, I have owned and been around firearms my whole life and I am quit aware of the responsibilities and ramifications of carrying one. Again, pilots WILL BE TRAINED TO HIGHER STANDARDS THAN THE CURRENT AIRMARSHALLS IN MARKSMANSHIP. WOULD HAVE JURASDICTION IN THE COCKPIT ONLY, AND BE PHSCH. (sp) SCREENED BY THE FEDS. I am sorry for being blunt, if you dont want guns in the cockpit thats fine, but dont state reasons for your opinion that are not accurate.

 

[enigma]

Re: Re: : to TWAdude

Mr TWA.
I appologize for labeling you politically correct. My bad. With that said, I have the facts on my side, Not just wishful thinking. I ain't backed into no corner. If something is liberal, a political thought that can be proven incorrect in all ways except for whom it gives power, I will label it as such. I think that your position is that guns can't be trusted to the masses, that is a politically correct statement that can be proven false. Matter of fact, it has been proven false. See my previous post.

Back to labels, I labeled you with a thought process, or a particular mindset. Your statement about the NRA/rightest/conservative shows the difference between us. I didn't assume your membership in any particular group, yet had you have labeled me; you would have. BTW, your statement about opinions is just another way that the politically correctness works. It labels everything as opinion. Sorry, but that's not so. Some things are fact, not opinion, and your labeling them opinion doesn't change them. Speaking of labeling, do your friends know that you refer to them as "tree-hugging liberals"?

You say that I haven't produced any facts about guns lowering the crime rate, you're right. However, I did refer you to the works of a nationally respected criminologist (Gary Kleck) whos' research does show that to be a fact. Sorry, I just don't have the time to reproduce his work here.


Your statement about the bulletproof doors lends me to believe that you've stopped trying to arrive at a logical conclusion and have begun to defend a presupposed position. I see guns in the cockpit as an answer to a problem that has presented itself ( a defenseless cockpit), and have tried to argue accordingly.
You continue to attack guns as if they were the problem. Guns in the hands of responsible pilots is not a problem. A 300000 thousand pound Boeing in the hands of a suicidal terrorist is a huge problem. If you can guarantee that there is no possible way that a terrorist could ever breach the cockpit and can never possibly have any affect on the outcome of a peaceful flight, then I'll stop asking for a final line of defense.

Regards

BTW, I don't disagree that the governmental red tape that would be required to make this happen would be incredible. In fact, I originally opposed it on those grounds, but more on that later.......

 

[AWACoff]

TWA seems to be one of the very few people in this thread that realizes the screeners did nothing "wrong" on September 11th. Box cutters were OKAY to take on a plane pre Sept. 11th. The Common Strategy is what failed us. At that point, I diverge from TWA's thinking. I understand it would be truly hard to fly a plane while trying to kill somebody. I also realize how much harder it would be to fly the plane if I was dead. We are talking about a last ditch effort here. If terrorists were able to get in control of another large aircraft, the plane would probably be shot down by the military. Everybody dies in that case. That's intolerable (unless it is a "last ditch" effort). Obviously it would be a huge gut check to end another person's life...but it would be for the greater good if it means saving the aircraft and possibly lives on the ground. Well, I here the cows coming home, time for me to leave this thread. Good luck on this debate. I hear that circular logic (on both sides of the coin) always comes to an end (which unfortunately is also the beginning).

 

[lancair1]

Enigma, Good points.

I felt inspired to search out my state's congressional representatives' opinions.

I found that the congressman whom I like, had the issue mentioned on his website. He is part of the group that is proposing the bill to arm this week (or maybe next).

The other representative unsurprisingly doesn't mention the issue. Knowing his politics, he's scared to death to support any protection of self. If he inspired people to empower themselves, 90% of his voting base would disappear!

I emailed them both with my support of the issue.

 

[list2002]

How on earth is anyone going to concentrate on flying an aircraft with somebody trying to kell them? Guns in the cockpit are LAST RESORT ONLY!!!!!!!!! and the pilots WILL BE TRAINED!!!!! to HIGHER STANDARDS than the marshalls are now. Me personally, I have owned and been around firearms my whole life and I am quit aware of the responsibilities and ramifications of carrying one.

Holy super pilot... better than an air marshall? That would take a bit of extra training.
There's gotta be better ways to keep from being kelled.

 

[TWA Dude]

Re: Re: Re: : to TWAdude

TWA Dude.
I appologize for labeling you politically correct. My bad. With that said, I have the facts on my side, Not just wishful thinking. I ain't backed into no corner. If something is liberal, a political thought that can be proven incorrect in all ways except for whom it gives power, I will label it as such. I think that your position is that guns can't be trusted to the masses, that is a politically correct statement that can be proven false. Matter of fact, it has been proven false. See my previous post.

I love it. You apologize for labeling me and then you turn around and label me again. Don't worry, I'm not taking it personally, but when you claim that my "thought" is political correctness at work you basically say that I'm incapable of my own thoughts and I merely repeat that which I've heard. You've noticed that your arguments aren't convincing me therefore you're trying to delegitimize my opinions. I haven't done that to you because it's disrespectful.

I tried to avoid any discussion of gun-rights/control issues in general. I have my opinion and you have yours and one (or several) probably NRA-funded study isn't going to change my mind. "Facts" may be "facts" but it's funny how others often come up with contradicting "facts."

I don't see the guns-in-the-cockpit issues as a gun rights issue. The cockpit is a controlled, secure area and if the powers that be decide that arming it is a good move then it shall be done.

BTW, your statement about opinions is just another way that the politically correctness works. It labels everything as opinion. Sorry, but that's not so. Some things are fact, not opinion, and your labeling them opinion doesn't change them.

Oh, I see now. The only true facts that count are your facts. Anything that you disagree with is political correctness at work. Do you ever read more than one news source covering some event? Have you ever seen coverage of some event that you attended? Ever notice how some "facts" are different than others? The tobacco industry is still providing facts that nicotine isn't addicting. I look at studies and I look out the window and then if I wish to I form an opinion. Few things in life are as clear-cut as you would have us believe.

Speaking of labeling, do your friends know that you refer to them as "tree-hugging liberals"?

Yes, but they correct me: They prefer to be labeled "Card-carrying members of the ACLU, tree-hugging, dripping liberals". BTW I even have some Republican friends. Some of my best friends are Republicans.

You say that I haven't produced any facts about guns lowering the crime rate, you're right. However, I did refer you to the works of a nationally respected criminologist (Gary Kleck) whos' research does show that to be a fact. Sorry, I just don't have the time to reproduce his work here.

That's okay, I'm not looking to do a term paper on this.

Your statement about the bulletproof doors lends me to believe that you've stopped trying to arrive at a logical conclusion and have begun to defend a presupposed position.

I could say the same about you, but what would be the point?

I see guns in the cockpit as an answer to a problem that has presented itself ( a defenseless cockpit), and have tried to argue accordingly.

When was the cockpit presented as defenseless? Because of 9/11? The cockpit doors were opened then because the Common Strategy dictated it. The threat to the cockpit is no greater today than it was pre-9/11 yet due to Common Strategy II the cockpit is in fact much better defended.

You continue to attack guns as if they were the problem. Guns in the hands of responsible pilots is not a problem.

Ah, but you presume it won't be a problem. I presume nothing but I see numerous potential problems -- problems that make it not worth it.

A 300000 thousand pound Boeing in the hands of a suicidal terrorist is a huge problem. If you can guarantee that there is no possible way that a terrorist could ever breach the cockpit and can never possibly have any affect on the outcome of a peaceful flight, then I'll stop asking for a final line of defense.

I can guarantee nothing. Speaking of a "final line of defense" wouldn't that have to be some kind of doomsday device that would self-destruct an airplane that's been commandeered? Would you be comfortable with that onboard? What constitutes a final line of defense is subjective.

Regards.

 

[Captain Over]

I was wrong

After giving "guns in the cockpit" issue more thought, I came to the realization that I was wrong.

Instead of arming the pilots with guns, let's give them back their sewing needles, nail clippers, Leathermans, and bottles of Tabasco sauce since they seem to be so freakin dangerous. Surely a properly trained pilot can jab a sewing needle into the eye of an attacker and still fly, er, leave the autopilot engaged, the plane.

Just a thought.

 

[enigma]

Re: Re: Re: Re: : to TWAdude

I can guarantee nothing. Speaking of a "final line of defense" wouldn't that have to be some kind of doomsday device that would self-destruct an airplane that's been commandeered? Would you be comfortable with that onboard? What constitutes a final line of defense is subjective.

Regards.

We already have such a doomsday device. It's called an F15, and I still can't understand why anyone stands against defending our cockpit when a missle from one of our own F15's is the only alternative. If you remember, my original post was in response to the reasoning that, #1 the bad guys can't be stopped, opposed to #2. we don't need guns in the cockpit because the bad guys should be stopped at security. You still can't have it both ways.

regards

 

[kilomike]

A Perfect Weapon

Tabasco sauce to a terrorist's eyeballs. What a great weapon!!

 

[TWA Dude]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : to TWAdude

..I still can't understand why anyone stands against defending our cockpit when a missle from one of our own F15's is the only alternative.

*sigh*
No one stands against defending the cockpit. What you can't understand is how a gun will cause more problems and difficulties than it's worth.

Enigma, I'm going to let you in on a secret: from the get-go my opinion has been that guns in the cockpit would be more nuisance than benefit, yet I won't actively oppose it. I just don't feel that strongly about it. 'Nuff said.

Regards

 

[lancair1]

I've got a question or four.

1. Do we have the ability to place a permanent "lock box" (no pun sent to mr. algore) in the cockpit?

2. Police cars have shotguns locked in place, why can't we have a safe to hold a small handgun?

3. When you "pick up the plane", why can't you also pick up a key to the "lockbox"? Then all of you people who are afraid of the thing can keep it locked the whole flight, unless of course, your stress level is too high to fly with a big ole gun in the lockbox.

Lastly,

Give me a straight answer here:

In the case of a hijacking, would any of you rather not have a handgun at hand?

 

[TWA Dude]

1. Do we have the ability to place a permanent "lock box" (no pun sent to mr. algore) in the cockpit?

Yes, it's certainly possible to do so. If a handgun is ever approved for cockpit use I imagine that's the way they'll do it as opposed to having pilots walking around packing heat. But it poses numerous questions and problems involving how and when to use the gun, how to train the pilots, how the gun is maintained by maintenance crews, etc. But most significantly it'll cost a lot of money.

In the case of a hijacking, would any of you rather not have a handgun at hand?

Judging by your profile I'm guessing that you're not familiar with the Common Strategy which is how we're supposed to handle a hijacking. I won't even come close to revealing anything except to say that what happened 9/11 can't happen that way again. One can only speculate but due to the procedures of that day I don't think a gun in the cockpit would've done any good. IMHO having a gun up front complicates things to the point of possibly making a bad situation worse. I don't think it's worth it.

Regards

 

[lancair1]

1. How and when to use the gun. There would certainly be a point during a hijacking when the danger of disharging a weapon is less than the danger of the hijacker/s being allowed to proceed.

2. How to train pilots. One week in quantico with the FBI ought to do.

3. How the gun is maintained. Sorry, but I don't quite understand this one. Do you mean the hassle of making sure it is well lubricated once every 3 months?

4. It will cost a lot of money. How much do you think it would cost? A transponder is $5,000, I'm willing to bet the cost would be less.

5. "IMHO having a gun up front complicates things to the point of possibly making a bad situation worse."

When you say "bad situation" are you referring to a hijacking that ends with the death of crew and pax? How can this situation be made worse?

 

[TWA Dude]

1. How and when to use the gun. There would certainly be a point during a hijacking when the danger of disharging a weapon is less than the danger of the hijacker/s being allowed to proceed.

Don't forget the FAA will be involved. There'll have to be a policy manual detailing exactly when using the gun is appropriate action. Of course it would always be subject to the captain's discretion, but if there are incidents where the gun is waved around when it's determined that it wasn't necessary the outcry would result in a quick FAA response by removing the guns.

2. How to train pilots. One week in quantico with the FBI ought to do.

Actually the alphabet pilot groups had in mind the full Federal Air Marshall training program. And don't forget recurrent training. And who's gonna pay for it all? It's been suggested that pilot volunteers would fund their own training, but the FAA still regulates things and that's not how they do things. If there's to be a gun on board every crew member should know how to use it.

3. How the gun is maintained. Sorry, but I don't quite understand this one. Do you mean the hassle of making sure it is well lubricated once every 3 months?

Everything involving the FAA is a procedure and paperwork. Somebody has to open the gun safe to maintain it. Who? Under what supervision? Is it MEL-able? Nothing is simple with the FAA!

4. It will cost a lot of money. How much do you think it would cost? A transponder is $5,000, I'm willing to bet the cost would be less.

Once again, with the FAA nothing is simple. The gun, the gun storage device, the key or combo lock to open it, maintenance and inspection, updating the policy manuals. My guess is all told it'll cost the airlines $100,000 per airplane. And don't forget liability insurance.

5. When you say "bad situation" are you referring to a hijacking that ends with the death of crew and pax?

Of course not. I'm referring to a disturbance of some kind in back where a pilot might feel a need to use the gun which means the cockpit door must be opened and that could be a fatal mistake.

How many times has the (current plastic) cockpit door been forcibly penetrated by bad guys? A couple of times recently by phychos. The new doors will prevent that kind of thing again.

I'm not making any silly statements that a gun up front is of no use. Of course there could be a time when it proves useful. I'm moving into the realm of speculation again but I just don't see situations arising under current procedures that make a gun in the cockpit necessary. You might argue "well isn't one time enough?" That's not the way this industry works. We design airplanes to handle likely and possible failure modes rather than one-in-a-million situations. It's just not economical.