Go on strike pilots! You need guns!!!

[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.