Go on strike pilots! You need guns!!!

[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.