Go on strike pilots! You need guns!!!

[enigma]

Re: Re: to TWAdude and 350

To TWAdude,

Sorry for the label, but your argument is more politically correct than realistic.

You're welcome. Someone has to counter the politically correct cr-p- that says that ordinary citizens can't be trusted with guns.
You're right, not even all LEO's can carry a gun on an airplane, but Airmarshalls can, and ALPA was proposing that any pilot who wanted to carry, must go through AirMarshall equivilent training.

My point about MaGaw was not that he proved that a gun would have stopped 9/11. My point was that I'm insulted that the government has the mindset that citizens can't be trusted. I prefaced that with a statement that proved that the founding fathers DID trust the citizens.

No one said that guns would have prevented 9/11, matter of fact, as AWACoff wrote; nothing would have prevented 9/11 as long as the previous common strategy was in place.

Do you really believe that the bulletproof door will stop a hijacker from killing you in the cockpit. Are the entire rear walls of your Maddog cockpit armored? A few well placed shots through the EPC's or the front of the galley are going to get you. Of course, a gun might not stop them, but it's better that nothing; and in well trained hands a gun has a better than even chance. It's better than the alternative.


You could be correct about the hassle, but as far as the cost goes, this is one plan that wouldn't cost anyone but the pilots who choose to take the training.

Later

 

[TWA Dude]

Re: Re: Re: to TWAdude and 350

To TWAdude, Sorry for the label, but your argument is more politically correct than realistic.

I was expressing my opinion. You're the one making judgements of political correctness. And your version of "realism" is simply your opinion. Try to separate the two.

Someone has to counter the politically correct cr-p- that says that ordinary citizens can't be trusted with guns.

Since you brought it up, most citizens can't be trusted with guns. They don't know how to use them safely; they don't know how to store them safely; they don't know how to keep them away from children; and they aren't trained like police to resist someone trying to take the gun away from them. If every gun owner were required to pass Air Marshall training then I'd be able to sleep better knowing so many guns were around. I believe it's naiive in the extreme to think that a gun in every law-abider's household would make this country a safer place.

You're right, not even all LEO's can carry a gun on an airplane, but Airmarshalls can, and ALPA was proposing that any pilot who wanted to carry, must go through AirMarshall equivilent training.

If it's such a good idea to have a gun in the cockpit why isn't one of the air marshalls on board stationed on the jumpseat?
And how many pilots would actually go through with a full Air Marshall program? One percent, five percent, maybe even ten? For such a small number it's no more deterrent than the random marshall program is now.

My point about MaGaw was not that he proved that a gun would have stopped 9/11. My point was that I'm insulted that the government has the mindset that citizens can't be trusted. I prefaced that with a statement that proved that the founding fathers DID trust the citizens.

Some of the Founding Fathers were slave owners. They didn't trust the general population to elect the president (and still don't). But the government is the people. If enough voters want guns then guns we shall have.

Do you really believe that the bulletproof door will stop a hijacker from killing you in the cockpit. Are the entire rear walls of your Maddog cockpit armored? A few well placed shots through the EPC's or the front of the galley are going to get you.

It's my understanding that the new door installation will include reinforcement of the bulkheads as well.

Of course, a gun might not stop them, but it's better that nothing; and in well trained hands a gun has a better than even chance. It's better than the alternative.

I don't disagree with that. But various risks must be weighed. If it was so obvious that a gun is needed we'd already have it.

You could be correct about the hassle, but as far as the cost goes, this is one plan that wouldn't cost anyone but the pilots who choose to take the training.

You're assuming that an approved plan would have pilots carrying the guns on their person. Another plan has the gun stowed in the cockpit with only qualified pilots being able to access it. I've heard that the latter plan is more favored but it's much more expensive.

Later

 

[350DRIVER]

First you say that it is next to, if not, impossible to stop a determined hijacker who is willing to die. I say, then be prepared to kill him. A 45 would suffice quite well in that regard.

I disagree with you 100% due to many different variables. How would you be "prepared" to kill "him" IF their are multiple intruders?.- For argument sake ok so you kill 1 of them and have 3 others which are just as determined as the first now to get the aircraft in their control. YES a 45 may have knocked one of them off BUT you still had a few more to contend with. It is easy to "assume" and play moday morning qb BUT as a token of respect to the thousands of innocent lives lost I am not even going to get into a "scenario" debate with you regarding the actual events of 9-11. You have your beliefs and feelings which I respect and on the other hand I have my own and it just so happens that we are no where near agreeing on anything regarding this issue-

You end by saying that you would rather STOP a hijacker from gaining access while the aircraft is on the ground.

I think the problem is solved 100% by "stopping" them prior to getting on the plane- SECURITY will work IF many things are changed. You need not to forget that this was a problem that originated with ground security NOT with pilots- Security failed the American people on that day so now it is time to "change" the way security is handled and changes have taken place and will continue to change at every airport in the US of A until we have minimized every risk and we are 100% sure that the events of 9-11 can never happen again. Is the security system in place now "perfect" and "screw-up proof".??-Absolutely not BUT 3-4 years from now I do feel that our security procedures will be able to stop any such terrorist attempt.

Once again you think that a gun on the flight deck would be the best thing that ever happened to aviation and I tend to strongly disagree.

The rest of your arguments have no bearing on the subject at hand. Of course a gun in the cockpit won't stop a missle from bringing down an airliner. It's not supposed to. Neither will a gun stop a bad guy from detonating a bomb, unless he is trying to light off his shoe. But the gun is not supposed to stop that either. Guns in the cockpit would be there for the sole purpose of defending the cockpit. And for that purpose, they would have no equal.

Again- you are "assuming" just the same as I am- I however feel strongly that IF every precaution is taken on the ground then a pilot shouldn't have to worry about defending the cockpit. IF the cockpit door is reinforced to make it impossible to break in then how/why would a pilot need to defend the cockpit.??

I understand every point that you are attempting to make and I see your logic I just have a different opinion on how to "avoid" the situation completely so that a "gun" would never have to come into the equation.

I am not an airline pilot nor do I have your experience so I respect your points even though I may not agree with you regarding the gun issue...

I just hope that whatever happens in the end it will be for the best interest of all involved and 9-11 will never happen again..
What is just a tad puzzling is the cargo security or I should say lack of.....

C H E E R S
3 5 0

 

[dash8driver]

well, the door is only big enough for 1 hijacker to fit through at a time, and a gun usually carries more than 1 round. you couldnt ask for a better way for them to be lined up and shot. basically you shoot them as they come through the door.

you are absolutely right that IF security is done correctly, a pilot shouldnt have to worry about defending the cockpit. unfortuneatly its not, and pilots do have to worry about it. and when he does have to worry about it, he/she should be able to do something about it. IF security was done correctly, we wouldnt have to have f-16's with orders to shoot if necessary.. which is still the case.

you cant make a cockpit door impossible to break in. it has to be made possible to break in so that the crew can break out in case of an accident (or rescuers can break in to rescue them)

security can never be 100%, thats why you never rely on 1 layer of security.

 

[lancair1]

Some of you are really amazing me here..

Do you think it requires some "magic hands" to utilize a firearm. Must you be cia, fbi, etc. to obtain or grow these magic hands?

Your fear of handguns only holds validity in that you, yourself are not mentally capable because of your own incorrect assumptions.

And what is this crap: "it probably won't make a difference anyway" attitude. September 11 was not "likely" to happen.

What the heck do you memorize any emergency checklists for? An emergency is not "likely" to occur.

I'm starting to get depressed, so I must go. It must just be the political favor of my circle of friends that led me to believe that most, if not all pilots were the thinkers, not the suckers.

 

[enigma]

: to TWAdude

A few quick points, then I'm done. These type of strings usually get ignored by everyone once they become longer that a couple of point- counter points. Then no one else is listening and the reason I post is to make a point with everyone who reads this, I really have no expectation of changing your mind. In effect, you provide me a foil and relieve me of playing devils advocate with myself. In other words, I have no personal fight with you.

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.

Next, Citizens can be trusted with guns. Criminoligist Gary Kleck has published, in more than one study and book, scientific evidence of that FACT. To summarize, take the number if firearms in the country and compare that to the number of firearm misuse; you will find that the percent of misuse is statistically ZERO. You say this, 'I believe it's naiive in the extreme to think that a gun in every law-abider's household would make this country a safer place." 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 reason that there is not a FAM in every fwd jumpseat is simply money. Now there is an area where the government has made a choice of money over safety. Your phraseology implies that you would approve of allowing a FAM in that position. What I advocate, putting an armed pilot in the cockpit is NO different than your FAM in the jumpseat thought. The bonus is that the pilot doesn't require an additional paycheck while the FAM does.

Your info says that you fly DC9s. If so, you know full well that the bulkheads are nigh near impossible to bulletproof. The proximity of the electrical system behind the Captain as well as the control cables just doesn't leave any room for any cheap installation, and the airlines will probably park the planes before they spend what would be necessary to completely re-engineer the entry area.

Later

 

[SpinDoctor]

In my opinion.....

In my opinion the liabilities outweigh the potential assests to having a firearm(s) in the cockpit. Good arguments have been made by both sides, however I am of the same opinion and stubbornly stuck to it like TWA and 350.

I would like to respond to some of the origional posts about the FedEx incident. If the attacker was a jumpseating/deadheading pilot and he had a gun, neither one of those pilots would be alive today. He simply would have shot them both before they knew what was going on.
Which brings up something that I feel will certainly happen if we are allowed to carry firearms. The FAA will end all jumpseat agreements. No access to the cockpit to anyone other than the FAA or checkairmen. We all know how much the FAA enjoys overkill, and I fear this will be one of the consequences.

Lancair it doesn't take magical hands to utilize a firearm. However, your argument about lacking the mental capacity to utilize a firearm is flawed. How many pilots in thier mental capacity think they are the best d@mn pilot they know? Probably most. Yet we all know that because of pilot error, perfectly good airplanes fly right into mountains that have been there for millions of years.
By the way how's Vero? Is Cliff still working dispatch?

 

[lancair1]

spin doctor,
I am sure you will not be surprised that I disagree that my logic is flawed.

You say that pilot's fly aircraft into mountains that have been there for years? Then why do we continue to fly? If there is a possibility of danger why don't we start a thread advocating the gov outlaw flight?

To save myself from looking like a pompus jerk, my statement that certain people "lack the mental capacity" must not be taken out of context:

"Your fear of handguns only holds validity in that you, yourself are not mentally capable because of your own incorrect assumptions."

I don't know if you all saw this or not. A couple weeks ago Cokie Roberts, Sam, Stephanopolis and George Will were all sitting around the table talking about this. Kokie says, (in a whiny voice) "being on a plane was the only place I feel safe from guns", then, "what if the pilot misses and shoots a pax". George Will returns: "HELLO, THERE IS ALREADY A HIJACKNG GOING ON"

Do you realize that you're buddying up with Kokie Roberts? We're supposed to be the logical ones! Not the emotional likes of her!

 

[SpinDoctor]

You say that pilot's fly aircraft into mountains that have been there for years? Then why do we continue to fly? If there is a possibility of danger why don't we start a thread advocating the gov outlaw flight?

Well hell's bells son...just being alive kills a person. Should we outlaw being alive since in the end you're going to die anyway? You can't argue that we should stop doing something just because there is some inherent danger or risk in such an activity. My point was that eveyone's idea of their own mental and physical ability is a little biased. Most, if not all, people feel as though thier abilities are better than they actually are.

I have no fear of carrying or utilizing a firearm in the cockpit. I fear other people carrying and/or utilizing firearms in the cockpit.

Kokie, Sam, George, and George aren't exactly people who know what's going on. Most reporters/anchormen in the mass media have no idea what goes on behind the scenes in the cockpit of a commercial airliner or even general aviation aircraft. For that matter, neither does the general public. Bill Mahr said, "Why not give pilots guns, they were all in the military anyway." The public and the mass media have a very skewed perception of pilots and our jobs.

If I'm buddying up to anyone it's Star Jones.....she is so hot!

 

[enigma]

Re: In my opinion.....

Which brings up something that I feel will certainly happen if we are allowed to carry firearms. The FAA will end all jumpseat agreements. No access to the cockpit to anyone other than the FAA or checkairmen. We all know how much the FAA enjoys overkill, and I fear this will be one of the consequences.

I've been working in flight test the last 5 weeks. Did the Feds change the current JS rules during that time?

The last I knew, the cockpit was already off limits to anyone other than company pilots; and we can only carry company up front after calling dispatch. This argument is red herring.

regards

 

[350DRIVER]

My last $.02.....

you're right a gun wont stop a ground launched missle from a terrorist, neither will ground screeners, so by your logic mr 350, would you suggest we do away with ground screeners? seems by your logic that if a security measure wont stop all possible ways, then its not worthwhile

NO- I think logical reasoning would highly suggest that if "something" isn't working out, not safe, then we MUST CHANGE things for the better. "CHANGE"- is the key word, I would do away with ALL ground screeners that have proven themselves as a possible risk and who are not able to handle the job within the guidelines that are outlined. IF it takes hiring thousands as replacements then so be it. What other options would be left.? Even if we must revamp and change the system completely I still feel it is in the best interest of the American people versus "gambling" on the "magic" gun..... I will take my chances on survival any day of the week with a terrorist on the GROUND(attempting to get passed security "NOW") versus being on an aircraft "hoping" and praying that the so-called magic gun will safely get me back on the ground. Once again I feel that IF we can "prevent" the situation from ever happening in the first place then it is a win win situation for all involved.

As a former DAL employee (ops/gates) I saw first hand what "kinds" of people are employed and a few of the ones I have seen made me second guess "why" they were even hired in the first place not to mention when the FAA did the random checks HOU security did not have the best record or even close to it. However we can continue to degrade and rank on them OR we can stay optimistic about what the future has in store..

IF you think that once most airports have the "federalized security" plan intact that the SAME people will be employed as now just ask any security person about their job security and get their response....


C H E E R S
3 5 0

 

[enigma]

350driver

Why do you frame the argument as either/or?
Why can't we ask for both good ground screening and secure aircraft?
I certainly agree that we need more effective screening, I'm not saying that we should do away with ground screening, yet that is what one takes from your arguments.
regards

 

[350DRIVER]

IF it takes "doing away" with ground security and starting from scratch to hire "new" more educated, competent,safe, and more motivated people to ensure the American people are getting the best federal employees which are in reality our last life line then I am all for it 100%...- I don't think I have ever suggested "doing away" with ground security, I think that most if not all who reads my posts get the feeling that I would much rather "prevent" the problem on the GROUND at any and ALL costs versus letting this problem escalate to a very serious issue at FL370... I strongly feel that it is much smarter to AVOID the problem in the first place.

IF the hijacker is prevented from boarding the aircraft then this whole gun debate is irrelevant, like I said this is a very serious "ground security" issue NOT a pilot problem as far as I am concerned. How do you "fix" all kinks and flaws with ground security at the present time.??- Good question and I don't think it is easily answered BUT we must not leave any doubt when the "final" plan is put in place. This is in no way going to be an easy "fix" as far as I am concerned however I do strongly think that we are moving in the right direction.(time will tell)

Why can't we ask for both good ground screening and secure aircraft?

I agree and I do think that IF we prevent the terrorist BEFORE they would get onboard then we have a "secure aircraft" and safe work atmosphere. I would much rather disect every part of the ground security system and "attempt" to perfect it than having to HOPE that a gun could save the day and have a positive outcome when put to the test.

Time shall tell however IF the correct choice has been made. I cannot look into the future and say that I am right BUT I just believe that IF the security is better then NO pilot should ever have to worry about having a gun at 30,000 wondering IF they will be alive to see another day.

C H E E R S
3 5 0

 

[lancair1]

350,
Do you place the same judgement to the safety of your family?
That you would rather rely on our criminal justice system to keep criminals off the streets and out of your neigborhood, and in a worst case scenario, you call 911?

I'm beginning to think that you are either: 350 lbs of brute muscle, a 4th degree Black Belt, or that you hate guns.

Would you at least advocate sharpening up the axe?

 

[350DRIVER]

lancair1-
It is obvious that your reasoning has just a tad to be desired but to any extent that is your choice not mine fortunately. I tend to want to "avoid" being put into any situation where a pilot would "need" to resort to using a gun and you on the other hand would rather allow a terrorist on the aircraft and then hope a gun saves your life as well as everyone else onboard- (good luck to you & take a few pictures up there)- Better you than me... I am just very thankful that a few people in DC also agree with my reasoning however it is only common sense.

I'm beginning to think that you are either: 350 lbs of brute muscle, a 4th degree Black Belt, or that you hate guns.

I have absolutely nothing against guns at all IF their is a logical reason to have a "need" for them. I feel that in this day and age in this society that a gun IS beneficial in most cases as "protection" however on the flight deck it seems to defy common sense to have a "need" for one.....

Like I said you prefer to allow a hijacker on the aircraft and in your anit-gov't views leave the "security" issue up to you to play GI Joe at 30,000 -I prefer to let security arrest the person on the ground and prevent the situation all together. (just my personal feelings regarding this)

Do you place the same judgement to the safety of your family?

I appreciate your concerns for the well being and safety of my family and I can assure you that everyone in my family is safe and sound. This debate is going no where so we can continue to waste each others time or move on and address the concerns at hand. YOU have your opinions and I respect your views even if we may never agree regarding this issue. This is a debate that is nothing more than opinions versus opinions and nothing more. I tend to want to "prevent" and you seem to want to "allow" a situation to mature into what possibly could be a problem.-

I think we have beaten this thread inside and out with no agreement in sight so with that being said I wish you the best of luck in your fight to drum up support for "guns on the flight deck" and IF it is meant to be then I guess we shall all accept guns on the flight deck- Either way I won't loose too much sleep I assure you of this. Cheers to you and happy flying-

C H E E R S
3 5 0