Guns for pilots

[A Squared]

Looks like we're one step closer to armed pilots.
from AvWeb:

The Senate's passage of the Homeland Security Act on Tuesday allowing pilots of passenger airliners to carry guns was, of course, cheered by the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance (APSA). "We are very pleased that arming airline pilots will soon be the law of the land and that the Homeland Security bill requires the TSA to implement a strong program," said APSA President Tracy Price, who lobbied hard for pilots' rights to bear arms. Price noted that there are no limits on participation. Any pilot who passes screening and training can pack and airlines won't have a say on whether guns can be taken aboard the airplanes that they own and otherwise control. Price pointed out the bill still has an unacceptable weakness in that it does not allow pilots flying freight to carry guns.

 

[TurboS7]

Can't talk about Gulfstream forever, can't talk about blimps. Quess we will try guns. I think I would like a .45 automatic, I am still trying to figure out whether I want to wear it under my jacket or strap it to the outside of it. Kinda like General Patton.Should be fun.

 

[Dieterly]

Any word about allowing "Leathermans", or tweasers..

 

[skyking1976]

I think I would like to have the Sigarms SP2340. Nice looking weapon and you can change calibers.

http://www.sigarms.com/products/sigpro.asp
Skyking

 

[A Squared]

I'm thinking Rem. 870 with a short barrel, extended magazine and pistol-grip stock.
Wouldn't I be a sight walking down the concourse?
Oh, wait, they don't let freight dogs walk down the concourse. d@mn

 

[skyking1976]

Better yet... how about a pair of nickel-plated .50 cal. Desert Eagles. Lotsa weight in the old holster but they look intimidating!

 

[ShawnC]

Sorry no leathermen, or tool kits for pilots, but you can take your Glock on board.

 

[Indapool]

Desert Eagle
.50
Don't bring a knife to a gunfight

 

[avbug]

Indapool,

It goes both ways. There's also such thing as making the mistake of bringing a gun to a knifefight.

The choice of weapon is far less important than the dedication in learning to use it. Familiarity with manual of arms and shot placement far outweigh brand or caliber.

 

[cjh]

Any mention in the bill of protection for the airlines, and the pilots for that matter, from the litigation that will surely follow the first time someone other than an actual terrorist is injured? If you're going to carry a weapon best up your liability coverage, and check it for loopholes. You can bet the insurance companies won't take any chances - "acts of war" exclusions already exist.

I'm just glad I can fly myself wherever I wish to go. Airline travel has become far too great a hassle, and somehow the increased "security" measures just haven't left me with a warm fuzzy.

 

[A Squared]

>>>>>Any mention in the bill of protection for the airlines, and the pilots for that matter, from the litigation that will surely follow the first time someone other than an actual terrorist is injured?

Yeah, there's something about that in there. I read it last night. It was something along the lines of the airlines weren't liable in any case and the pilot wasn't liable except in the case of gross negligence or willful misdeed.

regards

 

[avbug]

Accidental shooting of a passenger. Hmmm. Would that be the passener that accidentally carries strips of C4 in his shoe, blows the door hinges after taking control of the forward section, and breaches the locked, reinforced secure cockpit door? That would be a shame, wouldn't it? Poor, accidental passenger.

Now really, how many passengers do you suppose will accidentally be forcing their way into the cockpit?

 

[skyking1976]

The only weapon I need in Bear country is Brett Favre.

skyking-

Back up your Packer mouth huh??? hehehe

Bring your weaponry into my Chicago neighborhood anyday

 

[cjh]

I'm glad you guys have so much confidence in our legal system. When this backfires (no pun intended) and the lawsuits start flying, I promise not to post an I told you so.

Honestly, I think the whole issue of airline security is just bad ideas piled on top of other bad ideas. Do I have a better solution? No, other than voting with my wallet by choosing not to fly commercially. No offense to those of you who make your living in the industry. I would hope we ultimately come up with a plan that is feasible, both economically and from a common sense viewpoint. So far I don't see that happening, and as long as government is involved I'm not optimistic much will change.

 

[ShawnC]

Ahh you guys are all talking about little stuff. 1" recoilless rifle, or maybe one of those laser canons that the USAF is making to shoot down missiles, I'm sure they can make it smaller soon.

 

[Dan CFI/CFII]

Anyone else troubled by this? "...and airlines won't have a say on whether guns can be taken aboard the airplanes that they own and otherwise control."

Seriously, ownership is defined as having the ability to dictate (within certain limits) the use of something. If an entity owns something (and yes I realise most A/C are not owned by their operators), then they should be allowed to control how it is used.

If it is proved that watching "The Bachelor" makes one a safer homeowner, should we be REQUIRED to allow visitors to our houses to watch that program? Think about it, it's an absurd idea but based on the same principal as the statement above.

I dunno, that statement just rubs me the wrong way, if an airline doesn't want guns in thier cockpit, they shouldn't be forced to allow them there. Conversely, if some airline WANTS guns in thier cockpit, they shouldn't be able to require the pilots to bring them there...

Dan

 

[avbug]

Dan,

That's a nonsensical arguement. Airlines maintain operational control, and airlines, under their operations specifications, have had the option of allowing carriage for many years. In former times, this was allowable. I have worked for firms which permitted this, on an individual basis, with individual authorization.

Nobody is talking about granting carte blanche authorizations.

Let's not forget that an airline management doesn't want to pay pilots, or spend money on maintenance, benifits, etc. These things occur because airlines are forced to do so by law and by unions. Like it or not, that's the way it is.

Most all of the regulations under which we operate came about not because someone thought it sounded like a neat idea, but because public fatalities resulted in the necessity for the change. How many more people need to die because a cockpit has been taken, before you accept this change? Perhaps after the sixth or seventh takeover, then it's time to begin considering arming crews and giving us one more chance?

Nothing is being taken from those who hold operational control. You believe that rights are being subborogated, but those whose wrights you would protect are the same fools who elected to put tasers in cockpits in the interest of being politically correct. The same fools who fought tooth and nail to extend pilot duty hours in order to get more out of pilots...at the risk of compromising the safety elements already codified into regulation.

Ultimately, is it more important to protect the interests of management (reduce costs, reduce exposure, risk, and sunlight for small growing things), or to protect the interests of the flying public, and the safety of the flight? No question exists here. Safety of flight is paramount. As adding a firearm to the cockpit under trained, qualified, and controlled conditions can only improve safety by providing crews with an additional tool, this is in the interest of safety.

While all are entitled to their opinions, to argue otherwise is tantamount to arguing in favor of the criminal element.

 

[SheGaveMeClap]

Hey Skyking, bummer about your Quackers getting beat by the Vikings. I've been a Bears fan since I was a little kid, I've always hated the Vikings, but I cheer for them twice a year. That's when they play Farve (ha, ha) and his gang. Great football game to watch in the Dome. I had a lot of fun.

 

[abxaviator]

How is it that the freight side of the airport was cut out of this at the eleventh hour? Are our illustrious representatives so misguided as to believe that one of our 767's is any less lethal than one from Delta or United?

It seems to be a reversion to the "old school" of hijacking in that only the pax carriers would be targeted for the hostages. Well, I submit that we all know hostages are no longer the prize, buildings and massive numbers on the ground are much more lucrative targets.

On our side of the airport we do not have TSA screeners, we do not have bag matching, we do not have package checks, just a big ol' airplane with WAY too many loopholes around it, but we don't need weapons, good thinking!

 

[Eagleflip]

Other issues?

Gang--

Now that the bill has been passed (and I was in favor of it, by the way), we now have to face other significant issues. I don't have the answers to these questions:

--Are the pilots carrying weapons or are they to be mounted somehow in the aircraft?

--If you do carry, how will you commute with the weapon to work? Will anybody allow you on their aircraft on a simple airline ID, especially since there is no verification process in place?

--If you "pack heat" in NYC as an airline pilot, will you face criminal charges for carrying a weapon without a permit?

--How about DC? It's a felony to have a weapon in the District.

--How will you safeguard the weapon when you are at the overnight hotel room and out, say, working out or eating dinner?

Not that these problems can't be worked out, but reality now imposes a new set of challenges for us to work through.

What do you think?