Guns for pilots

[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?

 

[skyking1976]

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.

Funny you should mention that. The only time I back the Vi-queens is when they play the Bears.

 

[TXCAP4228]

Ownership response

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

Dan,

This debate is similar to the debate over concealed handgun licenses a few years ago (in Texas). A business may have the right to say that no one with a friearm will be permitted on the premisis, but if some psycho goes on a shooting spree inside and I lose a loved one that I could have protected if the business had allowed me to do something that I was legally permitted to do, I should be able to hold the business accountable for their decision. I think I would wind up owning the whole chain.

Unfortunately no one want to own any airlines right now.

But all of this is distraction from the real issue, which really is even simpler than that. No rhetoric will ever get passed the piercing logic that a couple of armed pilots could have saved 3000 lives last year.

 

[A Squared]

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.

Yeah, notice that I said the bill said something about limiting liability, not that it *would* limit liability. Here’s the actual text. I’m not a lawyer, but it seem that any protection that there *might* be would be limited to an actual hijacking attempt . An accident occurring when a hijacking was *not* in progress would be a free for all.



(h) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY-

(1) LIABILITY OF AIR CARRIERS- An air carrier shall not be liable for damages in any action brought in a Federal or State court arising out of a Federal flight deck officer's use of or failure to use a firearm.

(2) LIABILITY OF FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICERS- A Federal flight deck officer shall not be liable for damages in any action brought in a Federal or State court arising out of the acts or omissions of the officer in defending the flight deck of an aircraft against acts of criminal violence or air piracy unless the officer is guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct.

(3) LIABILITY OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT- For purposes of an action against the United States with respect to an act or omission of a Federal flight deck officer in defending the flight deck of an aircraft, the officer shall be treated as an employee of the Federal Government under chapter 171 of title 28, relating to tort claims procedure.


Dan,

Yeah, it troubled me also. While I’m a supporter or the 2nd amendment and favor allowing persons to arm themselves, I’ve got mixed emotions about a law that says a company cannot forbid it’s employees to carry. Anyway, here’s the relevant passage:

(j) LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF AIR CARRIERS- No air carrier shall prohibit or threaten any retaliatory action against a pilot employed by the air carrier from becoming a Federal flight deck officer under this section. No air carrier shall--

(1) prohibit a Federal flight deck officer from piloting an aircraft operated by the air carrier, or

(2) terminate the employment of a Federal flight deck officer, solely on the basis of his or her volunteering for or participating in the program under this section.

Deftone,

There is at least an attempt to address this in the Bill. It appears that persons participating in this program may be exempt to some degree from state and local firearm laws.


(f) AUTHORITY TO CARRY FIREARMS-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Under Secretary shall authorize a Federal flight deck officer to carry a firearm while engaged in providing air transportation or intrastate air transportation. Notwithstanding subsection (c)(1), the officer may purchase a firearm and carry that firearm aboard an aircraft of which the officer is the pilot in accordance with this section if the firearm is of a type that may be used under the program.

(2) PREEMPTION- Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, a Federal flight deck officer, whenever necessary to participate in the program, may carry a firearm in any State and from 1 State to another State.

(3) CARRYING FIREARMS OUTSIDE UNITED STATES- In consultation with the Secretary of State, the Under Secretary may take such action as may be necessary to ensure that a Federal flight deck officer may carry a firearm in a foreign country whenever necessary to participate in the program.


Wouldn’t that just kill the British and Australian authorities to have US pilots legally carrying

Regards

 

[skiddriver]

First, let me say that I fall out in the "this is a good thing" camp.

I believe the idea is that the trained pilots will be "federalized". They won't require a local permit in the same way that any federal LEO (FBI, INS, BATF, DOD) can carry throughout the U.S. without local permission.

International travel will be problematical, and will probably require some reciprocal agreements.

Carrying in this program is going to be a big responsibility, and will be a huge PITA (as anyone who's had to live 24/7 with a sidearm can attest).

Don't expect this to happen any time soon. The training and certification requirements will be stiff, as they should be.

I believe this is a good thing for two reasons:

1) It will make all flights more secure in the same way that introduction of LoJack car theft tracking service in a metropolitan market reduces overall car theft. The bad guys don't know if a car is LoJack equipped and it makes them more hesitant to steal it. The possibility that the flight crew may be armed (whether they are or not) will make hijackers think twice, not because they're afraid to die, but because it reduces their chance of success. A failed hijacking is worse than no hijacking (in the terrorist's mind) because it makes them appear fallible and ineffective. This is also why you won't see any airlines publically refusing to participate. It will mark them as a "vulnerable" carrier.

2) It will increase the travelling public's confidence in aircraft security. There will be some people who buy into the "all guns are bad" mentality, but they very seldom object when the Cop with a gun shows up and runs off the thug who was going to rob them. The American people can't afford to hire enough FAM's to cover even a small percentage of commercial flights. It makes good sense to arm a percentage of pilots.

My background in the military includes a tour as the OIC for SpecOps training (SOTG) for West Coast USMC units. I ran the urban sniper, long gun, and handgun discriminant shooting courses for those units and owned the West Coast USMC shoot houses. I've also had to maintain and certify a couple USMC armories.

This training is doable and the program can work. However, there needs to be some strict training, background check, and currency requirements for it to be effective. This means that there will be a certain percentage of otherwise well qualified pilots who SHOULD NOT be certified to carry. If part of the program doesn't focus on weeding out the irresponsible (and the lousy shots) it will be a danger to the flying public. The question is whether the pilot groups can accept that some folks who want to be part of this program are not capable of doing so safely. This is one program that should not be governed by seniority numbers.

Also, expect that the carrying pilot will be required to maintain personal control over their sidearm for the duration of the trip. Storing in the aircraft will not work due to the certainty of theft, and providing armory storage at every commercial destination in the US will be cost prohibitive. And no, you won't be able to have a beer while you're packing. That in itself will reduce participation in this program.

 

[snowback]

APSA

There is lots of good info here.

 

[---BTL---]

How 'bout a LAW

Light Anti-Tank weapon and nothing smaller...time to put an end to those raghead renegades...Out

 

[jsoceanlord]

I've got one of those plastic, orange flare guns; I wonder what the policy is on having those? also; mace.

 

[mar]

Mace?

Son, please don't carry mace or pepper spray in the cockpit, for cryin' out loud.

 

[---BTL---]

...but I saw it on Nintendo...

 

[rodeopilot]

I agree with skidriver, there needs to be a huge push towards common sense before the rank and file are armed and put into a public arena. Im not concerned with the where and how of carrying, I do that now, just not on trips. My concern is for the determination of who is fit and unfit to carry. Training has to weed that out. What about the guys who top the avoidance bid list every month? What about the gunstore commandos that just want to pack and care nothing about the consequences of carrying. I think they pose more threat to the system than any of us "normal" pilots. I shoot IPSC every week, and it is almost entertaining to see some of the guys who come in, strap on a fancy rig, talk about all of their "real world experience", and then when they are faced with a simple course of fire with PAPER silhouettes, they fold. They draw and shoot so slow(draw) and with so little accuracy(shoot), Id be afraid to be within 180 degrees for fear of being fragged. Its a whole different ball of wax when its a life and death situation and your adversary is trained. I dont think the carrying of firearms should be taken so lightly. I know most of us dont, its the 1% that will hose us all if we arent carefull.