No gun-totin' in the cockpit

[lancair1]

I think the majority whom are against arming pilots refuse to admit the usefullness of having a handgun at hand. You're scared that if you do admit that a .40 caliber has any usefull purpose you're anti-gun stance is cut to crap.

I've got an idea. I'll sit in my bathroom on the toilet with my .40 caliber, you try to come in and take over the bathroom.

As I see it, anti-gunners have two options in life: remain stupid or learn to get through their ignorance about the purpose and value (micro and macro) of personal protection.

Had to vent.

 

[dash8driver]

ahh yes.. the pilots should concentrate on flying. that is exactly right. if they can shoot the hijacker when they come into the cockpit, they can get back to flying the plane like they are supposed to. somehow i think its easier to concentrate on flying with a dead al queda on the floor than a live one cutting open your throat.

oops! the 1st shot missed and hit the coffee maker!? oh well, we can MEL it. a bullet thru one of the redundant hydraulic lines? i'm sure the pilots have a checklist or two to cope with that. i dont think there is a checklist for "your throat is cut and someone else is driving the plane". whatever else it hits i'm sure will cause much less damage than a missle or worse yet, the terrorists driving it into another building.

if guns in the planes are so dangerous, especially with all the people around. why arent they applying all the same worries to the air marshalls. what if they hit the plane? what if they hit a passenger? its more likely they're gonna hit someone else since they are back there with everyone else. what if the terrorists get his gun? after all, from an air marshalls position in the plane, he can be jumped from all sides. so a couple of terrorists are sandbagging and a couple more make a commotion to flush out the air marshall (if he's on the plane), the others jump him, take his gun and proceed to the cockpit with a gun the air marshalls just got onto the plane for them. nothings in their way now! thats if they dont take his gun while he's sleeping.

bottom line... give the pilot the tools he needs to do his job, to get the plane on the ground safely....even if it includes a pistol

 

[HAL]

Sorry guys, but after the last couple posts, it's my turn to vent.

Do I admit a .40 caliber has a place? Yes - on the shooting range or in a policeman's hand. The cockpit is not a shooting range, and last I checked, I wasn't an officer of the law. I'm a pilot - THAT's my job. The last thing I want is some scared to death captain waving a gun around the cockpit while I'm trying to get the plane on the ground. So the hijackers bust through the cockpit door. The captain gets one or two, but the crush of people knocks the gun to the floor, and in a few seconds we're all dead anyway. Is that how it happens? Who knows. But it's just as likely as being hero with a gold star on your chest.

Look at the reality - pilots are big kids with bigger egos. Of course we feel we can defend the cockpit - we're supermen and can do everything. Time for a reality check. How often in the past 20 years would having a gun on board really made a difference by causing a smaller loss of life. The answer is (maybe) four flights on one day. That's it. What would have happened if guns had been in the cockpit (and walking through the terminal every day on the pilots that are packing) for those 20 years. I'd say a whole lot more death by accident (and purpose) than we've already had. Not by the hundreds, but in ones and twos.

Let me say it again: PUTTING GUNS IN THE COCKPIT HAS DONE THE HARDEST PART OF THE JOB FOR TERRORISTS - GETTING GUNS ON THE PLANE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!!

Enough ranting. I know the gundamentalists will never be swayed from their position, just as those that oppose it won't either. I'm just glad rational heads in Washington have prevailed this time.

HAL

 

[aero99]

The last two post are why the Bush Admin decided against guns. Sure, some pilots wanted them....and some don't.

To pass a law for this would have required EVERYONE to carry. There is almost nothing more dangeous than a person with a gun that doesn't like or want the gun.

I would like to see a large scale poll of pilots who wanted guns and those that did not.

As long as there was one "do not's", it is not safe.

 

[lancair1]

Sorry Hal,

I was going to let someone else respond, until I read your last sentence.. "rational heads in washington"... Are you smoking crack man?

It may take some self-empowerment seminar or something, but many people have got to learn that they have the capability, if correctly prepared, to defend themselves.

About your not being a police officer, police train less than one week in the academy on how to utilize their side arm.

I don't care if people don't feel the urge or self-empowerment to protect their own house and family, but anything that will improve the cockpit's chances at retaining control for the cost of a $400 .40 cal sounds like a good investment to me.

Pilots may need a checklist to keep from accidentally discharging their sidearm once in a while, but last time I checked, though we may have decent sized egos, the ability to respect the importance of not pulling the trigger while in the terminal for kicks shouldn't be too dificult to curb

Lastly, I'll sit in my bathroom on the toilet. You and 5 other guys try overtake the thrown, I'll win. Besides, last time I saw a cockpit door, I don't think it was wide enough for anything but single file entry.

 

[350DRIVER]

As I see it, anti-gunners have two options in life: remain stupid or learn to get through their ignorance about the purpose and value (micro and macro) of personal protection.

What a beautiful "attempt" at comparing a bathroom to the flight deck- I think the post speaks for itself and probably would not do justice to even respond to that part of your post however...... Who said "we" are against guns completely as you called us "anti-gunners".?? I for one am not against guns IF they would be in the best interest of SAFETY and in this case guns on the flight deck would not have made the situation any safer or for the best of everyone involved. IF they get on the airplane THEN the ground security really screwed up SO common sense would illustrate to revamp the ground security system completely to insure that the pilots can do what they are paid to do which just in case you are not aware Lanc- to get the pax safely from point A to point B not harmed & also not to ding a piece of metal in the process.


To make such a ludicrous assumption with absolutely NO factual knowledge regarding us let alone the gun subject itself. IF you took the time to actually research the issue instead of making false assumptions you may just find out why it was opposed by a large majority of people in DC.

BUT guess what?- Hmmmm...It is a done deal so don't worry about it!!

C H E E R S
3 5 0

 

[dash8driver]

or the one or two they take out is just enough so the pax can handle the rest... either way, at least they had more of a fighting chance. the cockpit would have been taken over anyways.

probably just as many mishaps as they've had with air marshalls and cops in the terminal with guns.

the idea is they are trained and voluntary. people that dont want em, dont have to have em. properly trained, like the air marshalls...the risks wouldnt be any greater.

its too bad the suckers in DC want to just roll over for the terrorists. its too bad that our last line of defense is a high school diploma or GED getting paid a little more than min wage to look at an xray machine for 8 hours. you know he's going to be paying attention to every little detail. no one's gonna get past him!

 

[eriknorth]

I'd just like to make a simple observation with no sides taken. Both sides of this issue have very good arguments. You would have to be one cracked out suicidal terrorist to break down a door to a small room with two people with guns waiting on you, regardless of how strong the door was.

"Here, sir, I'm done with your soapbox. You can have it back now."

 

[~~~^~~~]

Just wondering if anyone knows where I can get a PMA'd gun rack for a CRJ, a big ol' DIXIE flag, and a 25 foot long VOR antenna with a tennis ball rated for 700 MPH, or so. Wonder if some big mudders would fit it the main landing gear bay...

Bocephus rules!

 

[AeroBoy]

Pilots don't need guns!! They already have a last-resort weapon built into their aircraft. It's called the pressurization system. Don the emergency oxygen masks and dump the cabin pressure. Wait a few moments at altitude, tell ATC of the situation, find a suitable airport to land, and dive to get there. The would-be hijackers will just be waking up on the ground as they are being handcuffed by the police. Don't worry, they'll bring their own guns with them when they storm the cabin.

 

[skydiverdriver]

Hey aero boy, how well will the pressurization system work if you are below 10 thousand feet? Not very well, huh?

Lancair, you say that we all have to be armed, why do you draw that conclusion? It has always been an optional thing, and that is far safer. It works just as well as states that have ccw permits. Nobody knows which citizens have guns, so the criminals leave everyone alone.

Even submarines in the US Navy have personel with sidarms available. Everyone on the sub is backround checked and a US citizen. Stopping them from getting on the aircraft is never going to work. I think we need a final line of defense. But, it looks like we are not going to get it. Good luck to all of you.

 

[lancair1]

I would certainly settle for it to be optional.

From my view, I can barely comprehend some people's emotional fret about protecting themselves and the cockpit. I'm sure that the pilots on the 11th grabbed for the axe without hesitation. Using an axe is more emotionally gripping, and completely less effective, if not useless.

I realize that some pilots don't like the idea of sending a slug into another person, but the value of having that ability is now priceless.

I know some officers of the law. None enjoy the thought of having to use their tools, but they are trained and required to do so for the greater good of their lives, and the lives of others.

Besides, if pilots can get over their perceived stress of having a gun in cockpit, the procedure to stop a tragedy is far less complex than squaking vfr.

 

[FracPilot]

Pilots don't need guns!! They already have a last-resort weapon built into their aircraft. It's called the pressurization system. Don the emergency oxygen masks and dump the cabin pressure.

And then the oxygen masks drop.....and the hijacker just grabs a mask, finds the portable system(all the while killing everybody they come across), then head for the cockpit. Or they just grab one of the portable O2 systems BEFORE they attempt to hijack the plane, and when the pilots dump pressurization they disable the pax that are trying to intervene.

I know what you're going to say......disable the auto-drop function for the O2 masks in the back. But what happens on the aircraft where you CANNOT disable the auto-drop? Such as an Airbus.

Your theory sounds good initially, but there are too many holes in it.

 

[machspeed]

I have heard alot of good points on both sides but the best is do we want to force people to carry guns that don't want to. Statistics prove that a gun in the home has about an 80% chance of killing a friend or family member then an intruder. I have flown with enough captains that i barely trust with the aircraft much less their decisions on using a gun.

machspeed

Maybe i can get kilomike to ride on my flights with his super human strength to protect my aircraft.

 

[FR8mastr]

some of you guys had better wake up and smell the coffee! Maybe when the terrorist is slicing our throats we could just talk to them, understand their feelings, and then hold hands a sing to each other. Do you people actually listen to yourselves spewing this PC horsecrap. Dump the cabin? " I can get my plane down in 7 minutes"? "Our job is to fly the aircraft"? Most of this has been covered by rational people but I must vent also. First only volunteers would carry, these volunteers would be deputy air marshalls with jurasdiction in the cockpit only!! They would be psycologically screened by the FBI and held to markmanship standards higher than the airmarshals in the back. Dumping the cabin by the time you started to dump they would be halfway thru the door and they would not need much time after that. Also you would be putting to sleep any potential help from the back. How are you going to land the plane in your seven mins. when you are dead? This is just too rediculous, I know, you can call the cops, and let the professionals handle it. I'm sure they will get there in time.

fire away

 

[350DRIVER]

some of you guys had better wake up and smell the coffee!

I don't like coffee nor do I enjoy the smell...

Maybe when the terrorist is slicing our throats we could just talk to them, understand their feelings, and then hold hands a sing to each other

I highly doubt you need to worry about this situation ever "duplicating" itself again BUT "if" an attempt would ever be made again (which I pray never happens ever again) I think that logical reasoning would illustrate that a different method and technique would be used to attempt to take control of the aircraft so with that being said I highly doubt that a gun would save the day.

pilots are pilots not "security" officers, police, or GI Joe's-

IF the hijacker (s) is prevented from being on the aircraft then the problem has already been solved and the gun issue is "irrelevant".

It is a done deal so whether you agree/disagree I guess everyone has to adapt and "accept" the cards that we have been dealt.

C H E E R S
3 5 0

 

[lancair1]

350, I'm assuming you're willing to bet your life on it. How about everyone else's?

The blind faith so many have in this "someone else will solve my problem" mindset is actually not too surprising. It's the american way to hope that someone else will handle the problem at hand.

It only takes 5-10 minutes for police to show up at my door if I call 911. Am I willing to bet the lives of my family on that, along with my home's alarm system, being effective enough to stop something horrible from happening? Nope.. No blind trust here.

You're right about it being a mute point though. It'll probably take another loss of 3,000+ lives to make people think we should "really think seriously" about protecting the cockpit.

 

[hyper]

I clearly understand the points made from both sides. I wish there was a feasible solution to solve all aspects, but we all know that won't happen, ESPECIALLY with the govt. involved. I'll agree 100% that the last thing we need is an inexperienced handgun waver in the cockpit at FL350 going 500mph. However, not all pilots are bumbling idiots in the use and safety of handguns. I'll agree that not all should be allowed to carry one and there are other issues at hand such as ground security and accidents, and no, I don't have those answers. But, I've owned and actively practiced with guns far longer than I've flown. As long as criminals have guns, so will I. Done so in a responsible manner, my home is safe for any child to enter and a death trap for anyone intending theft or harm. Properly trained and required to meet specific standards with checkouts on a regular basis (something sound familiar here?) guns in the cockpit don't need to be a far-fetched reality.

Again, a last resort when the door has been compromised. And nothing more. Pilots that are unsure, inexperienced, or uncomfortable with it.....don't carry one. Ones that can meet requirements such as accuracy, psych evaluations, and scenario tests should have that option. Treat it with the same respect and accuracy as we do our aircraft.

Not intended to start a new flame war, just some thoughts from a responsible gun owner and pilot.

 

[350DRIVER]

Again- Why not prevent the hijacker from gaining access to the aircraft in the first place as well as not allowing the door to be "compromised" at any time as you put it... I as well as many others would much rather prevent a problem before it even starts.

IF acceptable standards and regulations are put into place on the ground then this "should" prevent the "gun issue" from even coming into the equation and everyone will live happily ever after..

I strongly feel that this problem is with airport security and should be handled on the ground versus in the air- What other choices do you have? The gun debate now (present time) is "dead" "over"- You can either continue to cry, complain, and "wish" the situation was different or make the best out of the situation with the cards you have been dealt-

C H E E R S
3 5 0

 

[NCFlyer]

Let me add my .02 to this conversation.

Just as a background note: I spent 7 years in law enforcement prior to changing careers. I have been in airline flying now for 16 years. So I have at least a little experience in both endeavors.

My opinion is that guns in the cockpit is the most absurd idea promoted by ALPA. We need fewer weapons on the aircraft not more. Guns present an entire set of difficulties, such as:

1. How are do you carry the thing? (open carry or concealed)
2. What do you do with the gun while in the airplane?
3. What do you do with the gun during your overnights? In many cities weapons require a permit or are completely illegal.
4. Do you carry the gun to the food court for lunch? If not where do you leave it?
5. How do you get by security? The last thing we need is some terrorist with a fake ID and a second hand uniform bypassing security while carrying a gun in the open.
6. If a hijacker or terrorist knows that there is a weapon on the aircraft all he needs to do is figure out how to get control of it, not how to get a weapon on board.

Now let's think about the use of a weapon.

1. Are you going to draw from a concealed carry position while seated? That is something that requires practice. As a LEO we practiced over and over how to draw and fire from different body positions, and carry positions with both strong hand and weak hand.
2. As a captain, if you are right handed there is no way you can draw right-handed and bring the weapon to aim on the cockpit door without changing hands.
3. Not to mention the #1 cardinal rule in firearms. Never point the weapon in a direction that you wouldn’t want it to fire. So how do you get the weapon aimed at the door without swinging the line of fire past the other pilot? I don't know about you but I have a HUGE problem with any pilot pointing a loaded weapon at me.

Let us step back and think just what are we trying to accomplish here? Defend the cockpit! Let me suggest:

On the aircraft I fly the cockpit door is about 1" thick made of honeycomb aluminum. Mounted with three 1/8" hinges. Fastened with a lock that is inferior to the door lock on my bedroom closet. Now deadbolts and reinforcing bars have helped a great deal.

2. Construct the door of armor plate steel. 1/2" thick should be plenty maybe 3/8" or 5/16” would be sufficient. If weight is a problem, the door could be made of some of the synthetic ballistic nylons. Mount the door with a full-length stainless steel hinge. Then secure the door with at least three 2" hardened steel pins or dead bolts. You could rest assured that no one could get through the door with anything that they could sneak on.

At this point our problem then becomes that we as cockpit crewmembers must never open the door to allow any one in. That would take a very different frame of mind. If some one were in the cabin attacking or killing passengers or crewmembers it would be difficult not to want to get involved. Also we must never get involved with any passenger dispute, as that could be just a ruse to get us to open the cockpit door.

Then we would have secured all cockpits instead of only those cockpits with “gunslingers” on board.