No gun-totin' in the cockpit

[350DRIVER]

Pilots are just that "pilots"- NOT security officers or GI Joe's come on....This is a serious issue that needs to be resolved on the ground NOT in the air. STOP the would-be hijacker on the ground with the proper security and ground support people so this won't even be an enroute "problem" or concern- There is no reason for pilots to have to have firearms on the flight deck.(Last time I checked pilots were paid to get the pax safely from point A to point B unstrached and not harmed)

I think 1 or 2 people in DC also agreed-

cheers
3 5 0

 

[kilomike]

BEWARE the PASSENGER!!

Turbo S7 and 350 Driver said it quite well.

We passengers will definitely kill or maim any terrorist who dare tries to mess with us. Personally, I have such a strong grip that any terrorist's neck that gets between my two paws will get wringed to death!! My nephew begs me to arm wrestle with him but I flat out refuse since I do not want to injure him. Save the injuries for someone who really DESERVES it!!

I would want the pilots to remain focussed on flying so we pax can get good and nasty with those bad boys!!!!!!!

 

[surplus1]

I'm neither against guns in the cockpit nor for guns in the cockpit which is real unusual for me (not to choose a side).

I read about air marshalls already having a gun in the cabin and how the govt bosses believe that will save the day. Somehow I don't agree with the govt. Where were the air marshalls on the day those 4 airliners were hijacked? Oh, I see, they just happened to be on other flights.

One thing that does bother me I haven't seen anyone write about yet. What about all the other people (besides air marshalls) that are already allowed to carry firearms in the cabin?

I can't count the number of pot bellied sheriffs, anti-drug wiz kids, and countless so-called "law enforcement officials" that I have been required to allow in the cabin with loaded guns. While the government worries about stray bullets from pilots barricaded behind a "reinforced" cockpit door, they already have lots of loose nuts carrying weapons in the cabin who are NOT air marshalls.

I've always felt those people were a danger to my safety, but I had to allow it anyway, thanks to the government.

 

[skydiverdriver]

I agree with tdvalve. Everyone is correct that the crew's primary job is to fly the airplane, but how do you concentrate on that when you're tied up in the back of the plane? You think that stronger door is going to stop someone? Don't people break into bank vaults? So, we screen people out. What if this person (as many of them were) has no criminal record? How do we screen them then?

Also, don't we have two pilots in the cockpit? Don't tell me you captains can't handle getting the aircraft on the ground while the FO guards the door? Do you really need both of them for this? And you think someone is MORE likely to try to get to the cockpit because they have guns? I think it should be optional for the pilot, just like states with ccw permits. Then, the hijackers don't know if there is a gun up there or not. Take a chance, and get shot. And, this stuff about worrying if they hit a passenger or something to disable the plane is stupid. Of course you want to disable it! This is a last line of defense, and I would prefer to hit a fuel tank and blow up over Kansas than let the guy crash us into a building. Why is it wrong to let a pilot have a gun, when that same pilot can possibly shoot down an airliner when on guard duty? Would you rather shoot down the whole airplane rather than give a pilot the chance to hit just the bad guys? What sense does that make?

I suppose this is all worthless anyway. Bush doesn't want it, Tom Ridge doesn't want it, Mineta is an old anti-gun person, and now the head of the TSA doesn't want it. I guess it will never happen.

 

[airjackson]

Since this horse is just about beaten, I'll have one more go and then let it rest. When the subject is guns, the debate is difficult. Add in the specter of guns on aircraft and it gets worse. The anti-gun individuals have legitimate concerns and I value their debate, however:
The issue of "the pilots need to concentrate on flying the airplane" is a no brainer. We're pilots first and foremost. However, anyone who flies modern transport category aircraft knows that after the first ten thousand feet or so, who's flying the plane??? - the autopilot...right up until the last ten thousand or so before landing. Hell, half the time the crew's one wink short of napping - I doubt shooting a terrorist will interfere much with the autopilot .
"We should let the trained professional security screeners and air marshals handle security." - I absolutely, positively agree. However seeing that we live in the REAL world and cannot count on them to protect us ( LESS THAN 1% ON DOMESTIC FLIGHTS), I wish to have something to fall back on.
Is any security plan foolproof? Are guns the one and only answer? Of course not. Security, much like the safety of flight, is increased by adding layers of protection. The redundant systems and checklists we use everyday keep us safe in the air. A trained, able pilot with a firearm is another layer of security, to only act when all other layers have failed.
It is a gut-decision, but I refuse to be a victim. What did those brother of ours have to help them when the end was near? Security screeners? Air marshals? Nope. Passengers? Yes, finally, after the pilots were likely dead and word had spread as to their destination. I would hope to never have to use a firearm in the execution of my job, but if my job is to be the PILOT IN COMMAND, responsible for the ultimate safety of my ship, crew, and passengers, as well as those on the ground, I'd like to have a few more chips in my favor, and a few less for the bad guys.
Of, course, this is all mute so...whatever. Fly safe!

 

[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.