"Pilot's must focus on flying the plane"

[Orvilleflyer]

They read the word "gun" and duck...

 

[Orvilleflyer]

How about a politically correct term to replace the word "gun" then... Something like, "Mechanical Existance Protector," or "Portable Life Eligibility Screening Device; PLES-D for short."

 

[Fatigued]

In this country, we have the right to bear arms. I think we also ought to be allowed the right to bear arms when we are in the command position of a terrorist's favorite target. However, I do believe that certain STRICT procedures should be in place regarding even the unholstering of a gun on board the aircraft.


These are some of my thoughts:
First - training is a given. Any pilot allowed to carry a gun should receive trianing on firearm basics (safety, loading/unloading, usage, etc.) and be tested at the range. Training should be ongoing and though.

Second - The logistics of getting a gun to the aircraft would be a nightmare under the current system. As it is, I can barely get my belt buckle through security without receiving a shakedown. The idea of a lock box in the cockpit could work, but this would also have some issues to be worked out. The gun and the clip could be stored in the box seperatly (stored unloaded) to ease the minds of those that worry about an accidental shooting. It doesn't take long to load the clip if the need arises.

Third - I don't believe it would be proper to EVER unholster or remove the gun from the box unless you knew it was your last hope. The cockpit door should never be opened by the pilots to confront an attacker. Let him drain his energy trying to break the door only to be met by one pilot in charge of flying the plane and the other ready to end the attack with his trigger finger.

I think there is a lot of hype about the idea of guns. Guns can be and are handled safely and responsibly all the time. The public has been bombarded by a lot of anti-gun sentiment, and it is natural for some people to think that someone is going to die just because there is a gun nearby. This is not the case.

 

[capt_zman]

RJPilott, first of all it's voila, not viola. Viola use to be a pitcher for the Twins and Red Sox.

Orville, lighten up man. Before you go labelling everyone as "they don't get it", did you ever think that there might be another solution to this problem? Have you ever tried to think outside of the box and come up with the less than obvious answer?

It seems that everyone in favor of a gun thinks that it's as simple as, "Terrorist breaks down my door, I'm going to put a slug right in his head and save the day." Come on, this isn't Hollywood nor is it the firing range. I don't know about you, but I don't underestimate the terrorists anymore. I'm thinking that they are extremely intelligent and WILL ATTEMPT to find a loophole in our reactionary methods of thinking. To think that voila! it's a piece of cake or it's really simple is just plain naive.

But then again, I just don't get it.

 

[Timebuilder]

A viola is simple. It's a little larger than a violin, but not as large as a contrabass.

I don't think anyone imagines that a gun is a cure-all. It's an OPTION. An option that should be available to the flight crew as a last line of defense.

Over the past twenty or so years, there has been a great deal of anti-gun sentiment, mostly from groups who want us to live in a european style society. The resistance is a part of a creeping socialist agenda. If you don't believe that, it means that you were never a young, liberal newspaper columnist and broadcaster like I was. For me the cure was life experience, enough to see that we are what we are because we are free. If you are under thirty-five and a graduate of a public school, you have no doubt had a heavy exposure to a very liberal, NEA-driven agenda.

Our constitution is the basis of the freedoms we enjoy, and our right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that can help us defend our aircraft against attack from within, just as the founders envisioned our society: a free people, because we will not be victimized. To dismiss the idea of deadly force as a method of cockpit defense out of hand is, in a word, foolish. To suggest that we as pilots are incapable of properly handling weapons is certainly misguided.


It isn't a perfect world, but that doesn't stop us from taking calculated risks every time we fly. This is another calculated risk.

Having this option is worthwhile.

 

[Sean]

For Timebuilder

Timebuilder I agree with you 100%. All your posts are clear and well thought out. Attached is something I read and posted a couple of months ago.

*
That view is hardly unanimous on Capitol Hill, though. Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) is opposed to arming pilots. A Hollings staffer said the senator "is more concerned with securing the [cockpit] door. He thinks pilots should be more concerned with flying the plane than being distracted by goings-on in the cabin."

Well thanks for Sen. Ernest to point that out...pilot's should be concerned with flying the plane...know sh*t. Something I read a few months ago I'll share with all of you.

An Air National Guard pilot flying out of the 177th fighter wing in NJ on the weekends flys the F-16 ready to shoot down any aircraft including airlines coming and going in and out of JFK, Newark etc...

He said it best. When he is not flying the F-16 he is a Captian flying for American. If a passenger should try and take over the aircraft there is not much he could do. IF HE HAD A GUN, HE COULD SHOOT BACK...COULD HE HURT OR KILL SOME POOR OLD LADY...YES BUT LET'S LOOK AT WHAT THIS VERY SAME PILOT IS AND OR WOULD BE ORDERED TO DO IF HE WAS FLYING AN F-16 that day....SHOOT DOWN THE WHOLE F'ING PLANE.

His point was simple...the government will allow him to use deadly force flying the F-16, why not give me a gun...I mean the gun is $300, $400...the F-16 is $30 Million.

He also said that one day he might have to shoot down one of his fellow Captian's flying for American...but if they had a gun...maybe not. I think we all learned something from Sept. 11th. If the pilot's had a gun prior to Sept.11th I think the outcome still would have been the same...however since then anyone coming through the the door towards the pilots better get ready for a hell of a fight.

This story makes you think.


And that's my words...as they say on Fox news.

 

[Orvilleflyer]

I tell you what-

You put yourself in that scenario I started this thread with, and so will I. Our F/O's being pulled from his seat. I'm firing shot after shot at the Talibites while you're being whacked over the head again and again with a bottle of Jim Beam. Eventually you can't see straight but manage to get it somewhat righted and belly flop it into the water. Over in our flight deck we've got multiple dead Talibites laying around, manage to get in under control again and are flying home- You're in the water flailing from the whiskey bottle injuries and a crash, wondering what the #$@! just happened.

If you're still mystified by all this, ask yourself this easy question.

Would it have made a difference if there was lethal force available to the pilot's on 9/11?

If you're unsure, ask any of the family members of anyone on those flights. Then, if you're answer is anything other then NO, you should really take a second look at why you still believe what you believe. Ask yourself if it's a hyped "antigun sentiment" version of things propagated by the subconscious antigun movement in this country.

We are not talking about guns and quick draws and Clint Eastwood movies here. We are talking serious, responsible handling of OPTIONS.

-Never leave the flight deck under any circumstances.
-Only once all other options are lost, defend the flight deck with lethal force if necessary.
-Weapon is specially manufactured for the airline industry.
-Kept in a combination lock box, which is bolted to the wall of the flightdeck.
-Ammo is soft, kept separately and only distributed to pilots who have received extensive training.

If you're STILL against defending yourself in the flightdeck with lethal force, then ask yourself if you enjoy getting whacked over the head again and again by an empty whiskey bottle.

How about this: If they did allow lethal weapons in the flightdeck, how many pilots do you think would sign up for the training? ALL of us.

I don't mean to come off brass or ruff here- It's just that the writing's on the wall folks! I have never fired a gun in my life! I am not a gun fanatic! There simply needs to be a "be all, end all" in the flight deck as a last resort for us whether it's a gun or some other device.

9/11 was the day 3000 people had to die because 8 pilot's were killed!

 

[Sean]

Guns in the cockpit

Orvilleflyer well stated post... I agree with you. And I'm sure the pilot from the 177th fighter wing would agree as well.

 

[capt_zman]

My argument is based off the fact that a pilot is a pilot. I travel on airlines from time to time and those trips are made under the assumption of safely getting from point A to point B. This is a highly refined process that has had many bumps and bruises over the years to get where it is today. Pilots still make mistakes in this process that ultimately cost lives.

Now we have the introduction of a major safety flaw that must be addressed accordingly. Terrorism comes in many shapes and forms, as we have all learned over the years. How can you combat all of these different scenarios? Maybe a gun in the cockpit is a small answer/option to some of these issues. But, what if it introduces more problems and creates more issues that it solves? Does the risk factor of going from point A to point B increase more with guns on the airplane than with the possibility of a terrorist on the airplane?

My experiences in life, not just aviation, have always been focused around managing the risks and problems. Choices are the basis of our being, I just like to try and make the right ones more often than the wrong ones.

 

[naviator]

Instead of wasting time discussing the guns-in-the-cockpit-issue we should push for more funds and demand that each airline installed safer ("non-intrudable") cockpit doors.

JetBlue has done it. Why can't the rest of the airlines do the same?

Then we wouldn't have to worry about the gun issue.

Our job is to fly the airplane. If the hijacker can't get into the cockpit we can still do our job.