"Pilot's must focus on flying the plane"

[ILS JNKY]

CHOP AX

YEA FOR THE CHOP AX, GIVE IT TO THEM RITE BETWEEN THE EYES.

IT EVEN MADE THE WALLSTREET JOURNIAL WHEN IT HAPPENED.

 

[Timebuilder]

350, that looks great on paper.

How do you suppose that this will be done effectively, i.e., not along guidelines of the PC crowd, so that addtional protection will be unnecessary? Will we strip search every man, woman and child? Will we search every bag? Put 20,000 new detection dogs to work? Put a $200 surcharge on each ticket to pay for it all?

Just supose that we could do any or all of these things. How many people would be willing to submit themselves to procedures which are more Orwellian than we already have? How many Americans will be flying?

In order for the addtional measures, such as a gun, to be unnecessary at 30,000 feet, you have to first be able to assure that a threat does not board the airplane. What does El AL do? First, they specifically target terrorists by profile, which we will not do. Second, they search invasively. Third, they make certain that armed security is on EVERY flight, not 1%, 5%, or 10% of flights.

So far, it doesn't look good for what you are supporting. So far, the gun in the hands of a trained crewman looks like a good last line of defense. I wish this were not so, because it is a sad commentary on the state of the world we live in. It is, however, the world we do live in.

 

[Dep676]

Crash Axe

I like that idea too. I vote for the nice sharp side instead of the blunt side. That way we don't have to support the idiot in prison. Stick in as far as you can and then put him six feet under.

 

[xhercdriver]

The argument has to be approached logically, instead of with histrionics designed to evoke some emotional or contrived response.

First, the airlines would never be able to do this (from a legal standpoint) unless they required you to be "qualified" to carry the firearm. That means a training course and (at least) annual requalification. Besides which, if you're clever enough to operate an aircraft, I have to tell you, you're going to be able to "master" a firearm well enough to hit a target 3 feet away. It just isn't brain surgery. So the "what about the pilot who never fired a gun?" argument is moot.

Next, the object is to defend the cockpit so that the other pilot can immediately land the plane, not to go out and play "Diehard" with the hijackers. The passengers are the first line of defense (sad, but true), the (supposedly) armored door is the second, and the armed pilot is the last hope. Do you really want to NOT have that last line of defense? So the "shooting up the back end of the plane" argument is also moot.

Finally, as with virtually everything else on the plane, the final decision on whether or not to use deadly force will rest with the Captain. Given that there is probably now a fairly high percentage of captains who would intentionally destroy the aircraft rather than surrender control of it so it could be used as a bomb later, wouldn't you rather have another option before that "endgame" scenario?

Funny how folks whose careers revolve around doing something very technical in a very regulated, regimented, deliberate, precise manner, immediately jump to the conclusion that the concept of armed pilots would be implemented in some sort of haphazard, "cowboy" fashion, and that the same folks you trust to make hundreds of pretty important decisions each day couldn't be trusted to use that same degree of judgement regarding the use of a firearm in an "emergency situation."

Personally, I didn't have any desire to be armed in the cockpit in the military, and I don't have any desire to be armed now. That said, we all have to do things we'd rather not do, and if one of those things is to be in some kind of "combat situation" inflight, I'd just as soon not have to bring a fire extinguisher to a box-cutter fight.

At the very least, it would make those security checkpoint "discussions" a little more "interesting," eh? I doubt you'll get your ID card plucked off of your shirt when you're packin' heat

 

[capt_zman]

You make some excellent points, but just take a quick look at dep767's posts. Sounds like he'd put a slug in your head for unbuckling the seat belt with the sign still on.

You are absolutely correct about it not being rocket science, but when placed in an extremely high stress or life/death situation, you just don't know how people are going to react. This is too much of a wild card for someone with little firearm training. Hardly a moot point.

It's actually funny, back in college working as a bouncer at a pretty rough night club, I use to witness the smallest bouncers get the biggest balls when they strapped on the 9mm at the first sign of trouble. Tell me the same sort of thing isn't possible in this situation?

 

[Dep676]

No I am not saying that I would put a slug in you for un-buckling your seat belt. Unless you deserved it. It doesn't take much training to get proficient with a weapon though. I am just saying that we need to quit being MR. NICEGUY and get rid of some of these SOB's. Just make an example out of a few of them and people might think twice about doing anything stupid again. But I am a reserve deputy for my county and they don't train us shoot to wound. If you have to draw your weapon and fire it. You shoot to kill. Because you aren't just going to draw your weapon and shoot him to wound him. If your firing your killing. Because it's your life or theirs. And it's not going to be me getting carried away in the body bag. It's going to be his body.

 

[publisher]

Arguments

This is not as simple as we have posted here. The quandry is this. There is no question that pilots acutally carrying the guns is not workable for a bunch of reasons.

That leaves the box in the cockpit plan. Naturally we are not going to give out a bunch of keys to this box right.

OK tell me how hard it is to get a cockpit key. That is how easy it is to get a gun box key. So, now we are going to have a bunch of people with access to it.

You know all those aircraft sitting empty around the airport, we cannot get in them right. More likely you need the gun, open the box, and it is gone. OK, no we will make it a check list item.
We will open our gun case and check it out. Whoops it went off and drilled the F/O. No problem, we have a good many of them on the street.

Now to shoot the guy, we have to open the door. Bang, where the h did that guy come from. Now he has two guns.

Let's just turn down the pressurization and put everyone in a comma,,,,,

 

[Orvilleflyer]

This thing is so stupid. Some people just don't get it. A Boeing 767 is crashed into the water, caught on tape no less, the reasons being that the crew was getting their #ss kicked all the way down, and there are still people who question having leathal force in the flight deck.

Fine, so be it. It's just not worth getting worked up about, trying to figure out how you people think.

WE are not "gun toting" quick draws ready to climb out of our seats and go on a shooting rampage in the back when the FA's getting her throat slit... That's just not it. Just like the other fella said, we're only talking about a lock box, with a specially manufactured weapon, only issued to airlines. Bullets are soft but leathal, kept separately. Person makes it into flight deck = Opening box, loading weapon, using weapon to save the day, when there's no options anymore.

That's all....

 

[kilomike]

Other ideas for weapons aboard

For now, the issue of guns in the cockpit is sort of a dead issue so let's think of some other "weapons" that are available in the cockpit and the cabin....I'm mostly speaking from a cabin perspective so here goes:

First for the obvious: Crash ax, Sharp side in head--chop the brains out of that bum!

Toiletries like hair spray or how about Tabasco sauce?? Those in someone's eyes will leave them writhing in pain. What about alcoholic beverages?? I'm sure that must leave a good sting in the eyes as well.

Nothing like a shod foot right into the groin---OOOOOWWWWW!

Shove some of those heavy food carts and run the b*stards over.

And of course the good old fist/hands. One trick is to distract the bozo and grab its (they are subhuman so would be referred to as "it") neck and squeeze with all your might.

There are plenty of lines of defense if you get creative and think on your feet. Of course if I was a pilot and knew how to use the gun I would not hesitate to if I needed to and knew that I could get the animal without getting an innocent passenger in the process.

 

[RJPilott]

no keys for the lock box. Combination locks! Combinations are changed on every daily check or airworthiness check as a routine mx item. The new combo is submitted to Dispatch and sent to the crew via the release. The combo is then tested by the crew during cockpit prep checklist. Viola! key problem solved....

as for the "missing gun"... treat it as any other item missing on the airplane when checked during crew change. If your ax is missing, if your life vest is missing, if your fire extiguisher is missing, if your FO is missing... what do you do?

please people.. think.. its really simple

 

[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.