Qualified to fly.....

[Dieterly]

Salty Dog, you are spot on!!!! And for PFT_128, if they bring C4 onboard you are all dead anyway, so who cares? Arguing with PFT_128 is like arguing with a 3 year old, but then again what do you expect from 1000 hr wonder.

 

[trigeek]

I could care less about carrying a firearm..BUT if the training allows me to carry a badge or license or something that entitles me to bypass the whole security BS routine and just walk straight to the jet then I'm all for it. The TSA nazis can get a little over zealous at times...nevermind we have the controls of the aircraft.

 

[PCL_128]

Salty Dog, you are spot on!!!! And for PFT_128, if they bring C4 onboard you are all dead anyway, so who cares?

That is not at all accurate. A small amount of C4 used on a flight deck door would not destroy the aircraft. It will merely give them access to the flight deck by blowing open the door. Get your facts straight before acting like an idiot.

Arguing with PFT_128 is like arguing with a 3 year old, but then again what do you expect from 1000 hr wonder.

Very mature. You really put me to shame! (heavy sarcasm)

 

[46Driver]

The terrorists don't have to storm the flight deck - if they can force the pilots out of the cockpit ala CS gas or something similiarly unpleasant. Then the pilots only have 1 confined avenue out of the cockpit and terrorists on either side of the hatch would be more than a match for a pilot, armed or not. Why smuggle guns or something so obvious on the aircraft when it would be much more covert to have a ramper or mech disable the O2 supply and then carry some shaving cans full of CS onto the plane?

 

[ifly4food]

I agree completely that the armed pilots program is a waste. I am disappointd that my union is wasting resources that could be used to fight furloughs, restore jumpseat privilleges, etc to satisfy the egos of a few cowboys who want to feel important by "packing heat" on the flight deck.
The new procedures and new doors render the armed pilot idea moot.

PCL_128,
Once again I must point out that your arguments here are ridiculous.
By 1 APR all doors must be compliant with the new standards. That thing is a kevlar reinforced bank vault, and the only way someone's coming in is if the door is opened intentionally. In light of the new strategy, nobody is going to do that for any reason, unless their ego pushes them to go back and "shoot it out".

Use C4? Please.
First they would have to either get it past security or sneak it onboard with a ground worker. Both pretty slim propositions. Then they would have to get up, walk to the cockpit door, attach the C4, attach the detonator, attach the ignition system, and blow the door before the passengers attack. Are you really saying passengers will sit by and just watch this take place?
Finally, if they blow the door with C4, your gun isn't going to help you. The concussion alone in an enclosed space such as a flight deck will render you unconscious and most likely shatter every piece of glass up there.

There was no need to call Dieterly an idiot. Though he was wrong to insult you, with some of the arguments you get yourself into here, and the way you conduct yourself by refusing to see other viewpoints, don't be surprised to hear such things. You make a lot of insults here yourself, which is troubling considering your lack of experience in the industry and your lack of seniority here.
You may benefit from doing more listening than talking until you gain some experience in the industry.

Take that advice or insult me, it's your call, but I'm just trying to help you out.

 

[Singlecoil]

Wasn't it Benjamin Franklin that said, "Never argue with an idiot, a bystander won't be able to tell the difference."

 

[PCL_128]

If you really think that getting through the new doors is impossible, you must be smoking some really funky stuff. No matter how well they design a door, there will always be ways to get through it.

APSA conducted tests on the new doors and found that you can get through in a couple of minutes using only things that can legally be brought on board an aircraft. They have declined to say how exactly they did it for obvious security reasons, but it can be done quite easily. The fact remains that any determined terrorist is going to find a way onto the flight deck. Thinking that the pax are going to be able to stop them is a very risky bet. If the terrorists managed to smuggle some firearms onboard, then the pax would be essentially helpless. The pilots are the last defense.

ifly4food:

You claim that I refuse to see the other side of the issues. I would submit that you do the exact same thing. Heck, almost everyone does! Do you see the other side of the RJDC issue? Judging by most of your posts, I would say not. All of us have our opinions, and all of us are willing to defend them.

Dieterly's post was not a defense of his opinion, it was an attack on me personally (notice his reference to PFT which has nothing to do with this conversation). You say that I have insulted people on this board, but I would challenge you to find one case where I insulted someone without them first insulting me.

 

[AWACoff]

I think the psych tests would be a great thing prior to arming pilots. Those pilots who are unable to keep the cockpit door closed at any cost should not have the option of having a firearm available while in flight. It is not even up to debate...EVEN IF it's your best friend getting murdered behind that door, you CANNOT open it. You are risking the entire aircraft and possibly lives on the ground. I am completely befuddled when I hear people time and again say, "well what if it was your best friend/wife/child/etc.". They just don't seem to understand. I am all for voluntary arming of pilots. The new improved doors won't stop a dedicated terrorist. I highly doubt a 9/11 will happen again. That doesn't mean we shouldn't cover all of our bases however by arming pilots in the cockpit. Let them shoot us down with SAMs, blow us up with a bomb...but don't let them use the airplane itself as the primary weapon.

 

[rfeathe1]

For those of you who worry about a pistol accidently firing & maybe striking the pilot or copilot or doing other damage I say issue them revolvers instead of semi automatic weapons. A .45 or .44 caliber six shot revolver is much safer than a semi automatic. THINK ABOUT IT!

 

[JRSLim]

One bullet Barney

Well I have no airline experience to talk from, but here's my outside view. Although there are a lot of valid points that guns may not be any good against certain threats etc, and that in some ways it is not as important as employment issues...
I think that having pilots armed is a good idea. I don't see it as being a 'cowboy' move as much as a last resort. We never know what will happen in any situation, but in a time of threat, if the situation came to a point where a firearm would be useful but wasn't available, that would be worse than having a firearm in a useless situation. There always exceptions, but most airline pilots are already in charge of the well being for hundreds of people, and should be caplable of making good judgement calls in difficult situations. Yes adrenelin can change perspective, but we as aviators train ourselves to think about scenerios in advance and how to react to them. Plus even though terrorist are serious and determined, armed pilots would serve as an additional deterrent.

Interesting sidenote: My om and I were looking through some old clippings. Found an article from 1963 afeter a hijacking to Cuba where Kennedy said that something must be done to reinforce cockpit doors. Talk about your barn doors.


Shaun

 

[ifly4food]

If you really think that getting through the new doors is impossible, you must be smoking some really funky stuff. No matter how well they design a door, there will always be ways to get through it...

Then I guess I'm smoking some really funky stuff. I'll defer to your years of experience and wisdom, and assume you're right on this one.

...ifly4food:

You claim that I refuse to see the other side of the issues. I would submit that you do the exact same thing. Heck, almost everyone does! Do you see the other side of the RJDC issue? Judging by most of your posts, I would say not. All of us have our opinions, and all of us are willing to defend them.

Dieterly's post was not a defense of his opinion, it was an attack on me personally (notice his reference to PFT which has nothing to do with this conversation). You say that I have insulted people on this board, but I would challenge you to find one case where I insulted someone without them first insulting me.

I didn't really expect you to take my advice. Some people have to learn things the hard way.

One question: why does his PFT remark bother you? Correct me if I'm wrong, but to get into Pinnacle with your low time you had to pay. If it didn't bother you then, why does it bother you now? I could see you being mad if he insulted you for something that wasn't true, but if you did it why be upset? It was your choice.
Maybe because it compromises your high and mighty attitude about the RJDC and it's supporters?

 

[PCL_128]

I didn't really expect you to take my advice. Some people have to learn things the hard way.

No, I'm not going to take your advice because I view it as being highly hypocritical. You defend your positions just as I do, yet you expect me to back down and acknowledge your supposed higher intellect.

One question: why does his PFT remark bother you? Correct me if I'm wrong, but to get into Pinnacle with your low time you had to pay. If it didn't bother you then, why does it bother you now? I could see you being mad if he insulted you for something that wasn't true, but if you did it why be upset? It was your choice.
Maybe because it compromises your high and mighty attitude about the RJDC and it's supporters?

I don't see how it has anything to do with my views on the RJDC, but think what you want. No, I did not have to pay Pinnacle a dime to get hired there. I believe his reference to PFT was because I worked at Gulfstream before going to Pinnacle. The PFT reference bothered me because some people here use PFT as a way to try to discredit people. Anytime a thread gets heated, they say "Don't listen to him, he PFT'ed." If Dieterly wants to discuss PFT, then do it on another thread. This thread is about armed pilots, not PFT. We've beaten the PFT horse to death, and I have made no attempt to hide the fact that I went to Gulfstream. If you have a problem with me PFTing, then so be it. I really don't care. Just don't bring it up whenever you see me posting on a thread. It's childish.

 

[Typhoon1244]

This thread is about armed pilots...

To some degree, it's also about ALPA's inability to keep its "eye on the ball." Serious security issues, thousands of furloughs, mainline vs. RJ issues tearing the union apart...and what did I see article after article about in Air Line Pilot? Changing the "Age 60" law.

Captain Woerth(less) is the epitome of "fiddling as Rome burns."

ALPA's current stance on the "armed pilots" issue is that we should keep a handgun in a locked box which is bolted to the cockpit structure. You might as well not have a gun at all for all the good that would do you if some terrorist broke down the door and caught you by surprise.

Still...the Japanese didn't bomb Pearl Harbor twice. I honestly don't think another 9/11-style attack is coming. Mark my words: they're going to hit us some place we don't have our media attention focused.

 

[PCL_128]

ALPA's current stance on the "armed pilots" issue is that we should keep a handgun in a locked box which is bolted to the cockpit structure.

That is not true at all. ALPA's stance is that the firearm be carried in a locked box in your overnight bag when travelling to and from the airport. When on the flight deck the firearm would be carried in a holster.

 

[Typhoon1244]

That is not true at all. ALPA's stance is that the firearm be carried in a locked box in your overnight bag when travelling to and from the airport. When on the flight deck the firearm would be carried in a holster.

Not according to our resident member of ALPA's "firearms" committee. The FAA and TSA aren't going for the idea of pilots walking around with guns.