Survery/Debate: Arming Airline Pilots

[Riddle19]

Here's an issue that surfaces every now and again. It's an interesting debate topic and I've been interested in what those of you currently flying for airlines feel about this.

Should airline pilots be armed for the safety of the passengers and crew, as a last resort in the event of a hijacking attempt? Keep in mind, "arming" can include anything from a night-stick to knives, stun guns/Tasers, and firearms.

I'm curious to know what you guys think is good enough, or too extreme. Should some form of armament be required, or should those who want it be allowed to? What kind of training is necessary?

Anything you can come up with, I'd be interested to hear your perspectives.

Thanks for the feedback. Should be interesting!

 

[FSB99]

well... pilots Can be armed, and that armament is a gun. it's a week long course, after wading through an application process.

required? no. but if i want to, it sould definitely be available to me.

definitely not an end-all stop gap complete prevention of terrorism using airplanes, but it's better than reaching for the fire extinguisher if your door starts opening up, and you're not the one who is opening it.

 

[DenverDude2002]

If they trust us enough to fly a plane with x amount of passengers then why in the hell couldnt we carry a firearm to protect that aircraft....

I fully support arming pilots for those who wish to be armed and trained properly.......

 

[FlyFlyFly]

I pack heat every flight. The TSA and FAA and Airlines are doing all in their power to stop pilots from being armed (couldn't be that their legal departments are guiding the policy could it?).

 

[Riddle19]

Wow, I'm kind of surprised there wasn't more opposition. When I've asked other people around campus and such normally I get at least a few people that are hard against it.

There must be someone here against it. Curious to hear those arguments, too, as well as more of those in favor.

 

[Tripower455]

Wow, I'm kind of surprised there wasn't more opposition. When I've asked other people around campus and such normally I get at least a few people that are hard against it.

There must be someone here against it. Curious to hear those arguments, too, as well as more of those in favor.

IMHO, the people that are against it have not though the problem through completely.

There is no downside to arming airline pilots. It is far more effective than taking away their nail clippers and leatherman tools.

If the bad guys breach the cockpit door, it is the ONLY line of defense left before the new hire in the F-Teen fires the sidewinder. Personally, I like the idea of having one more layer of defense before that happens.

 

[EagleRJ]

A gun on the flight deck is just another piece of emergency equipment. Equipment that is required in this day and age! Pilots are already highly-trained, professional, educated (for the most part ) individuals who are qualified to guide a 200 ton machine with 300 humans aboard from point A to point B.

They are also eminently qualified to have the tools available to assist them in defending the cockpit against criminal activity. The only ones who oppose this effort are people who support far-reaching gun control. They are against it, because they can't acknowledge that there's a case where the presence of a firearm is both needed and justified. Agreeing to that comprimises their belief that guns are evil and only criminals have guns, so leaving the airlines defenseless is a difficult but necessary decision for them.

 

[ATL2CDG]

Now, guys, I expect no less than 10 posts insulting me and at least 2 insulting my mother from my input. Agreed?

I think handguns, whether in the cockpit or in the home, are inherently dangerous and have no place in society. On board an aircraft, with bullet-resistant doors virtually incapable of being opened from the outside and a cabin full of patriotic blowhards ready to kiss *ss, there is no need to have a deadly weapon in the possession of either of the pilots. There are dozens of non-lethal methods to suppress and deter would-be intruders; why must we risk the lives of passengers and crew in a vain attempt to "shoot 'em up" at FL 350? Were that weapon to fall into the hands of the attacker(s), the situation would inevitably be worse than it was to begin. We should improve (if not perfect) the screening process (both demographically at ticket purchase and physically at the security checkpoint), not play cowboys and Indians.

Let the games begin!

 

[Pugh]

What about tazers? They are growing increasingly popular with police departments. I think there is a smaller chance of hitting innocent people and if indeed an event were to happen, the hijacker would be knocked out, and available for later interrogation. I think it'd be easier for people to agree to tazers than firearms, just my opinion.

The major drawback I see is that firearms can hold 9 bullets while a tazer can only be used once and then "reloaded" I guess.

 

[EagleRJ]

<sigh> Why am I even surprised anymore?

ATL2CDG and Pugh,

Non-lethal weapons are nice for subduing drunks at the 7-11 and other public service scenarios. When terrorists breach your cockpit door, intending to cut your throat and use your aircraft to kill thousands on the ground, the time has come for deadly force! Stun guns, shock gloves, batons, etc, are not capable of stopping the threat cold, and they are useless against multiple attackers.

Watch the APA's Lethal Weapons demonstration:
Link

ATL2CDG, why don't you ask a friend of yours who owns guns to take you to the range someday? You will learn that ordinary, law-abiding citizens own guns too. You can hold whatever opinion you want about guns in general, but please acquire the facts before you voice your opinion on airline security. Your partisan activisim comprimises everyone elses' ability to defend the cockpit.

...and a cabin full of patriotic blowhards ready to kiss *ss...

Only a Frenchman could have said that...

See, I didn't mention your mother at all!

 

[ATL2CDG]

*growl*

D@mn it, I meant "kick *ss" not "kiss *ss." (My sincerest apologies to all the brown-nosing patriotic blowhards of flightinfo.com.)

EagleRJ:

I'm not French for the love of all things sacred... I was born and raised in East Tennessee.

Next, I've handled my fair share of firearms, from various handguns to an assortment of rifles and shotguns. Despite my knowledge/experience and the fact that I'm a pretty d@mn good shot, I still think handguns (and to a lesser degree, rifles and shotguns) don't belong in a civilized world. By arming responsible citizens, we're also arming irresponsible thugs and petty criminals. Look at crime rates at nations banning or restricting the ownership of firearms and you'll notice a significant difference when compared with those of the U.S. Despite the factless rhetoric of the NRA, the presence of a firearms in an environment is directly proportional to the level of violent crime in the same environment.

However, the topic of the post is in regards to the presence of firearms on the flightdeck. While you may downplay the usefulness of non-lethal methods, there is also no guarantee that an FFDO would be able to discharge the weapon and impair/kill the intruder without hitting the flight attendant(s) or passenger(s) struggling to pull the crazed maniac away from the entrance or before the attacker could impair one, if not both pilots. Were the pilots to be somehow incapitated, the firearm is now in the hands of a terrorist with a cabin full of passengers.

All that being said, this is my opinion and does not reflect the feelings of the management.

 

[Propsync]

Uh, what?

If they can't get through my door, why do I need a gun?

 

[vetteracer]

ATL2CDG

You are living in a fantasy world. In your world everyone is a law-abiding sheeple that wonder around being told what to do by their leaders.

Criminals will buy and posses guns via the black market, or smuggled into the country. Then while you are singing around the campfire unarmed a guy with an illegal handgun will rob you.

Box cutters were used to hijack aircraft. If you want the advantage, you don’t bring a knife to a knife fight, you bring a gun.

I think an autoloading 12 gauge with a slug barrel should be standard in all airline cockpits. Loaded with dense rubber slugs. Yes the rubber slug would split your head in two. And not penetrate the aircraft. I saw a video of a prison riot that was tamed with 12 gauge shotguns loaded with beanbag rounds. One of those rounds took a guy off his feet and blew him back about 10 feet.

Checklist item number 39

-Shotgun loaded - Check

-Round in chamber - Check

-Shotgun in reach of all cockpit crew - Check



Mark

 

[secks]

Look at crime rates at nations banning or restricting the ownership of firearms and you'll notice a significant difference when compared with those of the U.S. Despite the factless rhetoric of the NRA, the presence of a firearms in an environment is directly proportional to the level of violent crime in the same environment.

Uh, yeah, and what you'll find is that countries which ban/heavily restrict handgun usage experience a sharp increase in violent crime. England and Australia are perfect examples. There are others. On the other side of the fence, you've got countries like Switzerland with mandatory firearm ownership for all males 18-2?. Practically no crime. Or take Kennesaw, Georgia, where an ordinance was enacted in 1982 which required residents to keep at least one handgun in the home. The result? Crime rates plummeted, literally. They've stayed low, too. John Lott, Jr. wrote a book on the subject of firearm rights entitled More Guns, Less Crime. He proved statistically that U.S. counties with more lax firearm restrictions are heavily correlated with lower than normal crime rates. If you dispute any of these facts, I'll dig up the evidence for you.

 

[ATL2CDG]

secks:

While I'm not disputing your claims, I would thoroughly enjoy reviewing any links you may have regarding the topic.

My hatred of firearms may be because I don't own one (jealousy) and it's been a while since I've held one (out of the habit). Maybe a little education and a trip to firing range would do me good.

Signed,
Mr. Waffle

 

[Big Duke Six]

ATL2CDG wrote:
"Were the pilots to be somehow incapitated, the firearm is now in the hands of a terrorist with a cabin full of passengers."

Think about that, big guy. If someone was determined enough to break through the door and was successful at incapacitating (that's not even a word, but anyway...) the pilots, they probably did not have good intentions. They now have the airplane in their control and the fate of the passengers in their hands. Yet at this point in the scenario, you feel - at some level - that the situation is more dire because they have a gun? That's French.

Second, your assertion that an FA or a passenger may be wounded or killed as the pilot defends the cockpit is tenuous. The odds of hitting the wrong person at such close range would be small. Possible yes, but very unlikely. Still, I believe everyone would agree that IF that were to happen and the flight still landed safely, then as tragic as it may be, the sacrifice would be worth it.

I think even you would have to concede this point.

 

[Tripower455]

Were the pilots to be somehow incapitated, the firearm is now in the hands of a terrorist with a cabin full of passengers.

You have proven my point. Those that are against it haven't thought the situation through.

There is no downside to arming pilots.


Big Duke Six and EagleRJ, thanks for saving me a whole bunch of typing...........

 

[EagleRJ]

*growl*

D@mn it, I meant "kick *ss" not "kiss *ss." (My sincerest apologies to all the brown-nosing patriotic blowhards of flightinfo.com.)

I didn't think even you were such a pacifist!

Look at crime rates at nations banning or restricting the ownership of firearms and you'll notice a significant difference when compared with those of the U.S.

I have, and you'd be surprised at the results!

While you may downplay the usefulness of non-lethal methods, there is also no guarantee that an FFDO would be able to discharge the weapon and impair/kill the intruder without hitting the flight attendant(s) or passenger(s) struggling to pull the crazed maniac away from the entrance or before the attacker could impair one, if not both pilots.

Unless you learned everything you know from watching Airport '79, you'll realize that a trained FFDO can eliminate the threat, without causing an explosive decompression or causing the airplane to crash. You're right that innocents may be caught in the crossfire. I think that's an avoidable and tolerable risk, considering the alternative.

Were the pilots to be somehow incapitated, the firearm is now in the hands of a terrorist with a cabin full of passengers.

Using the same logic, we should require police officers to lock their weapons in the glove box before getting out of the car during a traffic stop. For the officer's safety- you know- the motorist could be a felon who could take the gun away, and now we would have an armed felon! Come on!

You evidently subscribe to the same Walt Disney fantasy world most pro-gun control politicians do. You think that a world that is absolutely free of guns would be peaceful. That's completely false, and it's also completely impossible! As long as there are bad guys in the world, the good guys need to have guns. It's not a "shoot 'em up" with "Cowboys and Indians"- it's a measured response to a real and defined threat.

Thanks for your input.

 

[sstearns2]

OK, I'll make the 1 in 10 post that supports this. I'd rather not have handguns in the cockpit. If you look at the statistics they show that a handgun is about 10 times more likely to be used against it's owner than in hes* protection.



I also believe that a pilot who has a gun is much more likely to be unable to overcome the psychological need to go back and try to 'take care of things' in the event of a hijacking. The armed pilot is much more likely to open the door hesself than focus on getting the airplane on the ground ASAP.



If we're going to have weapons on the airplane they should be tasers and the F/A's should be trained on them.



Scott



*I'm trying to get this word in general circulation. It's a non-gender specific singular pronoun. his or her - hes

Now, guys, I expect no less than 10 posts insulting me and at least 2 insulting my mother from my input. Agreed?

I think handguns, whether in the cockpit or in the home, are inherently dangerous and have no place in society. On board an aircraft, with bullet-resistant doors virtually incapable of being opened from the outside and a cabin full of patriotic blowhards ready to kiss *ss, there is no need to have a deadly weapon in the possession of either of the pilots. There are dozens of non-lethal methods to suppress and deter would-be intruders; why must we risk the lives of passengers and crew in a vain attempt to "shoot 'em up" at FL 350? Were that weapon to fall into the hands of the attacker(s), the situation would inevitably be worse than it was to begin. We should improve (if not perfect) the screening process (both demographically at ticket purchase and physically at the security checkpoint), not play cowboys and Indians.

Let the games begin!

 

[Tripower455]

If we're going to have weapons on the airplane they should be tasers and the F/A's should be trained on them.

If you've reached the point that you need a taser, you really need a handgun.