Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

United Training Pilots to Use Stun Guns

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

flyplanes2000

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Posts
11
United Starts Training Pilots to Use Stun Guns
Tuesday April 23, 2002 10:39 PM
www.airlinecrashpad.com

United Airlines has begun training it's pilot's in the use of stun guns, becoming the first US airline to take an approach to arming it's flight crews in the 6 months since the September 11th attacks. Up until now the US carriers have approached the security issue by enforcing policies already in existence outside of the flight deck. Although pretty much equal in terms of defense to the crash ax, the downsides of a stun gun are that it's a single shot weapon and it requires a short warm up time. Unfortunately after it's used, the charge is gone for a short while until the device recharges. At this point United has no plans for any kind of "stand off" weapon (other then the crash ax) while the device is recharging. United must still obtain the graces of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta before it can actually go ahead with it's plan. One aviation consultant who declined to be named said "While a bullet may take out 2-3 instruments, a single 20,000 volt charge making contact anywhere on an instrument panel can take out the entire electrical backbone to any flight control system, causing gobbs of electrical hell and most likely ending up in a fire to boot."
 
Gobbs of electrical hell? That's a rather uninformed and ignorant statement.

When law enforcement qualifies with a taser, part of the qualification is getting shot with the device, just as it's a qualfication requirement for chemical controls such as mace, OC spray, and certain gasses. How many hairy chested pilots are planning to stand up for that one? My guess is not too many, and that the airline probably won't require it.

I wonder how someone decided that a taser is the "equivilent of a crash axe?" Would that be the deluxe electrified crash axe, or the sheffield steel 440 hardened taser, honed to a fine edge? How about a crash axe with batteries in the handle, sharp enough to shave a gnat, a .44 zip gun in the tip, with all the edges coated liberally in a curarie gel topped with poisonous fish guts?

I vote that we just wire a sawed off shotgun in the cockpit facing aft, and the airline invest the money in some good piano wire that can be run from the trigger to the door. When the shotgun goes off, it moves aft, bumping a small switch which activates two loudspeakers blaring opera music. If the blast doesn't kill the terrorists (or lost passengers who've had a bit too much to drink), then they opera will drive them nuts. They'll probably kill themselves or surrender, just to make it stop.

The downside is flight crews who may elect to crash the aircraft, just to make it stop.
 
Give pilots a REAL weapon!

I saw a story on MSNBC yesterday regarding this. The tasers work just great if your hijacker decides to bare his chest so you can make good electrical contact. Otherwise they are absolutely worthless. The crash axe is more useful for self defense. The reporters had several "aviation security specialists" simulate a slow-motion attack on a reporter sitting in a chair in a hanger. The reporter turned around and shot them all in the center of the chest. Even the few where the electrode actually stuck were not even slowed down. The last attacker was a relatively petite female officer and she wasn't even phased.

More feel good which will do no good, in my opinion.

Give pilots a real weapon; you trust them to operate an aircraft worth millions of dollars carrying hundreds of passengers. I think operation of a handgun would be well within their mental capability and moral responsibility!

Besides...handguns would save money on trials for the bastards later...:D
 
It's always best to take down a hostile alive if you can; the intelligence that can be gained is invalueable. However, that's not a priority when in a last ditch effort at defense.

A taser works through moderate clothing; that's what it's designed for. It will even work through a denim jacket or other heavier materials.

Units are available which house multiple darts with a quick discharge time; two hits per victim aren't uncommon. The problem with having enough probes to be useful is one of battery capacity, bulk, and weight. Certainly in terms of an effective defense, a handgun is orders of magnitude more effective. However, a handgun is deadly force, while a taser is not. (usually).

As it appears that most of these terrorists are of a religious affiliation which is repulsed by pornography, my suggestion is to plaster the cockpit with centerfolds. This will serve a dual purpose by repelling hoards of evil terrorists, and will keep flight crews entertained for hours. (Or minutes, depending on their decorum and level of professionalism). Just a thought.
 
Seems to be there is a problem with a stun gun having about 100,000 volts to accidently hit an electrical panel. What is the potential of damage or inflight disruption on electrical equipment.
MX manual for my airplane says the tolerance is +/ - 8 volts with a max of + /- 20 allowable. What about fly by wire airplanes?
 
Several issues affect this. One is voltage vs. amperage. While the voltage is high, the amperage in every charge is relatively low.

If a taser strikes an "electrical panel", voltage would still have to be introduced to a circuit to cause a problem. Voltage isn't flowing anywhere. A taser doesn't work the same way grabbing a live wire might. Completely different path. The reality is that it's extremely unlikely that anything in the cockpit would be damaged by a taser, other than another crewmember. A taser does have the potential to interfere with pacemaker operation. However, it won't hurt aircraft electronics or anything else in the cockpit. Unfortuantely, this may also be true for the folks forcing their way into the cockpit.
 
hijackers

Avbug--should have remembered that from my Army days; a prisoner is invaluable in most cases, and intelligence is our only real defense against these guys.

The MSNBC story was pretty disturbing however; they shot each of the "hijackers" and it didn't even slow them down. The examples shown by the United press people were prisoners who were bare-chested and immediately incapacitated. From the MSNBC story, pepper spray would be more effective, if non-lethal is the goal.

Another defense I have received email about; all females on board should remain naked for the flight, which will force all hijackers to keep their eyes shut.... ;)
 
Re: hijackers

Pilotadjuster said:


The MSNBC story was pretty disturbing however; they shot each of the "hijackers" and it didn't even slow them down. The examples shown by the United press people were prisoners who were bare-chested and immediately incapacitated. From the MSNBC story, pepper spray would be more effective, if non-lethal is the goal.


Pepper spray is worthless. Every couple of months or so, we get an individual in the club that gets "a bit out of hand". When they are asked to leave, 1 out of 10 usually fights. The bouncers used to carry pepper spray to restrain these people until the cops came.

I say used to because in each and every case it had to be used, it did nothing to stop the individual or slow them down.
 
AVbug.

I see what you're saying, but since I am not an electrical engineer I don't know if the stun gun is harmless up there.

I think there should be testing done to see what could happen.

If we are going to arm pilots, arm them. Don't use these half ass measures.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top