Airline Pilots To Be Armed

[Krotki]

First off Thrawn, decompression of the aircraft from a bullet has been extremely exaggerrated by the movie industry, for thrill factor.  Secondly all rounds fired in the aircraft will not penetrate to the exterior due to the construction of the airframe. In most modern birds they have a layer of material called honeycomb which stops  bullets.  Thirdly the majority of the pilots are ex military or active reserve or guard. With that said they are more qualified with firearms than the majority of the police officers on duty anywhere.  Plus I personally would feel more comfortable in knowing that the pilot can protect his bird with anyone trying to takeover via trying to overcome the crew in the cockpit, because he is intrusted with the lifes of the crew and passengers as well as the command of the companies equipment he flies for. In my opinion the marshal program at present time is a stop gap measure as the program was discontinued in the ninties. Further if you have any military experience you would know that firearms training is a very important part of the military role especially side arms like in the case of (PILOTS). Most personnell are on the range aproxiamately every six month with a complete course of weapon safety and handling, weapon break down and cleaning, site picture, close range firing, finally range qualifing under the most safety consious conditions you could ever be under. enough said:mad:

Krotki, United we stand  (Ever On Call)

[beet1e]

I know. Let's arm airline pilots with sharp objects. Mr. Toad would agree, as he feels that these are more lethal than guns.  Joking apart, I remember that many years ago an airliner was hijacked and was on the ground at Beirut (I think). The Egyptian commander seized the opportunity to kill one of the hijackers in the cockpit, using a fire axe.

Krotki - that's interesting about decompression. But if the skin was punctured, or worse, a window was blown out, how long would it take for pressure to equalise with the outside? My guess is not too long. And how long can one survive at atmospheric pressure at 35,000ft? Probably the same answer. I know we have the oxygen mask system. I was on a flight once when all the oxygen masks deployed. No-one was worried though. The pilot had just made a VERY heavy landing. They can't get the staff these days - lol.

I read many years ago of an engine part breaking loose, and being flung against the fuselage in flight. In fact it broke a window. The guy sitting in the seat next to that window was sucked out, even though he'd been wearing his seatbelt. I don't know if his body in the AZ desert was ever found.

Don't worry, Thrawn. Those Boeings are tough old birds. This one landed with part of the roof missing. hehe, no-one told the Captain it was dangerous to open the sun roof in flight.

[Krotki]

Beet1e youre right about a large damage area, but something like a bullet hole, most aircaft systems can keep the pressure stabilized till they can get down to 20,000 feet, but anything larger well, end up with a convertible at around 600knots. Life span ain't too long with out oxy, unfortunately, but as far as decompression you know what I mean, a soccerball sized hole can clean the area around it out rather quickly.  Pea shooter for the pilots any one.

Krotki, United we stand

[Airscrew]

Thirdly the majority of the pilots are ex military or active reserve or guard. With that said they are more qualified with firearms than the majority of the police officers on duty anywhere.

Sorry Krotki, In my 20 years in the air force I was lucky enough to spend about a year and half working medical readiness for a hospital.  I got to work with the Small Arms training instructors on base scheduling enlisted and officers for M16, .38, and 9mm training.   The small arms instructors always had some amusing stories about pilots trying to qualify with a weapon.  And qualifying is once a year, about 25 rounds for practice and 50 rounds for qualifying.   They learn how to shoot it, they don't learn how to use it.  Just because they can fly a jet and shoot down planes doesn't mean they are good with small arms.
I think I would put my trust in the police officer.

I say put .38 under each passengers seat  or issue a gun to each passenger as they board.

AirScrew

[Krotki]

Gotta learn how to use it beefore you shoot it, Must be a different air force than the one I was in then. Qualified with a few pilots better shot than most of the security police I knew. By the way 17 years active Air Force, 12 years ANG artillery whooorah, retired proudly as mean tailed seargeant.(EVER ON CALL)  



Krotki, United we stand

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
I know. Let's arm airline pilots with sharp objects. Mr. Toad would agree, as he feels that these are more lethal than guns.  

Well, they are certainly more leathal than firearms in the UK. For every dead Englishman killed by a firearm in '00-'01, there were THREE dead Englishman killed by a sharp instrument. Write the Home Office in support of licensing, registration, banning and supervised clubs for Chef's Knives!

Think on this Hollywood Airplane Decompression fans. The aircraft pressurization outflow valve on most aircraft is about twice the size of an aircraft window. Many aircraft have two such valves in the fuselage. This motorized valve continually adjusts to regulate the amount of air exiting the cabin in order to maintain a stable cabin pressure altitude. (During climbs and descents and during periods of changing availability of compressor air for pressurization.) These valves usually can provide cabin rates of change between 50 and 2000 FPM, with the default in the 300-500 range.

Now, since just one of them (and there's often two on larger aircraft) is a significantly larger hole in fuselage than a window, do you think this continuously variable valve might be able to compensate for a .38 inch bullet hole in the skin?

[Airscrew]

Krotki,  I'm not saying all pilots are bad shots and all police are good shots.  
What I disagreed with was you saying that former military pilots are more qualified than the majority of police officers on duty.   Officers got training once a year.  I got training once a year, but I also had my own guns and went target shooting alot, so did others.   I knew doctors that were better shots than some security police, but that doesnt make them more qualified.

And you have to know how/when to use it.


AirScrew

[beet1e]

Mr. Toad, I wouldn't know. Wouldn't it depend on the ammo used?  (Lazs - help me out here) I've been reading stuff above about the size of entrance wounds/exit wounds etc. A hollow point bullet...  well, you know all about them. My question is - would those types of ammunition be used (more effective) and if one strayed, would it just make a little hole in the skin, or would the damage be more serious?

US pilots on flights to the UK will be able to carry guns. But upon entering UK airspace, the flight attendants must collect these and issue the flight deck crew with sharp instruments.

[Toad]

The "when/how" decision will be somewhat simplified for the pilots.

After all, they're behind a locked and newly strengthened cockpit door. They're not coming out with a gun, so that narrows the options right there.

Someone will have to be attempting forceful, unauthorized entry for the issue even to come up.

So the "decision tree" will have far fewer branches than say a police officer in a street situation.

[miko2d]

whgates3: do this mean pilots of foreign airlines flying in the US will be able to carry weapons?

 There are plenty of precedents in international law where a ship or a plane or embassy grounds are considered souvereign territory of a country.


Oedipus: arming pilots with guns or locking the cockpit shut won't work as much as people think it will because terrorists and hijackers ... would just start killing the "human cargo"

 Your bundling together of terrorists and hijackers makes no sense.
 The highjackers of the "conventional" type just want to land somewhere and/or exchange hostages for whatever, they do not really require control of the cockpit. They have as much interest is keeping the plane aflight and hostages safe as pilots do. They have as much negotiating power outside the cockpit. So the pilots will stay in control and land where hijackers tell them to and professionals take from there.

 The terrorists intend to use the plane as a guided missile. Any insistence on entering the cockpit will be treated as such intent - by passengers, pilots and authorities. In that situation the "human cargo" is as good as dead anyway. As soon as the pilots lose or release control of the cockpit, the plane has to be shot down.
 The arming of the pilots may not help to prevent highjacking but it may help to prevent another 9/11.


K98k: i look and see canada in your profile, what i can't believe is why anyone in the u.s. ...

 Whatever nonsense Trawn is posting in this particular thread, its his right to do so granted by HTC. Your own profile is empty, your syntax is atrocious and your attitude is anti-american. Despite being a freaking commie, you are still welcome to post your drivel here - at least untill you blurb something Hihtech does not like.


Thrawn: If you have some one on a plane with a gun, it should be a highly trained peace officer...

 Air marshalls - not the smartest idea. Let's put firearms into the passenger section so that the terrorists do not have to bother bringing their own. You just have one or two unarmed guys act up in a manner just sufficient to provoke the marshalls into revealing themselves. Then their hidden comrades take the guns away. Unless we have at least half a dozen marshalls on every flight or lock them in cocpit with the pilots, this expensive scheme may be more danger than doing nothing. Israeli example is not indicative here - those guys are willing to spend money on multiple guards and are sure to have other means of protection besides widely publicised.


MajTom: I think I would put my trust in the police officer.

 How many rounds a year do you think a police officer fires on a range, let alone in tactical training? Range time is very expencive. Make it just one day a month and you have to increase the force by 5% to keep same number of cops on the street. Add other expences, ammo, personnel, maintanance... The results of failure are not obvious untill SHTF and most victims of poor training are officers themselves or some hapless black guy. What politician in hist right mind would propose higher taxes to so train the police officers? What voters would approve? Outside the SWAT teams, the police are as bad as any pilots could ever be. In fact, I am sure pilots have much higher average IQ than rank and file cops. And their tactical and target training can be limited to only one situation - whoever shows in the cockpit door, shoot him! That ought to count for something.


 Constructively speaking, the gas mask or an oxygen tank are much more conspicious than edged weapon or even a firearm - almost impossible to bring aboard. If the cockpit is secure, the pilots have an option to dump the pressure or maybe release some of that russian knockout gas.

 miko

[Kanth]

Thanks for rating me, Curval.

 Okay, lets use my numbers to extend your point that you have have no idea, and frankly are not going to spend the time trying to even hazard a guess.

 Your point is that you believe the pilot should be armed and trained. (short and sweet..)

I believe that arming someone in uniform only serves to point out to terrorists where to get the weapon to use to kill the passengers. They then have however many years they wish to plan how to take the gun from that person.

I would like someone who blends to carry the weapon and I'd like them to take random flights if it turns out that ticket price will not support them.

better than nothing.

We don't have to think about the rest of the attacks because we actually pay agencies to think about this for us. Now if we don't trust them to do a good job then we should dump that agency and do it ourselves.

unarmed folks acting up can be handled by crew and passengers as they are now, a firearm is not warrented in that situation.

although, no doubt, like the president and vice president trying to stay alive to run the country during a crisis, I'm sure passengers will cry ineffectiveness and carry on and sue if the marshal doesn't whip out his gun at the least improprietry.

Originally posted by Curval
Good attempt at humour Kanth.  Okay, lets use these numbers, and I'll even split the difference, let call it $20/hour.  

How many air marshals do we need?

How many flights are we talking about?

I have no idea, and frankly I'm not going to spend the time trying to even hazard a guess.  I think my point is still valid, and to make it effective it is going to cost billions annually to put trained guys on flights to stop the type of attack we saw on 9/11.

I say give the pilots guns and train them.  Make them pass courses on hand to hand combat...whatever.  I think that knowledge would prevent the murdering scumbags from trying the same style of attack.

The problem, of course is (as someone already pointed out): what do you do for non-domestic (note that I didn't use 'foreign')flights with non-regulated pilots in the cockpits?

My first thought after 9/11 was a gas that could be triggered by the pilot which would knock eveyone out in the cabin.  Recent events made me revise that line of thought, particularly when children are going to be subjected to possible death by gassing.

I do think that we should start to think about other possible terrorist threats and not concentrate on airlines alone.  I don't believe that they will try the same thing again, but as I could be wrong I advocate the issuance of guns to pilots.  What about biological attacks against the US water supply, attacks on nuclear facilities, nuclear waste depots, nuclear power plants, non-nuclear power plants, damns, food supplies etc etc?  We have to think about everything because you can bet THEY are.

[Borg]

It's been interesting to read all the different points of view about arming our airline pilots. Some are well thought-out ,realistic opinions, but others make me wonder what planet some of these guys are from.  I wonder what other kind of attack on us will make us understand the kind of world we live in.  It seems obvious that the WTC attack has not fully focused our attention.  I hope a nuclear explosion or chemical/biological attack in one of our major cities is not the final event required to wake us up.

I'm also rather pessimistic about how our administration will allow the arming of pilots to be implemented.  I can forsee our ultra-liberal Secretary of Transportation blocking and delaying these measures by imposing unrealistic, highly restrictive qualification requirements of our pilots, and also delaying things even further by not properly funding them.  I really hope I'm wrong about this.

Another problem to be solved in arming the pilots will be the method in which they are armed.  Allowing pilots to carry weapons through foreign countries, states and cities that have highly-restrictive gun laws would be a major problem.  

I think the best answer to this would be an electronic lockbox containing a simple revolver, loaded with the proper ammunition, that can be opened only by pilots with the proper standardized electronic ID. Preflight checks and access to this weapon should be possible only with the cockpit door locked and secured.  This would eliminate a multitude of problems associated with pilots carrying weapons through numerous jurisdictions.

What first must be done without further delay, is a universal, computerized, biometric (preferably, retinal-scan) ID card for all airline pilots.  They would then have terminal and ramp-access through special entry-ponts similar to what Federal SkyMarshals already use.


Lots of cool pix at: http://www.rogue-gryffons.com/gallery/

[Curval]

Originally posted by Kanth
Thanks for rating me, Curval.

 Okay, lets use my numbers to extend your point that you have have no idea, and frankly are not going to spend the time trying to even hazard a guess.

 Your point is that you believe the pilot should be armed and trained. (short and sweet..)

I believe that arming someone in uniform only serves to point out to terrorists where to get the weapon to use to kill the passengers. They then have however many years they wish to plan how to take the gun from that person.

I would like someone who blends to carry the weapon and I'd like them to take random flights if it turns out that ticket price will not support them.

better than nothing.

We don't have to think about the rest of the attacks because we actually pay agencies to think about this for us. Now if we don't trust them to do a good job then we should dump that agency and do it ourselves.

unarmed folks acting up can be handled by crew and passengers as they are now, a firearm is not warrented in that situation.

although, no doubt, like the president and vice president trying to stay alive to run the country during a crisis, I'm sure passengers will cry ineffectiveness and carry on and sue if the marshal doesn't whip out his gun at the least improprietry.

Kanth,

The cost of putting Air Marshalls on every flight will send ticket prices soaring and would cause airlines to fail...short and sweet.  

Next time you are on a domestic US flight open the magazine provided by the airline and take a look at that airline's route map.  Then consider what $20/hour per flight per day will cost.  It would be a HUGE task to do it...but when done do the same for ALL the other airlines.  I will guarentee that your final totals will be in the hundreds of millions...if not billions.  The suggestion that only "some" flights have these guys on board MIGHT discourage terrorists, but if the terrorists manage to get on a flight that doesn't have one on, the money spent on all the other flights is just wasted.  This makes NO economic sense to me.

Every single time you get on board a flight you place your life in the hands of the pilot.  Giving them a weapon to defend themselves...and YOU, only makes sense.  

Ask yourself this, "If the pilots on 9/11 had access to a gun...would thousands of people died?"  

I have been labelled anti-gun by some on these boards...but if there was EVER a time to have one and use it 9/11 was the time.

No offense intended Kanth re: the rating thing.

[Curval]

Originally posted by Borg
I think the best answer to this would be an electronic lockbox containing a simple revolver, loaded with the proper ammunition, that can be opened only by pilots with the proper standardized electronic ID. Preflight checks and access to this weapon should be possible only with the cockpit door locked and secured.  This would eliminate a multitude of problems associated with pilots carrying weapons through numerous jurisdictions.

What first must be done without further delay, is a universal, computerized, biometric (preferably, retinal-scan) ID card for all airline pilots.  They would then have terminal and ramp-access through special entry-ponts similar to what Federal SkyMarshals already use.

Agreed.

[Borg]

While I was a Federal Skymarshal for 2 years in the early 70's, my biggest concern was the possibility of a terrorist creating enough of a disturbance in the cabin to draw us out of our plain-clothes cover, making us vulnerable to being disarmed by another terrorist.  This was a concern of mine, even though we always pre-briefed the crew that we would not allow ourselves to become involved in non-hijacking altercations.

It was and still is a very boring job, and I am still concerned that some hapless Skymarshal may be disarmed by a terrorist.

I am therefore very relieved that a substantial number of pilots will be armed, hopefully in the not-too-distant future.  The pilots know that their primary job is to fly the aircraft and safely land it as soon as possible, should there be a hijacking.  They will not leave the cockpit to do battle with the terrorists, and they will be shooting their weapons only as a last resort if the cockpit door is being breached.  If some terrorist  is attempting to squeeze through a reinforced door that is being forced open, I doubt that it will be that difficult to ventilate him from a distance of inches or, at most, a few feet.

The question was raised about the Captain's authority in allowing weapons in the cockpit.  As I understand it, the new law does not allow any airline management or anyone else, including the Captain, to bar a qualified pilot crewmember from having access to an authorized firearm.  The most likely quarrel between the Captain and First Officer will probably be who gets to leave his seat to defend the cockpit door  

Also, be assured that the airline's number one priority is to design and install an armored cockpit door that will be almost impossible to breach.  This project will probably take about 2 more years to complete.

For those of you who advocate that we make the passenger cabin inacessible from the cockpit "like the Isralies do" , be aware that the Isralies have been able to make these modifications to large, intercontinental airliners.  This type of modification is simply not practical for smaller, short-range airliners.  Also keep in mind that certain types of emergencies, such as manual landing-gear extension, require the presence of one cockpit crewmember in the passenger cabin.

One thing that I would like to know is: Are we requiring all foreign carriers who fly into the USA to have reinforced-armored cockpit doors?  If anyone knows the answer to this question, I hope they post it here.