Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Borg on November 25, 2002, 10:29:18 AM
-
:p
With the signing of the HomeLand Security Bill today, we are finally getting the requirement for all passenger airlines to allow their pilots to be armed on a voluntary basis.
This is a prime example of what can be accomplished by a dedicated grass-roots efforts of determined citizens. I doubt whether this would have been accomplished without the resources of the internet and talk-radio.
For more information on this, go to: http://www.secure-skies.org/
Our thanks to all of you who have supported these efforts.
Lots of cool pix at: http://www.rogue-gryffons.com/gallery/
-
I guess it'll be dangerous to shoot chutes now.
-
It is my opinion that if the pilots are responsible enough to have the care of a multi-millon dollar plane and the lives of the passenger in their hands, along with most being ex-military (or current military resserve) then they are responsible enough to be armed in the cockpit.
I have stated this in every open forum I have access to.
N0, before you even ask I am not a pilot, but I have trained many pilots in handgun training for concealed carry permits and havent met one yet that I would not trust with a gun.
I do think there needs to be specific ammo requirements as in shot shells not solid bullets.
-
Shouldn't this be in the O'Club?
-
Apparently the bill contains the word "passenger" in it. So the gun-control nuts are successfully trying to block the arming of cargo-plane pilots.
Cargo-planes allegedly have very lax security arrangements.
miko
-
.
-
.
-
my reaction at the time of the 9/11 murders was to state on this board that we needed to get the sky marshall program reinstituted and we needed to arm and train airline pilots and crew.
I believe this goes along with mr Lott's view that more guns equal less crime. We all seen what less guns equals... schoolyard slaughter.
lazs
-
Beverage? Headphones? Handgun? Pillow?
-
yep pop.... at least then we would all have a vote on where we were going.
lazs
-
The pilot's job is to fly the plane, not to play Mr. Rainbow 6.
If you have some one on a plane with a gun, it should be a highly trained peace officer, not a pilot with a week-end course in how to take off safety on a pistol.
-
I say arm the plane, not the pilot. A shotgun with its barrel pointed at the cockpit door and fastened into the overhead console or mounted on the floor would be sufficient. The pilot could arm and trigger it from the control column without having to pull it out of a holster and aim it manually.
-
do this mean pilots of foreign airlines flying in the US will be able to carry weapons?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
The pilot's job is to fly the plane, not to play Mr. Rainbow 6.
If you have some one on a plane with a gun, it should be a highly trained peace officer, not a pilot with a week-end course in how to take off safety on a pistol.
Look before you leap, Thrawn.
First off, it wont be a "week-end course in how to take off safety on a pistol." It'll be much more detailed than that. From what I've heard so far, it'll be at the pilot's own time and expense as well. Volunteer, if you will. No one's being forced to participate.
Two, it is his job to fly the plane. Stop and think about it.
A. Even now, a year + later, there are very, very few "sky marshals". It's RARE when there is one on board. You're talking about a very limited number of guys that get vacations and days off just like the rest of us that have to cover literally tens of thousands of commercial flights every single day. So, if you depend solely on sky marshals, it'll be a rare day indeed when they are on your flight. OTOH, there will be at least two pilots on every single flight.
B. So, while these pilots are there, flying the plane, the odds are overwhelming that nobody in back will be a sky marshal trained to work in an aircraft environment or even any sort of armed Law Enforcement Officer at all.
And when the bad guys show up and start trying to force entry into the cockpit..... who's going to make sure the pilot still has a chance to do his job, to fly the plane?
I'll suggest the OTHER pilot. The adequately trained one that knows more about the aircraft and the environment it operates in than any sky marshal and has undergone a specific course to help him maintain control of his cockpit using a firearm if necessary.
But of course, it'll never happen again right?
-
I have a few questions that I hope you can answer.
Where is all the money from the security surcharges on airplane tickets going?
Is there any standardization on the firearms training?
Can the PIC tell the FO to leave the firearm off the plane?
I would be worried about the "can have" policy changing to a "must have".
-
I would be worried about the "can have" policy changing to a "must have".
i look and see canada in your profile, what i can't believe is why anyone in the u.s. gives a rats arse why you're worried about u.s. air carriers and their pilots.
don't like it? take a hike.
-
Originally posted by K98k
i look and see canada in your profile, what i can't believe is why anyone in the u.s. gives a rats arse why you're worried about u.s. air carriers and their pilots.
don't like it? take a hike.
Is anyone making you read my post?
don't like it? take a hike.
-
well, i can read your posts and i can respond to your posts and in this instance my response remains the same which basically boils down to, you don't matter.
-
Originally posted by K98k
well, i can read your posts and i can respond to your posts and in this instance my response remains the same, you don't matter.
Well, I can post what I want as long as HTC doesn't tell me to stop and there's nothing you can do about it.
And if I don't matter why do you keep on responding to my posts? LOL! :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
my reaction at the time of the 9/11 murders was to state on this board that we needed to get the sky marshall program reinstituted and we needed to arm and train airline pilots and crew.
I believe this goes along with mr Lott's view that more guns equal less crime. We all seen what less guns equals... schoolyard slaughter.
lazs
Lazs...Creamo and his union are doing a fine job of putting the airlines into financial ruin...your sky marshall idea is one that can finnish the job. Do you have ANY idea of what it would cost to put these guys on every flight in and out of the US...not to mention the internal flights..which were the ones targeted on 9/11?
Pilots I agree with arming...crew..no frigging way. I've seen many of the "Aqua Velva" stewards and even I could kick their bellybutton and take their gun away.
Your last paragraph I simply won't reply to because I have spent enough time argueing that subject with you.
-
...still wont stop Al-Q from getting on the toronto to mexico city ride & slamming it into the sears tower...
-
Originally posted by K98k
you don't matter.
Hmm...I'm guessing you're 13 or 14 years old judging by your comments here.
-
ok curval... i'll bite... How much would it cost to increase sky marshalls. and allow pilots and select crew to take training courses at their own time and expense? Who in their right mind wants to fly now with all the delay for security and the hassle.... i can drive a 10 hour trip at least as fast and I can bring my nail clipper with me and... I won't get frisked and... I will have a comfortable seat with some friggin leg room not to mention save a few bucks.
We have a very large supply of trained firearms carrying people out there right now.. they can, are trusted to, carry firearms in most places except planes. I don't think a terrorist would get far if even a couple of people on board were armed. I don't think the attempts would be made at all if they thought there might be people on board who could defend themselves.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ok curval... i'll bite... How much would it cost to increase sky marshalls. and allow pilots and select crew to take training courses at their own time and expense?
We have a very large supply of trained firearms carrying people out there right now.. they can, are trusted to, carry firearms in most places except planes. I don't think a terrorist would get far if even a couple of people on board were armed. I don't think the attempts would be made at all if they thought there might be people on board who could defend themselves.
lazs
At their own time and expense lazs? Come on. That is NOT what you said above. Besides, you cannot give guns to people who have taken a course in firearms from a school chosen from a pack of matches..it would need to be controlled and supervised. Who's gonna pay for that?
How much would sky marshall's cost..actually I really don't know. But, lets look at some conservative figures. Lets take one route on one airline on one day. Say New York to Miami. American has three flights daily out of JFK...there and back. Let's assume you assign a Sky Marshall that stays on the flight from morning until evening...a 10 hour shift. How much will that cost the airline? If you had your way we would be looking at $15 an hour...and get someone who didn't know his job, but can shoot accurately and not shoot himself or anyone around him. Could this same person save the lives of everyone on board an aircraft by handling a hijacking situation involving hostages? I wouldn't trust you to do it...would you trust me? I would say the cost would be more like $50/hour for a properly trained and authorised person. Thats $500 per day, or $182,500 per year..flights on this route are 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
That is one flight out of one airport done. How many more can you come up with. We are talking billions to merely cover the internal flights in the US.
-
$19-$22 dollars an hour; two part time shifts of 5 hours each to escape benefits and he misses sometimes but is generally accurate and reasonable with good judgement.
anyone have a pair of queens? lazs2?
-
so how much is that per flight? how much has the heightened security cost and what percentage of that is sky marshals.. ? I don't think you know anything about it. In any case... you wouldn't have em on every flight... terrorists would have to guess. I just wanted more of em. as for training... courses would have to be approved of course... that is not a problem in the states... we have lots of excellent firearms trainning facilities but... some specialized courses would be needed. In any case they probly would not cost the airlines any more than the sensitivity or sexual harrasment or managment or any of a myriad of courses they are mandating presently. I don't think the cost would be much.
maybe such actions will only stop 9 out of ten hijaking attempts... seems worthwhile to me if they stop 1 out of ten tho... especially if the one is the one I'm on.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Kanth
$19-$22 dollars an hour; two part time shifts of 5 hours each to escape benefits and he misses sometimes but is generally accurate and reasonable with good judgement.
anyone have a pair of queens? lazs2?
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.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I have a few questions that I hope you can answer.
Where is all the money from the security surcharges on airplane tickets going?
Is there any standardization on the firearms training?
Can the PIC tell the FO to leave the firearm off the plane?
I would be worried about the "can have" policy changing to a "must have".
Nope, can't answer them with 100% certainty. Some I don't know, some haven't been decided as yet.
Where's the money go? Well, the Federal Aviation Trust Fund was supposed to be available to improve facilities with things like VASI lights and full ILS approaches (instead of Localizers). Thing is, it quickly became so much money that they just banked it instead to show as an asset to offset the annual deficits. Rarely, if ever, did they actually spend much of it. Results were that you'd fly into a major airport like ATL and all the runways didn't even have VASI lights.
Firearms training protocols haven't been determined as yet but it is my understanding that it will be a standardized program and you will have to pass, just like a checkride.
The Captain will decide the firearms policy for the cockpit. One of the last bastions of absolute authority (when airborne) is the left seat of an airliner.
Can have will never be must have. Both the Feds and the Union agree on that.
That's the way I see it supported by what I've been reading. Nothing really set in stone yet though.
-
Thanks.
It will be interesting to see what the fallout will be if and when something goes wrong with a firearm in the cockpit of an airliner.
I just had a thought, is the FAA going to be the organisation that writes up the protocols on firearm use in a cockpit?
-
Peace Officers in the state of Texas already are taking a specific course "Armed Officers in flight". One of the things wrong with it is they do not stress enough (in my opinion) the need to load your weapon with only shot shells. If the high jacking happens at altitude explosive decompression will take place when a .357 or other high speed bullet exits the plane tearing a rather large hole has it takes spars, etc. with it.
Now if every armed person wheither it be Sky Marshall, regular peace officer, or the pilot is required to only use shot shells the chance of this will be lessened by a factor of 200. The next question you will have I know is "Well if it wont damage the plane as much just how effective could it be on a human?" The answer is they are extreamly effective at close range. 7-15 yards
So what is the average distance in a gun fight. 3-12 yards in police work is the average with most of them being at 10-15 feet. Now given the short distance the chance of you missing a full size human are very small and the shot shell does so much damage inside the human torso the terrorist will never live to see a doctor unless there is one on the plane, and even if there is a doctor cant sew up all the vessels, organs, and tissue that a shot shell tears up before the terrorist bleeds to death.
You can get shot shells in 38 caliber in 00 buck shot all the ray down to #9 shot. My preference after doing extensive testing is the number 4 shot. 117 pellets moving at 850 fps the wound cavity is about 5" from 20 feet away with 7" of penetration. So given that the average human is about 9" thick front to back the shot will never exit but will feel the full effect of the shock to his system. The 00 buck only has three pellets and when loaded to 850 fps it will exit the human body and still have enough energy to penetrate the skin of a second person. Only takes 65lbs per square inch.
Just my opinion for what's worth, LOL which is probably nothing.
-
First off Thrawn, decompression of the aircraft from a bullet has been extremely exaggerrated by the movie industry, for thrill factor.:rolleyes: 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.:D 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)
-
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 (http://www.disastercity.com/flt243/picture.htm) landed with part of the roof missing. hehe, no-one told the Captain it was dangerous to open the sun roof in flight. :D
-
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.:D 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
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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/
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :D
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.
-
One of the last bastions of absolute authority (when airborne) is the left seat of an airliner.
Yep, that's why I always ask for one of the A seats - whether it's 14A, 35A or 63A. That way I can bark orders at the flight attendant and get my meal served first.
-
A monkey could be trained to shoot a firearm safely, so I see no problem with arming pilots. Firearm technology isnt some magical science, its been around for about 700 years. Just give the pilots permission to shoot all terrorist and democrats, and the U.S. will be a much safer place.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
A monkey could be trained to shoot a firearm safely, so I see no problem with arming pilots. Firearm technology isnt some magical science, its been around for about 700 years. Just give the pilots permission to shoot all terrorist and democrats, and the U.S. will be a much safer place.
There is a difference between shooting "safely" and "accurately." I don't think you'd want a pilot "spraying and praying" in a pressurized aircraft loaded with passengers.
-
"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. "
( Hmm cross-bbs posting?:) I can do that too :) )
That is by far the best argument for arming the pilots..I've changed my mind. It's a great idea!!.
Daff
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Yep, that's why I always ask for one of the A seats - whether it's 14A, 35A or 63A. That way I can bark orders at the flight attendant and get my meal served first.
Not surprising to see that your understanding of exercising absolute authority on an airliner is that it allows you to bark orders for food and drink at a flight attendant.
Please try that on one of my flights sometime.
Thanks.
-
- never need to, Toad. I use charm, P&T. :) Besides, I don't know your airline and if it's a US airline, the food's probably crap anyway, and the situation would not arise.
BTW, Mr. Toad, Tomato is not American. :) Never assume, just keep guessing!
-
"barking orders" is considered charm in your neck of the woods?
lazs
"Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Friday February 23, 2001
The Guardian
England and Wales have one of the worst crime records in the industrialised world - even worse than America - according to the findings of an official survey published yesterday which compares the experience of victims across 17 countries.
The study, coordinated by the Dutch ministry of justice, shows England and Wales at the top of the world league with Australia as the countries where you are most likely to become a victim of crime. These countries face an annual rate of 58 crimes for every 100 inhabitants.
The findings, based on interviews with 35,000 people about their experience of crime across the 17 countries, were carried out last year. They are a blow to Labour's record and underline the challenge facing Tony Blair when he marks the launch of Labour's 10-year anti-crime plan next Monday by becoming the first serving prime minister to visit a prison.
The 2000 International Crime Victimisation survey shows that the falls in crime recorded since the mid-1990s in England and Wales are part of a general pattern of falling crime across the industrialised world but, unlike America, crime levels in England and Wales are still higher than they were at the end of the 1980s. When the survey was last carried out in 1996, England and Wales also topped the league table with 61 offences per 100 inhabitants.
The survey does show, however, that Britain has the best services when it comes to looking after the victims of crime, but it also shows we have a tougher approach to punishing criminals. Asked what should be done with a burglar convicted of stealing a colour television for a second time, more than 50% in England and Wales said he or she should be sent to prison for two years. Only 7% in Spain and 12% in France thought he or she should be jailed at all.
People were asked whether they had been victims of a range of 11 different offences in the previous 12 months, including violent and sexual assault, car crime, burglary and consumer fraud.
The survey also shows that Scotland, with 43 offences per 100 inhabitants, ranks joint fifth alongside America in the international crime league behind England, Australia, the Netherlands and Sweden. Northern Ireland has the second best crime record of the countries surveyed, with 24 offences per 100 inhabitants - the same rate as Switzerland and only just above Japan where the biggest crime problem is bicycle thefts. The detailed findings of the ICVS survey showthat England and Wales are top of the international league for car thefts with 2.6% of all car owners suffering the loss of their vehicle in the previous 12 months. In other sorts of car crime, England was second only to Poland.
Australia and then England and Wales had the highest burglary rates and rates for violent crimes such as robbery, assault and sexual assault "
the result of the backward thinking of the home office is the brutalizing of its helpless citizens... helpless to defend themselves against the strong and the vicious... a trajic example of "form over substance"... "let them eat cake" The lawless run england... In America... 3,000,000 such crimes are prevented by firearms... citizens have freedom and dignity one good thing about englands crime rate.... they have, obviously by necessity, learned to care for the traumatized, humiliated and injured victims...guess that's something
-
"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 was not trying to suggest that arming pilots would somehow magically cure the above threat. I am just amazed that the events of the last 2 years have not yet fully focused our attention and resources enough to effectively deal with these threats. Arming our pilots is just one part of the big job ahead that will be required to properly defend ourselves.
Lots of cool pix at: http://www.rogue-gryffons.com/gallery/
-
Originally posted by Toad
Please try that on one of my flights sometime.
You are a flight attendant Toad?
You seemed so manly at the Con?;)
-
Even more stereotypical than I could have imagined then.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Even more stereotypical than I could have imagined then.
Just teasing bud....no offense meant.
-
Sorry, Curval. That quoted post was for Beetle. Should have labeled it.
No offense. After all, there's some pretty darn manly F/A's. Some of 'em are even actually men!
:)
-
Mr. Toad said
Even more stereotypical than I could have imagined then.
Not sure what this refers to. :confused:
-
Tomato and her views on gun control.
You might have to go back to the thread that originated your own comment to put it all in order.
-
IMO, im already trusting the 2 blokes in the 'pit to not fuk flying the plane up and kill me.
I see no problem whatsoever to give them a machine gun (yes, i dont give a damn). If someone tries to gain entry to the cockpit it means they want the plane intact for some reason.
If they want to blow it up in the air, not even rambo himself will stop them.
That the bastards will start killing passengers to gain entry? Pfe, chances are they will kill everyone in the 1st place. A pilot can depressurize the cabin or do manouvers to knock them out (if turbulence can make people break their necks if they not strapped to their seats, what will a severe one pilot-induced do to some idjit standing up in the cabin?).
Give 'em the guns I say, Taking off and landing with the crew+passenger's are their responability already just by flying the thing, they should be given the tools to live up to that responsability. I would NOT expect a pilot to come out with a gun and "save" me, but I sure dont want him to give the plane to some nutbag so he can kill countless other people.
-
Mr. Toad: What, Tomato is biased for not being American?
-
Nope. Didn't say or imply that. Just said given that she is not American, the situation is more stereotypical than I had at first thought. :D
-
Toad, if they let you carry a gun while you fly and Beat1e gets on your plane do us all a favor and shoot him OK?
-
Only if, when and after he manages an unauthorized entry into the cockpit. ;) But even he's not that.... well, you know.
I suspect Beetle is an OK guy in person. I do believe he doesn't know a dang thing about guns and their sporting uses, nor do I think he's ever spent much time hanging out with folks that don't live in cities or suburbs of big cities here in the US.
In short, he's probably like a lot of the mistaken American folks over at Handgun Control.
Afterall, some folks think chickens are born in a refrigerator without skin on a styrofoam plate covered in shrinkwarp plastic, too.
Ya can't just condemn 'em for being unaware. ;)
-
Mr. Toad...
Awwww, you say the nicest things!!!
You're right, and I don't know anything about guns except what I've picked up here. Never fired one.
I like your comment about the chickens. I did run into an American (former neighbour) who spoke of a boneless chicken farm in CA as if that were a breed of chicken!
-
Thrawn,
Why do you not trust airline pilots to handle sidearms in a responsible manner? Most of them are ex-military, trained to handle stress situations and with fairly extensive experience in handling weapons.
The use of professional peace officers as airline security would not be adequate to counter the threat of a terrorist team. The terrorists responsible for the acts of 9/11 had gone through extensive training, part of which, undoubtedly, had to do with spotting undercover security officers. If future terrorists are able to "make" these officers and overcome them, what is to prevent them from repeating those acts? The newly "reinforced doors?" Those can be blown or cut through.
The last line of defense for the passengers and crew, through sheer elimination, has to be the cockpit crew.
Had the pilots been armed with something as innocuous as a .22 pistol, the tragic events of 9/11 could have been avoided.
Oh...and decompression would not be a problem, even with a large caliber pistol.
Regards, Shuckins