Armed airline pilots


PDA






Blackbeard
July 30, 2007, 03:08 PM
Saw this quote on someone's signature:

"I think the Second Amendment would have prevented 9/11, they might not even tried it if they knew every pilot had a gun." - Ron Paul at Google talks on July 14th.

I may be in the minority here, but I have to disagree. We go to great lengths to keep weapons off of the airplanes, it doesn't make any sense to deliberately put one there. The events of 9/11 were the result of surprise and planning, not weaponry. They did not destroy the WTC with their own bomb, they took ours (the planes), and all it took was a good plan and the element of surprise.

The same can happen with an armed pilot or air marshall. Suppose five terrorists plot to take over a plane. One of them starts trouble by threatening the passengers. The pilot/marshall, sidearm in hand, goes to deal with the aggressor and gets jumped from behind by the four accomplices. Now they have a gun, and they still carry out the attacks.

Guns on planes would not have stopped 9/11 because their plan would have been different.

If you enjoyed reading about "Armed airline pilots" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
fletcher
July 30, 2007, 03:12 PM
The events of 9/11 involved a substantial amount of clever weaponry.

Also, a marshall getting jumped is different than two pilots with guns locked in their cockpit. The latter is much more secure.

M1 Shooter
July 30, 2007, 03:18 PM
Possibly, but what if people with CCW permits were allowed to carry on board? If the terrorists have no idea how many people could be armed on the flight, it kind of puts a crimp in their plans. For all they'd know, everyone on the flight could be armed, including the flight crew. I think that would have served as an effective deterrent.

The Law
July 30, 2007, 03:21 PM
Possibly, but what if people with CCW permits were allowed to carry on board? If the terrorists have no idea how many people could be armed on the flight, it kind of puts a crimp in their plans. For all they'd know, everyone on the flight could be armed, including the flight crew. I think that would have served as an effective deterrent.

Agreed.

ArfinGreebly
July 30, 2007, 03:23 PM
Back in the day, guns were common enough on planes.

The pilots were, in fact, often armed.

If you have a decent bulkhead and door to the flight deck and armed flight deck personnel, the goons trying to hijack the plane are confined to passenger space. They never get control of the aircraft.

It should be mentioned that the airline with arguably the best security record in the business (no, not a U.S. airline) has armed pilots.

What doomed the 9/11 planes was mindset. We had been indoctrinated, as a nation, for so many years to "just give them what they want and everything will be okay," that the combat mindset didn't finally appear until the Flight 93 people grasped that the indoctrination no longer applied.

Given the somewhat revised understanding of what a modern hijacker might want with a plane, the mindset is no longer "just make sure nobody gets hurt" while acquiescing to the hijackers. The understanding is now more along the lines of, "if these bastards get control of the plane, we're all gonna die so, whatever it takes, neutralize them."

I mean, the bad guy says "I have a bomb; if you don't give me the controls I'm going to blow up the plane," and you're just going to let him fly it? Oh, cool, now he gets to blow up the plane while killing hundreds or thousands more! So, instead, "he says he has a bomb -- get him!"

I'm entirely okay with armed pilots.

Hell, I'm entirely okay with armed passengers!

GRIZ22
July 30, 2007, 03:35 PM
Possibly, but what if people with CCW permits were allowed to carry on board?

If all were that would scare me. How much training have they had? Did they qualify? How well can they shoot (not directly related to how much training they had)? Having a CCW doesn't make you a cop as is often repeated here.

I was a Federal LEO for 27 years and always carried when I traveled by air. I like the idea of armed pilots. They have to take training at their expense in order to carry on the plane. Pilots and LEOs have had a lot more physchological screening. It might be more dangerous to have any CCW permit holder able to carry on commercial flights.

If there was some vetting and training process I'd be all for it. Not anyone with a CCW. Having a gun is only part of the fight.

What doomed the 9/11 planes was mindset.

This is correct. The brave souls on Flight 93 didn't act until they had word of the attacks on the WTC.

Noxx
July 30, 2007, 03:40 PM
What doomed the 9/11 planes was mindset.

Bingo.

Before 9/11, it hadn't occurred even at the farthest reaches of the imagination that someone would hijack a plane for the express purpose of using it as a weapon. Hijacking had always been a political tool resolved by negotiation. The mindset was "Sit down and shut up, because to do otherwise might get everyone killed", no one realized they intended to kill everyone anyway, until it was far too late.

MT GUNNY
July 30, 2007, 03:43 PM
Pilots ; Air marshals, Prolly have training in what to do especailly Air marshals
So for the 5 terroists senario ,Maybe it would be nice if there was two or more CCW holders aboard to asist the Air marshal, Im shure if this ever happens the Air marshal Knows who carries!

So I think CC pasengers should be welcome.

waterhouse
July 30, 2007, 03:59 PM
Suppose five terrorists plot to take over a plane. One of them starts trouble by threatening the passengers. The pilot/marshall, sidearm in hand, goes to deal with the aggressor and gets jumped from behind by the four accomplices. Now they have a gun, and they still carry out the attacks.

Let's say I'm a pilot, behind a locked door with a handgun. And one, or two, or 5 or 10 guys are in the back of the plane with their box cutters.

Worst case scenario, 200 passengers end up getting murdered by 10 guys with box cutters. None of the bad guys are making it to the controls of the plane.

The plane keeps flying, no buildings get crashed into. A tragic event for sure, but in hindsight much better than what actually happened.

A gun in the cockpit certainly could not have made that situation any worse than it turned out, could it?

I agree with others about the mindset. Had the pilot's known then what we know now, I guarantee anyone without a seatbelt would have been in a world of hurt. Ever experienced bad turbulence on a plane? That is with the pilots trying to keep things nice and smooth. Imagine if they wanted to knock you on your butt. The mindset that said "cooperate and we will be OK" was (again in hindsight, I certainly fault none of those involved for acting as they had been trained to act) the greatest factor.

"I think the Second Amendment would have prevented 9/11, they might not even tried it if they knew every pilot had a gun." - Ron Paul at Google talks on July 14th.

I think the point of the Ron Paul quote is not that a gun would have come in handy, but that the idea of an armed pilot might have made the terrorists decide the plan wasn't going to work. We all say the same thing about gun free zones everywhere else. It is easiest for criminal to attack people in gun free zones. I think Ron Paul is just pointing out that from a criminal mentality a plane is a gun free zone.

DragonFire
July 30, 2007, 04:05 PM
The pilot/marshall, sidearm in hand, goes to deal

A marshall's job may be different, but the pilot wouldn't/shouldn't ever go to the threat. Their duty is to keep the cockpit secure.

Whether the pilots are armed or just have a secure enough door to keep hijackers out of the cockpit, if passengers were harmed even though the plane doesn't fall into the terrorists' hands, do you think passengers or their families would sue the airlines for not negotiating, or not relenting to the terrorists' demands? Would they win in court?

I guess someone being able to smuggle a weapon on board is someone's fault, but not necessarily the airline's though. TSA?

My feelings are that of course they will sue, but it would have to be shown to me (as a jurist) to be a case of clear negligence before I'd awared cash, but I guess I'm not the "average" jurist. I just don't think that most Americans would be willing to accept the injury or deaths of a relative few to ensure the safety of hundreds or thousands.

TallPine
July 30, 2007, 04:06 PM
Well, the "no guns" rule really worked well ... :rolleyes:


Don't worry, though - there will be guns. On the F-16 coming up behind :uhoh:

BBQJOE
July 30, 2007, 04:28 PM
I liked the Kid from Brooklyn's idea.
Just give everyone boarding the plane a Louisville slugger.
Nobody's going to try anything when everyone on board has a baseball bat.

MachIVshooter
July 30, 2007, 04:38 PM
but what if people with CCW permits were allowed to carry on board? If the terrorists have no idea how many people could be armed on the flight, it kind of puts a crimp in their plans. For all they'd know, everyone on the flight could be armed, including the flight crew. I think that would have served as an effective deterrent.

I would love to see CCW allowed on flights, but I will add that I think being able to carry on a plane should require a different type of CCW, one with training for such a very different environment. Like knowing which parts of the plane can take rounds and which areas would result in a system failure. Also, defensive shooting on an airplane exponentially increases the odds of bystander injury in the event of a miss or overpenetration, almost to the point of gauranteeing it.

So yes, I would love to see CCW on commercial flights, but I would fully support it requiring much more extensive training than normal CCW.

Car Knocker
July 30, 2007, 04:38 PM
I may be in the minority here
Well, we agree on something! :D

Guns on planes would not have stopped 9/11 because their plan would have been different.
And how, exactly, would the plans have differed? As I recall, there were Air Marshalls prior to 9/11, just not as any. How did the terrorists know that there wouldn't be one on their particular flight?

Fatelvis
July 30, 2007, 04:43 PM
Possibly, but what if people with CCW permits were allowed to carry on board? If the terrorists have no idea how many people could be armed on the flight, it kind of puts a crimp in their plans. For all they'd know, everyone on the flight could be armed, including the flight crew. I think that would have served as an effective deterrent.
M1shooter, you hit the nail on the head. The airlines are just another "gun-free zone". :rolleyes: Or, as the enemy says, "target rich enviroment". Come on already, lets make evrywhere CCW friendly, and get it over with!

pdowg881
July 30, 2007, 04:47 PM
I have to agree. A potential hijacker would be much more comfortable knowing that nobody has a weapon that will fight him. Now if he had reason to suspect he would be going up against a gun, he would think twice. But then people may argue over who gets a gun, and who is allowed as far as passengers.

jefnvk
July 30, 2007, 04:47 PM
I'm in favor of of sealing the cockpit, and feeding it with its own air supply. Hijackers try to take over, pilots release a gas to knock everyone out until they can land. Minus any sort of reaction to the gas, no one gets hurt.

I dunno, maybe such a gas isn't possible. Works in my mind though.

M1 Shooter
July 30, 2007, 04:50 PM
I'm in favor of of sealing the cockpit, and feeding it with its own air supply. Hijackers try to take over, pilots release a gas to knock everyone out until they can land. Minus any sort of reaction to the gas, no one gets hurt.

I dunno, maybe such a gas isn't possible. Works in my mind though.


You know, that's actually not a bad idea! I kind of like it as a matter of fact!

TallPine
July 30, 2007, 05:00 PM
Hijackers try to take over, pilots release a gas to knock everyone out until they can land. Minus any sort of reaction to the gas, no one gets hurt.

Yeah, like in that theater in Russia :rolleyes:

El Tejon
July 30, 2007, 05:10 PM
TallPine, but it works so well in the movies.:D

If anyone had the internal strength to fight back, 9/11 would never have transpired.

Give me a pistol, load it with Sim, you and your friends play hijackers. I will show you, over and over how a pistol would have stopped 9/11.

If arming people does no good, why do FAM have guns?:confused:

James T Thomas
July 30, 2007, 05:15 PM
Your premise is one that is given here on THR often before.

"They will just take your weapon away from you and use it against you!"

Following that "logic", we might as well begin disarming the US Marines, and so it goes.

thumper723
July 30, 2007, 05:18 PM
Easy solution.

Have the Air Marshall with a portable O2 mask.

Depressurize the cabin. Nite-Nite to the Goblins.

TUC (Time of Useful Consciousness is about 30-45 Seconds at FL360)

FL360 = 36,000 feet, which is around where most airlines cruise.

Dump pressurization, cabin goes night-night, and the goblins wake up with cuffs on them.

Its what I have briefed my crew on in case of unruly passengers. (no air marshals or FA's for me)

kellyj00
July 30, 2007, 05:21 PM
my pa, a fella who's been an aircraft inspector for many decades, had the craziest, smartest idea I've heard on this subject.

Seperate the cockpit from the cab with an air-tight seal....(not new technology to airplanes, everything is air tight) and give the pilots the ability to 'gas' the cab if need be. Nothing like a bunch of laughing gas to stop a BG dead in his tracks. You could even use tear gas, or some sort of knock out gas or something. Hell, I'm no anesthesiologist...but I'm sure they aren't all that harmful.

kellyj00
July 30, 2007, 05:23 PM
there's something about depressurizing a plane full of innocents that makes me cringe. I thought the air was so thin at 36000 feet that the pressure difference would boil one's blood, just like in a vaccum.

I'm not a pilot, I don't know anything about it however. Just know what I heard back in grade school.

kellyj00
July 30, 2007, 05:25 PM
hell, here's a link...
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem99/chem99558.htm

wjustinen
July 30, 2007, 05:28 PM
The same can happen with an armed pilot or air marshall. Suppose five terrorists plot to take over a plane. One of them starts trouble by threatening the passengers. The pilot/marshall, sidearm in hand, goes to deal with the aggressor and gets jumped from behind by the four accomplices. Now they have a gun, and they still carry out the attacks.


Of course I disagree entirely with your premise that keeping guns off of airplanes is a good idea. I'm sure you have heard the term "victim disarmament zone."

I saw a piece on - NBC? - yesterday where North American airline security was compared with Israeli. The difference being that the Israelis hire intelligent, well trained security personnel who are paid very well to determine if the passenger is someone who shouldn't be allowed on board.

Then they provide armed guards to take care of any bad guy who slips through. Personally, I have a problem leaving the defence of myself and my loved ones in the hands of someone else. It doesn't work in daily life on the ground, it hasn't worked in the air, or on the high seas.

I'm not aware of any problems during the first four decades of airline travel when you could walk onto a plane with a pistol in your pocket quite legitimately. Hi-jackings and terrorist activities became a problem about the time that it became virtually impossible for the average person to lawfully carry a concealed weapon in most of North America.

As a pilot and retired air traffic controller, I have observed that airport security is designed - in the main - to make the little old lady in tennis shoes believe that someone is looking out for her.

Interestingly, my experience has been that the "little old lady in tennis shoes" is often a healthy young male who can't be bothered to think for himself.

thumper723
July 30, 2007, 05:29 PM
Kelly, you wont' boil your blood.

I've done explosive decompression at 36K, which is MUCH more violent than just hitting the cabin dump/outflow valves. Blodd did not boil. I did let out one helluva fart though, along with the rest on the chamber ride.

Are there risks? Yep. Probably a lot less than introducing any sort of chemical agent into the cabin.

The best part, is it is insidious, and they won't even realize it. Just need an override on the masks dropping.

hrgrisso
July 30, 2007, 05:40 PM
Yes the air is thinner up there. However it's not thin enough to cause any damage to the Air Craft or it's occupants. I've heard it before, sorry no source, but when I was purusing my private pilots license (piper cubs etc.) we talked about depressurization. They said in the little planes were never pressurized and even depressurization in big planes wasn't an issue. People's ears will pop and some may get light headed and pass out. To the best of my knowledge, no serious injury.

rritter
July 30, 2007, 05:40 PM
You maybe could even let the masks drop when depressurizing the cabin. A hijacker would have the choice of grabbing a mask (which limits his mobility) or pass out in 30 seconds or so. Somebody tied to his seat by an oxygen mask isn't going to be able to do much damage.

zeroskillz
July 30, 2007, 05:42 PM
They say an armed society is a polite society
;)

The Law
July 30, 2007, 05:43 PM
Wouldn't allowing CCWs on airplanes be far cheaper than hiring and training a slew of Air Marshals? This just seems way more cost effective.

The "gun free zone" policy has been shown to be a fallacy. Why reinforce it?

obxned
July 30, 2007, 05:46 PM
Armed pilots would make flying a whole lot safer. It is difficult to hijack a plane when access to the cockpit is fatal.

TallPine
July 30, 2007, 05:56 PM
Seperate the cockpit from the cab with an air-tight seal....(not new technology to airplanes, everything is air tight) and give the pilots the ability to 'gas' the cab if need be. Nothing like a bunch of laughing gas to stop a BG dead in his tracks. You could even use tear gas, or some sort of knock out gas or something. Hell, I'm no anesthesiologist...but I'm sure they aren't all that harmful.

Yeah, that's why you can buy that stuff at Walgreens and use it to get high anytime you want :rolleyes:

7GenTex
July 30, 2007, 05:58 PM
Every adult passenger gets a handgun and ONE bullet :D

jefnvk
July 30, 2007, 06:15 PM
One last thought I have, it is my understanding that in an airplane, or on a ship, the captain/pilot is in complete control of everything that goes on. Is this correct?

What if the pilot says no guns?

shooter503
July 30, 2007, 07:12 PM
What is never mentioned is that the armored cockpit door was never, not one little bit or for one moment, ever considered as a way to save the aircraft. The point of the armored door is that the aircraft cannot be taken over and used as a missile to hit a target on the ground - WHICH MAY JUST BE FILLED WITH POLITICIANS.

The cargo in the hold of an aircraft is not fully examined. The personnel who enter the airport through the gates that you never see are not examined. The security clearances for the people with accesss to aircraft are a joke.

An aircraft can be destroyed in flight by a bomb in the cargo area or the passenger cabin. Hijackers can still take over the passenger area of an aircraft with the crudest of weapons. NOBODY CARES ABOUT THAT. A passenger is expendable, the crew is expendable, the aircraft is expendable. The number one job of an Air Marshall is to protect the cockpit, why? Hidden in the fog of all the claimed security measures is that the only reason we have security is to protect "important" people on the ground. That is the real reason for armored cockpit doors.

Stevie-Ray
July 30, 2007, 08:07 PM
I mean, the bad guy says "I have a bomb; if you don't give me the controls I'm going to blow up the plane," and you're just going to let him fly it? Oh, cool, now he gets to blow up the plane while killing hundreds or thousands more! So, instead, "he says he has a bomb -- get him!"

I'm entirely okay with armed pilots.

Hell, I'm entirely okay with armed passengers!I agree 100%. Even if it doesn't mean training for everyone that wants to carry aboard airliners.

Blackbeard
July 30, 2007, 08:29 PM
Possibly, but what if people with CCW permits were allowed to carry on board? If the terrorists have no idea how many people could be armed on the flight, it kind of puts a crimp in their plans. For all they'd know, everyone on the flight could be armed, including the flight crew. I think that would have served as an effective deterrent.

I based my statement on the assumption that CCW on airplanes is just a pipe dream. It'll never happen. Call me a pessimist.

Allowing CCW on the plane may have made it more difficult, but still not impossible. We can assume that if it were allowed, the terrorists would all be armed, much better shots than your average CCW, and would have the CCWs outnumbered.

Blackbeard
July 30, 2007, 08:35 PM
And how, exactly, would the plans have differed? As I recall, there were Air Marshalls prior to 9/11, just not as any. How did the terrorists know that there wouldn't be one on their particular flight?

I'm afraid we'll never know if they had a contingency plan. What do you suppose an air marshall would do with 5 guys who say they have a bomb? Would he risk shooting one and possibly allow them to blow up the plane? Keep in mind that in pre-9/11 world the policy was to cooperate and everyone gets out alive.

Stevie-Ray
July 30, 2007, 08:35 PM
We can assume that if it were allowed, the terrorists would all be armed, much better shots than your average CCW, and would have the CCWs outnumbered.Methinks you assume too much. Why don't we just lay down our arms and give in to the terrorists now and save needless bloodshed?

Blackbeard
July 30, 2007, 08:43 PM
Methinks you assume too much. Why don't we just lay down our arms and give in to the terrorists now and save needless bloodshed?

If you were Osama Bin Laden and the US allowed weapons on planes, wouldn't' you choose 5 or more CCW holders to do your bidding?

Look, I'm not advocating gun-free zones. I'm not saying CCW shouldn't apply to airlines. I'm only saying that it's pointless to go through all the hyper-security procedures to keep guns off of planes, if you're going to put one on there anyway.

I'm fully in favor of screening the passengers instead of the luggage. Of course, that'll never happen, either. Airlines would never assume that kind of liability.

harrygunner
July 30, 2007, 09:14 PM
I'm saddened that people still think pilots should be helpless.

The cockpit had a value equal to the people and structures targeted on the ground.

An overtaken cockpit turns the jetliner into a guided missile. So, the cockpit must be strongly guarded at every level.

I had an airline pilot as a training partner during a practice session once. He was a good shot.

It occurred to me that the hand-eye coordination needed to fly a jetliner makes for good shooters.

I'd feel better knowing that guy was up front with his HK 40 S&W.

ArfinGreebly
July 30, 2007, 10:04 PM
I must agree that it's impossible to defend airplanes.

That's why the hijackers spent months hijacking Israeli planes before they hijacked ours.

That's why we lose six or eight Israeli planes every month to hijackers.

You know what gags me?

Israel is interested only in being effective at airline security.

We've got Political Correctness, pandering, and government authority all prioritized above actual, real, working security.

Israel is effective.

We are massively inconvenient, expensive, arrogant, and lucky.

We were all set to outsource port security so we could peek at some files.

Yet we insist on putting the most inefficient, ineffective, bumbling agencies we can in charge of "keeping air travel safe" here at home.

How about we outsource air travel security to the Israelis?

Or maybe "effective" was never the objective?

mlandman
July 30, 2007, 11:17 PM
Airline security is all about politics. You can not afford to get caught by something that was in the press.

We must take off our shoes because Mr. Reed hid C4 in his. Same with lighters. I check my sidearm when I travel to states that allow. One time I had 25 rounds of 9mm +P. That's over 2 oz. of pistol powder, but they found my Bic lighter in the same bag and took it away! :what:

What has the bomb squad been bringing along in their trucks for the last 20 years in case they need to blow something up? You guessed it, binary liquid explosives! We NOW can't carry mouthwash because some folks in GB planned to use binary explosives. :banghead:

If you book less than 24 hours before flight, you get screened and wanded. I travel 2 to 4 times a month for work, generally with no lead time and get wanded regularly. Is the idea that after 18 months of planning and training, bad guys forget to book their flight till the night before? :fire:

Most planes have 40,000 lbs of unchecked cargo and I can not bring a bottle of water? :what:

It's just pathetic! :cuss:

Aguila Blanca
July 30, 2007, 11:42 PM
I may be in the minority here, ...
I think it is probably safe to say you've got that part right.

CTPistol
July 30, 2007, 11:43 PM
More pilots than you think are armed today!

:)

No, they dont come out of the cockpit to handle any situations...they are there to guard the cockpit.

You wont see another 9/11 hijackers with boxcutter thing ever happen again, regardless of armed pilots.....

9/11 happened due to lax attitudes. Just let a group of 5 terrorists start acting up and grabbing peoples throats on any airliner I (we) ride on today. Myself and probabaly 90% of the other pax will stomp them to death in minutes. None of us will ever forget 9/11

The "overtake the airplane" thing is done folks, stop worrying about carrying your pistol onboard in order to play hero....worry more about the plastic exposives tucked neatly underneath in baggage or the shoulder launched rocket 1.5 miles off the end of the runway --- theres your potential threats.

Ready2Defend
July 30, 2007, 11:46 PM
If the plane depressurizes the O2 masks drop, suddenly everyone who wants to stay conscious is teathered to their o2 mask. Hard to rush a cockpit then.

On CCW in the air: I like the idea and believe it would work. But our mindset is also different and it is the change in mindset that is making a bigger difference.

I think that while 9/11 is a recent memory it is unlikly for a jury to award damages for a pilot not opening the cockpit even though hostages are killed.

JeffKnox
July 30, 2007, 11:50 PM
You're elitists just like Rosie and Hillary.
Allow CCW's on the plane -
Yeah, but only specially trained CCW's -
But what about terrorists getting CCW's?
Oh, we'll have to do special, double-secret background checks on the specially trained CCW's.

GET BACK TO THE FOUNDATION!

Guns are tools.
People commit crime and acts of stupidity.
Licensing and training has NO effect on crime and stupidity!
Training MIGHT increase effectiveness in a fight but it has NO impact on criminal behavior or acts of stupidity.
Requiring a permit to bear arms is a violation of basic human rights.
Advocating special training to bear arms is an affront to human intelligence.
States which require NO TRAINING have no more problems with acts of stupidity (sometimes called "accidents") than states which require extensive training.
Some of the stupidest mistakes I've ever seen or heard of involving guns were committed by the most highly trained individuals (because they allowed themselves to become TOO comfortable with guns or too trusting of others.)

I'm not saying that training is a bad thing. I'm a big advocate of training. I'm saying that MANDATORY Training in order to obtain government permission to exercise a Constitutionally guaranteed, basic human Right is just plain wrong.

Either guns are too dangerous for average people to own and carry or they are not.

Stop buying into the idiotic argument that background checks and mandatory training serve any purpose in making concealed carry safer - they don't!

It's not mandatory licensing, training, and testing that keeps you safe on the road, it's your situational awareness and ability to dodge. Those idiots got drivers licenses, could they drive any worse if they hadn't?

The only kind of mandatory training that makes any sense would be if all elementary, middle, and high school students were taught firearms safety as part of their standard curriculum.

I must admit that mandatory hunter safety education helps reduce stupidity in the field, but in the field, the gun is already in hand and the individual is actively seeking something to shoot - much easier to be stupid out of ignorance. With CC, the gun is tucked away and only an idiot is going to shuck it when he shouldn't and only someone several steps below an idiot is going to pop a cap when he shouldn't and there's just no amount of training that can fix that kind of stupid.

I don't mean to lecture, but come on guys; you're not that special.

Everything anyone needs to know about gun safety, they knew by kindergarten:

The bullet comes out here
You pull this to make it go "Bang"
Whatever it's pointed at when it goes bang is killed or destroyed.

Every 5-year old knows that so everything beyond that is just practice and "what if's".

The rules for CC go a little further:

1. Don't pull it unless you really have to
2. Don't point it unless you're prepared to kill what you're pointing at
and
3. Don't even consider carrying unless you are confident that you can and will kill someone if necessary and are willing to accept that responsibility.

A responsible person will seek training and practice to reach and maintain that comfort level (which can vary greatly between individuals), an irresponsible individual or a criminal will behave irresponsibly or criminally regardless of the laws or rules.

Gun control only controls the guns of people who don't need government help controling their guns.

CCW permits, mandatory training, and background checks are all just variations of gun control and they're all wasteful symptoms of mistrust and elitism.

Rights can not be "permitted".

Jeff Knox
The Firearms Coalition

xd9fan
July 31, 2007, 12:04 AM
I'm in favor of of sealing the cockpit, and feeding it with its own air supply. Hijackers try to take over, pilots release a gas to knock everyone out until they can land. Minus any sort of reaction to the gas, no one gets hurt.

I dunno, maybe such a gas isn't possible. Works in my mind though.

Good God
Can't we law abiding americans just go about our business with our CC, instead of a color code of worry from Govt and being told to just go about our business while Big Govt takes care of everything?

Gee which one is compatible with a free society?
Gee which one is cheaper and more effective?

Pretty sure my life is worth the same on the ground as in the air. I had no idea self-protection was an ineffective concept once one is in the air?

def4pos8
July 31, 2007, 10:58 PM
WOW! Y'all sure are capable of providing me with some entertaining reading!! :what:

I only noticed a single post that admitted to being an aviator.

I am an aviator in addition to a user of firearms. Ditto one of my sons. He is also an airline pilot.

An air transport pilot is the Master of his vessel. Your Rights stop at the cabin door. He/she might welcome armed passengers but company policies generally prohibit this.

Airline pilots are informed of the general tactics to be employed by air marshalls -- not specifics.

Cockpit doors/bulkheads have been upgraded to resist firearms.

A program exists to arm aircrews. My son will qualify under this program shortly. The bad guys, if they think about it at all, know that it is possible that the aircrew is armed. :scrutiny: It's the same deterrent effect that extends a "safety halo" to non-CCW citizens.

Regarding pressurization issues: aircraft can endure perforation of the pressure cabin without serious adverse affects to the cargo (passengers). It's just a guess on my part, but I imagine that the aircrew will execute an emergency descent after the first shot. Life in the cabin will be interesting as everyone learns precisely how fast an air transport can descend. . . .

Calm down folks. If you conceive a certain scenario, learn as much as you can regarding the activity before permitting your imagination to take off like a varmint bullet! :banghead:

another okie
August 4, 2007, 03:02 PM
This discussion shows you how true it is that if you ban something, in ten years people will forget it was ever legal. In twenty years people will deny it is possible or has ever been done.

Until the hijacking craze passengers were not searched or even questioned. No one checked your ID. You just showed your ticket and walked onto the plane. People who went armed in their daily lives (a small number back then) went armed on planes, too. No one talked about it; it was normal.

xjchief
August 4, 2007, 04:34 PM
I too flew for 15 years as a corporate pilot and then as an airline pilot. If you don't think pilots are capable of handling a firearm but you'll jump on their plane and let them take you for a ride over 6 miles above the earth at around three quarters of the speed of sound in all kinds of weather then I'd say you may be the one who shouldn't be trusted with a firearm.:neener:

def4pos8
August 5, 2007, 12:26 AM
xjchief: good point! I had considered all that but felt I was beating up on 'em enough already!! Two-dimensional travelers don't do well on the Z vector. ;) I wonder how the cargo would do with about thirty seconds' worth of negative two G!?!!?? :neener:

Archer1945
August 5, 2007, 01:32 AM
xjchief and def4pos8: Most of these people would be surprised to find out what passenger planes are really capable of. They don't realize these planes are flown well below their real capability so the passengers won't get upset by quick manuevers. Which is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 flights. It's amazing what some extra G's will do to someone not strapped in their seats, especially if those G's are in a very unexpected direction. I'd much rather have to explain to the FAA why I suddenly decided to do aerobatics with my 767 than have families informed they had just lost a loved one to a terrorist.

As for allowing CCW on airplanes,NO WAY, not with out special certification. I just finished my CCW class and while I'm not the best shooter I'm far from a poor one but compared to the others in the class I'm an Olympic Gold Medalist/IDPA/IPSC Master all rolled in to one. What's bad is it wouldn't surprise me to learn most CCW classes are this way, a small minority who can shoot and the rest who can hit the broad side of a barn.

CNYCacher
August 5, 2007, 01:45 AM
If all [CCWers] were [allowed to carry on a plane] that would scare me. How much training have they had? Did they qualify? How well can they shoot (not directly related to how much training they had)? Having a CCW doesn't make you a cop as is often repeated here.

:confused:

I was a Federal LEO for 27 years

:rolleyes: oh I see. . .


I think we need to forget about doors between the flight deck and cabin altogether. They are merely a holdover from the first plane design, which was a metal tube. You take the first plane, add a plastic door and you got today. Then they talk about making the doors stronger. I say forget the stinkin door. Make the pilots enter through the front of the cockpit. Make it impossible to get from the cabin to the flight deck without exiting the plane first.

All communication between the cabin and the flight deck is done through intercom. At the first sign of a takeover attempt, the pilots hit the panic button, which disables the intercom totally, and it can not be re-enabled until after the plane is on the ground. This removes the possibility of the hijacker being able to coerce the pilot be threatening the crew. Pilots will be trained to hit the panic button no matter what at the first sign of a hijavking, alert the ground, and land ASAP into a waiting SWAT team.

Remove the stupid door.

Orthonym
August 5, 2007, 03:06 AM
That aside, I must say:

D00dz! I believe that, from some time in the 1930s up until 1964 or thenabouts, airline pilots were REQUIRED to be armed, if the airplane was carrying the U.S. Mail. It was called "the Mail Gun" and they mostly complained about it. I think that Ernest K. Gann, in his novel "Fate is the Hunter", recounted how glad the airline pilots were in the late '30s when their management negotiated with the Post Office to allow them to unbuckle the gun belts, once the plane was airborne.

IA_farmboy
August 5, 2007, 03:51 AM
Arm the pilots? Of course! Most of those fine ladies and gentleman are former military. These people have gone through all kinds of training and background checks to get the job they have. I'd hope they take their job of getting us safely from point A to point B seriously, that should include dealing with potential hijackers in a lethal manner if needed.

The pilots and other crew (let's not forget there is more than pilot and first officer to make it fly) don't have to be armed with firearms. Stun guns, handcuffs, and pepper spray might be good ideas. (Maybe not the pepper spray, close quarters and all.) If they are armed with a firearm they should be loaded with ammunition that is unlikely to punch a hole through a bulkhead or damage vital equipment. (A round through a O2 tank might make for a very bad day.)

I've heard there have been some very successful tests with new ammunition that, while still very lethal, will fall to bits when it hits metal. I here the Air Marshals have been asking for this ammunition as they don't want to have to risk losing pressurization in the aircraft while subduing a bad guy.

With that in mind I'm not sure I want people to go onto planes armed. Just like going to a sporting event, a bar, or any other place where there is many people in a tight space and alcohol is available there is security checking for weapons. I don't want some yahoo to check if his "Glock 7" is on safe in the middle of the flight and accidentally putting a hole in the window.

I remember when going to a soccer game that the security was looking for glass containers, whole fruit (like apples and oranges), or other items that could be thrown onto the field. (Maybe that is why I couldn't bring my water bottle onto the plane, they were afraid I'd throw it at the attendant after blowing the whistle. :banghead:) They were looking out for things that could injure others. A plane should not be any different.

Unlike other "gun free zones" in an airplane someone isn't going to suddenly appear with a shotgun while cruising at mach 0.8 over the north Atlantic. What they will have to deal with are people threatening others with improvised weapons or shear strength. Taking firearms from immediate use of the passengers should not be considered putting them at risk of another shooter.

I remember a friend of mine, older than myself, mentioning that he used to bring his rifle on board a plane while going on hunting trips. While I was amazed at first that he was allowed to do such a thing I realized what little risk it posed and now I don't see a problem with that. Treat the transport of a firearm in a plane like they do when traveling in a car, it must be unloaded and locked in a case, once on board it is to be placed in storage until you leave. That way the firearm is where you can keep track of it, since it is a valuable item much like a laptop, and you can then arm yourself as soon as you get off the plane.

While we can talk about this all we like I doubt the powers that be will all of the sudden think sanely about airline security.

Hacker15E
August 5, 2007, 07:24 AM
I think we need to forget about doors between the flight deck and cabin altogether. They are merely a holdover from the first plane design, which was a metal tube. You take the first plane, add a plastic door and you got today. Then they talk about making the doors stronger. I say forget the stinkin door. Make the pilots enter through the front of the cockpit. Make it impossible to get from the cabin to the flight deck without exiting the plane first.

All communication between the cabin and the flight deck is done through intercom. At the first sign of a takeover attempt, the pilots hit the panic button, which disables the intercom totally, and it can not be re-enabled until after the plane is on the ground. This removes the possibility of the hijacker being able to coerce the pilot be threatening the crew. Pilots will be trained to hit the panic button no matter what at the first sign of a hijavking, alert the ground, and land ASAP into a waiting SWAT team.

Hmmmm....several things here.

1) The first airplane was a metal tube? Last time I checked, the Wright Flyer was wood and fabric...and not a tube.

2) Make it impossible to get from the cabin to the cockpit? Seriously? Guess the pilots never again get to use the restroom during flight, stretch their legs, or get some food/drink from the galley. When both pilots keel over due to food poisoning (Airplane, anyone? :) ) I guess nobody from the cabin will be able to go give them a hand.

3) What is this "panic button" of which you speak?? It cuts off an intercomm? How exactly would that save lives? "Hit the panic button at the first sign of a takeover attempt"? Circular logic here...if there was no way to physically get into the cockpit, then why would it be necessary to blindly hit a panic button and land?

Overall, I completely don't understand the logic here -- it's very non-High Road. The same people on this board who say "arm yourself, the police can't be everywhere" advocate NOT arming pilots and leaving it up to a SWAT team after landing?

The Captain is the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft. If he needs to be armed to ensure that he can exercise that authority, so be it. As a poster earlier said, pilots are trained and trusted enough to carry hundreds of souls in their hands at a time...what makes them so unable to be trusted with a firearm to defend themselves -- and their ship -- with?

If you enjoyed reading about "Armed airline pilots" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!