twoblink
September 10, 2003, 03:59 AM
So? Would you all personally feel safer if the pilot(s) were armed?
Should Pilots be armed? [POLL]
If you enjoyed reading about "Should Pilots be armed? [POLL]" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
twoblink
September 10, 2003, 04:02 AM
Article from Newsmax.com
Jets Remain Vulnerable, Feds Block Guns in Cockpit
Jeff Louderback
Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2003
Two years have passed since the attacks of Sept. 11, which spurred Congress to authorize pilots to carry firearms.
But as America remembers the horrific hijackings of Sept. 11, the U.S. government has impeded efforts to arm U.S. pilots, leaving civilian airlines still vulnerable to armed hijackers.
Today, fewer than 150 pilots are approved to carry guns, according to Bob Lambert, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance (APSA).
Though Congress approved the firearms program for pilots, it left its implementation to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Critics say the TSA is not administering the program but rather is actively opposing its implementation.
About 10,000 pilots should be carrying firearms in the cockpit by now, the APSA said during a recent press conference at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
“It almost seems like the bureaucrats in Washington want another hijacking,?an American Airlines pilot told NewsMax.
Pilot groups are urging President Bush to order the TSA to move more expediently in arming airline pilots as a last line of defense against terrorists.
"The president has it in his power to invoke an executive order to allow volunteer airline pilots to carry lethal weapons to defend the cockpits of our nation's airliners with expedited training," Lambert said. "We call on President Bush to end the delay and take steps to make our skies safe again."
Security Gap on Planes
Last November, Congress approved firearms for pilots after pilots argued that air marshals alone provided inadequate security.
Air marshals cover only a small percentage of the 35,000 daily flights in the United States. TSA stopped the hiring of air marshals in May to reduce a $1 billion budget shortfall.
As the security gap becomes more apparent to Americans, it remains obvious to terrorists. Intelligence agencies report continued interest by al-Qaeda in hijacking civilian airline jets.
But this time the terrorist may forgo sharpened instruments like razors and box-cutters, and may use guns smuggled by supportive airport workers.
During debates in Congress, the TSA opposed arming pilots. Improved airport security, bulletproof cockpit doors and more vigilant passengers were better security precautions, TSA officials argued.
Congress approved the firearm training program, and TSA officials agreed to cooperate. TSA authorized the first 44 pilots as flight deck officers last April, and the second class was completed in July.
TSA Doesn’t Trust Pilots
TSA officials claim that they are taking appropriate action to arm trained pilots within their budget constraints. The department quickly created a training program and application process for pilots, and now that those elements are established, the pace of training will accelerate, according to TSA spokesman Brian Turmail.
Too much haste, the organization cautioned, could lead to psychologically unstable or poorly trained pilots carrying guns. This would cause more risk than protection for passengers, TSA officials say.
"Most travelers support the arming of pilots, but they also expect that it be done right," said James M. Loy, TSA administrator. "That means making certain the pilots who volunteer are capable of handling the law enforcement responsibilities and weapons given to them by the federal government."
The process of getting approved to carry a firearm is so difficult many pilots are not even bothering to apply.
First, pilots must fill out a lengthy application more consistent with applying for the CIA than seeking a firearms permit.
Once applicants volunteer for the training program, they then must pass lengthy background screenings and psychological tests.
Then, of course, the training program ?which is rigorous and includes hand-to-hand combat and marksmanship lessons ?must be successfully completed.
Classes of 48 are booked through the end of September, TSA officials say. The agency plans to double the number of classes in January.
After successfully completing the weeklong course, pilots are deputized as federal law enforcement officers with the jurisdiction of a tightly secured cockpit.
Even after getting authorized, the armed pilots must comply with stringent rules about carrying the guns and attend additional refresher courses each year.
Pilots say that the TSA is discouraging them from signing up for the training program by requiring unusual background and psychological checks and holding the training at a single remote site.
40,000 Volunteers Turned Away
"We estimate 40,000 pilots would volunteer if it were properly managed by the TSA," Lambert said.
Some question whether the psychological tests ?which include an interview with a psychologist, partly to determine if a pilot is able to kill if necessary ?should be required.
Unlike other law enforcement officers, pilots are not authorized to carry their guns in ordinary holsters. Instead, they keep the firearms in locked boxes kept in the cockpit during flight.
Because of their limited jurisdiction ?the cockpit ?pilots will not encounter the multitude of situations that a federal law enforcement officer would face. Pilots are permitted to use their guns only in the cockpit ?and only if terrorists enter the cockpit.
Thus the reason some people believe that the psychological screening used on FBI agents is unnecessary for pilots.
Other decisions by the TSA have presented barriers to the training program. The organization fired Willie Ellison, who was head of the TSA firearms training academy and was highly praised by the first class of 44 graduates. Ellison was terminated for “unacceptable performance and conduct.?House Aviation Subcommittee Chair John Mica, R-Fla., has promised an investigation regarding the firing.
Not long after the first class of armed pilots graduated from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga., the TSA relocated the program to Artesia, N.M.
The experienced instructors at the former military base in Georgia, where employees of several federal agencies receive firearms training, were given the option of quitting their jobs or moving their families to a desolate town that is 186 miles from the nearest major city, Lubbock, Texas.
Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., is one legislator who believes the pilot group's complaints are justified.
"Pilots volunteering to receive this program's training are not receiving it in a fair and timely way," Bunning said. "TSA must do better."
Jets Remain Vulnerable, Feds Block Guns in Cockpit
Jeff Louderback
Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2003
Two years have passed since the attacks of Sept. 11, which spurred Congress to authorize pilots to carry firearms.
But as America remembers the horrific hijackings of Sept. 11, the U.S. government has impeded efforts to arm U.S. pilots, leaving civilian airlines still vulnerable to armed hijackers.
Today, fewer than 150 pilots are approved to carry guns, according to Bob Lambert, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance (APSA).
Though Congress approved the firearms program for pilots, it left its implementation to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Critics say the TSA is not administering the program but rather is actively opposing its implementation.
About 10,000 pilots should be carrying firearms in the cockpit by now, the APSA said during a recent press conference at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
“It almost seems like the bureaucrats in Washington want another hijacking,?an American Airlines pilot told NewsMax.
Pilot groups are urging President Bush to order the TSA to move more expediently in arming airline pilots as a last line of defense against terrorists.
"The president has it in his power to invoke an executive order to allow volunteer airline pilots to carry lethal weapons to defend the cockpits of our nation's airliners with expedited training," Lambert said. "We call on President Bush to end the delay and take steps to make our skies safe again."
Security Gap on Planes
Last November, Congress approved firearms for pilots after pilots argued that air marshals alone provided inadequate security.
Air marshals cover only a small percentage of the 35,000 daily flights in the United States. TSA stopped the hiring of air marshals in May to reduce a $1 billion budget shortfall.
As the security gap becomes more apparent to Americans, it remains obvious to terrorists. Intelligence agencies report continued interest by al-Qaeda in hijacking civilian airline jets.
But this time the terrorist may forgo sharpened instruments like razors and box-cutters, and may use guns smuggled by supportive airport workers.
During debates in Congress, the TSA opposed arming pilots. Improved airport security, bulletproof cockpit doors and more vigilant passengers were better security precautions, TSA officials argued.
Congress approved the firearm training program, and TSA officials agreed to cooperate. TSA authorized the first 44 pilots as flight deck officers last April, and the second class was completed in July.
TSA Doesn’t Trust Pilots
TSA officials claim that they are taking appropriate action to arm trained pilots within their budget constraints. The department quickly created a training program and application process for pilots, and now that those elements are established, the pace of training will accelerate, according to TSA spokesman Brian Turmail.
Too much haste, the organization cautioned, could lead to psychologically unstable or poorly trained pilots carrying guns. This would cause more risk than protection for passengers, TSA officials say.
"Most travelers support the arming of pilots, but they also expect that it be done right," said James M. Loy, TSA administrator. "That means making certain the pilots who volunteer are capable of handling the law enforcement responsibilities and weapons given to them by the federal government."
The process of getting approved to carry a firearm is so difficult many pilots are not even bothering to apply.
First, pilots must fill out a lengthy application more consistent with applying for the CIA than seeking a firearms permit.
Once applicants volunteer for the training program, they then must pass lengthy background screenings and psychological tests.
Then, of course, the training program ?which is rigorous and includes hand-to-hand combat and marksmanship lessons ?must be successfully completed.
Classes of 48 are booked through the end of September, TSA officials say. The agency plans to double the number of classes in January.
After successfully completing the weeklong course, pilots are deputized as federal law enforcement officers with the jurisdiction of a tightly secured cockpit.
Even after getting authorized, the armed pilots must comply with stringent rules about carrying the guns and attend additional refresher courses each year.
Pilots say that the TSA is discouraging them from signing up for the training program by requiring unusual background and psychological checks and holding the training at a single remote site.
40,000 Volunteers Turned Away
"We estimate 40,000 pilots would volunteer if it were properly managed by the TSA," Lambert said.
Some question whether the psychological tests ?which include an interview with a psychologist, partly to determine if a pilot is able to kill if necessary ?should be required.
Unlike other law enforcement officers, pilots are not authorized to carry their guns in ordinary holsters. Instead, they keep the firearms in locked boxes kept in the cockpit during flight.
Because of their limited jurisdiction ?the cockpit ?pilots will not encounter the multitude of situations that a federal law enforcement officer would face. Pilots are permitted to use their guns only in the cockpit ?and only if terrorists enter the cockpit.
Thus the reason some people believe that the psychological screening used on FBI agents is unnecessary for pilots.
Other decisions by the TSA have presented barriers to the training program. The organization fired Willie Ellison, who was head of the TSA firearms training academy and was highly praised by the first class of 44 graduates. Ellison was terminated for “unacceptable performance and conduct.?House Aviation Subcommittee Chair John Mica, R-Fla., has promised an investigation regarding the firing.
Not long after the first class of armed pilots graduated from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga., the TSA relocated the program to Artesia, N.M.
The experienced instructors at the former military base in Georgia, where employees of several federal agencies receive firearms training, were given the option of quitting their jobs or moving their families to a desolate town that is 186 miles from the nearest major city, Lubbock, Texas.
Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., is one legislator who believes the pilot group's complaints are justified.
"Pilots volunteering to receive this program's training are not receiving it in a fair and timely way," Bunning said. "TSA must do better."
4570Rick
September 10, 2003, 05:29 AM
First, I want to apologize to Standing Wolf for borrowing his line, but
FIRE MINETA
Second, until all the comercial aircraft in the world are built and or retro-fitted to have a solid bullet proof doorless bulkhead and separate access for the crew from the ground only, FAA...QUIT DRAGGING YOUR FEET, TRAIN THE CREW, AND ARM THEM!!! :cuss:
FIRE MINETA
Second, until all the comercial aircraft in the world are built and or retro-fitted to have a solid bullet proof doorless bulkhead and separate access for the crew from the ground only, FAA...QUIT DRAGGING YOUR FEET, TRAIN THE CREW, AND ARM THEM!!! :cuss:
Stickjockey
September 10, 2003, 11:27 PM
Then...
ARM THE PASSENGERS!
ARM THE PASSENGERS!
Moparmike
September 10, 2003, 11:35 PM
Of course they should be. If I trust them to fly me 35,000 feet above the earth hurtling at 600mph along with 100-400 other people in a machine built by the lowest bidder with hundreds of thousands of moving parts for a distance of 200-7000 miles, in a cockpit with over 1000 dials, guages, switches, monitors, buttons, and knobs, why the bloody hell wouldnt I trust such a person who already has my life in his very hands with a handgun? I dont care if it is a Ruger Single Six in .22lr or a Smith and Wesson 500 magnum or even a full auto Uzi wearing a full tac-vest with a dozen mags strapped to his chest, it spells saftey for the whole damned plane and damnation for anyone who dares challenge the other end of that gun.
Stupid goobermint, always looking for ways to make me less secure and less free to express my (insert diety or nature)-given rights.:banghead: :cuss: :fire:
Stupid goobermint, always looking for ways to make me less secure and less free to express my (insert diety or nature)-given rights.:banghead: :cuss: :fire:
C.R.Sam
September 10, 2003, 11:52 PM
A. Yes....rearm the flight crews.
B. One does not have to have access to the flight deck to bring down an airliner. Access to the flight deck required only to use it to strike a specific target.
Sam
B. One does not have to have access to the flight deck to bring down an airliner. Access to the flight deck required only to use it to strike a specific target.
Sam
4570Rick
September 11, 2003, 02:24 AM
B. One does not have to have access to the flight deck to bring down an airliner. Access to the flight deck required only to use it to strike a specific target.
Point well taken.
My second point only pertains to the taking and using of comercial aircraft as WMD's and nothing else.
If one were bent on removing an aircraft in mid-air, our news media has given tutorials on the proper way to bypass airport security:banghead: and it dosen't have anything to do with smuggling contraband in the bottles of a nursing infant. :rolleyes:
Point well taken.
My second point only pertains to the taking and using of comercial aircraft as WMD's and nothing else.
If one were bent on removing an aircraft in mid-air, our news media has given tutorials on the proper way to bypass airport security:banghead: and it dosen't have anything to do with smuggling contraband in the bottles of a nursing infant. :rolleyes:
NeverAgain26
September 11, 2003, 04:57 AM
They should be armed if they know how to shoot. I have seen too many LEO's armed who could not hit the side of a barn.
For that matter, I wish I could be armed while flying :)
NA26
For that matter, I wish I could be armed while flying :)
NA26
Dilettante
September 11, 2003, 06:22 AM
Huh. I hadn't thought of this.
Flight time from here to San Diego is about 90min. Just about enough time to explain the basics of a revolver, and give each passenger who want it some training.
A longer flight would be better; a direct coast-to-coast is about 5 hours, which gives you time for breakfast, a little more lecture, early shots, then lunch, and after-lunch range time. After you check the guns and put ammo and brass away you're just about ready to sit down for final descent and the only martini.
Might have to redesign the cabin a bit; probably shooting would be on the lower deck, and not everyone could come down at once. You might have to lower the baggage limit.
Beat the hell out of most movies they show! ;)
Flight time from here to San Diego is about 90min. Just about enough time to explain the basics of a revolver, and give each passenger who want it some training.
A longer flight would be better; a direct coast-to-coast is about 5 hours, which gives you time for breakfast, a little more lecture, early shots, then lunch, and after-lunch range time. After you check the guns and put ammo and brass away you're just about ready to sit down for final descent and the only martini.
Might have to redesign the cabin a bit; probably shooting would be on the lower deck, and not everyone could come down at once. You might have to lower the baggage limit.
Beat the hell out of most movies they show! ;)
T.Stahl
September 11, 2003, 02:37 PM
Interesting to see how many people would volunteer to act as backstops.
Arming pilots with guns is ONE possible answer, it is by far not the BEST.
Arming pilots with guns is ONE possible answer, it is by far not the BEST.
Tom C.
September 11, 2003, 03:09 PM
The obvious answer is YES. Which would you prefer: the possibility of accidently shooting an innocent passenger, or the necessity of having an F-16 shoot the a/c down? Easy answer.
Fire all the a**holes who are dragging their feet and trying to prevent arming of pilots. Congress has spoken, the President has signed the legislation, and the Transportation Department is doing everything it can to prevent it. Fire them!
Fire all the a**holes who are dragging their feet and trying to prevent arming of pilots. Congress has spoken, the President has signed the legislation, and the Transportation Department is doing everything it can to prevent it. Fire them!
sm
September 11, 2003, 04:46 PM
CRSam nailed it-
Re-arm the pilots
Let attendants, be armed as well...As Sam says don't have to have access to cockpit, to down a plane.
I'm also for LEO, Military and those of us with CCW and the like having firearms onboard. Planes, Trains, Automobiles...basically NO gun laws, basically Sam puts it best...ya never know the when or were of an encounter...keep the BG's guessing and society polite.
Re-arm the pilots
Let attendants, be armed as well...As Sam says don't have to have access to cockpit, to down a plane.
I'm also for LEO, Military and those of us with CCW and the like having firearms onboard. Planes, Trains, Automobiles...basically NO gun laws, basically Sam puts it best...ya never know the when or were of an encounter...keep the BG's guessing and society polite.
mercedesrules
September 11, 2003, 05:06 PM
(re1973) I'm also for LEO, Military and those of us with CCW and the like having firearms onboard. Planes, Trains, Automobiles...basically NO gun laws,
So, which is it, then; only licensed passengers allowed to carry...or all passengers allowed to?
MR
So, which is it, then; only licensed passengers allowed to carry...or all passengers allowed to?
MR
Dilettante
September 11, 2003, 06:15 PM
Interesting to see how many people would volunteer to act as backstops.
Arming pilots with guns is ONE possible answer, it is by far not the BEST.
In America most pilots are ex-military and already have some gun training. If we every do let our pilots go armed they will have to prove they are good shot, and will probably have mandatory practice from time to time.
So no, I don't feel as though I'm volunteering to be a backstop. ;)
(Besides, part of the value of armed pilots is that terrorists will know ahead of time -- YOU CAN'T HIJACK PLANES ANYMORE!!)
I think of arming pilots as PART of the answer--one of many things we can do to prevent the next hijacking.
Last night I had a dream about getting on a plane. They made sure every passenger had a 3-foot steel bar in front of them (with the barf bag and the in-flight magazine). If we got hijacked you were supposed to take out your steel bar and fight. If you ordered an alcoholic drink, they took your steel first.
A safety question -- is there any equipment is the cockpit that could
(1) be critically damaged by a single bullet,
(2) is so crucial to plane operation that it could take down the plane?
If we are serious about arming pilots--and I am--maybe some equipment should have extra protection and extra backups.
Arming pilots with guns is ONE possible answer, it is by far not the BEST.
In America most pilots are ex-military and already have some gun training. If we every do let our pilots go armed they will have to prove they are good shot, and will probably have mandatory practice from time to time.
So no, I don't feel as though I'm volunteering to be a backstop. ;)
(Besides, part of the value of armed pilots is that terrorists will know ahead of time -- YOU CAN'T HIJACK PLANES ANYMORE!!)
I think of arming pilots as PART of the answer--one of many things we can do to prevent the next hijacking.
Last night I had a dream about getting on a plane. They made sure every passenger had a 3-foot steel bar in front of them (with the barf bag and the in-flight magazine). If we got hijacked you were supposed to take out your steel bar and fight. If you ordered an alcoholic drink, they took your steel first.
A safety question -- is there any equipment is the cockpit that could
(1) be critically damaged by a single bullet,
(2) is so crucial to plane operation that it could take down the plane?
If we are serious about arming pilots--and I am--maybe some equipment should have extra protection and extra backups.
saddenedcitizen
September 12, 2003, 06:45 PM
There are several pieces of equipment that would be
rendered 'inoperable' by a single round (am assuming
handgund round here as RPG's/LAWS etc are cumbersome
in tight quarters ;-)
That being said, almost EVERYTHING on the flight deck
is redundent. OK, so you take out the altimiter, we got
another, radio ? no problem there is another, on and on.
As for a single round damaging something the will cause
loss of control - I can't imagine what or how.
Think about it, he!!, we even have 2 pilots !!!
And as far as the 'pilots have to fly the plane !!!!'
PLEASE, can anyone here say autopilot - thought so.
The best description of commercial flying I ever read
was "hour upon hour of sheer boredom punctuated
with moments of sheer panic"
Contrary to what Earl Hollings said - 'it's not ho-hum up there' -,
it really is. Pilots are NOT using brain/both feet/both hands
continually with perspiration streaming down their faces !!
This is more - OH MY G*D - IT'S A GUN hysteria and most
sheeple seem to get their knowledge from movies/TV and
believe all of it.
rendered 'inoperable' by a single round (am assuming
handgund round here as RPG's/LAWS etc are cumbersome
in tight quarters ;-)
That being said, almost EVERYTHING on the flight deck
is redundent. OK, so you take out the altimiter, we got
another, radio ? no problem there is another, on and on.
As for a single round damaging something the will cause
loss of control - I can't imagine what or how.
Think about it, he!!, we even have 2 pilots !!!
And as far as the 'pilots have to fly the plane !!!!'
PLEASE, can anyone here say autopilot - thought so.
The best description of commercial flying I ever read
was "hour upon hour of sheer boredom punctuated
with moments of sheer panic"
Contrary to what Earl Hollings said - 'it's not ho-hum up there' -,
it really is. Pilots are NOT using brain/both feet/both hands
continually with perspiration streaming down their faces !!
This is more - OH MY G*D - IT'S A GUN hysteria and most
sheeple seem to get their knowledge from movies/TV and
believe all of it.
sm
September 12, 2003, 07:00 PM
My first choice: NO GUN LAWS PERIOD!
Since we have silly pcs of paper required -allow the Persons whom have them use the darn things. Anywhere, anytime, anyplace. Hey I adhere to what lendsringer wrote in regard to guns and responsibility to me...one does what one one does...sometimes it agrees with what was enacted.;)
Since we have silly pcs of paper required -allow the Persons whom have them use the darn things. Anywhere, anytime, anyplace. Hey I adhere to what lendsringer wrote in regard to guns and responsibility to me...one does what one one does...sometimes it agrees with what was enacted.;)
C.R.Sam
September 12, 2003, 07:13 PM
In America most pilots are ex-military and already have some gun training. Nit pick. Only rarely in the history of commercial avaition in America have the ex military pilots exceeded the 50 percent rate. And even then, only by a small margin.
Before the disarm madness struck, lots of flight crews and passengers packed. With little or no fuss about it. And successfull hijacks or suicide by plane crash were extremely rare.
Sam
Before the disarm madness struck, lots of flight crews and passengers packed. With little or no fuss about it. And successfull hijacks or suicide by plane crash were extremely rare.
Sam
sm
September 12, 2003, 07:23 PM
Well at one time our society was more "raised" with guns. Heck many of us were encouraged to learn to improve our shooting skills. We actually shot IN schools. Yep, in Gym they'd bring out the .22 rifles and we'd hone our skills. It wasn't until a few years ago I even bothered with CCW permits--didn't need them, we all carried concealed , had been since I was a little feller.
For years pilots had guns on planes. I don't recall any special training. Sam , others chime in here...I'm betting it wasn't required 'cause "everybody grew up knowing how to shoot.
See what taking guns out of shools has done to society? Dang gummit meddlin...arrghh!!
For years pilots had guns on planes. I don't recall any special training. Sam , others chime in here...I'm betting it wasn't required 'cause "everybody grew up knowing how to shoot.
See what taking guns out of shools has done to society? Dang gummit meddlin...arrghh!!
WilderBill
September 12, 2003, 07:42 PM
Anyone who dosen't think that pilot already has your life in his hands isn't thinking about this very deeply.
AZLibertarian
September 12, 2003, 08:01 PM
OK, I've said before that I'm an airline captain at a major national airline. Let me address some of the things in this thread so far....
Second, until all the comercial aircraft in the world are built and or retro-fitted to have a solid bullet proof doorless bulkhead and separate access for the crew from the ground only, FAA...QUIT DRAGGING YOUR FEET, TRAIN THE CREW, AND ARM THEM!!!
The doors of all passenger planes are "bulletproof" today. But we all know that "bulletproof" only goes so far. The fact that the door has been improved does not address some of the other issues remaining with physical protection of the cockpit. The redesign you're suggesting of all airliners would be so expensive as to take it off the table. All this ignores the fact that that there are still many valid reasons for the cockpit door to be opened inflight. The Transportation Security Administration is responsible for the delay in training Federal Flight Deck Officers (the correct term for armed pilots).
ARM THE PASSENGERS!
As qualified as many of us may be, and as much as we may want it to happen, you're more likely to win the lottery than see this happen.
They should be armed if they know how to shoot.
From my discussions with FFDOs, they are thoroughly trained in shooting...well beyond the requirements of hitting someone coming through the cockpit door.
Interesting to see how many people would volunteer to act as backstops.
Face it folks, if a terrorist is successful in commandeering another plane that you happen to be on, you're a dead man walkin'. Being a backstop to whatever misses the armed pilot may make is the least of your worries.
A safety question -- is there any equipment is the cockpit that could
(1) be critically damaged by a single bullet,
(2) is so crucial to plane operation that it could take down the plane?
Short answer is: no. Sure, there are things I'd rather you not shoot up, but the plane would fly fine if you did. The rapid decompression scenarios you've probably seen in movies are just that....largely fiction. A RD is a serious problem, but not necessarily catastrophic.
I think of arming pilots as PART of the answer
You're absolutely right. The screening we all undergo to get to the gate is part of the answer. The Air Marshals are part of the answer. The Guard/Reserve fighters sitting alert waiting to take down a hijacked airplane are part of the answer. A plan for "missile defense" ought to be part of the answer. Keeping the Islamist murderers on the run over in the Mid-East, rather than cooking up schemes here at home is part of the answer. Delaying and obfuscating a viable FFDO program as the Bush adminstration's TSA and DHS are now doing is NOT part of the answer.
Second, until all the comercial aircraft in the world are built and or retro-fitted to have a solid bullet proof doorless bulkhead and separate access for the crew from the ground only, FAA...QUIT DRAGGING YOUR FEET, TRAIN THE CREW, AND ARM THEM!!!
The doors of all passenger planes are "bulletproof" today. But we all know that "bulletproof" only goes so far. The fact that the door has been improved does not address some of the other issues remaining with physical protection of the cockpit. The redesign you're suggesting of all airliners would be so expensive as to take it off the table. All this ignores the fact that that there are still many valid reasons for the cockpit door to be opened inflight. The Transportation Security Administration is responsible for the delay in training Federal Flight Deck Officers (the correct term for armed pilots).
ARM THE PASSENGERS!
As qualified as many of us may be, and as much as we may want it to happen, you're more likely to win the lottery than see this happen.
They should be armed if they know how to shoot.
From my discussions with FFDOs, they are thoroughly trained in shooting...well beyond the requirements of hitting someone coming through the cockpit door.
Interesting to see how many people would volunteer to act as backstops.
Face it folks, if a terrorist is successful in commandeering another plane that you happen to be on, you're a dead man walkin'. Being a backstop to whatever misses the armed pilot may make is the least of your worries.
A safety question -- is there any equipment is the cockpit that could
(1) be critically damaged by a single bullet,
(2) is so crucial to plane operation that it could take down the plane?
Short answer is: no. Sure, there are things I'd rather you not shoot up, but the plane would fly fine if you did. The rapid decompression scenarios you've probably seen in movies are just that....largely fiction. A RD is a serious problem, but not necessarily catastrophic.
I think of arming pilots as PART of the answer
You're absolutely right. The screening we all undergo to get to the gate is part of the answer. The Air Marshals are part of the answer. The Guard/Reserve fighters sitting alert waiting to take down a hijacked airplane are part of the answer. A plan for "missile defense" ought to be part of the answer. Keeping the Islamist murderers on the run over in the Mid-East, rather than cooking up schemes here at home is part of the answer. Delaying and obfuscating a viable FFDO program as the Bush adminstration's TSA and DHS are now doing is NOT part of the answer.
If you enjoyed reading about "Should Pilots be armed? [POLL]" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.