Pilots with pistols

[Jade]

Now there are people I trust to have guns!!! I totally agree these people should have firearms by thier side.


I just don't trust the average 'Joe' travelling around, getting road rage or selling to underagers.

[mairving]

I don't know. Bringing a gun on the plane seems to be a bad thing. Who will be carrying the gun. In a situation like the recent hijackings, the only thing that it would have done would give the terrorists another weapon since the pilot would probably have turned the gun over to the terrorists.

[glc]

mairving: I can't agree with that - the majority of airline pilots are former (and current Reserve) military pilots. No pilot I know is going to hand a gun over to a hijacker.

[mairving]

glc, I know that the Air Force and the Navy are the prime training grounds for Airline Pilots. I am not saying that they are traitors or idiots. I am just thinking that if a hijacker was holding a knife to a flight attendants throat, he might turn over the gun. It would be a tough decision for a pilot to make. I think that a better solution would be sky marshalls and a pretty strong cockpit door. A sky marshall could possibly intervene before there was a hostage problem. A pilot with a gun could only intervene after a hostage was taken.

Anyway, it looks like the pilot union is pushing pretty strong for this. If they did it, I don't think that the pilot should carry the gun on his person. Put it in a lockbox in the cockpit.

[troysvihl]

No way would a pilot have given up the gun to the terrorists.

This is such a good idea, I'm just amazed that the Pilot's Union was against it before.

BTW Jade, there have been very few instances of the average Joe using guns in cases of road rage. (In fact in SC and Fla, and there's been a hundred thousand or so concealled carry permits issued and not a single instance of road rage shootings.)

[Kubie]

mairving, I agree that a pilot with a gun and a terrorist holding a flight attendant with a knife, would be a very bad situation. But I believe one attendant vs a whole plane full of people would make it an easier decision to make. Especially when one considers that the terrorist would cut her throat anyway.
Carl

[pboadle]

I think the best solution would be a sealed flight deck with a different access for the pilots so that the terrorists could get access to the flight deck.

[dead_eye]

what about expense to outfit all these planes with a seperate flight deck? I'm skeptical about giving pilots guns, there will always be some bad pilots. I think that sky marshalls are the best solution.

[mairving]

Originally posted by Carlgif
mairving, I agree that a pilot with a gun and a terrorist holding a flight attendant with a knife, would be a very bad situation. But I believe one attendant vs a whole plane full of people would make it an easier decision to make. Especially when one considers that the terrorist would cut her throat anyway.
Carl
Well, Carl things are different now. In the past, the pilot would have thought that the hijackers wanted money or asylum. Nowadays they want to crash your plane into the building.

I did see today that the government was not in favor of arming pilots. Who knows maybe we ought to arm the flight attendants.

[Charliey]

Somewhere i read something that said to just make it manditory to make all passengers carry firearms. If anyone tries anything, then they'll be shot by everyone. This is an alright idea, but it would probably cause many many more problems. Not to mention that many people couldnt actually fire a gun to kill someone.

[bob]

Arming the passengers was a joke on "All in the Family" by Archie Bunker.

[troysvihl]

acctually air marshals would be much more expensive that retrofitting planes to secure the cockpit

[StunGunz]

The only thing that scares me, is I seem to remember a crew getting knee walking drunk, and then climbing on a plane out of town...

[troysvihl]

The pilot is drunk, and you're worried about him being armed? In that situation I'd say the real risk comes from him flying a plane, not carrying a gun.

[StunGunz]

I'm just pointing out that they can't even police themselves all that well. And now people are suggesting they be armed? Tell me what training will qualify a pilot to carry a gun? Will he just have to complete his training courses for a carry permit? Or will he have to go through an actual polce academy?
:confused:

[troysvihl]

Well, the news reports I have seen said that they would be required to go through the extensive gun training that police go through. But I think that's a bit much. Even a complete novice can be effectivley trained in gun safety in just a hour or so, and I think that should be all that's required.

There are many states where people can get a concealed carry permit with no training at all. And yet those states haven't seen any ill-effects from people that carry concealed weapons legally. And that's just the general public. I think it's pretty safe to say that pilots are, for the most parts, even more a more responsible group of people than the general public. So I certainly wouldn't feel threatened by a pilot having a gun on his person. In fact, I would feel much safer.

[SARGE]

Why not have a button the pilot could push that releases instant sleeping gas into the plane? That way, everyone goes night-night and the pilot lands somewhere close-by.

[troysvihl]

they should just do that with every flight anyway. Then I wouldn't have to talk to that annoying person that invariably sits next to me or listen to some little kid screaming his head off while his mother doesn't do sh1t.

[PMich]

As always, the preacher man brings up a great point. I have thought about the potential use of a knockout gas quite a bit and have only come up with a few, seemingly minor, drawbacks. First of all, in the event of a crash with survivors, what if the lines carrying the gas were to rupture and knockout potential survivors who die because they were unconscious. Secondly, what happens ten years down the road, when emotions have settled, when the gas is accidentally distributed throughout the cabin due to equipment failure and everyone who was subject to the gas feels they need to be compensated monetarily for being put to sleep. Thirdly, there are concerns about dosage required for the gas to be effective. A dose of gas effective enough to knockout a 200+ lb. man may be lethal to the very young, very old, or people who are otherwised comprimised. On the whole I think it is a great idea but it is not going to be a long term solution because of the potential future repercussions. Just my long $.02, though.

[troysvihl]

I think your third point is the most persuasive to me, PMich. Anesthesiology is a very trickey science, and even a trained Anesthesiologist can make lethal mistakes in trying to make people unconscious. In fact, it's so risky and fraught with potential lawsuits, that Anesthesiologists have to pay more than 50% of their salary just to their insurance carriers.

[Apache]

Personally, I'd rather have the dang pilot flying the plane. I have no problem hiring 'hit men', 'G' men, or just darn Ugly {smelly} men to have both hands ready for action {instead of 'one eye on the road' so to speak}.
More interesting would be to issue side arms to ALL the passengers !

[kraken]

To be a pilot you generally have to be an able person. Flight crews consist of at least 3 people. One person trained and "trusted" on each flight crew would be able to carry a firearm. Secure cockpits that could only be opened by a member of the flight crew (maybe the one with the firearm) would minimise the risk of the outside influence.

The hijacked planes were bought about by complacency. The terrorists bided their time until security was lax enough to permit this travesty.

There have not been many hijacks in the past few years.

Personally I would be happy to have dedicated people responsible for aircraft safety. there were 10,000 volunteers to take up this role.

Thats what worries me.

[Jade]

I too thought of sleeping gas. Didn't think of the lawsuits though. But then again wouldn't a lawsuit be better than a repeat of 911. May cost the insurers millions but right now 911 is costing USA billions and lost jobs.

I fly occasionally and an armed pilot and enclosed capsule is the most simple and most effective logistical way to go. I hope this administration realizes this part sooner than later.

Where are we to 'Rent' these air marshalls to populate every North American commercial plane; Rent-a-cops? Increased air rates- less travelers -more debt for airlines.

As for the stewardess getting a knife at her throat by a terrorist scenario, you think the situation would differ if you placed the pistol in the rent-a-cops hands? Do you think the pilot is banging the stewardess and will shed a tear instead of the saving rest of the lives on board?

Sorry 911 changed alot of those scenarios.

I will fly on a plane again. If it is taken hostage I would already consider myself collateral loss. those in the plane anyway are at high odds to be dead eventually anyway.

[troysvihl]

[/quote]But then again wouldn't a lawsuit be better than a repeat of 911.[/quote]

Yeah, but I think there are more effective ways of dealing with a 9-11 problem than using sleeping gas.


I fly occasionally and an armed pilot and enclosed capsule is the most simple and most effective logistical way to go. I hope this administration realizes this part sooner than later.

I agree. I think it would be the most cost effective. There would be no need to have sky marshals. Sky marshals are going to be VERY expensive, and I think they won't be as effective as simply securing the cockpit and haveing a good enough security system so no bombs will be on the plane. (both of which will be needed anyway) If the terrorists can't get control of the plane and they can't blow it up, I just think plane highjackings would be a thing of the past. (There's no way a pilot is going to give up control of the plane if he can help it, even if it means the death of many passengers.)

[WJWheels]

I think before 9/11 pilots possibly would turn over a gun if a flight attendant (or passenger) was getting their throat slit, but NO MORE! If the firm policy was 1. very difficult entry into the cockpit 2. armed pilots 3. land at the nearest airport in the event of terrorist trouble... there'd be no result ever come of hijacking a plane so it flat wouldn't happen.

I'd rather have the pilots with a gun than a "sky marshall". Any weapons in the passenger section could lead to a compromising situation.

From now on, the passengers will always confront a terrorist.... the pilots will land the planes safely.

[Tuf]

Why just one firearm on the plane? Why not arm the cockpit and have random numbers of "Sky Marshals"? It would certainly make airplanes a less attractive target if the Terrorists did not know what they would encounter. But if terrorism were to step up a level or two they would take that risk too. In all honesty the only way to prevent these attacks is to ensure that these groups cease to exist. After eleven years in Naval Special Warfare during the Reagan/Bush years this is the only solution that offers a high probability of success.:mad:

[Paul Victorey]

Well, one problem with arming people on planes, is do you really WANT gunfire inside of a plane, especially in the cockpit? A plane is packed full of sensitive equipment, and puncturing the hull would cause rapid and dangerous decompression. Shooting a control panel or puncturing a hydraulic line could drop your plane pretty fast.

I think the best idea is NO guns, but make the cockpit completely inaccessible from the main plane.

[troysvihl]

paul - if any firearms are allowed on planes, there would undoubtedly be a requirement that they use fragmenting rounds. It's a type of ammo with a certain tensile strength and velocity that causes it to breakdown if it encounters anything solid. It will go through skin, and is quite lethal, but it won't go through drywall.

Right now, it's mainly used by people that live in apartments or other high-density living situations. One of my buddies bought it because he didn't want to accidently shoot his kid through the walls of his home if he should ever have an intruder.

[bob]

Give all the passengers boxcutters.

[SARGE]

#8 "rat shot" in a .38 or .357 works well. Never blown through drywall, but did make a few dents. Haven't needed it in this abode, but in others it came in handy. Rats hated it :p

[Charliey]

well, sleeping gas might not work, but what about tear-gas? it wouldnt be very much fun, but it would work, and as long as the cockpit is sealed.

[troysvihl]

If the cockpit is sealed, what would be the point of gassing the passengers? Would it be a way of satisfying some sort of sadistic yearning?

[SARGE]

troy, good point. You don't want 200 passengers in a confined space who are tear-gassed. The break dancing would destroy the craft. :eek:

[troysvihl]

if I ever get gassed when there isn't any real threat of someone breaking into the cabin, I'm going to steal all the little mickey bottles of booze from the flight attendants.

[Charliey]

oops i wasnt very clear about what i meant.

i just meant make the cockpits airtight, but not nessesarily bullet-proof and completely secure. It might be easier to make it air tight instead of bullet-proof and completely unenterable.

[lpc300]

Guys, lets get real. Even though I believe that the events of 9/11 have certainly changed our views on airline safety and how to handle hijack situations, the thought of a pilot chosing a 'whole planeload of people vs. one flight attendant' may work in theory, but not in real life. Imagine being in that sitaution, with some deranged hijacker holding a knife to your co-worker, perhaps your friend's throat, saying he/she will kill him/her if you don't lose the gun. As a caring human (different from the 'slime' hijacker), it would be very difficult for any of us to not follow the hijacker's direction. That's what makes us different from him/her. Stonger cockpit doors/Skymarshals are a more workable answer.

[troysvihl]

As a caring human (different from the 'slime' hijacker), it would be very difficult for any of us to not follow the hijacker's direction. That's what makes us different from him/her.

I seriously doubt it.

[LoneWolf]

Originally posted by Jade
Now there are people I trust to have guns!!! I totally agree these people should have firearms by thier side.


I just don't trust the average 'Joe' travelling around, getting road rage or selling to underagers.

Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment guarantees everyone the right to keep and bear arms, even "underagers". I've known 16 year-olds who were more responsible than 21 year-olds. I think if everyone was armed, there would be no terrorism in this nation. We could defend ourselves and scare them away. An armed society is a safe and polite society.

It's like in hockey. The refs started making cheap calls and penalizing guys for fighting and slamming guys into the boards. What that's done is taken the respect out of the game. Now you have guys tripping and slew footing oponents instead of dropping the gloves and fighting.

Outlawing guns is just like penalizing fighting in hockey, it drains our society of respect and disarms people and keeps us helpless. Now instead of settling difference out in the open (fighting), people resort to terrorism (slew footing and tripping).

[lpc300]

The Second Amendment was written when guns were about the most destructive weapon on the planet. This is no longer true. If someone is intent on aiming a plane at a building (or far scarier, a nuclear missle at a city), a lil' old gun ain't gonna help. And guns are useless againt biological warefare. Arming everyone creates a paranoid society where 'might makes right' rules the day. It doesn't create respect, it creates fear.

[SARGE]

Well, the 2 punks trying to break into my tool shed were VERY respectful and fearful when confronted by a .44 magnum. I must admit that for one fleeting moment I had visions of my man Clint. But I held them for the cops. This scenario is more likely than bio-terrorism. Hooked on magnums works for me.

[lpc300]

Sarge,

It's because of situations like yours that I DO NOT believe that guns should be outlawed or any radical stuff like that. You showed remarkable restraint and, not only did you respect yourself (something those punks did not) but you respected your weapon. You obviously have had quite a bit of training. All I'm saying that I would not trust the average person to do the same. I have a lot of respect for how you handled yourself.

[SARGE]

;) Considering they couldn't speak English, they got the point. I wouldn't take a life over a shovel or lawnmower, but it's the idea that someone takes something I paid for, a personal attack so to speak. With my kind heart, I'd give (the merchandise) it to 'em if'n they gave a good reason.

[troysvihl]

All I'm saying that I would not trust the average person to do the same.

The "average" person is more than capable of using a firearm for self-defense. Indeed, what Sarge did (defend himself and his property) happens more than 2.5 million times a year in the US.

[WJWheels]

Originally posted by SARGE
;)I wouldn't take a life over a shovel or lawnmower, Now hold on there Sarge.... what kind of lawnmower????

[troysvihl]

lol. yeah, some of those riding ones are pretty nice.

[SARGE]

Snapper, 3.5 hp, PUSH, non-self propelled.

Back on target, so to speak, having a pilot in cockpit with a pistol may work on some unruly passengers. However, to a well-trained terrorist, his mission is no problem. He knows where the gun is and who has access to it.

[troysvihl]

Yeah, he'll know. He'll also know that to get to it, he's going to have to kick in the reinforced door. Once he starts attempting that, the copilot will have informed FAA that someone is trying to get into the cockpit and have begun descent. Military jets will have been scrambled, so there's no hope of crashing the airliner into anything since they'll blow it out of the sky before it even gets close to anything valuable.

He'll also know that even if he manages to get that door open, he'll have to squeeze through that little door and face the other pilot who'll have had a gun pointed right there for quite some time.

Even if there were four or five terrorists out there, they ain't going to get to the cockpit before that pilot runs out of ammo.


On a side note, did anyone catch Dateline tonight? They had a segment on this very issue. Seems that some pilots used to carry guns in violation of FAA rules back in the 60's and 70's when highjackings were much more common. (almost 200 highjackings in one year alone during the early 70's) Then they changed the rule to force pilots to go through the metal detectors too. (kind of a ridiculous rule, IMHO.)

[SARGE]

With God's grace, we'll never have to worry about it again. The bad guys made their statement in that fashion, and will be very patient in choosing the next target. That's the unnervy part, not knowing what or when. That in itself is another victory to them. We're a reactionary breed of cat that closes the barn door AFTER the cows got out. We currently have guys standing around airports with rifles slung upside down on their backs. That does nothing to deter a terrorist, but does make mom and pop feel better, or does it?

[troysvihl]

lol. yeah, i think those national guards are a bit of a waste too. just another pair of eyes that aren't going to catch anything the normal guards don't catch.

I don't think this is ever going to happen again either. There will undoubtedly be other attacks from terrorists, but I'm guessing nothing on the scale of 9-11. Until they get their hands on some nukes. But by that time, I'm hopine the US will be off their sh1t list.

[lpc300]

We're a reactionary breed of cat that closes the barn door AFTER the cows got out.

Just what I was thinking. Shame few think PROactively these days. Ever notice that many 'important' laws are enacted after some tragedy. Child abuse/abduction laws for example. There had been suggestions of the offender notification and other protective laws for years, but until some kids got killed, nothing happened. What a shame. Betcha lots of anti-terrorism laws will pass NOW.

[troysvihl]

It may be unfortunate that many laws are passed after the damage was realized, but think of the alternative: laws passed based on pure speculation.

Each law has a cost associated with it, and I would prefer a cost-benefit analysis before any laws are enacted. And most of the time those costs are unknown until a tragedy occurs. (I think simply because people are generally optimists.)

But think of how expensive pessimism would be. If every conceivable disaster that an imaginitive person could come up with resulted in a law being passed and the resulting expense being passed onto taxpayers/consumers. The lives and resources lost in the WTC tragedy would be nothing compared to the lives and resouces eaten up by safety precautions over decades.

You may think that I'm being ridiculous in saying that in light of the tremendous costs associated with the WTC attack, but think of how many people would not be alive today if there were no spare resources to spend on R&S for pharmeceuticals, car safey, cheaper and more pletiful food sources, etc. (those are only three examples, but I could come up with countless more.)


Often a court will use an equation called the Hand formula to determine if a safety precaution is warranted. (many times the court won't even consciously realize they're applying it, but they are) It states:

B < P * L

Where B is the cost of the safety precaution, P is the probability of an accident, and L is the cost associated with that accident. If a court determines that cost of the safety precaution is less than the probility of an accident multiplied by the cost of such an accident, then that safety precaution should be instituted.

This is just a mathematical way of stating what I said previously. Before 9/11, we underestimated the probibility (P) of a highjacker crashing a plane into a building. We also underestimated the potential costs associated with a highjacking (L). Before 9/11, most people thought the worst that a highjacker could do is to blow up or crash a plane into the ground and insurance companies and airlines valued such a tragedy at a few hundred million at the most.

But now we know better, and are adjusting the amount of resouces we expend on security in accordance with our adjustment of probibility and damages. But artificially inflating L and P based on any scenario a person can dream up will be more costly for everyone in the long run.


I'm reminded of a Simpsons episode where the citizens get afraid of bear attacks, so the government begins to patrol the land for bears with stealth bombers. Homer justifies the patrolling by pointing to the fact that bear attacks are down 100%.

[troysvihl]

BTW, during the 60's and 70's rash of highjackings, the government instituted all the security measures that have been in place up till now. There were several econmic studies that looked at the cost-benefit analysis, and they all concluded that the safety measures taken were a HUGE waste of money in light of the acctual threat posed by highjackers back then. Even if the highest rate of highjackings during the early 70's would continue every year (which was about 200 a year) and you assumed complete loss of every plane and you overvalued each human life by more than $1.5 million dollars, the costs of the safety precautions still outweighed the acctual threat posed.

Now obviously in light of 9/11's increase in the realization of how much damage can be done, those studies are meaningless in today's world. But it just shows you how much can be wasted if safety precautions are not enacted intelligently. Some of the new rules that were recently released come to mind:

No knives whatsover in any airport, even plastic ones in resteraunts.
National Guard troops stationed mostly for show and no real preventative capacity.
Having to bring a printout of your e-ticket. (like highjackers don't know how to use a printer.)
Placing an airmarshal on each domestic flight.

Now some of those are pretty insignificant from an economic point of view since they are pretty cheap to implement. (like the no-knives and having to bring a print-out for e-tickets) But the national guard and air marshal rules are going to get VERY expensive because they require a TON of man-power, and the same results could be achieved with far less costs.

[lpc300]

I agree with most of what you say. The B<P*L formula is used quite often in a variety of industries. Insurance companies use it, especially, to determine rates and responses. My point is proactively responding to things that have already occurred on a smaller scale. It would have been hard to proact to what occurred on 9/11. Although we have seen suicide killings since WWII, they have never been aimed a US citizens on our own soil. Airline security as a whole, however, has needed to be addressed for some time. These problems are not new.

[lpc300]

Sorry. ISP cut out on me. Message was supposed to read:

I agree with most of what you say. The B<P*L formula is used quite often in a variety of industries. Insurance companies use it, especially, to determine rates and responses. My point is proactively responding to things that have already occurred on a smaller scale. It would have been hard to proact to what occurred on 9/11. Although we have seen suicide killings since WWII, they have never been aimed a US citizens on our own soil. Airline security as a whole, however, has needed to be addressed for some time. These problems are not new.

[lpc300]

Last attempt:

I agree with most of what you say. The B<P*L formula is used quite often in a variety of industries. Insurance companies use it, especially, to determine rates and responses. My point is proactively responding to things that have already occurred on a smaller scale. It would have been hard to proact to what occurred on 9/11. Although we have seen suicide killings since WWII, they have never been aimed a US citizens on our own soil. Airline security as a whole, however, has needed to be addressed for some time. These problems are not new.

[Carl Price]

Originally posted by lpc300


Just what I was thinking. Shame few think PROactively these days. Ever notice that many 'important' laws are enacted after some tragedy. Child abuse/abduction laws for example. There had been suggestions of the offender notification and other protective laws for years, but until some kids got killed, nothing happened. What a shame. Betcha lots of anti-terrorism laws will pass NOW.

I agree completely! I don't know what terrifies me most, terrorists, or my government trying to protect me from them.