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?

[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.

[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