Cptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12 Posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2293 times:
Just a heads-up for those of you who are interested in this much-discussed topic, I just saw a FOX newsblurb that USA airline pilots (some of them, at least) are dissatisfied with the speed that they are being trained and approved for carrying firearms. Evidently, there are slightly less than 200 approvals nationwide so far, and they are planning public newsconferences in several key USA cities tomorrow (AU 26) to address the issue...Jack
UA777lover From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2248 times:
Personally, I think it's just a BAD idea to have a gun ANYWHERE on a plane, pilot, sky Marshall or anyone. This whole policy needs to be re thought out and a gun in the cockpit is NOT going to make flying safer. Ask any cop, accidental discharge of guns kills and injures more people than a deliberate attempt to shoot to kill. Let's face it, a bad shot at 35000 feet and it could be a disaster. BAD IDEA!!
Rampboy77 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 64 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2226 times:
I am not real keen on Guns in the Cockpit. I cannot see a pilot who has trouble swiping his badge and entering a code to get though a door, flying an aircraft and shooting a gun. Whats better is watching a bewildered pilot try to reset his GPU (2-toggle switches). Maybe he needs a checklist..... hmmm deep thoughts
JpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4383 posts, RR: 29
Reply 3, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2218 times:
The pilot i trust to fly my plane also has the trust of myself to carry a gun in the cockpit, of course with the utmost caution and with safety measures. I think it would be a good idea to keep the gun in a a cockpit safe where only the pilot knows the code, just in case.
"Let's face it, a bad shot at 35000 feet and it could be a disaster. BAD IDEA!!"
I think the situation causing a shot at 35000 feet could be a worse disaster.
VS340 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2183 times:
there are many devices that can be used to subdue a potential hijacker. Why not use tasers or pepper spray? i don't know if tasers may cause other problems with electrical equipment or not, im willing to bet that they wouldnt, but if you cant use the taser then use pepper spray it would definately work, and if a few innocent passengers get sprayed with it than at least it wasnt a spray of bulllets that hit them.
Guns are a completely unecessary means of defense on an airplane, everyone knows that it would be near impossible for a hijacker to get one on himself, so why do you need to fight him with a gun if all he has is a boxcutter or something even less dangerous. It seems like common sense to me.
The problems on the ground with guns are bad enough, there is no need to take that into the air too.
NWA757 From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2170 times:
I strongly disagree with having weapons in the cockpits of commercial aircraft. The whole policy of guns being carried needs to be rethought by the federal government. I feel action should be taken by ALPA (airline pilot's association) to precent this from happening. Although, to date ALPA has been somewhat supportive of the idea.
It is not the pilot's job to subdue a terrorist with a gun he/she are there to fly the aircraft, it is not safe for them to do everything. The federal government and the airlines have a responsibility to protect their flight crewes from potential danger. By no means is it the pilot's job to take law enforcement into their own hands. It seems like common sense to me.
JpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4383 posts, RR: 29
Reply 7, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2155 times:
"Ahh youth. Perhaps after you've see the damage a gun can do in the wrong hands on the ground, you'll have second thoughts about guns in a pressurized cabin in mid flight. "
Your little age comments are completely irrelevant and unnecessary to the topic and hand. Unlike you, i dont find it completely incomprehensible to have a objective discussion on an important issue with a 17 year old. I know what a gun can do on the ground, im not a ignorant idiot. This is why i suggested the most stringent precautionary procedures associated with this for it to be implemented. Don't you think it would be easier for a terrorist to get his hands on an air marshals gun than one locked away in the cockpit. I definitley see a point of keeping guns on the ground and respect that, i just think they could make the skies a little safer when used correctly. I am glad to have this discussion with you all, but when the first thing said relates to age, believe me, it gets really annoying and demeaning.
Bluewave 707 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3152 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2112 times:
The type of ammo US Sky Marshalls are using are designed to fragment upon any reasonably hard surface, but will penetrate soft tissue. It is the same type of ammo that SWAT units, SEALs, and any Special Ops units use in aircraft hostage rescues. Close quarters shooting requires A LOT of training, which all federal agents go through.
Should pilots carry guns? Well, let's put it this way. SkyMarshalls are not on every flight. Nor is an armed pilot. Having one on board whether we know it or not, would put a lot of people at ease. I am in favor as long as those pilots are willing to go through the same type of close quarters training, and get requalified often.
Pepper spray? Not in a confined space like a cabin. Tasers ... as long as the darts do not touch metal ... it is an electrical charge.
One last thing, I am an American and proud to be one. If it takes a gun in the cabin by either a SkyMarshall or Captain to take down a nasty terrorist or any wacko, by all means. Do what you have to do to get the job done! All these people (the nasties) know is that they live and die by the gun. Wouldn't you feel safer with and armed pilot or fed?
"The best use of your life will be to so live your life, that the use of your life will outlive your life" -- D Severn
A340600 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 4105 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2107 times:
I am 14 and you are between the ages of 36 and 45 BAGSMASHER yet if u didn't know that you might just think it was the other way round. what a stupid and anti-european comment. and i'm a quater Polish so don't mess, lol!!! Gettin to the subject in my opinion I think there is no need for pilots to have guns if there are already skymarshals on board!!!
Despite the name I am a Boeing man through and through!
Rickb From United Kingdom, joined May 2003, 243 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2077 times:
The biggest problem terrorists now face is how to get a weapon onboard an aircraft. Post 9/11 security is generally much tighter. However this problem is easily solved as the airlines have now conveniently provided just such a weapon onboard - no need to worry about getting something through security.
Pilots are not hardened killers in the most part - how many pilots would stand still and watch through the cabin camera terrorists kill F/a's until he opens the door - do you honestly think most normal people would be able to stand back and watch whilst people are butchered knowing that he has the potential to stop the situation ? Pilot opens the door and is subdued by terrorists - terrorists now have a gun and the cockpit. If the Pilot had no way to stop the situation (i.e. no gun) there would be no motive for him to come out of the cockpit.
I trust pilots to do what they are trained to do - fly the plane - I dont think they need the extra pressure of having to deal with a gun at the same time. Look at it this way - a racing driver might be damn good at doing just that - do you really want to divert his attention away from driving to become a lawyer at the same time? He would end up losing some of his driving skills because he is sat in a classroom learning law, and since he has to spend some of his time driving - he probably wouldn't make that great a lwayer. Anything that distracts a pilot from his prime responsibility (namely flying the plane) is not a good idea. If guns have to be on the plane - leave it to the skymarshalls - they are trained solely on dealing with hostile situations on aircraft - they dont have to worry about flying the thing.
Cv747 From Iceland, joined Jan 2000, 170 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2061 times:
A gun in the cockpit is not going to change anything. The pilots should be concentraiting on what they are supposed to do. Fly! And let others play cowboys.
I personally will not fly with an airline that has guns in the cockpit. It is madness.
Capt078 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 421 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (10 years 12 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2012 times:
Bluewave 707 and Boeing757/767, i would like to comment on what you have posted here. before i do, let me just say i am pleased that this is the first time i have read a gun-in-the-cockpit thread where it has not been a gun rights debate. this has nothing to do with an american's right to bear arms, and i am relieved we are finally talking about it in its proper context.
Boeing 757/767: you are absolutely right, reinforced cockpit doors are all that should be necessary. if the door is not opened by the cockpit crew, then a terrorist cannot get in. and, as these doors are to be bulletproof and reinforced, if a terrorist is going to gain access, it will be by a means that will jeopardize the entire aircraft (read explosive). however, i do not object to equipping the cockpit crew with a final line of defense.
Bluewave 707: you're correct about the ammo, but it is has not been tested on a cockpit window at 30,000 feet. this makes me a bit apprehensive. now, i have grown up around guns my entire life, and certainly respect the many protections they afford. however, i also know how difficult aiming a firearm can be, particularly in close quarters and at a moving target. more importantly, an adrenaline crazed terrorist is NOT going to be stopped by a single bulltet, it will take several rounds to stop the attacker. so, in the two or three square feet of open space in a cockpit, we are talking about a struggle, several gun shots (in a place you definitely do NOT want a bullet to miss), smoke from the gun, the cockpit crew deaf from the shots, and no guarrantee that the terrorist will still be stopped or that the armed pilot will have had time to retrieve, load, turn, aim, and shoot his firearm.
now, i absolutely agree that just the thought of a gun in the cockpit could be a deterrent, and let's hope it is. but, i for one find it reprehensible and inexcusable that our government has allowed such a dangerous thing to be placed in a cockpit. give the pilots clubs, bats, blow darts, tasers. teach them karate, kung fu, or even voodoo. heck, put some three hundred pound bouncer in every cabin, i do not care. just do not put a firearm. too much can go wrong in too little time with a weapon whose effectiveness is based on an explosion that sends a projectile hurling at anything in its path.
M717 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 608 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (10 years 12 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1970 times:
"I personally will not fly with an airline that has guns in the cockpit. It is madness."
Theoretically, you would never know which airline has guns in the cockpit, or which flight on any particular airline has a pilot that has undergone the required training and is participating in the FFDO program. Realistically then, you should just plan on avoiding all US airllines then, since more than likely at least one pilot from every airline will elect to undergo the training required to participate in the program.