Breaking News from CNN on 2030GMT on July 10.

U.S. House votes to allow airline pilots to carry guns in the cockpit.
Details soon.

Great! I'm not sure on the exact legal measures they took to do this, didn't they turn it down last time?

Finally a method of defense for the Pilots against any idiots that try the wrong thing.

Any Pilots (airline) care to comment on where you stand on this issue?

regards,
Serge

Hmm, all of the sudden I'm thinking of Matt D's thread, as this is a little premature. This is still only a House measure. It hasn't been approved by the Senate, and in fact its questionable whether it will be, as the Senate has already voted a similar measure down. In addition, the Bush administration opposes the idea, so they could eventually veto any legislation. Bottom line, pilots are still a long way from being allowed/able to carry firearms in the cockpit.

Duane

Hehe... well its getting there...

...Serge

I still think it's a big mistake. Tasers are a much better idea.

drunk HP pilots will not be allowed to carry guns, I hope?

Wow! Great if it goes through!!
I can just imagine it over the cabin PA:

"Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the xxxx Liberation Front speaking.
We would like to advise you that we will start killing one passenger every minute until your flight crew throws out their weapons."

Fat lot of good they'd be then wouldn't they!
Obviously there isn't much confidence in the "reinforced" cockpit doors.  

yup were f@#cked
imagine pilots like egypt air 767
hp pilots
man the list goes on,cant wait till you hear of a pilot taking out the f/o or captain and the plane crashes.

it will happen,scary days ahead




ual 777 contrail

Oh my
what's next... they are gonna be allowed to smoke weed and get drunk??? Anyways I'm not convinced that this measure will make unanimity among the Airline pilots community. And you can be sure that US pilots, If they're allowed, are going to be the only pilots in the world to carry guns in cockpit.

I supported pilots being able to carry guns at first, but then I though, since in the past months uniforms etc... have been disapearing, what would happen if a terrorist dressed as a pilot with all the proper ID etc... perhaps pretending to be returning home as a passenger got on board with his/her gun.. I mean, all hell would break loose then...

I don't think guns in the cockpit is a good idea. Don't you have sky marshalls for things like this? I wonder if other countries will allow airlines to bring guns into their countries. I don't know if I would want to be on a flight knowing that there WAS a gun onboard and it wasn't attached to a someone with experience and fully trained in how to use it.

Gun fights on aircraft????

Regards

While I fully support this idea, it isn't going to happen. As long as Puff DasHole and his cronies are in control of the Senate, the bill will never get out of committee.

Everybody relax,
It has to pass the Senate which is not likely. Give Democracy a chance .

A gun in the cockpit would not have prevented 9/11. On each plane, two terrorists rushed into the cockpit, each one grabbed a surprised pilot by the neck, and slit their throats with the utility knives each wielded. The pilots had no chance. Especially being so vulnerable, sitting face forward in a tight space and with a body harness trapping them there. The whole process probably took 4 seconds.

They would have had no time, nor opportunity, to grab a gun, disengage the safety, aim and fire, much less use it in such a tightly confined area.

And since the element of surprise is theirs, the terrorists can fashion their plans to accomodate a gun in the cockpit, in any case.

And what's more, now that the pilot's have been killed, the terrorists now have a gun to use on the passengers, a gun conveniently placed there for their future use by this bill. With this gun they now can shoot any passengers thinking of resisting and planning a counterattack, such as those brave people on UA93.

The gun in the cockpit becomes a Trojan horse.

And this doesn't even discuss the inevitability of such a gun being put to ill use by those other than terrorists.

All around, a really silly idea.

Anonymous, incognito, plain-clothed armed marshals is the way to go. Then it's the good guys that will have the element of surprise. If it works for El Al, it'll work for American and United.

I wonder if they will still take away pilot's nail files even though they're packing a 9mm in their jacket.

This is absolute nonsense. A gun in not trained hands is more dangerous for the man with the gun than for the other (bad) guy. A gun on an aircraft is always a big safety risk even when it is in the hands of the "good men". (I know from what I am speaking, I am military trained on guns).

I would agree that this issue is a little premature to talk about but I feel that a few misconceptions here need to be cleared up:

I don't know if I would want to be on a flight knowing that there WAS a gun onboard and it wasn't attached to a someone with experience and fully trained in how to use it.

Pilots would undoubtedly be fully trained in the use of any weapon. This would not be a "pass the measure today, bring your gun to work tomorrow" type situation. By the way, there are armed people flying in the back of commercial airplanes as passengers every day: Police Officers, FBI agents, Secret Service agents, even Postal Inspectors. None of these people are specifically trained to defend our nation's cockpits. Yet each is qualified, with their credentials, to circumvent security at our nation's airports and carry their weapons onboard in the line of their duties. Would it be any different if your pilot was armed?

I agree that armed pilots would not have prevented 9/11 - the element of surprise was just too great. Training and arming pilots to use guns, however, could very well be useful as part of the greater plan to defend the cockpit at all costs. Not only that, I think the deterrent aspect of it would be great. Maybe we can skip giving the pilots guns and just plaster the world press with the headline "US PILOTS NOW ARMED".

Anonymous, incognito, plain-clothed armed marshals is the way to go. Then it's the good guys that will have the element of surprise. If it works for El Al, it'll work for American and United.

The Air Marshall program is a great thing. But consider this: I fly for a living, and I have yet to see an Air Marshall on one of my flights yet. The program is just too small to be effective.

El Al also uses ethnic profiling. But that also opens up a whole new can of worms...

61Heavy

An air marshal you can see, is a dead air marshal. El Al uses plainclothed officers. Their presence is assumed on every flight, but unannounced. That's why the terrorists don't bother with El Al.

The author needs to get their facts straight: Pilots are NOT alowed to have guns in the cockpit-the House saying they like the idea doesn't make it law. The Senate AND the President, B757300, who is not a Daschle "crony" are against it. Most Americans are against it as well. I think it's an ill-conceived idea that will solve nothing, and, as NZ767 put in his scenario, could cause a lot of harm.

This will not become law, and I'm sure we'll hear the NRA bitch about it.

Guns on aircraft is a joke. They should only be allowed to unidentified air marshalls.

As a maintenance issue, would guns be install on aircraft, or will pilots be able to pack heat around the airport. If they are installed, they now become my problem. I can imagine doing an "ops check" on a 9mm.

The Government should let the pilots do the flying and devote more attention to the wafer doors that are supposed to protect them.

But then again, I think airline hijacking as we knew it is done anyway, its all moot.

RT

I hope the senate will never accept this.
ARMING 70000 PILOTS WITH GUNS IN THE SKY IS A CRIME !!!!!
If this happens, I will just boycott the American passenger airlines and hope I will not be the only one.
It has been said in this discussion: it is a Trojan horse. You make it easier for terrorist : They don't have to worry on how they can get their guns through security: it is already on board.
And remember what happened a few years ago on a fedex flt: a pilot was seating a passenger in the cockpit of a DC10. He got mad and decided to crash the plane on the fedex hub. There has been a big fight in the cockpit and the crew has been able to land the aircraft.
Now, lets imagine the result with a gun in the cokpit.( Remember that he is a fedex pilot in the cockpit of a fedex machine) He knows where the gun is, takes it, kills the pilots and has no problem to crash the flight.
is it what you want?

Why should a pilot need a gun in the first place? Shouldn't SECURITY be screening everybody?

Bullets @ FL330 is a bad and stupid idea. Just imagine a decompression, or a vital piece of equipment damaged in the cockpit. If there is a threat in an aircraft the pilots should just remain in the flight deck and land the aircraft. If they attempt a rescue to put down the threat - they put at risk all the lives on board the aircraft by opening the door. I hope this doesn't pass.

Good news!

I think armed pilots it's a big mistake.
I find better to arm pilots with another kind of gun, for example an elettric gun which cannot damage the aircraft's fuselage.

I remember to all that an aircraft when in flight is an environment highly pressurized so gun in the cockpit doesn't seem a great idea

mb339

Oh goody, now if you are flying on America West and you make a comment on the pilot's sobriety; they can shoot you instead of just throwing you off the airplane!!  

I agree that Tasers are a much better solution. A Taser can be kept on you while a gun, I would assume, would be stored somewhere within reach in the cockpit. It is quicker to reach for the Taser and stun the terrorist than reach for the gun. And, assuming the pilot CAN reach the gun in time, the terrorist has probably slit a throat or two and now has a gun as well. BAD IDEA.

Besides, as stated earlier, the cockpit door should be the solution.

Another point that makes this vote a complete non sense: (But with politicians, it is not the first one and it is not the last one....)
As per the new regulation, pilots are supposed to be "locked" in their cockpit with new doors that are bullet proof.
If they are isolated in their cockpit, why do they need or want guns?
If someone tries to take control of the flight, they can divert and land.
their joib is to fly the plane, not to be the new John Wayne. I don't want to see a pilot open its cockpit door and try to do something in the cabin if someone is attacking pax or F/As. In this case, their mission is to land as fast as possible.

Anyway... folr me, cockpits locked and gun in the cockpit are contreadictory, as it is sure that one day, a pilot will open the door because he feels safe with the gun in his hands !

Think about this

It is blatantly obvious that most of those opposed have no clue at all what is being proposed for arming airline pilots, and have no clue what the actual risks are. No pilot, even an armed one, would leave the cockpit to confront a bad guy. The weapon is for last ditch defense of the cockpit only, and only used when there's someone actually coming through the door uninvited. The next line of defense, were there no firearm on the flight deck, is an F-16 shooting down the airplane. Perhaps now you think it's maybe a good idea. There is no such thing as an impregnable cockpit. There can't be. There's also no such thing as a perfectly secure cabin. Again, that's an impossibility. There are flaws throughout the system that could be exploited by a very determined and trained individual or team. The best defense against this is a defense in depth, i.e. not relying on a single point of defense to get the job done. Assuming that the security checkpoint and cockpit door are both flawless is a bad idea and demonstrably false. We have to make it clear that there's a good chance that anyone managing to get past all obstacles to the flight deck is going to be met with lethal force. Makes the odds a lot worse for a potential hijacker, doesn't it?

Perhaps you think that the pilots should just concentrate on "flying the plane". Now, without the weapon, they'd have that luxury for about 3 seconds while the hijacker comes through the door. After which, they are no longer flying the aircraft. Perhaps they should fight back with their nail clippers? Whoops, they were confiscated. At least they'd have a chance with a firearm, versus a certainty of dying and surrendering the aircraft without one.

In addition, even if there were a stray shot that penetrated the pressure vessel, the worst that would happen is a loud whistling noise. No decompression. Have you ever seen the size of the outflow valve on transport aircraft. It's nearly a foot across. The plane is already full of leaks and holes; you just don't know it. Adding a new one is negligible. This is more misinformation propagated by the uninformed.

I know this idea goes against apparent common sense, but that because most of you don't have the knowledge or background to evaluate the situation. I'm not saying you're stupid, just inexperienced and unable to make that kind of judgment. Give it a rest, OK?

This is crazy! As most have said the terrorists dont even need to sneak a weapon on board, they can simply rush the cockpit, meaning the pilots will have no time to use the gun.
Plus, its all very good the US government allowing guns aboard american airlines planes, but thats certainly doesnt mean other countries will allow planes over their airspace with guns in the cabin...

Jeff G,
Nice post but do you have any comment on the examples posted above regarding the Egyptair 767 crash or the FEDEX DC10 incident?
Another that comes to mind is the Silkair 737 crash a few years back.
Sure, two of them didn't involve American crews but they're still generic; they could happen there.
There wouldn't even be any need to put the airplane into a dive.

Another thing, weaponry training is one thing, but learning to use those weapons in the cockpit environment is an entirely different matter.
Will crews be trained in CQC (Close Quarters Combat) on top of everything else that they have to learn to do their jobs?
Statistics over the years have shown that more Police officers are killed by their own weapons than by anything else so this is also an inherent risk.

Thirdly, the International issue comes to mind.
Will other countries be prepared to allow American crews to enter their airspace knowing that they are armed?
To my knowledge, we (in NZ) have only ever allowed one group of individuals to enter the country bearing arms and that was the Secret Service contingent that accompanied Bill Clinton on his visit here in 1997.
I can see the FAA having to flex its muscle here by threatening reciprocal measures (ie: Banning foreign carriers from US airspace unless those countries allow them in) but is this a good scenario?

Mike  

Mike,

You raise some good points, and some of them have yet to be solved. Some have though.

1. Regarding the crazed pilot scenario. This sort of thing is rare, very rare. It could happen here, though. However, anyone being selected to carry firearms in the cockpit would be even further screened before training. Some people are not psychologically fit to carry weapons, though they may be fine pilots. There would be so much scrutiny of this program that I have no doubt the testing will be extremely thorough.

Also, we don't test every cop carrying weapons on board, do we? What's to stop Barney Fife from snapping and shooting up the plane? And yet, it hasn't happened, though they've been carrying weapons on board for decades. At this point, we have to consider this a negligible risk in comparison to the reward. Particularly since, if a pilot snapped, he doesn't need a weapon and never did.

2. I'm not privy to the details of the training, but it would likely be the same training afforded to Air Marshals.

3. Prior to 9/11, Air Marshals were almost exclusively used on international routes, so I suppose the same privileges would be afforded armed pilots. When under arms, the pilots would be acting as Federal agents. BTW, what does El Al do?

Jeff


Note to BA DC-10: That's what the locked door is for! If you think there are no better ways to get a weapon on board than to hope that your flight *just happens* to have an armed crew, you're naive.

Kaddy,

It doesn't work as well as you think it would. How could land the aircraft *while* knocking the terrorists off their feet? Also, you'd also be knockong around anyone trying to resist and probably injuring a lot of innocent bystanders. It might work as a one-time tactic in desperation, if your timing is impeccable, but that's all.

Jeff

Hopefully someone will be able to tell us what El Al does.
Kaddyuk,
Totally unrealistic (as well as dangerous) in my opinion.
Might be alright in a Wesley Snipes movie, but I would hate to imagine how some crazed individual who has an AK47 or MP5 in his hands is going to react when an airplane starts banking and pitching violently.
And in answer to your last question, I myself am trained to fight while lying on my back just in case I lose my footing during a scuffle.  

With regards to the actual flight deck, the pilots are well protected behind 2 sets of granade/bullet proof doors with each having a key pad (accessable only from the cockpit side of the doors) and each flight they randomly generate new access numbers. Since they're afforded this protection, they don't need guns.

Behind one set is a lav and a crew rest area (for their long haul ops), I believe, and the other set is the cockpit. This way the pilots don't have to venture into the cabin for any reason. Hey... they've gotta go potty sometime.

In addition, sky marshalls are aboard every flight at a minimum of 4 per flight. Add to that extensive passenger screening and armed guards guarding the plane while it's on the ground, and you have one hell of a security operation.

A lot of what El Al does cannot be duplicated in the US. Especially having 4-5 sky marshalls on every flight, that's an impossibility.

- Neil Harrison

61heavy,
listen to what you said"i fly for a living and i have yet to see an air marshall onboard" no crap,you wont see the air marshall.

they dont announce it,they are undercover if you will.
i am a gsc at my airport and i know of at least 30 a day who come through.
some slow days maybe 10 but beleive me they are there.

the gun thing wont go through,bush will veto the bill.




ual 777 contrail

I sincerely hope this measure passes. This board is full of pilot-haters and anti-us terrorist supporters so it's no wonder they want to see more planes hijacked and more americans killed.

Jeff G.... Amen brother!!!!

I'm absolutely SICK of listening to people who are UNEDUCATED about guns in the cockpit say its a bad idea. YOU'VE GOT NO CLUE.

THERE IS NO WAY A LOGICAL PERSON CAN BE AGAINST THIS!!

I'm an airline pilot as well. The pilot's know when an air marshal is onboard. I haven't seen one yet! NOT ONE!

A bullet hole in an airplane cause an explosive decompression!!! Again anyone that believes that is uneducated. You can lose a whole window and the pressurization system will keep up with the hole!

You think a tazer is a good idea. All it takes is a thick jacket to beat a tazer gun. Then I have to wait 10 seconds for the thing to charge again before I can shoot attacker #2!!! Yep, that'll work just GREAT!!

You don't think we'd have time to draw a gun. The UAL FO had time to reach behind him, unlock the crash axe, pick it up, raise it over his head, and wait for the attacker to stick his ugly mug through the door. I betcha I could draw a gun in the same amount of time.

I think armed pilots is a good idea. The only stipulation needs to be the cockpit door is NEVER opened after gate departure. If we can find a way to do that, then why not.

How dare anyone who is not an employed airline pilot decide I'm not allowed to defend myself. Let's think about this. The attackers WILL get into the cockpit. We now have two choices. The pilot's are armed, or they are not. If they are not, the Air Force shoots us down... NO QUESTIONS ASKED. If we are armed at least we have a last ditch effort.

IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE PEOPLE!!!!

What about when someone has to take a leak?

You can lose a whole window and the pressurization system will keep up with the hole!

 

J32 Driver:

Is your Jetstream pressurized?

Because my 767 is, and believe me, there would be a whole lot of trouble should a window blow out at cruise.

I'm no pilot but I have many years military experience having seen service in Northern Ireland, parts of the Middle East and throughout South-East Asia.
I have extensive training in Karate, Jiu Jitsu and Unarmed Combat and have taught Close Quarter Combat involving firearms to many people from different countries so I think I might have some idea about the limitations of such in a cockpit environment.
Who the hell's gonna hijack a bloody Jetstream anyway?
Responses from "real" pilots are welcome.  

For starters, yes the J32 is a pressurized aircraft. When I was flying it, it was a fun airplane. The airplane that I fly now is MUCH larger. Seats about 5 times as many people. And oh yeah, its pressurized too!

Let me clarify a bit... I meant passenger window, not cockpit window. But yes, your 767's pressurization system should keep up with the loss. It may be a pressure leak, but certainly not an explosive decompression. If your not comfortable with that response, then use disintegrating shots so they won't penatrate a bulkhead or window. Gee, that was a simple soloution.

NZ767: If you don't sit in a cockpit for a living, then you are not educated on the confines and working environment of an airliner. I will conceed that using a weapon in a total surprise situation is unlikely. BUT, I contend that the noise of the attacker trying to get through my reinforced door will give me ample time to draw the weapon, and turn and face the door.

If you knew anything about a Jetstream, you'd know they MADE REAL pilots. No autopilot, no autothrottles, no real flight director, no electric trim. You hand fly that mother 10 legs a day down to minimums for 3 months straight during the winter and you have no choice but to be a REAL PILOT. Besides, I'd think to a nonpilot like yourself, anyone holding the string to a kite would look like a real pilot.


Now...is there anyone who can offer an intelligent debate on the issue at hand, or are we just going to settle for childish personal remarks. 777gk, if you really a pilot you must have something educated to say on the subject. Lets hear it.

Scenario - terrorist rushes the (reinfoced) cockpit door. Pilot notes that it's not the typical way the FA brings them coffee, so he unholsters his weapon. The door breaks, a foot enters the cockpit. Pilot aims gun just above leg and pulls trigger. Flight then lands safely at nearest airport to allow the terrorists body to be removed.

Prior to 9/11, the procedure was to cooperate with the terrorist. That means that most likely the terrorists didn't "Storm the cockpit"...they were LET IN. That's changed. Now it's just kill the bastard. ANYBODY trying to force their way into a cockpit is a threat to the flight, and as such, should be shot before ANY part of their body gets into the cockpit to harm the crew. I'm not keen on skymarshalls. It's far more likely to have one a-hole terrorist get the marshalls attention while ANOTHER a-hole terrorist makes his move to DISARM the skymarshall, thus gaining access to the only weapon in the cabin. No...I'd much rather have the passengers kick the terrorist's ass, and should they fail and the terrorist begin kicking in the cockpit door, they are warmly greeted to a .38 slug to the chest.

J32,
Obviously I'm not as familiar with the cockpit environment as you but I would think that it would be more hazardous to have bullets flying around in that environment than in any that I have taught in so my points (earlier on in the thread) still stand.
Your credibility came into question when you stated this: "You can lose a whole window and the pressurization system will keep up with the hole!"

However you've now clarified that by suggesting that you meant a passenger window rather than a cockpit one.
Now, you're telling us that if a passengers' window gets blown out (however that may happen) at say FL300, there wouldn't be an explosive decompression?
Yeah right!
I suppose the masks wouldn't drop down either, there'd be no confusion in the cabin and no need for an emergency descent.
Just carry on as normal huh!
Your comments are contrary to the opinions of a couple of airline pilots I spoke to just five minutes ago.
This is what I meant by "real" pilot. It didn't have anything to do with the aircraft type.

And as for intelligent debate, well take a look at the earlier messages in this thread (some of them from pilots too) the ones that were made before your rather provocative and condescending first post.
You'll notice that we argue the point without putting people down.  

However you've now clarified that by suggesting that you meant a passenger window rather than a cockpit one.
Now, you're telling us that if a passengers' window gets blown out (however that may happen) at say FL300, there wouldn't be an explosive decompression?
Yeah right!

Wouldn't most would be hijackers be attempting to enter the cockpit from the cabin...NOT the cockpit window? It wouldn't take a lot of gun handling training to hit someone kicking in a cockpit door 2 feet behind you. Odd's of a "stray bullet" hitting a cockpit window and blowing it out - 1 in a zillion.

I suppose the masks wouldn't drop down either, there'd be no confusion in the cabin and no need for an emergency descent.
Just carry on as normal huh!

Pretty much, yes. Let one of the pilots fly the plane while the other dispatches the intruder. Some of you seem to think the pilot won't use the gun until the hijacker is standing in the cockpit with him. Here's some breaking news - when the door is getting kicked, they will most likely shoot first and ask questions later...the would be hijacker would never make it into the cockpit environment.

Your comments are contrary to the opinions of a couple of airline pilots I spoke to just five minutes ago.
This is what I meant by "real" pilot. It didn't have anything to do with the aircraft type.

Every group will have the "guns are bad" folks. Pilots aren't immune from this. I don't own a gun...and I wouldn't own a gun. I'm not one who's out lobbying for concealed carry laws in every state. But there are times and places for guns. In this day and age, the cockpit of an airliner is one of those places.

I wasn't suggesting that they would enter through the cockpit windows Goingboeing. Just trying to clarify some of his points there.
Now, this one:

"when the door is getting kicked, they will most likely shoot first and ask questions later"

What happens when the meal trolley accidentally runs into the cockpit door or if some little old lady trips and lands against it?
Will they "shoot and then ask questions later"?
It's also an entirely different matter saying that a pilot (or anyone for that matter) will quickly pick up a gun and use it on another person.
It can be a different story though when the actual need arises.

To everyone who thinks I shouldn't be able to protect my cockpit with deadly force should the need arise can kiss my grits.

I am responsible enough to fly you around but to responsibly handle a firearm I am not? Get real.

One of the requirments of an ATP certificate holder is that the indicidual "posses sound judgment and character."

Secondly.... Pilots are NOT allowed to carry firearms in the cockpit. This is just a bill, and not law yet. But I hope to see it be one day.

JET

You're quite literal aren't you NZ767. No, far from a bump on the cockpit door. If a little old lady can fall into the cockpit door with enough force to breach the cockpit environment, then the old lady would most likely die from injuries suffered from impacting the door. I'm thinking more along the lines of "The Shining", where Jack Nicholson was axeing up the bathroom door. It didn't seem like he had a bad need to go to the bathroom...he had something more sinister in mind. Let somebody do something to the cockpit door to cause it to splinter - then fire away. Sort of like Shelley Duvall stabbing Jack's hand as he reached to open the door.

If someone kicks in the door...I'd rather have the pilot have the option of settling the matter before the second foot makes it thru the door.

NZ767: I appologize if my comments offended anyone. I don't think you understand the difference between a sudden decompression and an exlposive decompression. My whole point in bringing up the blown out passenger window was to compare that big gaping hole to the size of a bullet hole. For whatever reason, should a passenger window depart the airplane, the pressurization system will compensate and it will not be an "explosive" decompression. I don't think it will even be a very rapid decompression. My airplane has 2 outflow valves that control the pressure in the cabin. Each one is about 75% the size of a passenger window. At 30,000 those outflow valves are each about half open. When the window goes, both outflow valves are gonna slam shut. Now I have one hole that is roughly 15% larger than both outflow valves combined. Yes the airplane is gonna lose pressure (gradually), maybe 2000 fpm. Thats still 15 minutes before the cabin arrives at 30,000 with the airplane. Is it gonna be pleasant in the cabin. Hell no. Theres gonna be LOTS of air rushing out that hole. Are the masks gonna drop, assuming a 8000' cabin pressure altitude at start, it will take 2 to 3 minutes before the Cabin altitude is high enough to bring down the rubber jungle. Now, if the pressurization system can compensate for a hole that size, a bullet hole is insignificant. An airplane will remain completely pressurized with a bullet hole. I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say.

Now, I'm not gonna make any friends by saying this, but this whole conversation proves my point. Unless you are an employed airline pilot in the U.S., you should have ZERO input on whether or not Pilots are allowed to carry guns. Why?? Because a decision should not be made by someone who is not 100% educated on the subject. Lots of the comments on this board prove that some people don't really understand the subject. I'm just afraid that these same uneducated ideas are the ones our law makers have in their very own heads. If this is ultimately defeated, it will be because our lawmakers didn't properly educate themselves on the subject.

Again, there is no perfect solution. But I think in these times this is simply the BEST solution.

"You're quite literal aren't you NZ767."

I like that comment. I suppose it's just the cop coming out of me; gotta test every point.
Ok, granted. Let's say they don't even have to force it open. They just push past the F/A when she opens it to deliver your coffee.
Pilot turns around and fires away.
Gets the guy in the leg (which is not easy to do in such a short space of time) but a couple of shots also go astray.
Where do they end up?
BTW, I haven't actually seen that movie but I can imagine Jack Nicholson in a scene like that.
Also, no one has given a satisfactory response to my original post yet when the hijackers take control of the cabin and threaten to kill passengers and crew unless you throw out your weapons.

Jetpilot, we know it's not law yet but it's a good debate all the same.
And I'll pass on the "kiss my grits" part if you don't mind.
Thanks anyway!  

"One of the requirments of an ATP certificate holder is that the indicidual "posses sound judgment and character."

Again, Egyptair, Silkair and FEDEX come to mind.
I know they're rarities but..............

"Also, no one has given a satisfactory response to my original post yet when the hijackers take control of the cabin and threaten to kill passengers and crew unless you throw out your weapons."

I've got an answer. You land the airplane and leave through the escape windows. Yeah... its a raw deal. It really sucks if my wife and kids are nonreving with me. But guess what. If I give control to the hijackers then EVERYONE on the airplane is dead. If I land while the hijackers are killing one passenger every minute, there will still be some alive when the swat team storms the airplane after I land. Thats how its gotta be.