Obama ends program that let pilots carry guns

[markw]

On top of that, who will fly the plane if the pilots are all killed in a shootout?

On 9/11/01, landing the plane wasn't an option and the terrorists themselves flew the planes into their intended targets

Stopping terrorists before they get on the plane is the only thing that makes sense.

True, but nothing is 100% guaranteed. Why do we need seat belts in cars when they all have airbags? I see this as another measure of insurance.

If pilots have smarts enough to fly airplanes and we entrust their judgment and skills with the lives of hundreds of people when they fly those pressurized metal tubes, at hundreds of miles an hour, thirty thousand feet and more in the air, how can you then say that they aren't capable of proper handling of handguns?

 

[craigsub]

Do people honestly believe that a clever terrorist will come crashing through the cockpit door rather than figuring out how to get through calmly by threatening a flight attendant to open the door or other method? On top of that, who will fly the plane if the pilots are all killed in a shootout? Stopping terrorists before they get on the plane is the only thing that makes sense.

Of course stopping a terrorist from getting on the jet in the first place is the best solution.

However, taking guns away from pilots will not do a single thing to prevent a terrorist from getting on the jet.

On 9/11/2001, terrorists took control of those 2 jets and flew them into the World Trade Center Towers.

Before 9-11-2001, it was policy for the pilot to cooperate with a terrorist, as the terrorist usually also wanted to live.

We are in a different world today.

Perhaps I am REALLY wrong here, but with an armed cockpit crew, it would seem much less likely that a terrorist or 2 would gain access to the cockpit than with an unarmed crew.

The pilot today must engage the terrorist with the knowledge that the terrorist is willing to commit suicide in order to complete his "mission".

He must be allowed to defend his aircraft with the most force available.

 

[Rickster71]

Do people honestly believe that a clever terrorist will come crashing through the cockpit door rather than figuring out how to get through calmly by threatening a flight attendant to open the door or other method? On top of that, who will fly the plane if the pilots are all killed in a shootout? Stopping terrorists before they get on the plane is the only thing that makes sense.

It seems the pilots directly responsible for doing the job agree with the law:
"Pilots, concerned about hijackings, have requested they be allowed to carry firearms in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that claimed more than 2,800 lives.

Allied Pilots Association, APA, the pilots' union of 14,500 American Airlines pilots, praised the 2002 House vote."

Complete article - http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/10/194540.shtml


You do realize that the alternative is, the airliner gets shot down by a fighter jet.

 

[krzywica]

Can you offer any more info on your quoted opinion?
I wouldn't think the government, or commercial airlines would allow idiots to fly their multi million dollar planes.
Please share some of your info.

You would be surprised. They are very good at what they are trained to do. And that is fly the aircraft within its specified limits under all weather conditions. But in my professional experience the majority of the unscheduled maintenance that is performed is the direct result of pilots flying the planes out of their rated spec. Whether it be overspeeding the engines, or passing the rated "G" spec.

I don't think combat experience has much to do with this.
It's the firearms training that counts. If that training is from 20 feet away as you say, it's 17 feet more than he or she will need.
So when someone tries to break into the flight deck, and the fact that the pilot wants to see his wife and kids the next day, I'll bet he'll do the right thing.

You kind of make my point with your example of the wife and kids thing. Combat experienced soldiers are proficient in combat because they have come to accept death and do not crumble under extreme situations. I don't think most people realize how hard it would be to pick out a 6 inch target on a moving aircraft while in a crisis situation. It would be nearly impossible especially for someone that shoots at static targets from solid ground for practice once a year . I'm not saying that I agree with the decision at all, just offering a little more insight

So what your saying is that you would rather crash into a building than have someone in the cockpit that might just be able to give you a chance? I will take my chances with the pilot with the gun and even though he might not be a sharpshooter I don't think he needs to be one seeing how his target will only be 4 feet away.

See above post.


I think the best solution would be to equip all pilots with some sort of less than lethal weaponry. Such as a high velocity beanbag gun or an electric stun gun. Something that would not be able to penetrate the skin of the aircraft and would not kill someone which would certainly be the case with the discharge of a firearm in close proximity. Even if you hit the target its still a good chance the round would pass through and hit a civilian.

 

[Rickster71]

I think that the fact that pilots are already trained for extreme situations they would be equipped to handle a gun.
There are also mandatory psychological tests that are taken by the pilots in the gun program.

I have to ask why you think they couldn't handle a gun....but on the other hand, "idiot" pilots could handle "less than lethal weaponry"

Info from a pilot friend of mine: he speaks of sub-sonic rounds that don't exit the initial target.
Also, a bullet hole would not cause a decompression of the aircraft. The pressurization control valve is going to adjust to keep the pressure stabilized.

The fact of the matter, all this is moot.
We are just pawns, and are subjected to, and must comply with, whatever laws are passed, We just have to pay for them.

 

[Rickster71]

Interesting interview
This may help with more info:
http://cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0204/08/ltm.01.html

 

[annunaki]

I think we would be better off training gun slingers to fly planes than the other way around.
Take Tomorrow's avatar for instance ...

The only thing pilots are good at is flying planes and banging stewardesses.
That's enough of a hassle.

I noted the smiley's by the way, but...

I believe that many pilots of commercial airliners would beg to differ with your statement. Considering many of them are ex Air Force, Navy, Marine, & Coast Guard pilots with extensive training in what to do if things go wrong. The Air Force's flight school is very demanding as are survival courses they are required to pass.

They are well equipped to handle a side arm.

They simply like to enjoy the other perks of the job as well.

 

[droht]

They should just pass out guns to all Americans as they board the plane. What terrorist will try to take over if the damn plane is full of gun-wielding patriots?

 

[krzywica]

I think that the fact that pilots are already trained for extreme situations they would be equipped to handle a gun.
There are also mandatory psychological tests that are taken by the pilots in the gun program.

I have to ask why you think they couldn't handle a gun....but on the other hand, "idiot" pilots could handle "less than lethal weaponry"

Info from a pilot friend of mine: he speaks of sub-sonic rounds that don't exit the initial target.
Also, a bullet hole would not cause a decompression of the aircraft. The pressurization control valve is going to adjust to keep the pressure stabilized.

The fact of the matter, all this is moot.
We are just pawns, and are subjected to, and must comply with, whatever laws are passed, We just have to pay for them.

Psych tests do not determine combat effectiveness. Only that you are not going to kill yourself or curl into a ball when panic hits.

I'm sure there are pilots that are quite fit to handle weapons in a crisis situation.....however, to have such a program assumes that every pilot will be able to effectively diffuse the situation with the use of deadly force. I'm not quite sure if I am comfortable with that....but I guess the argument can be made of many of the law enforcement officers that I see walking around these days that are so fat and out of shape that they can not even buckle their belts.

The bullet hole thing....depends on the altitude and air speed, it also depends on what the bullet strikes. If it were to hit a flight control boost pack for instance you would be pretty much screwed. The pressure is not going to equalize if you are cruising altitude.

Yes I agree...there is really no point in debating the matter but along with many others on this forum I find it intellectually stimulating to share points of disagreement between peers. Thats how we all learn and grow.

 

[annunaki]

You would be surprised. They are very good at what they are trained to do. And that is fly the aircraft within its specified limits under all weather conditions. But in my professional experience the majority of the unscheduled maintenance that is performed is the direct result of pilots flying the planes out of their rated spec. Whether it be overspeeding the engines, or passing the rated "G" spec.



You kind of make my point with your example of the wife and kids thing. Combat experienced soldiers are proficient in combat because they have come to accept death and do not crumble under extreme situations. I don't think most people realize how hard it would be to pick out a 6 inch target on a moving aircraft while in a crisis situation. It would be nearly impossible especially for someone that shoots at static targets from solid ground for practice once a year . I'm not saying that I agree with the decision at all, just offering a little more insight



See above post.


I think the best solution would be to equip all pilots with some sort of less than lethal weaponry. Such as a high velocity beanbag gun or an electric stun gun. Something that would not be able to penetrate the skin of the aircraft and would not kill someone which would certainly be the case with the discharge of a firearm in close proximity. Even if you hit the target its still a good chance the round would pass through and hit a civilian.

Most soft point 9mm and .45 cal will not exit on a center mass hit. Nearly all personel are trained to shoot center mass. (With the exception of snipers.)

Most soft point rounds from a 9mm or .45 cal will not even penetrate the inner skin of a car door at close range.

Less than lethal is a very good option though.

 

[krzywica]

Most soft point 9mm and .45 cal will not exit on a center mass hit. Nearly all personel are trained to shoot center mass. (With the exception of snipers.)

Most soft point rounds from a 9mm or .45 cal will not even penetrate the inner skin of a car door at close range.

Less than lethal is a very good option though.

Yeah I know. But again....moving plane....handgun....no shoulder stock.

 

[annunaki]

They should just pass out guns to all Americans as they board the plane. What terrorist will try to take over if the damn plane is full of gun-wielding patriots?

Very intersting solution there

 

[droht]

They should just pass out guns to all Americans as they board the plane. What terrorist will try to take over if the damn plane is full of gun-wielding patriots?

Gotta love the gutless way to leave feedback here...

Good move. First post and already proving you're an idiot.

If you need to see a smilie to get a little joke then you really shouldn't call someone else an idiot.

 

[annunaki]

I think the easiest way to handle it is to ensure:

#1 Terrorists do not get into the country to begin with (better border security)

#2 Ensure anyone with any sort of weapon does not get remotely close to the plane

#3 Offer a non-lethal weapon to the pilots and offer a "heat of the moment" training every 6 months.

 

[annunaki]

Yeah I know. But again....moving plane....handgun....no shoulder stock.

Point taken.

Non-leathal is best.

Bean bag shot gun. That would scare the daylights out of a terrorist wielding a box cutter.

 

[krzywica]

I think the easiest way to handle it is to ensure:

#1 Terrorists do not get into the country to begin with (better border security)

#2 Ensure anyone with any sort of weapon does not get remotely close to the plane

#3 Offer a non-lethal weapon to the pilots and offer a "heat of the moment" training every 6 months.

Excellent idea. Though logical steps are rarely applied when any politician gets involved.

 

[annunaki]

Excellent idea. Though logical steps are rarely applied when any politician gets involved.

Logic & common sense do not apply to any current political party.

Perhaps that is a new party I should create. The LCS (Logic & Common Sense) party. All who are apart of it would not be career politicians.

 

[highfigh]

I think the easiest way to handle it is to ensure:

#1 Terrorists do not get into the country to begin with (better border security)

#2 Ensure anyone with any sort of weapon does not get remotely close to the plane

#3 Offer a non-lethal weapon to the pilots and offer a "heat of the moment" training every 6 months.

I agree but #1 is just so damn expensive. #2 is nice but when so many people don't care about how well they do their job, it's not likely.

I think all flight crews should be somewhat proficient with a variety of non-lethal weapons and preferably, some hand-to-hand tactics. Krav Maga would be a great set of skills.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07jnqD8wvyE

 

[aberkowitz]

I think all flight crews should be somewhat proficient with a variety of non-lethal weapons and preferably, some hand-to-hand tactics. Krav Maga would be a great set of skills.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07jnqD8wvyE

I think we should go back to the days of really hot flight attendants. Who would want to blow up a plane with a gorgeous blonde in a low cut shirt who's packing a nice pair of DD's .

 

[highfigh]

I think we should go back to the days of really hot flight attendants. Who would want to blow up a plane with a gorgeous blonde in a low cut shirt who's packing a nice pair of DD's .

Someone who wants 72 virgins in Paradise, that's who.

OTOH, seeing a woman like that kicking the crap out of some dirtbag would be sooooooo hot!