PDA

View Full Version : Air Marshals/Armed Pilots/Incident


NousDefionsDoc
12-12-2005, 20:04
How does the recent incident impact your thinking on arming pilots?

Goggles Pizano
12-12-2005, 20:15
I have always espoused the armed pilot. They should be trained properly of course but their responsibility to the passengers should not halt with their knowledge of flight. Add to that a ramp up of security measures prior to boarding and I'd feel safer flying the friendly skies again.

Terrorist Math: Five terroists with knives vs. Three flight officers with handguns.

You lose Haji.

The Reaper
12-12-2005, 20:18
Last line of defense, as long as it is kept in the cockpit.

If you can't train them and trust them with a gun, they shouldn't be hauling around 500 people and half a million pounds of fuel and aluminum.

Definitely yes.

TR

Blarney
12-12-2005, 20:18
How does the recent incident impact your thinking on arming pilots?

i would say the pilots need a gun, or at least a trained operative on board that can effectively wield one, esspecially in that situation, or even in the air. Pilots though need to be thorughly trained and screened, cant have a crazy on board with the power of bullets. I'm not an expert, but the benefits outweigh the risks and results. Though there is that potential to have the pilot fail though and the hijacker could get the gun, but pilots should be trained effectively. So, yes I would say that pilots should carry a sidearm to protect the plan in such an emergency.

Doc
12-12-2005, 20:21
Yes.

I think it could be another layer of the onion (protection). :D

Doc

Sacamuelas
12-12-2005, 21:25
The recent incident didn't affect my opinion as the poll sort of suggests, but I don't care if they are armed as long as the requirements are for use in the cockpit only as a last line of defense. IMO, the threshold for action by the actual cockpit crew should fall into the scenario of entire loss of control of the aircraft.

I wouldn't want a pilot coming out into coach or 1st class to confront a potential threat . I would prefer a true expert in that CT field perform that action. If not, at least an federal AM or other LEO do it verses a minimally trained crew member/pilot who would risk breaching the security of the cockpit to come out to attempt to handle the problem.

Roguish Lawyer
12-12-2005, 21:29
I don't think it necessarily matters how good the pilots would be in action because there likely would be some level of deterrent effect. But I defer to the experts.

NDD, the poll is lopsided right now. When are you going to tell everyone why they're wrong? :munchin

Sacamuelas
12-12-2005, 21:33
I thought the TS didn't like the idea of armed pilots from a thread in the past. But I have been wrong before...:munchin

Roguish Lawyer
12-12-2005, 21:34
I thought the TS didn't like the idea of armed pilots from a thread in the past. But I have been wrong before...:munchin

I believe you are correct.

eva05
12-12-2005, 21:45
Personally, I would want to leave that to air marshalls.

j

The Reaper
12-12-2005, 21:50
Personally, I would want to leave that to air marshalls.

j

1. It is public knowledge that not every flight has air marshals.

2. The air marshal(s) will likely be neutralized before the assault on the cockpit. Ready to go where they want to take you?

3. Since you are not being asked to do anything other than sit in your seat, what is your opposition to it based on?

TR

Gypsy
12-12-2005, 21:53
My vote is absolutely yes, with proper training and as a last line of defense. The most recent incident didn't have anything to do with my vote however.

Huey14
12-12-2005, 22:06
I'm of mixed opinion. I've met pilots who have no business being in charge of a dodgem car, let alone a 747/A380 and a shotgun (or whatever).

How armoured are the cockpit doors these days (without going into OPSEC of course)? Might it be worth it to take out the first few rows of first class and add an extra security area for cockpit access?

BTW:

A law allowing armed air marshals to operate on flights to and from New Zealand is likely to be introduced next year.

Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven says the government wants to amend legislation to allow foreign armed air marshals to be deployed on foreign airlines arriving or departing from New Zealand.

He says air marshals would only be permitted on flights if the security situation changed drastically. He says New Zealand has to be prepared for that eventuality.

Duynhoven says so far no requests have been received from other countries, to place armed in-flight security officers on flights to New Zealand.

A spokesperson for the Airline Pilots Association Paul Lyons says pilots expect to be fully consulted if a decision is made to introduce air marshals.

eva05
12-12-2005, 22:20
3. Since you are not being asked to do anything other than sit in your seat, what is your opposition to it based on?


My opposition is simply that I don't feel comfortable with people who have little to no training being armed and put on a plane with me.

I also wonder if it really would be much of a deterrent? People who are getting on a plane to crash it into a building (such as in the case of 9/11) are prepared to die anyway. Losing one or two of their people taking the cockpit, is that really going to stop them? What's to prevent them from using human shields or executing people until the pilot opens that door?

I fly a lot for my job, so I want airplanes to be a safe place where I don't have to worry about someone hijacking the plane. I just don't see how giving pilots Glocks is going to help.

Personally I'd rather pay an extra $100 a ticket to pay for an air marhsall or two to be on every flight. Know that that person has been trained to deal with that situation and can respond to it. Or pay an extra $150 for extra screening and security on the aircraft itself and all passengers boarding the plane.

j

Ambush Master
12-12-2005, 22:21
Last line of defense, as long as it is kept in the cockpit.

If you can't train them and trust them with a gun, they shouldn't be hauling around 500 people and half a million pounds of fuel and aluminum.

Definitely yes.

TR

I totally concur here.

The ONE thing that most of the "Public" fail to consider, is that BEFORE 9-11, the general rule was to placate the hijackers. Today, what will definitely happen is that the "Bubbas" will step in and overwhelm the Tangos, probably before the FAMS have to disclose!!!

The Miami scene was at the gate and not an in-flight incident, TOTALLY different scenario parameters!!!

The cockpit doors have been significantly reinforced and armored.

Later
Martin

(A frequent flier and I've lived in the industry for over 30 years!!)

The Reaper
12-12-2005, 22:45
My opposition is simply that I don't feel comfortable with people who have little to no training being armed and put on a plane with me.

I also wonder if it really would be much of a deterrent? People who are getting on a plane to crash it into a building (such as in the case of 9/11) are prepared to die anyway. Losing one or two of their people taking the cockpit, is that really going to stop them? What's to prevent them from using human shields or executing people until the pilot opens that door?

I fly a lot for my job, so I want airplanes to be a safe place where I don't have to worry about someone hijacking the plane. I just don't see how giving pilots Glocks is going to help.

Personally I'd rather pay an extra $100 a ticket to pay for an air marhsall or two to be on every flight. Know that that person has been trained to deal with that situation and can respond to it. Or pay an extra $150 for extra screening and security on the aircraft itself and all passengers boarding the plane.

j

I fly several times per month as well.

The training requirement is already stipulated. Do you believe that they just have a basket of pistols and hand them to anyone in a uniform as they pass through security?

They are not on a plane "with you", they are controlling the plane from a locked and secured cockpit. They do not bring the gun out of the cockpit while you are in flight. Does the fact that the air marshals are armed and seated in the cabin not bother you?

The loss taking the cockpit should include all of the attackers. If you doubt that, try breaking down a small, very well reinforced door with cutlery while passengers pummel you, then several of you try to get through the small door while I shoot at you with a decent high-capacity pistol from six feet away. Yes, they can shoot them all before they lose if there are less than a dozen or so. Would you rather see them trying to defend the cockpit with a fire axe? Also, there are at least two people on the flight deck. Your ability to attack will be significantly reduced by the flight inputs of the other pilot during your attack.

As noted, the risk is not that you will be going for an extended ride anymore, but that you will be going on a one-way trip. Your assumption has to be that if they get into the cockpit and gain control, you are all going to die, and likely many others on the ground.

You miss the point. There are no reasonable security measures that will reliably stop a bad guy from getting on a plane and having a weapon, possibly even a firearm or a bomb. If there are multiple bad guys, the air marshals can be overwhelmed.

I don't like being on a plane with sheeple and wolves either, but I have to when I fly.

Please look up the requirements for the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program before participating in this discussion further. From your comments, I do not think you understand the program.

TR

eva05
12-12-2005, 23:08
TR

I just looked up the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program on the TSA website. The stuff that is not considered Sensitive Security Info does shed a new light on things.

I have never had a problem with Air Marshalls in a plane with me as I understand they undergo significant training. Reading the aforementioned requirements for a Federal Flight Deck Officer, which I was not aware of, I see that there is training required for a member of the flight crew and it make me feel a lot more comfortable about a pilot being granted a side arm in the cockpit.

j

Spartan359
12-12-2005, 23:21
I say arm the pilots with pistols or shotguns. If I was on a plane and some jackass decided he wanted to take it over I would feel better knowing that he's going to have to fight for it because:
1. The pilots are armed.
2. The passengers ain't takin shit anymore.

Case in point, a man got the crap kicked out of him by the passengers on a flight from Los Angeles to Honolulu for threatning a baby. Heres the link: http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051210/NEWS01/512100348

APLP
12-13-2005, 01:33
I fly several times per month as well.

The training requirement is already stipulated. Do you believe that they just have a basket of pistols and hand them to anyone in a uniform as they pass through security?

They are not on a plane "with you", they are controlling the plane from a locked and secured cockpit. They do not bring the gun out of the cockpit while you are in flight. Does the fact that the air marshals are armed and seated in the cabin not bother you?

The loss taking the cockpit should include all of the attackers. If you doubt that, try breaking down a small, very well reinforced door with cutlery while passengers pummel you, then several of you try to get through the small door while I shoot at you with a decent high-capacity pistol from six feet away. Yes, they can shoot them all before they lose if there are less than a dozen or so. Would you rather see them trying to defend the cockpit with a fire axe? Also, there are at least two people on the flight deck. Your ability to attack will be significantly reduced by the flight inputs of the other pilot during your attack.

As noted, the risk is not that you will be going for an extended ride anymore, but that you will be going on a one-way trip. Your assumption has to be that if they get into the cockpit and gain control, you are all going to die, and likely many others on the ground.

You miss the point. There are no reasonable security measures that will reliably stop a bad guy from getting on a plane and having a weapon, possibly even a firearm or a bomb. If there are multiple bad guys, the air marshals can be overwhelmed.

I don't like being on a plane with sheeple and wolves either, but I have to when I fly.

Please look up the requirements for the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program before participating in this discussion further. From your comments, I do not think you understand the program.

TR

The Federal Flight Deck Officer Program does provide a credible deterrent for many of the reasons outlined above within the scope for operational response as it was designed. Both the selection and training criteria for those who serve are as comprehensive as the current congressionally mandated funding levels allow. Some estimates say that the FFDO program will soon be one of the largest federal law enforcement agencies in the United States. Those who serve in this capacity do so with no compensation from the government and most continue to seek additional training at their own expense. Not much doubt that whoever would attempt to penetrate the secure cockpit perimeter would be met with lethal force.

VelociMorte
12-13-2005, 09:20
My opposition is simply that I don't feel comfortable with people who have little to no training being armed and put on a plane with me.

I also wonder if it really would be much of a deterrent? People who are getting on a plane to crash it into a building (such as in the case of 9/11) are prepared to die anyway. Losing one or two of their people taking the cockpit, is that really going to stop them? What's to prevent them from using human shields or executing people until the pilot opens that door?

I fly a lot for my job, so I want airplanes to be a safe place where I don't have to worry about someone hijacking the plane. I just don't see how giving pilots Glocks is going to help.

Personally I'd rather pay an extra $100 a ticket to pay for an air marhsall or two to be on every flight. Know that that person has been trained to deal with that situation and can respond to it. Or pay an extra $150 for extra screening and security on the aircraft itself and all passengers boarding the plane.

j


My thoughts on this may piss some people off, but so be it: We go to great lengths to insure that there are no weapons in the cabin of the aircraft. We then board armed individuals who may or may not:

1. Be properly trained
2. Be physically fit
3. Be easily identified
4. Have forgotten their freaking weapon in the airport restroom for anybody to pick up
5. Be easily overpowered

I don't need to spell this out any further. The bad guys may be crazy, but they're not stupid.

The pilot has the ultimate responsibility for the safety of the aircraft and should have the ability to take out anyone who breaches the cockpit. If that door is opened by any unauthorized person, that person should be taking their last breath through the gaping holes in their chest.

longrange1947
12-13-2005, 13:57
Recent activites have not changed my opinion one bit. I have always thought it was stupid that pilots, that can control their emotions during flying emergencies, were not armed as the last resort to prevent cabin take over. The majority of the pilots are ex military or Reserve or Nation Guard officers. While this does not mean they are trained with a handgun, it does mean that they are trained in crisis management.

Yes, arm them and let them do what has to be done to prevent another aircraft take over.

Also, the fear of having them taken away from the pilots is how much worse then being flown into a building? Hell I'm not looking at deterring the hi jackers, I'm looking at killing the bastages. :D

Also, my bet is that most that are uncomfortable with armed pilots are also somewhat uncomfortable with other armed individuals. :munchin

Trip_Wire (RIP)
12-13-2005, 15:25
IMHO: I think that those pilots that go trough the program, should be armed!

I don't have any qualms with FAMs being on board armed, as long as their standards and training is acceptable. As a matter of fact, I thought that the FAMs did an excellent job in this last incident. It was a tough decision that had to be made quickly.

Also, remember that FBI, ATF, DEA and some other Federal agents are authorized to carry their weapons on the aircraft if they choose to.

In some cases, local LEO's in prisoner transport, may be authorized to carry their weapons on the aircraft as well. (I hope this is very limited, as I'm sure it is.)

As many have stated here, I doubt that any terrorist is going to get away with hi-jacking an aircraft again, without the resistance of the passengers and hopefully the FAMs and Armed pilots! :lifter

mugwump
12-13-2005, 16:45
I've thought long and hard about this issue as I just spent the last year getting my nephew up to speed so he could attend Federal Flight Deck Officer training. He does not have a military background and is 25 years of age. He had never fired even a BB gun up until the point we started shooting together.

He completed his training several weeks ago and passed with a perfect score. It was not a rubberstamp program; several attendees failed the course.

I won't go into the specifics of the training, but it includes unarmed, armed, and force-on-force components. He came out of it knowing he isn't a steely-eyed warrior, but he understands the boundaries of his responsibility and feels he could aquit himself if the time came to do so.

I shoot with him and his two pilot buddies every other week. They are all bright guys and understand the issues. I have no problem with the program, except I can't shoot their issue DAO gat for beans.

NousDefionsDoc
12-13-2005, 18:12
Should bus drivers be armed?

How about truck drivers hauling chemicals?

How about Amtrak drivers?

As for the question at hand. I don't have a problem with it as long as they:
1. Are trained to standard.
2. Maintain that standard.
3. Are held accountable.

Now, 1 and 2 won't happen. So I have a problem.

As for them being ex-AF whatever, I give a rat's ass. Anyone remember how they whinged about being called up? And we all know what regular military pistol marksmanship training is like. Besides, I met a buttload of people when I was in, but you couldn't fill a CRRC with the people I would trust to take a shot over The Kid's head in an airplane.

Personally, I would let anyone that qual'd carry at anytime. Airplane, boats, trains, whatever. Terrorist;s worst nightmare. But then I ain't king. 'Sides, probably ain't a A-Team's worth that could pass the qual I would set up anyway.:D (Hint - TS would be The Judge :cool: )

longrange1947
12-13-2005, 18:29
NDD - Not saying that being ex military makes them able to shoot, only that they have a better mind set from being military.

What is whinging? :munchin

Truck and bus drivers should be allowed a license to drive only under some circumstances from what I have seen on the road.

Still say arm the suckers.

Also agree, anyone that allows a hijacking now is a dam fool.

Letting anyone certed carry!!!! AARGGGHHHH do you know that is a libs nightmare too!!! :D

NousDefionsDoc
12-13-2005, 18:46
Whinging is whining, only worse. I used to work with some englishmen.

My comments reference ex-mil and shooting weren't directed specifically at you Brother, you were very clear about your position on that.

Another thing occurred to me, the difference between Nintendo KIAing and CQB KIAing - know what I mean? Do you think they have the mindset for it? I wonder how long it would take one of them to hand it over and open the door when they start sawing on baby necks or the stewardess they worked with the last five years?

I think we'll see 1,000 NDs and lost weapons and bad shootings before we see this pay off. Of course that may be enough.

The older I get, the more I think people were a different species when the 2nd Amendment was written. Smarter somehow.

I will say this, if I was going to arm them, I wouldn't make such a big production about it. In fact, need to know only. I think this is more about a security show rather than any real improvement. Better than arming Sp/4s with wings would be to stop the AWGs from getting on in the first place. Until we start profiling, I won't take any of this crap seriously because the USG isn't.

longrange1947
12-13-2005, 18:57
NDD - No problems, was only clarifing. Mind sets are not permenant but they can be reactivated. :)

Yes the older folk have a level of common sense that is no longer present due to libs sucking their brains out of their nostrils with "If it only saves one person" and "If we don't mess with them they won't mess with us". However I have found that many of the folk are still commons sense aware on boards such as this one. :D

Peregrino
12-13-2005, 20:02
Until we start profiling, I won't take any of this crap seriously because the USG isn't.

Amen Brother! :( The only thing the USG/politicians take seriously are the skewed public opinion polls promulgated and interpreted by the liberal media - 'cause that might affect their power base. Gotta keep the prole's (proletariat) happy. Peregrino

mugwump
12-13-2005, 21:00
I met a buttload of people when I was in, but you couldn't fill a CRRC with the people I would trust to take a shot over The Kid's head in an airplane.

NDD, you are too pessimistic. These guys are highly trained professionals.

5156

Team Sergeant
12-14-2005, 08:15
Should bus drivers be armed?

How about truck drivers hauling chemicals?

How about Amtrak drivers?



Homeland Security must be reading Professionalsoldiers.com, or consulting with NDD.;)



Report: Air Marshals to Guard Trains
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
AP


WASHINGTON — Federal air marshals will expand their work beyond airplanes, launching counterterror surveillance at train stations and other mass transit facilities in a test program this week, according to a published report.

Teams of undercover air marshals and uniformed law enforcement officers will fan out to bus and train stations, ferries, and mass transit facilities across the country to "counter potential criminal terrorist activity in all modes of transportation," The Washington Post reported on its Web site Tuesday night, quoting documents from the Transportation Security Administration.

Rest of the story...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178642,00.html

hoepoe
12-14-2005, 08:25
Hello all

There should be trained security personell, armed if neccessary, wherever there is a concentration of the public in a confined space, such as a plane, bus, train etc.

There have been in the past several incidents here where groups of terrorists hijacked busses and went on shooting sprees across the country whilst holding the passengers as hostages. This has not happened in a while though as we tend to kill them now :-) The main issue for us on busses are the randomly exploding busses. As far as hijacking goes, armed guards/drivers (trained) will deter this in some cases, and never encourage it.

Planes: Armed trained pilots, definately. Sky martial is the second last line of defense, if there is not one present or the hostiles get into the cockpit, well, they must not and the pilots are in the best potition to be the last line of defense. Here all pilots have been IAF pilots, so no problem with training there.

Trains: Armed guards work well here.

Hoepoe

Team Sergeant
12-14-2005, 08:45
Hello all

There should be trained security personell, armed if neccessary, wherever there is a concentration of the public in a confined space, such as a plane, bus, train etc.

Trains: Armed guards work well here.

Hoepoe


Hoepoe,

So you're saying that we also need Air Marshals in Malls, Movie theaters, every college university, high school, elementary school, theme park, etc etc etc.

We live in a free society, I'd like to keep it that way.

Lets make a small adjustment, hows this, we take the fight to the islamic terrorists, on their soil, in their homes, in front of their families, on a global level.

I vote we make them walk in fear, can't be done, I say it can, where's osama ben sissy? DEAD, zarkowi, hiding in mortal fear.....:lifter

Give us time, we'll kill or capture all of them, well, until the next jimmy carter takes office and allows another terrorist reprieve.

Team Sergeant

Kyobanim
12-14-2005, 08:48
Well, TSA is doing what Hopoe wishes . . .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10456738/

Teams of undercover air marshals and uniformed law enforcement officers will fan out to bus and train stations, ferries, and mass transit facilities across the country this week in a new test program to conduct surveillance and "counter potential criminal terrorist activity in all modes of transportation," according to internal federal documents.

hoepoe
12-14-2005, 08:51
Hoepoe,

So you're saying that we also need Air Marshals in Malls, Movie theaters, every college university, high school, elementary school, theme park, etc etc etc.

We live in a free society, I'd like to keep it that way.

Lets make a small adjustment, hows this, we take the fight to the islamic terrorists, on their soil, in their homes, in front of their families, on a global level.

I vote we make them walk in fear, can't be done, I say it can, where's osama ben sissy? DEAD, zarkowi, hiding in mortal fear.....:lifter

Give us time, we'll kill or capture all of them, well, until the next jimmy carter takes office and allows another terrorist reprieve.

Team Sergeant


Hi TS

I hope you're well.

We live in a free society too, but i'm afraid 'if" the terrorism develops further CONUS, then yes, you hit the nail on the head. People wil walk though metal detectors or hand held scans and each and every entrance tp public gathering places, such as the examples you posted.

I'm not usggesting living in fear or taking away your liberties. I'm expressing an opoinion on what is inevitable (sp) if a few more attacks happen CONUS.

Noone thinks twice about it here and it is a part of life..then again, so is getting blown up.

As far as taking the war to them, i'm all for it, but realistically this won't stop radicals with wound springs ready to go CONUS.

By radicals, i am not singling out one ethnic group, although one is more prominently a threat at present.

Hoepoe

Team Sergeant
12-14-2005, 09:14
I'm just pointing out that its not security that we require, we need (and lack) the intestinal fortitude to bring the fight to these terrorist cowards on a global level.

If I might make a point about our culture:

If john kerry were currently in office we would have pulled out of the M.E., made zarkowi the acting PM of Iraq, released all the terrorists from prisons around the world as a gesture of "good will" and sent a message that we will no longer engage them overseas.

This would go on for a few years until we again, drop our collective guard and allow another WTC style attack.

Personally I'm sick of all the attacks we have endured. It time to make examples of rouge nations such as iran, Syria etc .... I believe it is time to once again make war so excruciating vile that no nation would want to incur the wrath of the United States.

Alas, I live in a civilized society that will not take such an approach. We will endure. We will send our children off to fight, once again, the same depraved people I and others have already fought. I’m sure this will continue for another 3000 years.

TS

hoepoe
12-14-2005, 09:35
TS

I agree, peace through superior (and implemented) firepower. It is the only langugae the radicals understand.

But like you stated, this won't happen at a level great enough to achieve this.
Not now anyway, hence, the reality now is that the threat is present and disrupting the delivery system does not disrupt the will.

It is the will that needs to be broken, and if not broken submitted by fear of consequence, by example.

i do not 'wish' for the constant state of security, but i foresee it happening.

I don't want to elaborate out here.

Stay safe

Hoepoe

APLP
12-14-2005, 09:53
Whinging is whining, only worse. I used to work with some englishmen.

My comments reference ex-mil and shooting weren't directed specifically at you Brother, you were very clear about your position on that.

Another thing occurred to me, the difference between Nintendo KIAing and CQB KIAing - know what I mean? Do you think they have the mindset for it? I wonder how long it would take one of them to hand it over and open the door when they start sawing on baby necks or the stewardess they worked with the last five years?

I think we'll see 1,000 NDs and lost weapons and bad shootings before we see this pay off. Of course that may be enough.

The older I get, the more I think people were a different species when the 2nd Amendment was written. Smarter somehow.

I will say this, if I was going to arm them, I wouldn't make such a big production about it. In fact, need to know only. I think this is more about a security show rather than any real improvement. Better than arming Sp/4s with wings would be to stop the AWGs from getting on in the first place. Until we start profiling, I won't take any of this crap seriously because the USG isn't.

No disrespect intended, but I don't think you have an accurate understanding for the type of individuals who participate in this program. Although any law enforcement agency that consists of thousands of individuals will always have a small percentage of folks that might not be as capable as others, the statistics for lost weapons or NDs you mention have demonstrated better statistics than any other Federal Law Enforcement Agency.

I am sure that you did not intend to insult the many reserve and guard military pilots who continue to leave their airline jobs and families to support deployed active duty US miilitary personnel around the world. I assure you that the airline pilot sitting on the cat of a US aircraft carrier right now is not doing so for just shits and grins. Those who serve in this program do so with the same conviction.

The individuals who are selected and trained for the program, will do their job without hesitation in any of the situations you express concern for.

Razor
12-14-2005, 11:11
Homeland Security must be reading Professionalsoldiers.com, or consulting with NDD.;)

You'd be pleased with some of the folks filling billets in NORTHCOM. ;)

longrange1947
12-14-2005, 14:16
I'm just pointing out that its not security that we require, we need (and lack) the intestinal fortitude to bring the fight to these terrorist cowards on a global level.

If I might make a point about our culture:

If john kerry were currently in office we would have pulled out of the M.E., made zarkowi the acting PM of Iraq, released all the terrorists from prisons around the world as a gesture of "good will" and sent a message that we will no longer engage them overseas.

This would go on for a few years until we again, drop our collective guard and allow another WTC style attack.

Personally I'm sick of all the attacks we have endured. It time to make examples of rouge nations such as iran, Syria etc .... I believe it is time to once again make war so excruciating vile that no nation would want to incur the wrath of the United States.

Alas, I live in a civilized society that will not take such an approach. We will endure. We will send our children off to fight, once again, the same depraved people I and others have already fought. I’m sure this will continue for another 3000 years.

TS

I agree whole heartedly.

There are a few things that really bug me (OK maybe more than a few). The stupid statement of "We need to keep the high ground" in terms of higher morality. Not really. We need to profile, piss on what the liberals say. We need to do what is necessary to insure WE win this thing and screw what th rest fo the liberal world thinks. I know that the rest of the conservative worlds knows that we need to do what is necessary to win this thing.

Ever notice how "If it only saves one life" is a beloved quote of the lib elite until we use it to justify saving lives through interrogation? We need to make it so terrible to attack us that they do not do it again.

Another words, we need to execute this war as a war and not some lawn bowling game where the gentlemanly nicieties are observed no matter how much the other side "cheats".

Lets get serious and hope that the libs have a heart attack over it. :D

brewmonkey
12-14-2005, 15:48
I agree with allowing pilots to be armed provided they take a course in handling their weapon and maintain a yearly requirement of weapons proficiency. IIRC they are required to maintain their flight credentials because of the lives they are entrusted with, I see it the same way for the firearms.

QRQ 30
12-14-2005, 16:53
I agree with allowing pilots to be armed provided they take a course in handling their weapon and maintain a yearly requirement of weapons proficiency. IIRC they are required to maintain their flight credentials because of the lives they are entrusted with, I see it the same way for the firearms.


This is where I balk. If you go through all of the threads concerning LEOs and others with weapons as well as military, it takes more than annual firing to be sufficiently proficient with a weapon. Unlike other situations, misses in an aircraft in flight aren't an option. The crews have enough to do and so little time off from flying I don't see them maintaining any kind of requisite firearm proficiency.

I vote no. I would prefer to make the flight deck inpenetrable and train the crew to remain in the cockpit regardless of what is happening in the cabin.

I know this would take time and money but there is available technology to have aircraft taken over and flown by remote control, even locking the crew out.

Then comes the problem of international flights.

Huey14
12-14-2005, 17:09
I just had a thought...don't FAA regs require both pilots to ALWAYS be in charge of the aircraft? It's not a big issue but if one pilot is dealing to a situation and the other pilot has a stroke or heart attack then things might not go so well. Just a thought/worst case.

Also I've read that Il EL pilots are trained to dive the aircraft violently, thus anyone not belted up is smacked against the roof and knocked UC. Works in my books.

Just some thoughts.

QRQ 30
12-14-2005, 17:26
My feelings on hi-jacks in general. In the sixties and seventies hijacks were so common that you never knew if your plane was going to its desired destination or Cuba. Finally all nations , even including communist nations like Cuba, agreed that no asylum would be given to hijackers. All would be prosecuted or extradited for prosecution. Hijackings became an all but extinct species. Crews were taught that the priority was to get the plane safely to the ground.

Not to say that another 9/11 hijacking will occur but I think it is unlikely. Most hijackers want to get somewhere -- alive. As for terrorists they have great patience. It is almost mind boggling to consider the training and coordination it took to properly choose and simultaneously take over four air liners. There will be another spectacular strike but I feel it will be just as unexpected and different from other strikes as the two Trade Cebter strikes were different. There has been enough time for sleepers to have been trained and be flying in the cockpits right now waiting for orders. An inexperienced, junior flight officer could take over the aircraft.

I still feel that crew and flight deck isolation and security are the most important even to the point of having separate entrances for the flight vrew.

The Reaper
12-14-2005, 17:50
This is where I balk. If you go through all of the threads concerning LEOs and others with weapons as well as military, it takes more than annual firing to be sufficiently proficient with a weapon. Unlike other situations, misses in an aircraft in flight aren't an option. The crews have enough to do and so little time off from flying I don't see them maintaining any kind of requisite firearm proficiency.

I vote no. I would prefer to make the flight deck inpenetrable and train the crew to remain in the cockpit regardless of what is happening in the cabin.

I know this would take time and money but there is available technology to have aircraft taken over and flown by remote control, even locking the crew out.

Then comes the problem of international flights.

Have to disagree with you here.

Nothing is impenetrable, including Fort Knox.

Look up the FFDO program for yourself to see the requirements.

Two of our members are FFDO officers, maybe one would care to tell you what the unclassified requirements are.

The gun stays in the cockpit the entire flight, he is not permitted to take it in back for any reason.

As far as misses go, first, aircraft decompression is not like in the movies, and second, as long as they stop the terrorists, collateral damage will have to be a secondary concern. Since the alternative is either probable death for unarmed passengers trying to retake the cockpit, or certain death (plus hundreds more on the ground) when the terrorists fly the aircraft into the target, I'll take my chances with the aircrew shooting at anything that comes into the doorway six feet behind them. Surgical skill is not required.

TR

QRQ 30
12-14-2005, 18:06
To be honest, decompression never entered my mind. However, here is a thought. Have airtighr hatches installed between the cabin and flight deck which open into the cabin. By depressurizing the flight deck it would not be able to be entered. Actually I would be infavor of completely isolated flight decks with no access from the cabin. Of course you will have the possibility of a rogue or terrorist FDO.

Huey14
12-14-2005, 18:20
To be honest, decompression never entered my mind. However, here is a thought. Have airtighr hatches installed between the cabin and flight deck which open into the cabin. By depressurizing the flight deck it would not be able to be entered. Actually I would be infavor of completely isolated flight decks with no access from the cabin. Of course you will have the possibility of a rogue or terrorist FDO.


That's pretty much an advanced version of what I was saying with the security zone idea, though I never thought of depressurising it.

APLP
12-14-2005, 19:57
This is where I balk. If you go through all of the threads concerning LEOs and others with weapons as well as military, it takes more than annual firing to be sufficiently proficient with a weapon. Unlike other situations, misses in an aircraft in flight aren't an option. The crews have enough to do and so little time off from flying I don't see them maintaining any kind of requisite firearm proficiency.

I vote no. I would prefer to make the flight deck inpenetrable and train the crew to remain in the cockpit regardless of what is happening in the cabin.

I know this would take time and money but there is available technology to have aircraft taken over and flown by remote control, even locking the crew out.

Then comes the problem of international flights.

Those who serve in the program maintain currency more frequently than once a year. The courses of fire a specific to the environment that they work in as is the majority of the initial training curriculum.

It is not feasible to make the flight deck completely impenetrable for many reasons. The current secure cockpit doors serve the function for what they were intended. I would also prefer a low tech soft reactionary gap buffer as well but such additional measures are not applicable to all aircraft designs.

There is no currently available technology that would address remote flying of a commercial aircraft. The current ROE for both armed pilots and FAMS function with a very clear mission statement. Armed pilots do not operate outside of the secure cockpit perimeter.

QRQ 30
12-14-2005, 20:27
I participated in a long debate over this subject when Congress was debating allowing armed FDOs. I started out dead against and finally came around to the above conclusion: Yes but only as an absolute last resort and never out of the flight deck. There were several ALPO members in the debate and their feelings were mixed. Ibelieve it is purely voluntary somewhat similar to CCW.

Ambush Master
12-14-2005, 21:00
Ibelieve it is purely voluntary somewhat similar to CCW.

It is TOTALLY voluntary, and all of the aviators that I know who have qual'ed are extremely proficient and handgun savvy!!

Face it people, they do not WANT to die, much less go looking for trouble!!!!

Personally, I'd rather be riding with someone that is a FDO.

Later
Martin

QRQ 30
12-14-2005, 21:11
Agreed. However I still think there is as much danger from rogue pilots. I believe it was finally determined that the Egypt Air crash was intentional and a USAF pilot took off with a fighter a few years ago.

I still say that if you really want to create havoc, have all of the Arab cabbies in NYC speed down the sidewalks during rush hour.:eek:

CPTAUSRET
12-15-2005, 21:22
It is TOTALLY voluntary, and all of the aviators that I know who have qual'ed are extremely proficient and handgun savvy!!

Face it people, they do not WANT to die, much less go looking for trouble!!!!

Personally, I'd rather be riding with someone that is a FDO.

Later
Martin


I was initially against arming pilots, but if given a good training program, and if they stay profficient, then I am for it.

We cancelled four flights this year, one to Brazil, one to Egypt, and a couple other fairly long flights, if we hadn't cancelled I would have flown over 150k miles with United (alone) this year.


Membership level 1K
Year to date Elite Qualifying Miles (EQM) 123,884
Year to date Elite Qualifying Segments (EQS) 99

Terry

mugwump
12-16-2005, 09:34
... However I still think there is as much danger from rogue pilots...

Agreed that's an issue, but they've all got access to an emergency axe on the flight deck right now, so even if they aren't carrying a handgun a nut job could do damage.

As I said in my first post in this thread, I thought long and hard on this matter. I was originally against armed FFDOs, mostly because I thought we bubbas in the rear would have a Bic pen through the eye socket of anyone who tried anything. I was also concerned about the "cool factor" I perceived as part of the motivation in the three young pilots I was working with.

All three left training with a new attitude. They are sober, serious, and aware of the responsibility they have. It is no longer "cool." Whoever is running the training program is a sharp cat. I think they requalify every 6 mos?

By the way, they pay their own way: program training comes out of unpaid vacation time, and travel and accommodations are out of pocket. Their weapon, holster, 100 rounds duty ammo and three magazines are issued. There is no allowance for training ammo or range time. There's a psych eval going into the program and they get eval'd yearly.

Team Sergeant
12-16-2005, 10:20
The only comment I'll make is that before every pilot is armed I think every federal, state and local, active duty, (not retired or reserve) LEO should be carrying on all aircraft.

A short class on A/C procedures and they receive their creds to carry on all commercial A/C. In fact I think they should fly for free when armed.

I see no reason not to allow each and every LEO in the US to carry on aircraft. No reason at all. Now that all are allowed to carry concealed throughout the entire United States, allow them to carry on all A/C is not a monumental jump.

Before everyone jumps into this discussion think about this, why did we have FAM's before 9/11? Because they were "“federal" LEO's that could carry across state lines…. Sure they had a little training in AC procedures, but the only reason they had to be FED's was the ability to cross state lines while armed.

I say place all the FAM's on the overseas flights and allow the US LEO's to handle all the CONUS based air traffic. We already have "airport police" lets take it a step further….

VelociMorte
12-16-2005, 11:29
"I see no reason not to allow each and every LEO in the US to carry on aircraft. No reason at all."


Here's two reasons:


http://www.wimp.com/misfires/

http://www.policevids.com/vidshow.php?vurl=CopInstructorShoots.wmv

Some people, even LEOs, don't need to be armed.

I personally know LEOs who have not, and do not unholster their weapons more than once a year, and then only because of mandatory requals. Law Enforcement, like all professions, has it's share of marginal people. Simply carrying a badge is in no way a measure of marksmanship or firearms familiarity.

No disrespect intended....Just stating facts.

Peregrino
12-16-2005, 13:03
OK guys - TS makes a legitimate point about allowing all LEOs to fly armed. I agree. I disagree with the expressed reluctance to arm suitably trained FDOs. Get real! The pilots already have the power of life and death over every person on the plane and whoever they crash into on the ground. No psych profile is going to expose a vulnerability like the Egypt Air pilot. Use the right handle and EVERYONE is susceptible to pressure. Give the pilots the ability to defend the cockpit with lethal force and quit "what if-ing" improbable scenarios. GUNS and a willingness to use them are the only viable means to protect the cockpit against a determined assault from someone who controls the passenger compartment. I don't care how "reinforced" the cockpit door is, given enough time and tools that can be improvised from items available in the passenger compartment, a determined effort will eventually break it down.

If you want to worry about imponderables - try this for size: Most "chicken littles" would be horrified to know how many catagories of federal agents are already flying (or authorized to fly) armed. Any one of them is a potential source of a firearm in the hands of terrorists. And ala Egypt Air - if they decide to martyr themselves who/what is going to stop them?

Finally - I'm not afraid of the armed citizen. (Citizen as I use it has broad ramifications - a concept understood by most Americans up until very recently - especially the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.) I'm tired of all of these discussions advocating the creation of another "privileged class" of armed individuals/interests. The concentration of power (weapons and the training/ability to use them) in the hands of a self-selected elite signals the eventual demise of a free nation. It's time for the American people to remember that self defense is the most basic human right. ANYONE who is willing to accept the responsibilities inherent in the decision to go armed, should be allowed to do so. (The usual caveats about felons, mental incompetents, etc. are already a matter of law.)

People need to give more thought to the realities of human nature and less credence to their fears. Enough ranting - I've got work to do. Peregrino

Edited to add: You also need to look at statistics. The number of spectacular incidents used by the media to promote their "gun free society" agenda as opposed to the number of firearms in circulation make your examples statistically insignificant (irrelevant). It's really tiresome when people "cherry pick" incidents to support their favorite dogma but they'll scream bloody murder when somebody does it to them. Reminds me of the ACLU and the Democrats.

NousDefionsDoc
12-16-2005, 13:06
The only comment I'll make is that before every pilot is armed I think every federal, state and local, active duty, (not retired or reserve) LEO should be carrying on all aircraft.

A short class on A/C procedures and they receive their creds to carry on all commercial A/C. In fact I think they should fly for free when armed.

I see no reason not to allow each and every LEO in the US to carry on aircraft. No reason at all. Now that all are allowed to carry concealed throughout the entire United States, allow them to carry on all A/C is not a monumental jump.

Before everyone jumps into this discussion think about this, why did we have FAM's before 9/11? Because they were "“federal" LEO's that could carry across state lines…. Sure they had a little training in AC procedures, but the only reason they had to be FED's was the ability to cross state lines while armed.

I say place all the FAM's on the overseas flights and allow the US LEO's to handle all the CONUS based air traffic. We already have "airport police" lets take it a step further….


Fine. And all 18-series carry anywhere and everywhere as well. No problem with it at all.

Razor
12-16-2005, 14:17
"I personally know LEOs who have not, and do not unholster their weapons more than once a year, and then only because of mandatory requals. Law Enforcement, like all professions, has it's share of marginal people. Simply carrying a badge is in no way a measure of marksmanship or firearms familiarity.

While this is true, VM, there are easily hundreds of infantrymen out there that have marginal or worse shooting skills, but we don't hesitate a second to give them individual (and crew served!) weapons and explosives and send them into an environment filled with non-combatants, expecting them to deliver discriminate lethal effects while reacting to life-threatening assaults.

Team Sergeant
12-16-2005, 14:23
"I see no reason not to allow each and every LEO in the US to carry on aircraft. No reason at all."


Here's two reasons:


http://www.wimp.com/misfires/

http://www.policevids.com/vidshow.php?vurl=CopInstructorShoots.wmv

Some people, even LEOs, don't need to be armed.

I personally know LEOs who have not, and do not unholster their weapons more than once a year, and then only because of mandatory requals. Law Enforcement, like all professions, has it's share of marginal people. Simply carrying a badge is in no way a measure of marksmanship or firearms familiarity.

No disrespect intended....Just stating facts.

VM,
Until you have carried a gun and placed yourself "in harms way" I'd be a little less critical. Your "facts" as you call them do not represent more that one hunderdth of one percent the the LEO's in the United States.
Team Sergeant

VelociMorte
12-16-2005, 15:22
VM,
Until you have carried a gun and placed yourself "in harms way" I'd be a little less critical. Your "facts" as you call them do not represent more that one hunderdth of one percent the the LEO's in the United States.
Team Sergeant


TS, I've been there, done that, and even have the t-shirt. I don't mean to be critical, or disrespectful in any way; I am simply pointing out that not all LEOs are as competent with firearms as they should be. Watch the videos. Even though these two examples represent an extremely small percentage of LEOs, would you allow either of these individuals on your team? Would you feel safe on a dynamic entry with either of these individuals riding your back through the door? I wouldn't. As a frequent airline passenger, I feel that the training for carrying on an aircraft should be a little more rigorous, and we should require something more than a badge and a short course. Hell, where I live, Animal Control Officers are sworn LEOs. I shoot at least a few hundred rounds a month, hold a TS/...., and courier stuff all over. Hell why not let me carry on an aircraft? Just because I'm now a civilian doesn't make me stupid. LEOs are NOT some special class of citizen that deserves more rights than anyone else.

longrange1947
12-16-2005, 17:47
I absolutely refuse to condemn all due to a actions of a couple of morons. By extension NO ONE should drive a car, NO ONE should see a doctor. Hell more people are killed by cars with incompetent drivers and more people are killed through medical misadventure then guns.

To say no to the 'maybe', 'possibly', 'whatever', is the same chicken little bleatings of the anti-gun crowd that always predict Deadwood and Tombstone shoot outs as soon as you give the right to carry to anyone. To point to one or two incidents and use them as justifications is horse hockey and deserves as much attention.

Just the threat of the weapons being on board by an unknown number of personnel would have stopped 9/11, stop acting like it would not have!!!!

As far as decompression, I will take that chance over a tall building anyday.

aricbcool
12-16-2005, 21:39
Finally - I'm not afraid of the armed citizen. (Citizen as I use it has broad ramifications - a concept understood by most Americans up until very recently - especially the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.) I'm tired of all of these discussions advocating the creation of another "privileged class" of armed individuals/interests. The concentration of power (weapons and the training/ability to use them) in the hands of a self-selected elite signals the eventual demise of a free nation. It's time for the American people to remember that self defense is the most basic human right. ANYONE who is willing to accept the responsibilities inherent in the decision to go armed, should be allowed to do so. (The usual caveats about felons, mental incompetents, etc. are already a matter of law.)

Well said. Ditto here.

--Aric

uboat509
12-18-2005, 08:05
I am absolutely dead set against arming pilots. First of all, we already have the unions saying that the pilots do not have enough time to keep up on their flight skills, or get enough down time time between flights. Add to that the fact that at least some of the airlines are downsizing which means fewer pilots fly the routes. With all of that, when are pilots supposed to find time to maintain proficiency on a weapon? Once a year or even once every six months is not enough.
Second, I want the pilots to stay locked in the cockpit where they can do the most good but if you give them guns at least some of them will think that means that they can use it a leave the cockpit regardless of what the regs say. The pilot's main concern needs to be flying the plane. I don't want them thinking they can deal with hijackers just because they have a gun a few hours on the range. Many of the 9/11 hijackers had been training for years to do that mission.
If you want to arm the pilots, fine, give them TASERs. Those of you that have been tased can testify that it is no joke nor is it a toy. And most importantly, reenforce the door. It should damn near be a bank vault on that door.
The bottom line is that the first priority in any hijacking needs to be preventing the terrorists from gaining control of the giant guided missile and the second priority is the safety of the passengers.


SFC W

The Reaper
12-18-2005, 09:10
I am absolutely dead set against arming pilots. First of all, we already have the unions saying that the pilots do not have enough time to keep up on their flight skills, or get enough down time time between flights. Add to that the fact that at least some of the airlines are downsizing which means fewer pilots fly the routes. With all of that, when are pilots supposed to find time to maintain proficiency on a weapon? Once a year or even once every six months is not enough.
Second, I want the pilots to stay locked in the cockpit where they can do the most good but if you give them guns at least some of them will think that means that they can use it a leave the cockpit regardless of what the regs say. The pilot's main concern needs to be flying the plane. I don't want them thinking they can deal with hijackers just because they have a gun a few hours on the range. Many of the 9/11 hijackers had been training for years to do that mission.
If you want to arm the pilots, fine, give them TASERs. Those of you that have been tased can testify that it is no joke nor is it a toy. And most importantly, reenforce the door. It should damn near be a bank vault on that door.
The bottom line is that the first priority in any hijacking needs to be preventing the terrorists from gaining control of the giant guided missile and the second priority is the safety of the passengers.


SFC W

Uboat:

You seem to be ignorant of the requirements of the FFDO program.

Please read the thread fully and acquaint yourself with the procedures. The guns never leave the cockpit.

The doors have already been reinforced, since 2002 or so.

How does arming the pilots to defend the flight deck as the last line of defense compromise their ability to keep the plane out of the hands of the hijackers or endanger pasenger safety? If they fail in the first, the latter is a foregone conclusion.

TASERS, while good for their intended purpose, are not what I want to be armed with if a half dozen armed terrorists are breaking down the door of the cockpit six feet away. What do you do if there is more than one?

You already have people in the back flying armed who qualify no more often than the frequency you cited.

I am shocked at the number of people on this site who are willing to offer an opinion about something which they do not seem to understand, or care to learn by either reading the thread or doing some basic research.

TR

sf11b_p
12-18-2005, 09:40
Given the events of 2001 it’s not the worst idea a pilot, or someone in the cockpit trained with a weapon, have access to a lockbox secured weapon, in the cockpit, to defend from a maniac trying to bust into the flight control area. I believe that event requires a defense, and if there are no defenders in the passenger cabin the crew in the flight cabin need a resource. I don’t think it realistic that radical flight maneuvers, depressurization, Tasers, hand to gland, tranquilizer darts or Dr. Phil talking to the attackers is answer enough.

I’d like the weapon and ammunition be selected for the task along with the weapons training for an in flight or on board event. Don’t think there’s any need for armor piercing or a .50 cal. There should an SOP for the non-emergency handling of the weapon as well.

I don’t think anyone’s suggesting an untrained Snuffy subject to panic attacks be allowed to strap on an Uzi, or carry a .44 magnum in a shoulder holster. There should be something better then becoming a lawn dart in an empty field.

The Reaper
12-18-2005, 09:47
sf11b_p:

The weapon and ammunition are mandated and I believe it is the same as the FAM weapon and ammo.

They are lockbox secured at all times unless needed. No holster carry for FFDOs.

TR

sf11b_p
12-18-2005, 09:52
sf11b_p:

The weapon and ammunition are mandated and I believe it is the same as the FAM weapon and ammo.

They are lockbox secured at all times unless needed. No holster carry for FFDOs.

TR

I was sure I'd read those things somewhere, thanks for the confirmation.

mugwump
12-18-2005, 11:42
sf11b_p:

The weapon and ammunition are mandated and I believe it is the same as the FAM weapon and ammo.

They are lockbox secured at all times unless needed. No holster carry for FFDOs.

TR

Yes, weapons, ammunition and holsters are mandated. FAMs use Sig 229 in .357 Sig and FFDOs use H&K USP40 Compact LEM. It is my understanding that issue holsters are allowed on the flight deck only and a lock box is required for transport. A FFDO I spoke to a while back said that can require up to 10 transfers from box to holster to box per day. Some are unavoidable, such as trips to the lav, but they think the whole prcess would be safer and more secure if they holster-carried into the plane and used the box for visits to the cabin while in flight.

The USP40 FAM can be difficult to master with a looonng 8 lb trigger pull on the first shot -- it does have a fairly short trigger reset though. The grip is too small for many -- some kind replaceable backstrap would assist control.

They predict the typical engagement would be at a distance of four feet with multiple assailants. They are also counting on us folks in the back to prevent /stop the whole scenario from the outset.

longrange1947
12-18-2005, 11:46
I am absolutely dead set against arming pilots. .........


The bottom line is that the first priority in any hijacking needs to be preventing the terrorists from gaining control of the giant guided missile and the second priority is the safety of the passengers.


SFC W

Amazing first you say don't, then you give why.

And that is exactly why arming the pilots is a good thing.

uboat509
12-18-2005, 13:17
Uboat:

You seem to be ignorant of the requirements of the FFDO program.

Please read the thread fully and acquaint yourself with the procedures. The guns never leave the cockpit.

The doors have already been reinforced, since 2002 or so.

How does arming the pilots to defend the flight deck as the last line of defense compromise their ability to keep the plane out of the hands of the hijackers or endanger pasenger safety? If they fail in the first, the latter is a foregone conclusion.

TASERS, while good for their intended purpose, are not what I want to be armed with if a half dozen armed terrorists are breaking down the door of the cockpit six feet away. What do you do if there is more than one?

You already have people in the back flying armed who qualify no more often than the frequency you cited.

I am shocked at the number of people on this site who are willing to offer an opinion about something which they do not seem to understand, or care to learn by either reading the thread or doing some basic research.

TR

First of all, I am aware that the guns are not SUPPOSED to leave the cockpit but I am a cynic and I just don't trust that if something happnes that aren't more than a few pilots who will go try to "John Wayne" it back there to deal with it and now we have the potential weapon in the hands of the bad guys.
Second, I am also aware that the doors were reenforced but I have heard that it was not enough. If it was enough, we would not be having this discussion because the pilots would be absolutley safe behind their doors but we are having this discussion so at least some of us think that the doors weren't reenforced enough. And lastly, you mentioned the armed people in the back. I have never ever been against having a pair (or more) armed Air Marshals in the aircraft. In fact I would like to see the program expanded. My heartburn is with arming the pilots.


SFC W

APLP
12-18-2005, 18:52
I am absolutely dead set against arming pilots. First of all, we already have the unions saying that the pilots do not have enough time to keep up on their flight skills, or get enough down time time between flights. Add to that the fact that at least some of the airlines are downsizing which means fewer pilots fly the routes. With all of that, when are pilots supposed to find time to maintain proficiency on a weapon? Once a year or even once every six months is not enough.
Second, I want the pilots to stay locked in the cockpit where they can do the most good but if you give them guns at least some of them will think that means that they can use it a leave the cockpit regardless of what the regs say. The pilot's main concern needs to be flying the plane. I don't want them thinking they can deal with hijackers just because they have a gun a few hours on the range. Many of the 9/11 hijackers had been training for years to do that mission.
If you want to arm the pilots, fine, give them TASERs. Those of you that have been tased can testify that it is no joke nor is it a toy. And most importantly, reenforce the door. It should damn near be a bank vault on that door.
The bottom line is that the first priority in any hijacking needs to be preventing the terrorists from gaining control of the giant guided missile and the second priority is the safety of the passengers.


SFC W

With respect to your first set of concerns above, I did not see in your bio where you were a currently employed commercial pilot, so from my perspective your comments concerning those who are, is both inaccurate and nothing more than your uninformed personal opinion.

With respect to your second set of concerns above, the issued duty weapon is nothing more than a lethal force tool to be used as the last line of defense which denies someone else the opportunity to take control of the aircraft. The only mission objective for the use of lethal force is to enable the other pilot to continue flying the jet. The armed pilot does not care what happens to you on the other side of the cockpit door in such an event, and if you try to breech that perimeter the armed pilot would most likely be happy to shoot you also.

The Taser is not a viable weapon system for any of the armed flight deck crew mission requirements.

Doc
12-18-2005, 18:54
There's a village missing it's idiot.

uboat509
12-18-2005, 19:07
There's a village missing it's idiot.

I disagree with you so therefore I'm an idiot? Nice.

SFC W

Doc
12-18-2005, 19:21
If you don't listen to reason you can draw your own conclusions.

APLP
12-18-2005, 22:24
First of all, I am aware that the guns are not SUPPOSED to leave the cockpit but I am a cynic and I just don't trust that if something happnes that aren't more than a few pilots who will go try to "John Wayne" it back there to deal with it and now we have the potential weapon in the hands of the bad guys.
Second, I am also aware that the doors were reenforced but I have heard that it was not enough. If it was enough, we would not be having this discussion because the pilots would be absolutley safe behind their doors but we are having this discussion so at least some of us think that the doors weren't reenforced enough. And lastly, you mentioned the armed people in the back. I have never ever been against having a pair (or more) armed Air Marshals in the aircraft. In fact I would like to see the program expanded. My heartburn is with arming the pilots.


SFC W

With respect to you being a cynic towards pilots and the potential for weapons in the hands of bad guys, others have already answered better than I could.

With response to your second concern, the currently utilized secure cockpit doors serve the purpose for which they were intended. The relationship between secure cockpit doors and the subject matter of issued weapons to qualified pilots is unrelated as it is not feasible to modify the current US commercial aircraft inventory so that flight deck access is completely removed from the rest of the aircraft. Only a double set of hardened cockpit doors with secure transition area could completely isolate the flight deck. Because both on ground and airborne normal procedures require the potential for opened cockpit doors, the flight deck could be vulnerable as either a target of opportunity and purposeful forced entry attempt. The post 911 threat matrix to commercial US aircraft mandated the creation of a federal program to arm qualified US pilots in the attempt to address those specific threat scenarios.

Team Sergeant
03-24-2008, 15:31
Pilot's Gun Goes off on U.S. Airways Flight
Monday, March 24, 2008

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — No injuries are reported after a pilot's gun discharged on a U.S. Airways flight from Denver to Charlotte, N.C.

Airline and federal officials say Flight 1536 was not in any danger as a result of the incident, which occurred about 9:50 a.m. MDT on Saturday.

Officials say the unnamed pilot was allowed to carry the weapon as part of the Transportation Security Administration's Federal Flight Deck Officer program. It was created after the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks.

The program allows eligible crew members — including pilots, navigators and flight engineers — to use a firearm to defend against any act of air piracy or criminal violence.

The TSA says the agency takes the Federal Air Marshals Service takes the matter seriously.

The jet has been taken out of service.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341049,00.html


[ He must have "wounded" the jet:rolleyes: Team Sergeant]

The Reaper
03-24-2008, 15:36
The pilot must have been in violation of the rules if the gun "went off", as it is supposed to be holstered or cased except when it is needed for defense.

Sounds like a guy who needs to be an object lesson, and lose his permit.:rolleyes:

I would love to know the rest of the story.

TR

NousDefionsDoc
03-24-2008, 20:18
Pilot's Gun Goes off on U.S. Airways Flight
Monday, March 24, 2008

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — No injuries are reported after a pilot's gun discharged on a U.S. Airways flight from Denver to Charlotte, N.C.

Airline and federal officials say Flight 1536 was not in any danger as a result of the incident, which occurred about 9:50 a.m. MDT on Saturday.

Officials say the unnamed pilot was allowed to carry the weapon as part of the Transportation Security Administration's Federal Flight Deck Officer program. It was created after the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks.

The program allows eligible crew members — including pilots, navigators and flight engineers — to use a firearm to defend against any act of air piracy or criminal violence.

The TSA says the agency takes the Federal Air Marshals Service takes the matter seriously.

The jet has been taken out of service.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341049,00.html


[ He must have "wounded" the jet:rolleyes: Team Sergeant]

Imagine that...

colmurph
03-25-2008, 07:17
I was a graduate of Class #2 of the Customs Air Security Officer School in December 1970 and one of the first "Sky Marshalls" to fly out of JFK in New York as a result of the "Lilha Khaled hijackings".. Back then most of us thought that pilots should be armed as most of them at the time were fomer military pilots and had weapons training. We were Customs Officers and had "Warantless Border Search Authority" and were also sworn in as Special Deputy U.S. Marshals to give us jurisdiction on US aircraft once the wheels were off the ground (the a/c is U.S. Territory and the U.S. Marshall has the same authority as the "Sherrif of any State") In the event of an incident leading to an arrest our jurisdiction ended once the wheels were on the ground in a foreign terriory and we were to turn the individual over to the authorities wherever we landed. We flew fom 1970 to 1972 and then were phased out to change from Customs Security Oficers to Customs Patrol Officers or Customs Special Agents. During this period there were no Air Security incidents on any aircraft that "Sky Marshals" were assigned to. There was one incident where a Customs Security Officer accidently discharged his firearm while using the "Biffy" (toilet) puncturing a hole in the aircraft. He was subsequently disarmed by an FAA check rider who was sitting next to the lavatories and heard the shot. The man was fired.
There was no "Explosive Decompression" as Hollywood would have you believe, just a hissing noise throough the .38 cal. hole in the skin of the a/c.
A few other officers were fired for violation of the 24 hour "No Drinking Rule" and in one case one was fired for having a beer when his layover was 23 hours. Pilots only had a 12 hour "No Drinking Rule".
The job was excedingly boring and the food terrible (even in First Class) after weeks of eating the same meal over and over (at least with C-rations you had 12 choices)and seeing the same in flight movie running for 4 months straight. Even today I get nauseated when "Citizen Kane" airs on TV. The only plus was the lay-overs in intresting places. I managed to acquire a lot of carved Ivory (when it was still legal) at the China Fleet Club in Hong Kong and bought a lot of antique art work in Japan. London, Amsterdam, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Rome, Bakgkok were among the best places to lay-over. New Delhi, Karachi and Tehran were among the worst. I flew mostly on Pan American (which I liked) and Northwest Orient (which I disliked intensely). Northwest had a bad habit of leaving Sky Marshals in Seoul so they could sell all the seats for the flight to Tokyo (we'd have to ride to Tokyo on a cargo flight the next day). The Northwest people treated us like we were imposing on their profits while the Pan Am folks were glad to have us aboard.

APLP
03-26-2008, 00:22
Third largest federal law enforcement organization and still growing.

Almost 5 years now and only one AD to date from the cockpit.

A little to late to post, but if the link is still active some interesting
information at...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/03/25/siu.air.marshals/index.html?eref=rss_topstories#cnnSTCVideo

Additional information might become available in the next couple of weeks.

APLP
03-26-2008, 19:02
The above holster is advertised on the Desantis website as the F.D.O. with Lock Hole (Flight Deck Officer Holster).
http://www.desantisholster.com/31l.html

"The 31L features a reinforced upper section and provision for padlock. The purpose of the padlock hole is to secure the weapon inside of the holster when it is not being worn".

For many who might wear this holster on duty, a padlock must be removed and inserted through the holster as shown just behind the trigger. Some folks would have to repeat this procedure with a condition 1 weapon up to 7 times a day.

One might think that if this holster's thumb break snap were to become unintentially unfastened during routine body movements in a seated constricted work environment, the potential exist for the holstered weapon to move 1/4 inch rearward. If a padlock similar to the one advertised on the Desantis website was inserted through this holster in such a situation, the lock would now be placed in front of the trigger in a condition 1 handgun. If an individual were to attempt to secure an unfastened thumb break as described a high probability would exist for the weapon to discharge.