Pilot's carrying guns....Great safety precaution or recipe for disaster???
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archive: Pilot's carrying guns....Great safety precaution or recipe for disaster???

Vanillarose

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 06:33 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I just wondered what everyones' opinion is on this.

Personally, I think it's a recipe for disaster. There are too many things that can go wrong. I keep imagining a bullet piercing the plane, and everyone in the plane being sucked through the tiny hole. Or the bullet destoying something all-important on the instrument panel. Or a pilot going berserk. Or the wrong person getting a hold of the gun.

Ok, I have a vivid imagination, I suppose. And I suppose that there are times when it would possibly save a plane from a terrorist takeover, but I think the risk is far too great to even consider it!!!

Goddessatlaw

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 06:39 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I don't know Vanilla. I do know that I have a real problem with everyone on the plane being completely disarmed down to the plastic dinner ware when the terrorists have somehow managed to load with firepower or sharp objects or whatever their instruments of death might be. If there aren't air marshalls and some alternative form of in-cockpit weaponry on every flight, something needs to be done.

Cjr

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 06:48 am EditMoveDeleteIP
If the pilot wants to go berserk he can just crash the plane. Doesn't have to shoot anyone. Our lives are already in their hands. Let them be armed. If someone tried to come in the cockpit with box cutters at least the pilots have a chance. I really don't see a big risk.

Twiggyish

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 07:08 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I agree with the two posts above, with mixed feelings. (My personal gun issue) Allowing guns to pilots, may make terrorists think twice. It might deter a plan. I can see where's it's needed.

Rissa

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 07:10 am EditMoveDeleteIP
It's a hard issue to wrap your head around. My stance on it has always been to prevent the hijacking's in the first place, not to leave barely trained (in firearms) pilots in charge of taking down the bad guys after the fact. A bullet-proof sealed door that is NEVER opened, even if the terrorists start killing passengers. That plane WILL land where the pilot wants and law enforcement WILL be waiting. I think if that was policy then a hijacking would only happen once. There would be no point, no possible advantage to the hijacker. But, the sealed cockpit door should be the last possible line of defense, we need to protect the other passengers with better screening.

Goddess, that cutlery crap drives me nuts. LOL They give you a plastic knife as if there aren't 100 hundred other everyday objects that could be use to injure.And the lighters? Lordy, just one example.. Hubby and I went to the Dominican Republic with friends this past spring. We went through security one couple after the next. First guy went through with 2 lighters plus matches in his pants pocket and was waved through, second guy went through and was told that he can only carry one lighter on board and the other had to be surrendered. I went through and was told that I was not allowed lighters on the plane PERIOD and was forced to hand over both of mine. Same security guard, and 1..2..3 through the gate. Our two friends were laughing over the idiocy of it all, but I was ticked.. NO LIGHTER!! RFLOL

I have also been on a plane that had a potential bomb scare.. lovingly referred to as the flight from hell. Story for another time perhaps, but bottom line is that by the time they had unloaded and reloaded all us passengers for the third time (out on the tarmac) that we could easily have been joined by a number of new people and none of the flight crew would have noticed. It was a joke to hubby and I that during a potential security crisis the level of security went down to ZERO!!

Babyruth

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 07:42 am EditMoveDeleteIP
The bullet idea concerns me, too. I am thinking maybe a good stun gun (and thorough training for all crew, even though maybe only the cockpit crew would have them) would be a good way to maintain control.

Mamaanja

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 07:44 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Aren't some people already allowed to carry weapons on airplanes? Like FBI agents and air marshalls? We may all have flown with an armed person sitting right next to us already! I don't have a problem with pilots having guns. Most of them are former military, so they have had weapons training. And I thought I had read or heard that they had bullets that would not pierce the airplane, but would still stop the aggressor. Maybe that was just in a dream....

Rissa, my husband used to fly a lot on business. When I would pick him up at the airport, they would totally search my minivan before letting me into the parking lot. What a joke. The way the Kansas City airport is set up, one could so easily just drive a vehicle full of explosives directly into the terminal. Yet, they search me and my little minivan with two children in carseats

Karuuna

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 07:58 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I think it's the wrong solution. If the security reinforced cockpit doors are truly capable of keeping out potential hijackers, arming the pilots circumvents the protection they offer.

The only way a pilot could use the gun would be to open the door and leave the cockpit, thus leaving the cockpit vulnerable. Or assume a hijacker is armed and does take the plane, and starts killing passengers. An unarmed pilot knows his/her job is to stay in the cockpit and get the plane landed safely. But by arming the pilot, again, you're tempting her/him to get out of the cockpit to try to save the passengers (a very human and noble desire) - thus putting everyone at greater risk.

Personally, I think this plan placates those folks who think "something needs to be done"; without thinking thru the best options. It's a PR move, not a move which really assesses the safety necessities and addresses them.

My 2-1/2 cents. :)

Halfunit

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 08:40 am EditMoveDeleteIP
OK, here is my very opinionated view on this.

Why NOT have a gun in the cockpit?

It's true that most pilots have military training, so the point about training them doesn't bother me... that and the fact it's not that hard to be trained in firearms.

I agree with strengthening cockpit doors, but if someone wants to do something, they're going to do it, either by gaining entry in the cockpit or destroying wiring that may affect the plane somehow that isn't remotely close to the cockpit.

Hubby is a police officer (explaining my stance), and he is not allowed to go locked and loaded on an airplane. His view is that if there was ONE armed cop in that cabin, a difference could have been made. I play devil's advocate with him and say we will never know, but his answer of "we weren't given the chance TO know" is also valid.

There are thousands and thousands of off duty cops who fly all the time. Why not let them carry? If they are qualified to carry on the ground, why not in the air? The Sky Marshall program is a start, but I really see that years in the making. Granted, there are liability issues and I'm probably not seeing this from both sides, but I can't imagine more liability than what United and American are facing from the victim's families from a year ago.

Firearms may not be a practial answer, but I really don't think there IS one. Stun guns won't work since you have to get too close to the perpetrator to use it. (Plus there are people who can become resistant to the shock - same with Mace or pepper spray.)

Maybe the answer is along the lines of closed circuit tv in the cockpit, and having a sedative gas ready to be dispersed in the cabin if need be. Again, you run the risk of liability though with malfunction, persons with health conditions, etc.

There is no perfect answer, but I'D feel better knowing that the guy in 19B AND the captain were packing heat!!!

ED Mama - as far as I know, law enforcement can carry on planes as long as it is in the official line of duty (prisoner transports, etc.) only, and yes, there are types of bullets that won't penetrate cabin walls.

Cjr

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 08:50 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I agree with you Halfunit. I really like the idea of the closed circuit tv and sedative gas. (I'd like to sleep through ANY flight LOL). There are always risks but faced with death by hijackers or some side effect from sedative, I'll take side effect any day.
I agree with armed law enforcement on planes. I think 1 person armed with a gun could have made all the difference on the flights last 9/11. We won't ever know for sure but its a logical conclusion.
I would almost guarantee that the pilots and passengers on the hijacked planes wished they were armed.

Mystery

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 10:11 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I agree with you, Karuuna.

Oregonfire

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 10:22 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I flew recently and the guy sitting next to me said that in Israel, they have had no problems with armed guards on flights. But that's Israel, which has basically been in a state of war since its inception, and every citizen is required to do Army service and carry the biggest M16s you've ever seen for 2-3 years. Our relaxed American society has just not prepared us for that level of responsibility, I think. It's not our fault, this is new to us, but I think that guns on flights here is a recipe for disaster.

Karuuna

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 10:34 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Thank you Mystery. :)

Grooch

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 10:55 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Doesn't anyone remember the 2 drunk American West pilots that were pulling out of the gate in Miami a few months ago?

Thank goodness they didn't have any guns on them.

Resortgirl

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 02:14 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I'm not going to read anyone else's opinion until after I post mine because I tend to want to agree with everyone... LOL!

I think guns are ALWAYS a recipe for disaster. No matter how well trained a person is, no matter how safely the gun is put away, innocent people die when guns are around. And part of the problem with arming pilots is that they are human and human beings make mistakes whether it's because they misjudge a situation or perhaps because in the heat of the moment the gun goes off accidently. I'd rather they (the pilots) be locked away in the cockpit and get the plane on the ground regardless what is going on in the rest of the plane.

Ok, now I'll go read all of the really intelligent, articulate answers.

Kaili

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 02:37 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Resortgirl...I think you worded it quite well and I will agree with you rather than adding my own post that would be similar to yours!

Bigd

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 02:46 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
There is no perfect recipe for the answer. But I do believe there needs to be some type of defence system in place on the aircraft. I have to tell you though, that I travel out of Chicago on a regular basis and security is a joke. As a matter of fact, I think the level of security at our airports is the real recipe for disaster, as has already been proven to us. I know it is inconvient to have real security, and it is expensive, but I think it's the key. I would have no objection to being inconvienced by a REAL preventative security system at our airports before we even board the plane, but then when I am aboard the aircraft, I guess since the pilots already hold my life in their judgement, then I might as well give them a gun to insure some type of fail safe measure if all else fails.

Bigd

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 02:53 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
let me temper with my above statement with my own personal fear.... My 21 year old son is in his 3rd year of college and he is seeking a degree in criminal justice. He has been working full time in secrity at a rather large mall in the Chicago area to have as a reference on his resume. It is his intention to go to work for the police department in our town and then move on to higher plains. He wants to be involved in national security on some level. He has even expressed an interest in being an "air marshall". I am terrified of this on many levels. Because he's my baby, because I am afraid there is a need for it, because he's a kid and I can only hope what I have tried to teach him has sunk in, and becuase I am afraid of the risk to him. I think my fears have a whole new perspective. (I kinda wish he would have stuck to the architect thing).

Yuhuru

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 02:58 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Thanks Grooch! That's where I was going with this. I've never thought it was a good idea, BUT after hearing about more than 1 incident of a drunken pilot I was sure more than ever. Just give me an armed air marshall if we must have guns.

Halfunit

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 03:24 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Grooch
Nevermind the gun issue, thank goodness those pilots didn't get on the plane, period!

__________________________________

I guess what I'd like to know is what scares people about pilots having firearms in the cockpit? If it's the gun itself, you can't be afraid of a piece of metal. If you set a gun on a table, or in a lockbox, it will not go off by itself. It is an inanimate object. It is only when someone picks it up when it can become a threat. Now, if that person who picks it up already has your life in their hands by holding a couple of joysticks, I don't see a big difference, but that's just me.

I said before, I agree with cockpit door modification, but i think that is a passive answer. The bad guys are always one step ahead - why not become a bit more aggressive and let it be known that if you try to hijack an airplane you run the risk of being taken out.

Pilots with firearms should be a last resort, but at least let them HAVE a last resort.

**I am passionate about this, as you guys can probably tell but I'm openminded. The fact is there isn't a catch-all answer that will take threats away. I just want to thank you guys for the opportunity to discuss/debate. And I don't want to step on anyones toes, k??**

Halfunit now ducks and runs again, all the while thinking the REAL problem is in the screening process itself... for crying out loud, the Towers were still smoldering and some rum-dum named Reed gets on a plane with explosives in his shoes....

Resortgirl

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 03:28 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Thanks Kaili,
I've been reading your posts and have to say I really respect you for having the guts to post things that are not the most popular of opinions. You are much better at putting your thoughts into words then I am.

Rissa

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 03:37 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Halfunit, My prob with the gun being in the cockpit is that the pilot has to get up and use it, thereby entering into a conflict with whomever. I would much prefer that the pilot be locked behind the cockpit door and stay in control of the plane itself. Sept. 11th could not have happened if the terrorists did not gain access to the cockpit.. having a pilot facing them down opens the possibility of that happening again. Imagine a terrorist saying that he will begin killing every passenger until the cockpit door gets opened. Imagine the pilot just plain refusing, then landing at the nearest airport where a team of armed military/police are waiting. No matter what happens, the terrorist did not get control of the plane and did not get away. Wouldn't that deter the next guy from trying? If it was standard procedure to keep that door shut at all costs, then what would be the point? Now imagine that a terrorist knows that the pilot has a gun. Imagine that the terrorist, who is jacked up on the idea of martydom and superior purpose and all that crap, thinking that he (and maybe 2 or 3 of his like minded companions) could take down one little armed pilot. Think maybe a terrorist group would suppose those were swell odds and just might give it a go?

*Rissa agreeing with Halfunit that the real problem is preventing them from getting on the plane in the first place not worrying about slamming the barn door shut after the horse has bolted.*

Oregonfire

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 03:39 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Personally, I'm more afraid of the plane I'm on falling out of the sky because some do-hickey in the engine falls off or burns up than I am of terrorists. (Even after 9-11). Don't get me wrong, security is a major issue, but what about plane maintenance? And what if some guy (okay person) attaches a bomb to the bottom of the plane set to detonate an hour into the flight? That kind of crap scares me. Sorry to be a fear monger.

Rabbit

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 04:08 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I dont like it. You have put the hijackers weapon on the plane for him. Hijackers could ride planes all day long waiting to exploit the right opportunity.

Call it operation patience. The hijacker is not bringing anything on board so he has no risk of getting caught boarding flights. Wait for a breach of security and make a rush for the gun/guns. If no opportunity presents itself wait for the next flight or the one after that.

Many trained police officers are shot each year with their own guns. (I am not sure what the accurate statistic is but a google search shows multiple hits that state ranges between 8-16% of police slayings are with their own gun.)

Halfunit

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 04:08 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Rissa
When I say arming pilots, I should state that under NO circumstances do I want them leaving the cockpit. What I meant was that if the cockpit was breached, they could fire upon the intruders. We know that at least on Flight 93, the cockpit had been breached by terrorists and that most passengers in the cabin were still alive. Imagine if those same terrorists could have been met with a threat when that cockpit door was opened. (And yes, they should have never got that far in the first place!)

I know that hindsight is 20/20, and we are really playing what-ifs and that's the frustrating part. It rips me to the core that this could happen.

As for terrorists ganging up on a pilot who has the option of shooting them, I have to go back to my grandfather's advice: You don't bring a knife to a gunfight. But yes, you are also right - they very well could think they could overpower the pilot. Again... what-ifs.... I'd just rather have it be more fair of a fight, if that's possible. What I really want is no fight at all.

Oregon
You said a mouthful. Have you ever been on a plane, pulling away from the gate and they tell you they have to return for a "mechanical problem"?!? And then they don't let you off while they fix it?? And THEN you take off in that plane that was repaired faster than a NASCAR vehicle in the pits?? I have and I kissed the ground when we landed!!! Very scary!!!!!

Ed - Rabbit
I really don't like it either, but look what they did without guns on planes. No simple answer...

Ed part II
OK, I'm sure you all know what I think by now, so I promise to stop and let others have some webspace!!!

Twiggyish

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 04:11 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Ok, I already don't like to fly...yikes.

Kapow

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 05:30 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
My two pennies....
I would prefer to know that pilots flying my plane are armed. AND trained, with regular retraining and qualifying. A bullet from a pistol (even a .45) MAY puncture the airplane chassis, but this hole will not cause a significant pressure problem. Neither will many holes this size. A small hole in an aircraft causing a serious vaccuum pressure is a misconception. Additionally, it is likely that something with stop the bullet before it actually makes a hole to the outside.

I have "earned" the right to carry a concealed firearm and do so on a regular basis for personal protection. I have been mugged while carrying a gun, but my training taught me that I can't use a gun unless in fear for my life, which I was not. So, I gave up several hundred dollars... big deal. I would like to see that people who are authorized to carry a weapon are able to do so on a plane. I am willing to bet a lot of money that if that had been so on 9/11/01, those hijackers would have been killed before they did the damage they did.

Pilots are the captains of the vessel. They are the ones ultimately in control. I'd like to see them with some authority to enforce the control, as needed.

JMHO

Melfie1222

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 06:37 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Rabbit, you said it. I can see both sides of this, and in some way I agree with almost everything already posted - but one thing I can't help but think is that, no matter how well trained and prepared the pilot might be to use the gun, or how well protected the cockpit is, or whatever plans might be in place to keep the cabin in control - even one more gun on a plane is one more factor that a hijacker would look at in terms of how they might take advantage of the situation.

Kapow

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 06:54 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Melfie, while I do understand your point, I disagree. Training, exercising, and preparation is what we count on our military for. We trust our military with guns. Why can't we do that same training with the pilots? Most of them are military trained to start with......

Whit4you

Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 01:29 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I think pilots should not be allowed to carry guns for the simple reason that there have been enough saftey checks done where people were able to slip through security posing as pilots. It'd be easy to do that.

I do think however as a potential target they should be allowed to have protection.. a stun gun would work fine for that however - disable the highjacker momentarily till you can get some backup to tie him up or what-have-you.