Smilin' Jack


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Smilin' Jack   » Specific Airline Discussions   » TWA   » HOUSE COMMITTEE APPROVES GUNS IN COCKPITS (Page 1)

 
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 
Author Topic: HOUSE COMMITTEE APPROVES GUNS IN COCKPITS
mioguido
Post Captain
Member # 123

Icon 1 posted      Profile for mioguido     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
i posted this info under another thread...but my after thought felt this might need it's own thread? oh well.

AP: HOUSE COMMITTEE APPROVES GUNS IN COCKPITS
the House transportation committee voted Wed. to allow more than 1000 pilots to carry guns for a two year trial.

up to 1400 pilots-2% of the work force.

the bill will come before the full House for a vote the week lawmakers return from their July 4th recess.

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: mioguido ]


Posts: 366 | From: CLE & The Space Coast  |  IP: Logged
Bob Ritchie
Post Captain
Member # 1035

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bob Ritchie     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So,

the terrorist will know that there is a 98% chance that the pilots won't be armed. Add to that the fact that each airline pilot flies about 100 days per year and what......that makes it over 99% of the time....no armed pilot.

Oh well.

bob


Posts: 1936 | From: Warren County, Missouri  |  IP: Logged
PITbeast
Post Captain
Member # 108

Icon 12 posted      Profile for PITbeast   Email PITbeast   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know this is a serious subject, but the other day two members of Congress were on MSNBC debating the merits of this. In discussing the limited scope of the proposal, the one in favor kept referring to it as a "pilot program".
Posts: 232 | From: Mount Olive, NC  |  IP: Logged
Glasspilot
Post Captain
Member # 390

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Glasspilot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Ritchie:
So,

the terrorist will know that there is a 98% chance that the pilots won't be armed. Add to that the fact that each airline pilot flies about 100 days per year and what......that makes it over 99% of the time....no armed pilot.

Oh well.

bob


Bob:

For those of us in favor of arming flight crews, this is a way to get our "foot in the door" so to speak. This is an experimental program that can be reviewed in 2 years. By then all of us and the flying public will see it's a big step in the fight against hijacking and I hope the program would be expanded.

Glass


Posts: 294 | From: Outer Banks, NC  |  IP: Logged
thebear
Post Captain
Member # 349

Icon 7 posted      Profile for thebear     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The average pilot flies 100 days a year? Bob, you have to teach me how to bid. I ETO like mad and still fly 130.
Posts: 103  |  IP: Logged
Bob Ritchie
Post Captain
Member # 1035

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bob Ritchie     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
100 days a year,

Guess that I am lucky and/or lazy. I have gone back over 30+ years and averaged less than 100 days per year. With vacation, sick, ground school, new equipment qualification and many years of reserve.

Of course, I enjoyed 5 years as a TWA "Maytag Repairman" reserve. Flew less than 3 days a month. Went 80+ days without flying several times.(went out and got my three landings before the 90th day) Went 11 consecutive months without being called out for a single trip as a 727 capt. reserve. I would pick up 2-3 days a month for extra money, when I felt like it.

Oh those were the days.

Seriously...bet you'd be surprised throughout a career. 100 days is pretty close.

bob ritchie(I support arming pilots)


Posts: 1936 | From: Warren County, Missouri  |  IP: Logged
extwacaptain
Prop Wash
Member # 381

Icon 12 posted      Profile for extwacaptain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
With the new work rules, is it still possible to trade OUT of pay assignments? The last few years I was flying, for fear of missing something, I would trade out of those things and it would drive the chief pilots completely out of their minds. They threatened to have guys with nets attempt to capture me and put me “away”.

Since the above comment has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, rather then wander too far from the subject……Will informational picketers be wearing them shootin’ irons while picketing or will they have to check them at the curbside like in the old cowboy movies?

Now, there’s something I always wanted to be, a cowboy. Them Kansas City guys got to do it all. Wore them cowboy boots and flew them airplanes and even broke the rules by wearing white socks.

Randy

P.S.
The closest he came to being a cowboy, was marrying a Rodeo Queen from Kansas.
His TWAGAL

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: extwacaptain ]


Posts: 1157 | From: Encino, Ca. U.S.A.  |  IP: Logged
MrMarky
Post Captain
Member # 635

Icon 10 posted      Profile for MrMarky   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suppose when they start letting cops fly the jets I'll support pilots carrying the guns.

In the meantime, I would support allowing pilots to be armed during contract negotiations.

mAArky


Posts: 436 | From: Concourse C  |  IP: Logged
Bob Ritchie
Post Captain
Member # 1035

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bob Ritchie     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MrMarky,

They already let cops on our airplanes with guns. I have checked the I.D. of more than one 23 year old deputy dog from Booger Ridge, traveling to see his girlfriend in Chicago.

My friend is the local small town chief of police. A couple of years ago he went to D.C. to attend a funding ceremony. He wore his gun in his shoulder hoster. Why? Because he was scared to walk around D.C. unarmed. Maybe he sat next to you....scared of D.C. and ignorant of weapons use on board airplanes.

Many of the airplanes you ride on have people with guns. From kid deputies to people from the department of agriculture. They are carrying 357's and 9mm's.

Now what the heck do they know about airplanes, firing a weapon on board or anything else. Why does some political appointee from the department of agriculture need a weapon?

We used to confiscate their weapons and keep them in the cockpit....but no more.

Happens hundreds of times everyday. You think you feel insecure with an armed pilot. Heck in the old days several guys carried guns with them.

It is the "kid" cops and "political hacks" with guns in the back that scare me.

Bob Ritchie


Posts: 1936 | From: Warren County, Missouri  |  IP: Logged
TWAFA007
Post Captain
Member # 1494

Icon 13 posted      Profile for TWAFA007   Email TWAFA007   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aloha,

Pilots carrying guns is a really a bad idea. It conveys a message to the traveling public that the screening process doesn’t work and therefore traveling by airplane is still risky. Not good for the recovery. There is absolutely no reason why there should be aircraft piercing weapons in the cockpit. Are pilots saying they have little faith in the screening process? If pilots cant trust the screening process why should the passengers.

The pilots are behind a door that can stop a grenade, why do they need a weapon, other then the old trusty axe? The cockpit is supposed to be in penetrable . If you really want to arm someone on the aircraft, then arm the first line of defense the F/As. The F/As are on the front line and are not hiding behind armored doors. Give us a tazer and we wont have anyone complaining about the food or lack of, again.

The fact is you either believe in the screening process or not. If pilots don’t believe and feel they need a gun, then the public wont either. We have to convince people that it is safe to fly again. Having gun toting pilots will say that its still not safe and the possibility of a mishap is increased. Just look at all the accidents at homes that have guns. I cant imagine what a accidental discharge on an aircraft at 35,000 ft could do. Though, a 007 movie showed a very fat Goldfinger getting suck out a window that was shot out by a gun. Not a good image.

This will never work and gun toting Bush is against it. One thing I can agree with him on.

ALOHA, 007


Posts: 70 | From: Ormond By The Sea  |  IP: Logged
gambit3131
Post Captain
Member # 261

Icon 1 posted      Profile for gambit3131   Author's Homepage   Email gambit3131   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mioguido:
i posted this info under another thread...but my after thought felt this might need it's own thread? oh well.

AP: HOUSE COMMITTEE APPROVES GUNS IN COCKPITS
the House transportation committee voted Wed. to allow more than 1000 pilots to carry guns for a two year trial.

up to 1400 pilots-2% of the work force.

the bill will come before the full House for a vote the week lawmakers return from their July 4th recess.

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: mioguido ]



A couple of questions:

1. What training/certification will the "armed" pilots need to have in order to carry a weapon on board?

2. What paperwork will they have to file in order to be allowed through the security checkpoints and on the plane with a loaded weapon?

I do not want to get involved in the arguement of whether or not this is a good idea or not. However, my question #2 comes from my observations lately. I have seen at DFW the armed uniformed National Guardsmen walk right through the security checkpoint with absolutely NO ONE even checking his credentials. What is to say that someone in camo's and a weapon couldn't just walk through and start shooting before anyone realized what had happened.

gambit

[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: gambit3131 ]


Posts: 176 | From: Fort Worth, TX  |  IP: Logged
air cliffie
Post Captain
Member # 1953

Icon 1 posted      Profile for air cliffie   Email air cliffie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's the deal......

Arm the flightdeck a 357 or two. I'm all for it.
That said, lets arm every F/A with the ole TW ice mallet......I guarantee you, you put one of those babies in the hands of some i've flown with over the years....heck...the only thing the terrorists will be thinking of, is the fastest boat back to the med.


Posts: 31 | From: st. louis mo  |  IP: Logged
Gumby
Post Captain
Member # 743

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gumby     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TWAFA007:
Aloha,
.....The pilots are behind a door that can stop a grenade, why do they need a weapon, other then the old trusty axe? The cockpit is supposed to be in penetrable .......

Where did you pull this fact out of? Didn't another airline(United, I believe, have a passenger get partially through before he was stopped?

........If you really want to arm someone on the aircraft, then arm the first line of defense the F/As. The F/As are on the front line and are not hiding behind armored doors. Give us a tazer and we wont have anyone complaining about the food or lack of, again.......

Let's see how fast that gets taken away from a F/A.

The fact is you either believe in the screening process or not. If pilots don’t believe and feel they need a gun, then the public wont either.

Is it being run by the government with enough loopholes(every LEO can carry his/her weapon through)? What's to say they didn't have a critical moment in their lives that day.

I cant imagine what a accidental discharge on an aircraft at 35,000 ft could do. Though, a 007 movie showed a very fat Goldfinger getting suck out a window that was shot out by a gun. Not a good image.

This will never work and gun toting Bush is against it. One thing I can agree with him on.

You watch too many movies and presidents(democrat, republican, etc.) have been wrong more than once.

ALOHA, 007


[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: Gumby ]

[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: Gumby ]


Posts: 522 | From: Litchfield, Ohio  |  IP: Logged
MrMarky
Post Captain
Member # 635

Icon 1 posted      Profile for MrMarky   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Ritchie:
MrMarky,

They already let cops on our airplanes with guns.

Bob Ritchie


Hi Bob,

I think maybe you misunderstood me. What I meant was when they let the cops fly the jets, not ride on them. My point was that a cop is no more qualified to be flying the jet than many pilots are to be using firearms on board.

This is obviously a very controversial issue. I happen to come down on the side of not arming pilots. But please understand, this has nothing to do with a lack of confidence on my part in pilots, or an abundance of confidence on my part in allowing armed law enforcement personnel on board.

Ideally the security on the ground would be effective enough to render on-board precautions unnecessary. Unfortunately the airport security system remains the same joke it was before 9/11.

Unfortunately, as things stand now I'm not sure we would be significantly less safe if our airport security system were eliminated entirely.

Perhaps the proposed "trusted traveler" program (supported by AA) should include allowing those passengers who qualify for it to be armed?

Take care,

mAArky


Posts: 436 | From: Concourse C  |  IP: Logged
Bob Ritchie
Post Captain
Member # 1035

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bob Ritchie     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MrMarky,

The is much that you say with which I agree. However, there is one bottom line.....

IF... the bad guys get into the cockpit and take over the airplane....


THE U.S. AIRFORCE WILL SHOOT DOWN THE AIRPLANE..KILLING ME, YOU AND EVERYONE ON BOARD.


We are all dead...how plain can it be.

Give me one last chance to save our lives!

007.....I don't know where you get your information and concepts...but your posting is full of factual errors.

Good luck to all of us,

bob ritchie


Posts: 1936 | From: Warren County, Missouri  |  IP: Logged
Super 80
unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MrMarky:
My point was that a cop is no more qualified to be flying the jet than many pilots are to be using firearms on board.

More than 50% of the Part 121 airline pilots in this country were trained by the military. They were trained in the use of firearms as part of their training and carried them in the cockpit on occasion for training and always during war.

Airline pilots in states with concealed weapon laws also have licenses to carry and often these states require training and a test. While a vast number of pilots have availed themselves of their Second Amendment right to be armed, likewise Part 121 pilots could easily be trained in the use of a firearm as any other piece of emergency equipment. After all, pilots are among the highest educated, screened, vetted, and trained individuals this country has to offer, and they not only have the eye-hand coordination to fly high performance jet aircraft and jumbo jets, but their dedication to the safety of their passengers is beyond question.

It makes no sense to disallow the pilots to defend the cockpit from hostile takeover and subject to being shot down by an Air Force fighter aircraft as with AA Flight 63 and have that same pilot who was not able to protect his aircraft and our country from attack via 9-11, then go to his National Guard unit the next day and fly NORAD missions armed with a gatling gun, AIM-9, and AMRAAM missiles to shoot down an airliner.

So your statement that ‘many pilots are not qualified to be using firearms on board’ is not justified by any set of facts. In fact, there is no better-qualified person to know the inner workings of the aircraft and in which direction NOT to fire a weapon, there is no better location than the secured cockpit to carry a weapon, and there is no better firing position than from in the cockpit to discharge a weapon and insure the pilots are not in the line of fire. Since TWO trained individuals always occupy that cockpit, like with any other emergency, one pilot will be able to fly the aircraft and the other pilot will be able to deal with the emergency.

Since you admit that security is less than optimum, and we have had several instances of security breaches since the TSA began the current system to include explosives being found, box cutters discovered in the cabin after security sweeps, guns getting past security checkpoints, and the fact that there is no system to discover plastic explosives that could render the secured door and future modifications useless and provide access to the cockpit: NOT arming the cockpit is illogical. Any resistance to ensuring our nation’s pilots of the ability to prevent another air attack is then based not on the facts and logic, but on emotion and political leanings.


IP: Logged
AHP
Post Captain
Member # 1710

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AHP     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TWAFA007:
The pilots are behind a door that can stop a grenade, why do they need a weapon, other then the old trusty axe?

I was under the impression that you could put your fist through the door or kick it in? Have the doors been changed other than a bar to stop someone from busting through?

quote:
Originally posted by TWAFA007:
I cant imagine what a accidental discharge on an aircraft at 35,000 ft could do. Though, a 007 movie showed a very fat Goldfinger getting suck out a window that was shot out by a gun. Not a good image.

Ahh, the TV generation that actually believes what some hollywood hack writes.

[ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: AHP ]


Posts: 80  |  IP: Logged
TWAFA007
Post Captain
Member # 1494

Icon 1 posted      Profile for TWAFA007   Email TWAFA007   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aloha Gumby,

Im not talking about the quick fix doors that most airlines installed. They are worthless. Im talking about the doors the smart airlines like, Jetblue, Virgin, EL AL, and BA have installed. These are the doors that need to put on all aircraft, not the little bars of metal. Yes, its true these doors can stop a grenade. Plus JetBlue has added cameras that monitor the cabin from the cockpit so the pilots know in advance what is happening. These are much better ideas then gun toting pilots. The cockpit needs to be made in penetrable. There should never be a time of unauthorized entry. They should also designed a lav for the cockpit and all food and drink should be supplied up front before the cabin door is closed. The pilots should never have to leave the cockpit and open the door and expose themselves to danger.

So you are saying the screening process will never work. Then how are you going to convince the public that its safe and secure to fly? Not by arming pilots. What are you going to do with the gun when you use the lav? Keep in your holster at your side? Please give me one good reason and situation were a gun in the hands of a pilot will, “save” the aircraft and passengers.

Are you saying a bullet thru the hull of a pressurized aircraft at 35,000 ft would not cause a rapid decompression? You are having a shoot out & now a rapid decompression. What are you going to do now?

Besides we already have guns on the aircraft were they count. In the cabin with trained sky marshals. Please give me a situation were a Pilot would open a cockpit door ready for a shoot out. I have heard pilots tell F/As no matter what is happening in the cabin they will never open the door. Thats how it should be. If they can take a weapon away from a F/A, what makes you think they couldnt take it from a pilot?

Again I say, if the government cant improve the screening process to the point were it is effective then the public will never come back in the numbers needed to speed the recovery. Why are pilots so afraid that they want guns? If you all are afraid how do you think the public feels?

ALOHA, 007

[ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: TWAFA007 ]


Posts: 70 | From: Ormond By The Sea  |  IP: Logged
Gumby
Post Captain
Member # 743

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gumby     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TWAFA007:
Aloha Gumby,

Im not talking about the quick fix doors that most airlines installed. They are worthless. Im talking about the doors the smart airlines like, Jetblue, Virgin, EL AL, and BA have installed. These are the doors that need to put on all aircraft, not the little bars of metal. Yes, its true these doors can stop a grenade. .......

ALOHA, 007

[ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: TWAFA007 ]



Oh, so the door is intact and the rest of the aircraft falls away. No way of having an explosive decompression here.

Gumby


Posts: 522 | From: Litchfield, Ohio  |  IP: Logged
TWAFA007
Post Captain
Member # 1494

Icon 1 posted      Profile for TWAFA007   Email TWAFA007   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gumby:


Oh, so the door is intact and the rest of the aircraft falls away. No way of having an explosive decompression here.

Gumby


Aloha Gumby,

True, but no one got into the cockpit. Therefore a gun in the cockpit is pointless. My point exactly. Unless you are now talking about the pilot/sheriff coming out of the cockpit, guns a blazing, and saving the day by blowing away all the terrorist in the cabin, like Dirty Harry, and not hitting any of our pax, F/As or the fuselage.

Aloha Super 80,

Super 80 says,
"So your statement that ‘many pilots are not qualified to be using firearms on board’ is not justified by any set of facts. In fact, there is no better-qualified person to know the inner workings of the aircraft and in which direction NOT to fire a weapon, there is no better location than the secured cockpit to carry a weapon, and there is no better firing position than from in the cockpit to discharge a weapon and insure the pilots are not in the line of fire."

The majority of pilots are not qualified to fire a weapon. Of those who were trained in the military what percent have fired a gun in the last 20-30 years? What direction do you NOT fire a weapon and which direction can you safely on a plane? Into the cabin toward the passengers & F/As? Thats safe?

You say there is no better firirng postiion from the cockpit to discharge a weapon and insure the pilots are not in the line of fire. Are you saying that this would be a one sided fire fight? By opening the door you become the line of sight for the other side. Bad arguement.

Last thing anyone needs is a gun battle on the airplane. Just stay behind your in penetrable door, thats the safest solution. The F/As will take care of everything. You guys just need to hideout & fly the plane. We dont need would be heros with ichy trigger fingers on board.

ALOHA, 007

[ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: TWAFA007 ]


Posts: 70 | From: Ormond By The Sea  |  IP: Logged
Bill Sherrod
Post Captain
Member # 418

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bill Sherrod   Email Bill Sherrod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TWAFA007:

Aloha Gumby,

True, but no one got into the cockpit. Therefore a gun in the cockpit is pointless. My point exactly. Unless you are now talking about the pilot/sheriff coming out of the cockpit, guns a blazing, and saving the day by blowing away all the terrorist in the cabin, like Dirty Harry, and not hitting any of our pax, F/As or the fuselage.

Aloha Super 80,

Super 80 says,
"So your statement that ?many pilots are not qualified to be using firearms on board? is not justified by any set of facts. In fact, there is no better-qualified person to know the inner workings of the aircraft and in which direction NOT to fire a weapon, there is no better location than the secured cockpit to carry a weapon, and there is no better firing position than from in the cockpit to discharge a weapon and insure the pilots are not in the line of fire."

The majority of pilots are not qualified to fire a weapon. Of those who were trained in the military what percent have fired a gun in the last 20-30 years? What direction do you NOT fire a weapon and which direction can you safely on a plane? Into the cabin toward the passengers & F/As? Thats safe?

You say there is no better firirng postiion from the cockpit to discharge a weapon and insure the pilots are not in the line of fire. Are you saying that this would be a one sided fire fight? By opening the door you become the line of sight for the other side. Bad arguement.

Last thing anyone needs is a gun battle on the airplane. Just stay behind your in penetrable door, thats the safest solution. The F/As will take care of everything. You guys just need to hideout & fly the plane. We dont need would be heros with ichy trigger fingers on board.

ALOHA, 007

[ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: TWAFA007 ]



007,

Suppose a person DID hit the window, fuselage, floor or overhead of the airplane... could you
give me your estimate of likely damage to an aircraft in flight?

Is ammunition available that will wreck the targets day but will probably not exit his body? Maybe a very soft bullet that spreads out as it passes into a target.

Can you give me your estimate of likely damage to an aircraft in flight if an F-16 puts a sidewinder up it's tail?


Bill


Posts: 266 | From: FL  |  IP: Logged
727trijet
Post Captain
Member # 1640

Icon 1 posted      Profile for 727trijet   Email 727trijet       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TWAFA007,

It amazes me that even after 9/11, some will still use their anti-gun political stance to sacrifice the safety of our employees, passengers and our country. Your flippant comments about "gun-toting" and "Dirty Harry", itchty trigger fingers anre asinine, immature and offensive. Most of our group is for arming the cockpit because we see a weakness that another layer of security can counter.

You live in your fantasy land of believing in the idea of the "impenetrable door", I don't. Why don't you ask a few ex-cons or former special forces what they think of the concept. Sure the door may stop a grenade, but will it stop a shaped demolition charge with 1/10 the power of a grenade placed on the critical hinges?

The majority of pilots are not qualified to fire a weapon. Of those who were trained in the military what percent have fired a gun in the last 20-30 years?

If not the majority, somewhere from 40-50%. The last gun show I went to, (90 miles from any crewbase), I saw at least 5 fellow pilots. Those were the ones I knew, I'm sure there were a few more that I didn't know. From my conversations at work, idle chit chat about recreational shooting is not uncommon at cruise. How common is it on the FA jumpseats?


Posts: 60 | From: displaced  |  IP: Logged
TWAFA007
Post Captain
Member # 1494

Icon 1 posted      Profile for TWAFA007   Email TWAFA007   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
QUOTE]Originally posted by Bill Sherrod:
[QB]

007,

Suppose a person DID hit the window, fuselage, floor or overhead of the airplane... could you
give me your estimate of likely damage to an aircraft in flight?

Is ammunition available that will wreck the targets day but will probably not exit his body? Maybe a very soft bullet that spreads out as it passes into a target.

Can you give me your estimate of likely damage to an aircraft in flight if an F-16 puts a sidewinder up it's tail?

Aloha Bill,

You are correct there is ammunition available that would damage the perp, but not much else. You are also correct that even if a bullet penetrated the hull, the most it would do is cause a decompression at most. If a 727 can sustain a explosion and a 5ft diameter hole and still land a bullet wont do much.

My reason for opposing guns is statements like this one from 727trijet, (great plane), "Most of our group is for arming the cockpit because we see a WEAKNESS that another layer of security can counter." The "weakness," can not be solved by having guns in the cockpit. It can only be solve by correcting the weakness. There should never be a compromise or weakness when it comes to security.

One of the reasons I took a voluntary furlough from TWA LLC, was because of that weakness. The weakness Im sure we still see today. A week before 9/11 out of a STL I saw a girl pull out a 6" serrated knife and calmly peel her apple. It wont be until next year that the government has full control. Full screening of baggage, highly paid & trained screeners, more advance screening methods that can detect plastics, security/priority/bio cards for employees & most trusted pax, these are just a few ways to make it work. It has to be %100 or nothing.

Our jobs are stressful enough that we do not need the added pressure of weapons on board every plane. Thats a very primitive approach to the solution of safe flying. There is technology to make it work. We have to all work to make sure that the plane is completely sterile before it gets in the air. If its not why bother. Everyone knowing that there is a gun in the cockpit wont stop them if security wont. Thats for sure.

ALOHA, 007

[ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: TWAFA007 ]


Posts: 70 | From: Ormond By The Sea  |  IP: Logged
Bob Ritchie
Post Captain
Member # 1035

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bob Ritchie     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A lot a tempest in a pot of tea.

Congress will decide the issue. Pilots will or will not be armed. At the moment public sympathy is in favor of arming pilots. We shall see.

I never wanted to carry a gun. Don't want some terrorist slitting my throat either.

Luck to all,
bob


Posts: 1936 | From: Warren County, Missouri  |  IP: Logged
TWAnr
Post Captain
Member # 166

Icon 4 posted      Profile for TWAnr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Super 80:
Any resistance to ensuring our nation’s pilots of the ability to prevent another air attack is then based not on the facts and logic, but on emotion and political leanings.

Super 80,

May I suggest to you that the proponents of arming the pilots are just as guilty of basing their advocacy not on the facts and logic, but on emotion and political leanings.


Posts: 782  |  IP: Logged
727trijet
Post Captain
Member # 1640

Icon 1 posted      Profile for 727trijet   Email 727trijet       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We have to all work to make sure that the plane is completely sterile before it gets in the air.

Sounds great. Maybe we can look at the success against drug smuggling for an answer
We can't even keep people from periodically hiding in wheel wells. The security programs will never be 100%. Just like law enforcement protection today, the police cannot be everywhere to protect me. I have to ability to arm myself on the ground for this. It is the same thing in the air.

I am support of all the other improvements you mentioned TWA007. I also support going the additional step of arming volunteer pilots trained to the highest law enforcement standards. Truthfully, I don't want to carry a gun in the cockpit. Being responsible for one on my free time is a pain enough. However since I do not have the luxury to take a leave of absence in light of the system vulnerabilities that exist,( that may be lessened will never disappear), I desire to have a defense against hostile breachings of the cockpit.


Think about this. FO Smith is denied a gun in his airline cockpit because he is a "trigger happy Walter Mitty", may shoot himself the airplane or someone else accidently, can't hit a 2 foot door opening 3 feet away, will just have is taken from him by a hijacker, or will just play with it all the time in cruise. For whatever reason, no gun for FO smith for his upcoming weekend flight.
Instead of flying his trip, he drops the trip for his military reserve duty. Now something unfortunatley happens on this trip on its return leg to the states. Where is FO smith now? The guy we couldn't trust with a gun on this flight before is now parked 1 mile behind his original flight in an F15 armed with 6 air-to-air missles and a 20MM cannon all by himself.

Far fetched? I've flown with guys pulling that same duty.


Posts: 60 | From: displaced  |  IP: Logged
mioguido
Post Captain
Member # 123

Icon 1 posted      Profile for mioguido     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
some have expressed a concern that the bullets will penetrate the aircraft and cause decompression...it ain't gonna happen. they have special bullets that won't hurt the aircraft, only the body of the person. so now you can take that part out of the argument. the problem i see with the trial is the percentage of pilots...only 2% or 1400 for the first two years. i would like to see at least 50% of the pilots involved and not a measly 2%.

[ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: mioguido ]

[ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: mioguido ]


Posts: 366 | From: CLE & The Space Coast  |  IP: Logged
MrMarky
Post Captain
Member # 635

Icon 1 posted      Profile for MrMarky   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Super 80:

More than 50% of the Part 121 airline pilots in this country were trained by the military. They were trained in the use of firearms as part of their training...so your statement that ‘many pilots are not qualified to be using firearms on board’ is not justified by any set of facts.

Any resistance to ensuring our nation’s pilots of the ability to prevent another air attack is then based not on the facts and logic, but on emotion and political leanings.


Hi Super 80, good to hear from you--

You're the one supplying the facts here. And if you say 'more than 50%' are trained, than almost 50% must not be. I would say that is a sizable number.

I agree with you that a lot of this is based on emotion and political leanings--on BOTH sides.

Being the conservative that I am, I support the Bush Administration's position on this issue.

In any event, I do appreciate the position of you and many of your fellow pilots. If they decide to arm the pilots it's not that big a deal. I'd just prefer they didn't. If I had to choose between having sky marshalls or arming the pilots, I'd go with arming the pilots and get rid of the sky marshalls.

Also, on the cockpit door issue others are mentioning here, I recently read that Boeing has designed a new, impenetrable cockpit door and the gov't is going to require airlines to install it within a year or two. Have you heard that?

Take care,

mAArky


Posts: 436 | From: Concourse C  |  IP: Logged
Gumby
Post Captain
Member # 743

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gumby     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MrMarky:

.........Also, on the cockpit door issue others are mentioning here, I recently read that Boeing has designed a new, impenetrable cockpit door and the gov't is going to require airlines to install it within a year or two. Have you heard that?

Take care,

mAArky



MrMarky,

It's good to see you are moving to the conservative side in your golden years .

As for the door being inpenetrable, I have my doubts. The entire bulkhead would have to be redesigned as to protect the areas behind the pilots.

I also don't like the idea of being restricted in the cockpit, more as a prisoner, than the second in command(my right wing leaning, military days coming out).

While I, personally, don't care to carry a weapon, I do believe if every Tom, Dick, and Harrieta LEO can bring his/her gun with them on vacation, than the pilots(properly trained and approved) should, too.

Well, the issue may never be put to rest but it remains, the world will never be totally safe as extremists(left and right but, I don't believe conservative ) will always have a violent path.

Gumby


Posts: 522 | From: Litchfield, Ohio  |  IP: Logged
B717FLYER
Post Captain
Member # 269

Icon 1 posted      Profile for B717FLYER   Email B717FLYER   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have an idea: how about we augment the Air Marshal program by carrying some of them in the cockpit? That'll take care of the "last line of defense" and deterrent issue. Heck, some can even be in pilot uniforms so they look the part.

This isn't the perfect solution (just ask a commuter) but if some insist on having a gun in the cockpit I can live an occasional FAM.


Posts: 454 | From: commuting purgatory  |  IP: Logged
TWAFA007
Post Captain
Member # 1494

Icon 1 posted      Profile for TWAFA007   Email TWAFA007   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aloha,

Airport security failures persist

By Blake Morrison, USA TODAY 7/1/02


By Michael Clevinger, AP
John Simonetti, center, helps Phillip Allen through a checkpoint at Louisville International Airport.

Checkpoint screeners at 32 of the nation's largest airports failed to detect fake weapons — guns, dynamite or bombs — in almost a quarter of undercover tests by the Transportation Security Administration last month, documents obtained by USA TODAY show.

The tests, the first since the security agency began overseeing checkpoint screening in February, were done by agents who were instructed to do little to try to conceal the items as they passed through screening checkpoints, memos about the tests show.

Overall, screeners missed simulated weapons in 24% of the tests. At three major airports — in Cincinnati, Jacksonville and Las Vegas — screeners failed to detect potentially dangerous items in at least half the tests. At a fourth, Los Angeles International Airport, the results weren't much better. The failure rate there was 41%. Screeners repeatedly failed to find stainless-steel test pieces that set off metal detectors as guns might. Screeners also had trouble spotting simulated bombs.

How airports fared

Failure rates in undercover security tests:

Best

Miami 6%
Newark 9%
Fort Lauderdale 10%
Honolulu 10%
JFK, New York 11%

Worst

Cincinnati 58%
Las Vegas 50%
Jacksonville 50%
Los Angeles 41%
Sacramento 40%


America on Alert

Obvious items missed


"A 41% failure rate is just pathetic," says Jack Plaxe, an aviation security consultant. "There has to be problems with the people or their training."

Nationwide, screeners often failed to find simulated weapons on agents after metal-detector alarms sounded. In 178 tries, screeners failed to find potentially dangerous items on agents in a third of the tests.

At some of the 32 airports, agents conducted only a handful of tests. At the 12 airports where at least a dozen tests were conducted, the failure rate was 29%.

The documents detailing the results, considered "security sensitive information" by the agency, are part of a series of undercover tests that are set to conclude today. The screeners who were tested had been trained by security companies that used to work for the airlines and which the TSA now oversees. Tens of thousands of them likely will be hired by the government by November, when screeners will become federal employees. The TSA plans to deploy about 45,000 screeners by then.

"The TSA is looking for problems in the system daily so we can fix them," agency spokeswoman Mari Eder says of the tests. "We have issues to correct."

Of the 387 tests, 209 involved screeners operating X-ray machines. The failure rate was 16%. The other tests assessed whether screeners detected objects that set off metal-detector alarms.

The results raise questions about whether screening has improved since the TSA took responsibility for overseeing airport checkpoints.

In tests completed earlier this year before the federal takeover, investigators with the Transportation Department's independent watchdog, the inspector general, found failure rates of nearly 50% at 32 airports that they tested.

But the manner in which those tests were done differed from the TSA's approach. TSA agents were instructed to pack bags containing the simulated weapons "consistent with how a typical passenger in air transportation might pack a bag."

In particular, agents were told to avoid trying to "artfully conceal" the simulated weapons — a different tack from that used by the inspector general's investigators. They tried to simulate how a terrorist, not a "typical passenger," might bypass security.

TSA officials say their tests weren't intended to emulate the behavior of terrorists. Rather, officials say, they hoped to see whether screeners could spot basic items they had been trained to recognize.

ALOHA, 007


Posts: 70 | From: Ormond By The Sea  |  IP: Logged
Gumby
Post Captain
Member # 743

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gumby     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So 007,

Looks like the system is still broke.

Gumby


Posts: 522 | From: Litchfield, Ohio  |  IP: Logged
Conch Flyer
Post Captain
Member # 1414

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Conch Flyer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If anyone is interested in helping to push this issue along and have NOT drank the liberal Kool-aid check out the following website. WWW.apsa@secure-skies.org. Contact your state reps and let them know how important this is to our nation, our lives, and our INDUSTRY. I did it and they are very responsive. Every call counts. For everyone who thinks guns are the ultimate evil, you can always move to Canada.

[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: Conch Flyer ]


Posts: 156 | From: Kansas City,MO  |  IP: Logged
Rob33
Post Captain
Member # 1913

Icon 13 posted      Profile for Rob33   Email Rob33   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TWAFA007:

Airport security failures persist

By Blake Morrison, USA TODAY 7/1/02


By Michael Clevinger, AP
John Simonetti, center, helps Phillip Allen through a checkpoint at Louisville International Airport.

Checkpoint screeners at 32 of the nation's largest airports failed to detect fake weapons — guns, dynamite or bombs — in almost a quarter of undercover tests by the Transportation Security Administration last month, documents obtained by USA TODAY show.

The tests, the first since the security agency began overseeing checkpoint screening in February, were done by agents who were instructed to do little to try to conceal the items as they passed through screening checkpoints, memos about the tests show.

Overall, screeners missed simulated weapons in 24% of the tests. At three major airports — in Cincinnati, Jacksonville and Las Vegas — screeners failed to detect potentially dangerous items in at least half the tests. At a fourth, Los Angeles International Airport, the results weren't much better. The failure rate there was 41%. Screeners repeatedly failed to find stainless-steel test pieces that set off metal detectors as guns might. Screeners also had trouble spotting simulated bombs.

How airports fared

Failure rates in undercover security tests:

Best

Miami 6%
Newark 9%
Fort Lauderdale 10%
Honolulu 10%
JFK, New York 11%

Worst

Cincinnati 58%
Las Vegas 50%
Jacksonville 50%
Los Angeles 41%
Sacramento 40%

[End quote]

Wow! At least there's no way for the bad guys to know this sensitive information. Imagine if it were leaked to the press......uh....never mind.

(Part of me desperately hopes that this published report was an exercise in reverse psychology, hoping to get terrorists to actually try something at these "inadequate" airports, when instead there are crack security teams there ready to pounce.

Of course, that same part of me still believes in the Easter Bunny.)

Nicely done, USA Today! Most professional and ethical.

[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: Rob33 ]


Posts: 43  |  IP: Logged
dragitin
Post Captain
Member # 631

Icon 1 posted      Profile for dragitin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So let me get this straight. We've got grossly inadequate physical security, the guy in charge, Magaw, doesn't want pilots to have to right to defend the cockpit, and the FAA and TSA refuses to even issue universal ID cards for aircrews.

Very impressive.


Posts: 77  |  IP: Logged
Bob Bayless
Post Captain
Member # 745

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bob Bayless   Email Bob Bayless   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think many people don't like to acknowledge that the pilots are in charge of the planes and any one of them can determine a plane's fate. Maybe it just scares them too much to come to the full realization that it is a fact - some one really have that much control of their fate.

An airplane is a ship (airship) and it's captain is no different than a captain of an ocean liner.
I believe captains of ocean liners have access to weapons, and being a policeman as a part of his duties and responsibilities. Police authority is likewise part of an airline captain's position and responsibility.


As to being qualified to fire a gun, I don't think there is much to that. In the USAF men and women alike were qualified, often as experts, in only a few hours of classroom and range training.
It's not exactly in the category of being qualified to captain an airliner. More important is the integrity, mental balance, judgement, etc. of the person carrying the weapon.

For those who say that the last thing anyone needs is a gun toter on the airplane, I say the last thing anyone needs is for someone to take the aircraft over and crash it, let alone crash it into a heavily populated building. Guns in the cockpit are virtually the last lines of defense.

For those who think 100 percent screening the way it is presently being conducted will do the trick, I give as only a small example (one of a myriad, I'm sure) how goods are delivered and sold in some secured concourses. At some airports, they deliver goods into the concourses (no screening) by backing their trucks up to jetways and unloading them into already secured concourses without an iota of screening.

Cheers,
Bob


Posts: 220 | From: 1348 S. Victoria Ave, Columbia, Mo. 65201  |  IP: Logged
hashslinger
Post Captain
Member # 563

Icon 1 posted      Profile for hashslinger     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've been sort of ambivalent about guns in the cockpit, weighing everyone's arguments, until the story about the two AW pilots. Now I have to give it a second thought. I know, I know, this just doesn't happen very often (hence it being headlines), but it did happen. Would anyone here like to have had one of those guys carrying?
Posts: 31 | From: LAS  |  IP: Logged
Rob33
Post Captain
Member # 1913

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Rob33   Email Rob33   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Apples and oranges. Would you feel any better if it were a drunk FAM instead?

What these guys did had no bearing whatsoever on the issue. They were far more lethal being drunk at the controls, so any prospective firearm in their cockpit would have been a distant second in this ultra-rare scenario.


Posts: 43  |  IP: Logged
jaws
Junior Poster
Member # 1900

Icon 1 posted      Profile for jaws     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Guns in the cockpit!! Hell yeah!! Slow down those speeding brown/orange 737s with a couple less tires and how about those overgrown jack rabbits in the infield at Lambert and the surrounding environs. I'll bet we could cull both herds while improving safety.
Posts: 8  |  IP: Logged
Steve
Junior Poster
Member # 919

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is a poll on cnn.com.
Would you feel safer knowing that pilots have guns in the cockpit?


I voted NO!

Let your voices be heard. I already know most of you support this idea.


Posts: 24  |  IP: Logged
mioguido
Post Captain
Member # 123

Icon 1 posted      Profile for mioguido     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
the bill passed the House without the 1400 pilot cap. that means up to 70,000 trained volunteers could carry.
Posts: 366 | From: CLE & The Space Coast  |  IP: Logged
Patschild05
Post Captain
Member # 2038

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Patschild05   Email Patschild05   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But If the piolets have guns in the cockpit, and another 9-11 thing happens, what happens if the terroists find the guns in the cockpit? Then the terroists could just shoot the passengers, or flight attendents or piolets, ya kno??

O Well


Posts: 29 | From: Batavia, IL  |  IP: Logged
dazeoff
Junior Poster
Member # 1293

Icon 1 posted      Profile for dazeoff         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TWAFA007:
Aloha,

Pilots carrying guns is a really a bad idea. It conveys a message to the traveling public that the screening process doesn’t work and therefore traveling by airplane is still risky. Not good for the recovery. There is absolutely no reason why there should be aircraft piercing weapons in the cockpit. Are pilots saying they have little faith in the screening process? If pilots cant trust the screening process why should the passengers.

The pilots are behind a door that can stop a grenade, why do they need a weapon, other then the old trusty axe? The cockpit is supposed to be in penetrable . If you really want to arm someone on the aircraft, then arm the first line of defense the F/As. The F/As are on the front line and are not hiding behind armored doors. Give us a tazer and we wont have anyone complaining about the food or lack of, again.

The fact is you either believe in the screening process or not. If pilots don’t believe and feel they need a gun, then the public wont either. We have to convince people that it is safe to fly again. Having gun toting pilots will say that its still not safe and the possibility of a mishap is increased. Just look at all the accidents at homes that have guns. I cant imagine what a accidental discharge on an aircraft at 35,000 ft could do. Though, a 007 movie showed a very fat Goldfinger getting suck out a window that was shot out by a gun. Not a good image.

This will never work and gun toting Bush is against it. One thing I can agree with him on.

ALOHA, 007


Sept 11 was the result of poor screening. Nothing has changed. I have no faith in the screening. I need a gun to form the last line of defense for the cockpit. If the cockpit is not protected either the "rag head" will fly the plane into a target or the F-16 will shoot the plane down.

A bullet will not cause structural failure...a surface to air missle or suicide dive will.

Sorry for the reality check...we live in a brave new world.


Posts: 16  |  IP: Logged
dazeoff
Junior Poster
Member # 1293

Icon 1 posted      Profile for dazeoff         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Patschild05:
But If the piolets have guns in the cockpit, and another 9-11 thing happens, what happens if the terroists find the guns in the cockpit? Then the terroists could just shoot the passengers, or flight attendents or piolets, ya kno??

O Well


Spell check anyone???


Posts: 16  |  IP: Logged
warthog
Post Captain
Member # 1871

Icon 1 posted      Profile for warthog     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TO DAZEOFF: I agree completly. You would need a large number of 38/357 bullet holes to cause any problems, a C-4 explosion in route to ATH caused little pressure problems. The screening still has lots of problems. A pilot with a gun is only a last stand of defense, a guy with a box cutter will have second thoughts. F/A's seem to be the only vocal group against the pilots???
Posts: 110 | From: MS  |  IP: Logged
dazeoff
Junior Poster
Member # 1293

Icon 8 posted      Profile for dazeoff         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve:
There is a poll on cnn.com.
Would you feel safer knowing that pilots have guns in the cockpit?


I voted NO!

Let your voices be heard. I already know most of you support this idea.


Lets put it this way.

If you were a passenger on board an airliner that has had the cabin taken over by terrorists, would you feel safer knowing the pilots had guns to protect the cockpit from being taken over as well?

You see, if the cockpit is taken over the plane will be flown into a target killing all on board. At present the last line of defense is a F-16 firing a missle into the plane. All dead...

Now, what was your concern about a qualified pilot having a weapon to prevent that?? A passenger may get hurt?

Get past the gun mind set and look at the real concern. Sept 11 would not have happened had there been guns in the cockpit. Simple solution...


Posts: 16  |  IP: Logged
webmoonchild
Post Captain
Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for webmoonchild   Email webmoonchild   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This will all be over once the first firearm is discharged accidentally inflight or flight attendants start showing up dead for pick up on layovers. Or when the captain says we'll be meeting for dinner and you no show - watch out. Maybe kevlar vests will become standard uniform issue. I just read in USA Today about a Federal Air Marshal forgetting a firearm in the lavatory. It was discovered by a passenger. This is a "trained" law enforcement agent. Pardon me if I remain one of the few skeptics out there. We humans are prone to make errors. Subtract Sept. 11, very few incidents have required firearms inflight. Maybe the world has changed recently but I am still not convinced that we have reached this level.
Posts: 141 | From: MIA  |  IP: Logged
dazeoff
Junior Poster
Member # 1293

Icon 1 posted      Profile for dazeoff         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by webmoonchild:
This will all be over once the first firearm is discharged accidentally inflight or flight attendants start showing up dead for pick up on layovers. Or when the captain says we'll be meeting for dinner and you no show - watch out. Maybe kevlar vests will become standard uniform issue. I just read in USA Today about a Federal Air Marshal forgetting a firearm in the lavatory. It was discovered by a passenger. This is a "trained" law enforcement agent. Pardon me if I remain one of the few skeptics out there. We humans are prone to make errors. Subtract Sept. 11, very few incidents have required firearms inflight. Maybe the world has changed recently but I am still not convinced that we have reached this level.

Unreal....

Posts: 16  |  IP: Logged
Goodyear_26
Post Captain
Member # 304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Goodyear_26   Email Goodyear_26   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Web Moon Child
On this issue you are so right!!

Posts: 103 | From: Tampa, FL, USA  |  IP: Logged
Glasspilot
Post Captain
Member # 390

Icon 5 posted      Profile for Glasspilot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Patschild05:
But If the piolets ........

Jack,

How are these people getting on your site?

Glass


Posts: 294 | From: Outer Banks, NC  |  IP: Logged



This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Smilin' Jack's Aviation Directory



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0