If there is a danger of piercing a plane’s skin from firing a conventional bullet, can pilots be armed with rubber-bullet guns, or razor-blade guns? Or is a plane’s skin too easy to pierce?
I’m thinking that it’s possible to design a projectile with lethal force against a human, but does not pose the risk of piercing the skin of an airplane.
There are a number of frangible ammunition types already on the market, and have been for a number of years. Glaser safety slugs are at the top of the list.
I know what you’re talking about. I wonder if they would pose a danger to a plane’s skin?
Iwas kind of wondering why not Tasers or something. Maybe laughing gas, a la the Joker. But I guess that’s more of a GD sort of question.
And to save anyone else from having to look it up, frangible means easily broken, which I may have once know and sort of inferred, but wasn’t certain. Does this mean that Glaser safety slugs couldn’t injure the plane itself, just the passengers?
my impression from reading the FAQ was bullets break things and make holes in things, Glasers are just the lesser of many evils when it comes to situations like this.
I think you are on the wrong track. Should the need arise for a weapon to be used on a flight, the planes skin will be the least of your worries. I would be concerned with innocent peoples skin instead.
I assume you want to protect the aircrafts skin because it is pressurized. The airplane is not going to pop like a balloon if it gets a hole in the skin. Or even several holes. Or even through loss of an entire window.
You wouldn’t have to have anything lethal, only something incapacitating. Maybe pepper spray? You could hose down anybody in sight as long as you got the attackers (and missed the pilots).
The mere possibility that the Pilots will be armed will have great deterrent effect. The September terrorists had done their homework and knew for certain that they were operating in “gun free” zones and a largely emasculated flying public with a “Do what they say and you won’t get hurt” attitude.
I expect that the firearms will be utilized in conjunction with a near Ft. Knox cockpit configuration. If a regular passenger sees the inside of the cockpit during flight, it will likely be one of the last things they ever see, as they are up to no good.
I see a lot of concern by folks about putting holes in the skin of a pressurized airplane. And I have to repeat what has already been said - a bullet hole or two will NOT make the airplane come apart, crash, or otherwise do really horrific things. At worst, it will get very windy inside the airplane for a few minutes.
Of more concern would be either hitting an innocent bystander (there’s very little room to duck, hide, or otherwise get out of the way in coach) or hit something like a hydraulic control line. The hydraulics and such, however, are triple-redundant in an airliner and to disable the airplane you’d have to hit all three of an item.
As for tasers – no one seems to consider the effects of 50,000 volts (or whatever the charge is) misfiring into, say, the computerized flight director or other on-board electronic instrument, which modern airliners have many of. This would not be a good thing.
Any weapon you consider will have it’s downsides as well as benefits.
In cold numbers, isn’t it better to save the plane, and lose a few passengers, then lose the plane and whatever building was rammed into?
Tasers and stunguns have simple countermeasures. Tasers are only effective against one person. The 9-11 terrorists were 5(4) to a plane. Also, clothing can rather easily make ineffective tasers and stunguns.
Pepper-spray and the like are not effective in wide variety of situations, not to mention that the use of gas or vaprs in a confined space like a plane could just as easily disable the pilots(s) as the terrorists.
Only a firearm would provide the needed stopping power as a final line of defense in the event of a cabin-breach. I see no valid reason to keep pilots unarmed. (Most are USAFR or ANG pilots as well, and thus, are qualified on the 92F)
You have to consider the inherent safety of the weapon. Guns go off accidentally all the time. In a cockpit, this could be catastophic. My fear is that, for every terrorist attack foiled by armed polits, they’ll be several crashes or near-crashes caused by armed pilots.
I’m sorry but this comment raised some questions in my mind. Do these guns that “go off all the time” do so by themselves? Or by careless handling? If the gun went off in the cabin, it would be catastrophic for who? The plane, which many people have already pointed out that explosive decompression from a bullet is cinematic fiction, or injury to the pilot(s)?
This fear is based on most airline pilot’s reputation for reckless cowboy behavior? Drunken pilots?
How about a tranquilizer gun?
Virtually only – and I mean only – when being handled by a human being. If you meant otherwise, I’d be interested to see any cites for phanton firearm discharges.
Cockpit firearms would, 99.99999% of the time, be stowed away in the cockpit, not on the pilot’s person. If I understand correctly, the firearms would only be used in case of an attempted cockpit break-in, not merely to put away a hijacker who stays in the cabin (save the most extreme circumstances, like mass extermination of the passengers).
That last point is why I feel passengers are virtually in no danger of firearms stowed away safely in the cockpit.
On one of the hijacked planes, the pilots opened the cockpit for the hijackers after they threatened to kill the stewardess. These pilots will also give their guns to the hijackers.
The Sky Marshall program ended becuase the airlines got tired for giving up a seat on the plane - but it is still the most effective security program.
The type hijackers were are talking about don’t need the pilots alive. If the pilots shoot through the cabin door, the hijackers will shoot back through, then break the door open.
People are great bullet catchers, especially with low penetration ammo like the pilots will use If the hijacker keeps a hostage between him and the cockpit, he is safe. The pilot will not be.
If the hijackers can crash the plane, they win. Look at the suicide bombers is Israel. The kill themselves to kill 10-20 other people. The hijacker can kill 200.
With a Sky Marshall you have a chance of getting rid of the hijacker and keeping the plane safe. But it costs money.
(We are now in GD territory – the OP has been answered)
No way will the pilots give their guns up to save the lives of the stewardesses. After an event like 9/11, it’s clear to all that it’s better to lose five flight attendants than to lose 120 passengers and then wreck into a crowded building. In your scenario, the stewardesses may bite the dust – but the hijackers will for certain take a dirt nap.
Sure it is. The part I diagreed with is the fact people are so concerned about punching a few holes in the skin of the airplane, because it’s pressurized. If you were going to use safer ammunition, it shouldn’t be for the aircrafts benefit.
Some are, not most. Most pilots hired within the past three years have no military background. Right now, most of them are RETIRED military, however.
I guess we really have strayed into GD territory. You wouldn’t happen to have any cites for this, would you?
Actually couldn’t the cockpit be pressurized separately from the plane and on its own air system (or somehow isolated from cabin air). Something like pepper spray, tear gas (or a combination thereof) might be an excellent option. Pilots have a “break glass in case of hijackers” box, that triggers something to dump pepper spray or the like into the cabin air. You might kill the occasional asthmatic passenger but it sounds to me like a pretty good way to quickly incapacitate all of the attackers. By the time the pepper spray starts to wear off the plane can probably be on the ground at an airport.
Guns do not accidently go off “all the time”. A gun sitting untouched on a table will not, under some weird quantum quirk, fire spontaneously all by itself, without human intervention. Mishandled guns can, and do, “go off” because they clumsy human does something he/she shouldn’t, or because the gun is a cheap piece of crap that is of poor design. As an example, in the military thousands of people carry guns for prolonged periods of time, and they do not have a habit of “accidently” going off in non-combat situations, and certainly not without being held in the hands of a human being. Please do not compare the gun safety of a well-trained professional with the carelessness of a certain element of civilian society that will buy a cut-rate tool and take it home without a clue to proper maintenance or safety.
Guns in cockpits would be handled only by pilots who have undergone training in the safe handling and use of such weapons. (And, remembrr, this would be voluntary on the part of the pilot in question - no one is being forced to carry or use weapons). Such weapons would be secured while in flight, not carried loose on a chain around someone’s neck (for a really bizarre example). Truthfully, there are far more dangerous things that could happen on an airplane than have a gun fire. A goose hitting the windsheild of a jet, for instance, could cause much more damage than a single bullet.
No longer true. Post-WWII there was a massive hiring of former military pilots, but the military has never trained so many pilots since the 1940’s. Those guys were all retired by the 1970s.
There have been several articles in the aviation press on the topic of who’s hiring and qualifications needed that point out the majority of airline pilots today have NO military experience whatsoever. I think it’s running 60-70% civilian.
This is not news in the aviation world - just to the sea of non-aviators around us.
There’s a couple of things to comments on here.
Separate air supply/pressurization for the cockpit - yes, of course it’s possible, but it would be complicated and expensive. On new airplane designs it’s a possbility - but new designs only rarely come out, and with the added expense it’s possible no one will buy them. Retrofitting existing airliners with such a system may not be possible. It’s more than just installing really good weatherstripping on the cockpit door. There may not be room within the existing hull to install such a thing
Tear gas/pepper spray crowd control - it doesn’t always work. The is a wide range of reactions to these substances, and certain pharmaceuticals greatly increase one’s resistance to such things. There have been instances where pepper spray, at least, has had no effect on berserker attack. But it WILL disable a good percentage of the passengers which, as we have seen in several post-Sept 11 incidents, are willing and frequently able to tackle and subdue a troublemaker.
Also, imagine this scenario - the crowd control gas is released. A hijacker shoots several times into a window or otherwise breaks the hull of the aircraft. The cabin air - along with the gas - starts to depart the airplane and the overhead oxygen masks drop down. Hijackers grabbed these masks and are now able to breathe properly again. We’re back to the bad guys in control in the cabin, now aren’t we?