# Arm all Pilots!!! What's the F 'in problem? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 25, 2001, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658 "2001-09-25T08:56:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![jonfromdenver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/82dd89/32.png) [@jonfromdenver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jonfromdenver)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658/21 "2001-09-25T19:28:39Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by Monty_ > Okay, so now the pilots (for the sake of discussion) are locked into the cockpit. The terrorists decide to start killing passengers until the plane is landed where they direct. What now? in light of the recent hijackings, would you rather the passengers die or the plane go into the side of a building? in both scenarios, the passengers die. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658/22 "2001-09-25T20:04:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hail Ants \* > It is amazing that, in light of recent events, the media is **still** not even trying to hide its total and utter revulsion towards handguns. And what the hell does WTC have to do with handguns? I’m thinking that if every person in the WTC at the time had a gun on him, not one extra life would have been saved. Don’t get me wrong – I’ve recently moved from pro-gun control to a studied neutrality on the issue. I just find it kind of pathetic that you would use the WTC as an (irrelevant) argument against gun control. Did you like it when gun control types used the (equally irrelevant) Oklahoma City bombing as a reason to enact stricter laws? > [@](#): > > Even in terms of the completely logical and commonsense idea of allowing airline pilots to carry handguns they still treat them like they’re swastikas. They can barely contain their contempt when having even to report on this suggestion. How long you been on these boards, **Hail Ants**? You’ve been around long enough that I shouldn’t have to ask … cite, please? As **Weird Al** points out, this hasn’t been heavily covered, and the one article he read he deemed to be “reasonably fair”. > [@](#): > > Can someone, **ANYONE,** please tell me one single solitary legitimate downside to this idea? How is it in any way even the least bit debatable? How is any different than using Air Marshalls? Why are they even going to bother with **extra** psychological tests and background checks for the pilots? If an airline pilot went off his nut it would only take a flick of his wrist to nearly instantly kill himself and everyone else on board. It is an obvious given that we must trust these people with our lives. As with everything in life, **Hail Ants** , there are upsides and downsides. Several legitimate downsides have been pointed out already. I’m not saying the downsides would outweigh the upsides (IMO, they probably wouldn’t), but they surely exist. > [@](#): > > In the US, Air Marshalls cannot **ever** be put on **every** single flight. But armed pilots could be. Right now. Within a week! Almost all commercial airline pilots served in the military. This would not be a big deal for them and it should not be a big deal for anyone else. While it is true that Air Marshalls cannot be on every plane, that doesn’t mean that Air Marshalls could not handle the job - there are lots of places and situations where police have been effectively able to eliminate crime, even though they weren’t stationed at every street corner. Again, I’m not arguing with your position, but I’m asking that you calm down and engage in debate, rather than taking an absolutist position. BTW, do ya really want to trust a bunch of _Air Force_ veterans with guns?! 😃 Sua ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658/23 "2001-09-25T20:15:01Z")
i like the idea of armed pilots, but the easy answer is a stronger door to the cockpit! if the hijackers cant get to the controls, the pilots can maintain control and use the aircraft to control the situation. violent manuveours, decompression and other means can subdue anyone in the passenger areas. this could disable any would-be hijacker, then, the pilot pops the door and administers caps in thier asses. we all need to wake up and understand that people are going to die in these situations, and its better a few passengers and flight attendants than what we witnessed 9/11. this has happened on a fed-ex cargo flight, and the pilot turned the aircraft into a flying rock tumbler and the hijacker was eventually subdued after bouncing around the plane and wrestling with the flight eng and co-pilot (all heros, they saved many lives that day) safty of the lives in the plane, on the ground and the aircraft are the responsibility of the pilot. if they are unprepared or unwilling to accect that responsibility, i suggest they seek other employment. ---
**Author:** ![mancunian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mancunian/32/12244_2.png) [@mancunian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mancunian)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658/24 "2001-09-25T20:23:34Z")
I would rather die from a gunshot than crashing. Anyway, who on earth would hi-jack a plane (for the WTC purposes) that they knew they were never gonna control?? ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658/25 "2001-09-25T20:32:33Z")
**naughty wicked zoot** > [@](#): > > the statement that almost all pilots in the US have served in the military Please. You look it up. It’s not an urban legend that the majority of airline pilots have military experience. > [@](#): > > also, going hog wild with a .44 magnum. again, cite, please? No, I have never actually shot a .44 inside a jetliner but I have an understanding of handguns, aircraft and common sense. Shooting a .44 magnum inside an airliner would do one thing. It would put a 3/8" hole in it. Air would leak out rapidly, but not explosively. Remember the Hawaiian airliner that lost a huge portion of its roof? This happened because of metal fatigue and salt air corrosion, meaning that the entire plane’s airframe was suspect, yet it didn’t disintegrate. It was able to land safely. And given the redundencies in vital systems (electrical, hydraulic etc.) even if you knew where to aim you couldn’t take down a plane with a handgun that way either. > [@](#): > > may i also point out that there seems to me to be a big difference between flying a fighter jet, where you are trying to hit targets on the ground or in the air, and flying a commercial plane where you may be trying to shoot someone who is standing behind you? Um, may I point out that that is the most ridiculous and inane statement I’ve ever heard. You’re saying that because a fighter pilot normally shoots at other planes they wouldn’t know how to, what, shoot at a person?! Are you serious? Don’t you realize that anyone who is a fighter pilot is a career military officer and, like, knows how to shoot a gun for Christ’s sake! ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658/26 "2001-09-25T20:44:52Z")
So, out of idle curiosity, why are so many people assuming that every single hijacker in the future will be bent on suicide? Personally, I would feel a lot more comfortable with waiting to find out first. But, then again, I have never liked being in an airplane. ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658/27 "2001-09-25T20:47:14Z")
SuaSponte > [@](#): > > And what the hell does WTC have to do with handguns? I’m thinking that if every person in the WTC at the time had a gun on him, not one extra life would have been saved But if only **one** person on each plane had had a handgun over 6,000 people would still be alive right now. As for cites on the media’s reporting, no, I can’t give dates & times. But I have seen both CNN and MSNBC reporters take this attitude when reporting it. You could certainly say its subtle, but given the seriousness of the issue I think it matters. ---
**Author:** ![jonfromdenver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/82dd89/32.png) [@jonfromdenver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jonfromdenver)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658/28 "2001-09-25T21:03:22Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by Hail Ants_ > But if only one person on each plane had had a handgun over 6,000 people would still be alive right now. if you ask me, if each pilot had a gun on those planes, more people would be dead. the pennsylvania crash was suspected to be due to passengers overtaking the hijackers, correct? if the pilot had a gun, five guys **could** take it away from him, and then the passengers would be a lot less likely to try to fight back, especially if they didn’t know what the hijackers intended. thus, the hijackers could have reached their intended target, and killed more people. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658/29 "2001-09-25T21:40:42Z")
The issue raised in the OP is that the monolithic entity known as “The Media” is already unanimous in opposing arming pilots, yet no one asked **Hail Ants** for a cite. On the day of the attacks, one of my first reactions was, “They should allow pilots to carry guns”. This would supplement sky marshals, who can’t be everywhere at once. There are usually at least 2 cockpit personnel on board commercial flights, so one can remain at the controls while another confronts the hijackers. But there should be some training, the guns should be registered, and perhaps they should be ‘smart’ guns so they wouldn’t fire if the hijackers wrested them away. But these are the kind of things that gun proponents are opposed to. I half-expected to hear someone argue that ordinary passengers should be allowed to carry concealed, unregistered guns aboard airliners to fight off any hijackers who appear. After all, armed skies are friendly skies. :rolleyes: It’ll be interesting to see how the overall gun debate is affected, what with the emphasis on security on the one hand and the common desire to help fight terrorism on the other. In truth, I’m not opposed to concealed-carry, but the operators of large public venues don’t appear to be sharing that enthusiasm. 'Hey, you can tell I’m a law-abiding citizen ‘cause I said so.’ The erosion of civil liberties in the wake of that attacks is a serious concern. I doubt that Americans’ guns are going to be confiscated from their homes, but registration is sounding more reasonable. The ability of potential terrorists and criminals to move weapons around without leaving a paper trail should appear less attractive given the heightened need for security. ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658/30 "2001-09-25T22:43:17Z")
Ok, I give up. Mods please close this. I’m sorry that I don’t tape every minute of live news so I could capture the reporters comments an upload them to [commiepinkoleftistmedia.com](http://commiepinkoleftistmedia.com) being that everyone finds it so hard to believe that CNN or MSNBC reporters would never be biased. Everyone who is nitpicking every possible scenerio, what if they did this, what if they did that, is missing my point. The Pilot and co-pilot are a professional flight crew. They are totally responsible for the lives of hundreds of people each and every day. They bear more responsibility in one day than any of us will in our lifetime. The cockpit of a commercial passenger airliner should be a secure environment. And rather than trying to make it a bank vault, which is impractical, the crew should be entrusted with its security. ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658/31 "2001-09-25T22:47:28Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Monty \* \*\*So, out of idle curiosity, why are so many people assuming that every single hijacker in the future will be bent on suicide? This is the logical conclusion to be drawn from the actions of a person endangering the lives of hundreds or thousands. if you ask me, if you risk ONE persons life, you should expect to die (ie, your actions then become suicidal) because this ONE person has the right to defend his life by taking yours. by extension, if you break into MY HOME, your are (in my eyes) attempting suicide, because i will kill you rather than wait to see if you want to steal my 4 slice toaster or slit my wife’s throat. it seems overly clear to me why folks would assume that hijackers are bent on suicide, as thier action invite death may not be right, but thats how i see it ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658/32 "2001-09-25T22:51:14Z")
sorry! i screwed up that last post! Monty is the author of the first line-- the rest of that ranting is my own! sorry for the confusion- i’ll try to learn how to use my toys properly from now on… ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658/33 "2001-09-25T23:02:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hail Ants \* > \*\*SuaSponte > > > [@](#): > > > > And what the hell does WTC have to do with handguns? I’m thinking that if every person in the WTC at the time had a gun on him, not one extra life would have been saved > > But if only **one** person on each plane had had a handgun over 6,000 people would still be alive right now. > \*\* Actually, no. Prior to WTC, pilots were directed to cooperate with hijackers; no one foresaw that hijackers would turn the planes into missiles. Even if the pilots were armed, I doubt that any of them would have started shooting when knives were pressed to flight attendants’ necks, especially given the history that, in most prior cases of hijacking, all or most of the crew and passengers survived the experience. Now, of course, things are different, and arming the pilots may very well be a good idea. But it wouldn’t have changed anything on 9/11. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Arjuna34](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Arjuna34](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arjuna34)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658/34 "2001-09-25T23:07:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\*Okay, so now the pilots (for the sake of discussion) are locked into the cockpit. The terrorists decide to start killing passengers until the plane is landed where they direct. What now? \*\* If they direct you to land at a US airport, you do it. If they direct you to land in the middle of a skyscraper, you don’t, and let them kill hostages, while calling for help. Arjuna34 ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658/35 "2001-09-25T23:34:03Z")
hi! me again! i want to hear from bona-fide pilots on this. i feel like a giant turd just being “the friend of several pilots”. i havent had the chance to speak to any of them since 9/11 but there has got to be something in thier training about what actions to take. i recall having a discussion with one of my buddies about this, (what to do in a hijack situation) but it was years ago and we were both drinking LOTS of beer! (his answer was something like using the plane as a weapon, violent manouvers, decompression and the like to disable the baddies) lets here it from the pilots! guns or no? what do you do in these cases? use the plane as your weapon? turn over the stick? help us out please! ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658/36 "2001-09-25T23:35:15Z")
Gee, gato; so you’re saying it’s okay to sacrifice 200+ lives because one hijacker is endangering one life. Glad you cleared that up. ---
**Author:** ![audient](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@audient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/audient)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658/37 "2001-09-26T01:02:29Z")
a nice NYT blurb on “fuselage-safe” amunition. (my term :), theirs is “frangible”) [http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/index\_GUNS.html](http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/index_GUNS.html) ---
**Author:** ![mack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mack)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658/38 "2001-09-26T01:26:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hail Ants \* > \*\* > > Everyone who is nitpicking every possible scenerio, what if they did this, what if they did that, is missing my point. > > \*\* If a policeman can have his gun taken from him, surely an airline pilot can. Should we not consider this? ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658/39 "2001-09-26T12:13:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ticker \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \*\*\* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > \*Originally posted by amrussell \* > > > \*\*Now you’re asking the pilots to risk their life to fight terrorists. \*\* > > > > Sounds reasonable to me, given that they are almost certainly dead (we must assume) if they _don’t_ fight. > > \*\* > > Why must we assume that? The WTC & Pentagon hi-jackings were not typical of hi-jackings in general. \*\* Why? Because if we don’t, we are taking the risk that we are handing over a plane to someone intent on crashing it into the side of a building, killing thousands of people. It is a risk we simply cannot take. I am dumbfounded that I actually have to explain this. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > > \*\* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > > > \*\*Ok, plus the pilot is really busy flying the plane and thus ensure the safety of the passengers, which might mean that the terrorists could disarm him before he had time to react, \*\* > > > > How likely do you think this is?\*\* > > I have no idea, how likely would it have to be before we concluded that it was an unacceptable risk? \*\* Well, I don’t _know_ either, but I _think_ the answer to your question is, more likely than it actually is. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by amrussell \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > \*Originally posted by amrussell \* > > > Pilots fly planes. It’s what they’re trained to do. Asking them to add “control any emergent hi-jacking situation” to their job description > > > > No, not “control any emergent hi-jacking situation”. Just shoot hijackers attempting to enter the cockpit. How hard do you think that would be? > > They’ll be a) facing the wrong direction and \*\* I need about 2/5 of a second to turn around in my seat. I assume a pilot can do the same. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by amrussell \* > \*\*b) busy trying to fly a plane. \*\* The _entire_ cockpit crew? At _all_ times? It’s not just one guy up there you know, and the things that typically require their attention are taking off and landing. In addition, I’ve heard that some of these modern planes have this new-fangled thing called an “autopliot”. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by amrussell \* > \*\*The hijacker is preceded into the cockpit by his stewardess hostage, knife to her throat. All the pilot has to do is hit autopilot, grab his gun from its convenient but secure storage space, get out of his seat and shoot the hijacker. \*\* :rolleyes: Yes, this is a _very_ likely scenario, given that the crew will be so confident having their guns that they will fail to take the rudimentary precaution of **securing the cockpit door**. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by amrussell \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > would require an enormous amount of new training > > > > Cite? Specifically, on the “enormous” part. > > I was thinking the same training an Air Marshall would receive.\*\* You haven’t come up with a cite I asked for, showing A) How much training an Air Marshall recieves B) Whether this is “enormous” and C) Whether a pilot would require the same amount of training. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by amrussell \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > So let’s say there’s a hi-jacking and the pilot and co-pilot put up a fight. Unfortunately, although they manage to kill the hijackers, the pilot has been killed and the co-pilot badly wounded. > > > > > > So who’s going to fly the plane now? > > > > How exactly is this scenario worse than the alternative, in which the hijackers gain control of the plane from the unarmed cockpit crew, and proceed to fly it into the side of a building, killing thousands of people? > > Well, that’s one alternative. There are others, involving fully trained Air Marshalls who can devote the entirety of their attention to the problem of the hijackers.\*\* I agree. Having Air Marshalls aboard every flight would be great, if it is feasible. That doesn’t make arming the pilots a bad idea. However, you have failed to answer my question. Assuming there aren’t Air Marshalls on the plane, for whatever reason, how is your scenario worse than the alternative? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by amrussell \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > And, on top of everything else I have said here, and in response to both of these posters, it now appears that [The Airline Pilots Association](http://www.msnbc.com/news/631075.asp?0dm=N27RN) supports the idea, ie the people most in a position to know whether it is a good idea or not. > > > > Want to argue with _them_? > > I’m not sure they are the people most qualified to know whether it’s a good idea or not. Really.\*\* Then who is, exactly? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by amrussell \* > \*\*Just because they’re trained to fly planes doesn’t mean that they’re experts on aviation security. \*\* No, but I imagine they are more knowledgeable than either of us. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by amrussell \* > \*\*The vast majority of them have never been in a hijacking. \*\* The vast majority of _Air Marshalls_ have never been in a hijacking. In fact, come to think of it, IIRC _no_ flight with an AM has ever been hijacked. So the _pilots_ have the advantage here. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by amrussell \* > \*\*I’m sure they believe they’d be safer, and feel safer, with guns, but that doesn’t mean they’ve analysed the tactical problems and decided that, objectively, the pilots of the plane are the ones best suited to the role of attacking hijackers. \*\* We don’t know that they _have_ “analysed the tactical problems and decided…objectively”, and we don’t know that they haven’t. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt. Have you any reason why I should not? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by davidshields \* > \*\*Clarification required: > Is the proposal > > a) require all pilots to be armed > b) permit all pilots to be armed > > I think it makes a BIG difference. > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > \*\* > I would **not** want a pilot who’s never had any experience with a handgun to carry around a 9 millimeter semi-auto. At minimum, (s)he should have to take and pass a basic firearms safety course with the make and model of gun (s)he will be using. \*\* In the article I cited, the proposal made by the pilot’s union would be to permit pilots to be armed but not require it, and they that receive firearms training prior to being permitted to be armed. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jonfromdenver \* > \*\*would this proposal make it absolutely unnecessary for hijackers to even bring weapons on to the flight? in the recent plane crashes there were five hijackers on each flight, with box cutters and primitive knives. take away the possibility of knives, but throw in the possibility of the pilot having a gun, and those five guys can easily take the gun from the pilot. \*\* What makes you think this? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jonfromdenver \* > \*\*even if he kills a couple of them first, it wouldn’t matter, because they are on a suicide mission. then they have a gun, and no one is going to mess with them (remember we are still thinking pre-WTC attack, so the passengers don’t know they are going to die). \*\* :eek: **Who** is still “thinking pre-WTC attack”??? From this point on, passengers in a hijacked plane _do_ know they are likely to die if they don’t resist the hijackers. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*Pilots are pilots…not SWAT teams. Personally pilots being armed in and of itself doesn’t bother me but neither would I feel especially safer for it. Locking them behind a vault door would seem to do the trick nicely. \*\* Pilots need to eat, go to the bathroom, and sleep. Is there is room for all this in the cockpit? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*Properly built (which shouldn’t be much trouble for engineers) there would be NO way ANYONE would get through that door without a blowtorch and I suspect a blowtorch would be difficult to get through security. \*\* What if something happens to the pilots, say a sudden decompression in the cockpit? No one will be able to get in there to help them. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*Given that what is the point of pilots having guns? \*\* How about as an emergency backup? Given the nature of the threat, it seems reasonable to take multiple precautions against it. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*Are they supposed to come out and do battle with the terrorists? \*\* Good lord no! Where did you get this idea? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*As to how a terrorist would get their hands on the pilot’s weapon(s) consider a terrorist standing outside the cockpit threatening to slit a child’s throat and will continue doing so till the pilots emerge and hand over their weapons. Can you be certain that no pilot would comply with the terrorists demands? \*\* I find it hard to imagine that one would, seeing as how that same child plus the _pilot_ plus a whole lot more people are going to die if he does. And by the way, what are the _passengers_ doing during all this? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*I’m not sue I could sit in the cockpit under those circumstances \*\* I don’t see how I could do anything else, except perhaps…I don’t know…maybe…shoot the terrorist? That’s a scenario at least as likely as yours. Or how about…take the bullets out, lock the safety on, hand him the gun, let him into the cockpit, and have my _co-pilot_ shoot him? Or how about, tell the passengers over the intercom that the terrorists are going to kill them all unless they do something? That’s three possiblities I thought of off the top of my head. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*I don’t know why it wouldn’t work but my idea is for the plane to carry tanks of knockout gas on board. Pilots put on their gas masks and flood the cabin with some reasonably fast acting gas and put everybody to sleep. \*\* Does such a gas exist, that would be feasible to use on an airplane? Honestly, I would really like to know. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cliffy \* > \*\*Let’s also note that several of the hijackers from this incident were pilots legitimately trained at U.S. flight schools. Clearly, just being the pilot doesn’t mean you’re not a security risk. > \*\* I seem to recall they _trained_, not that they passed, or got licenses. Even if they had I don’t think they would have been eligible to fly a jumbo jet. Not to mention, if there weren’t stringent background and security checks for such pilots before the events of 9/11, I am sure there will be now. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by naughty wicked zoot \* > > **the OP stated that there is special ammunition that would enable a gun to be safely fired inside a plane. cite, please?** > > In this article, the [Pilots Union](http://www.msnbc.com/local/rttx/a912959.asp) addresses the ammunition concern, as well as testing, training, and background checks. Here is a [similar article](http://www.msnbc.com/news/631075.asp). I’m reluctant to agree with **Weird Al** after our discussion elsewhere regarding the arming of _all passengers_, but I believe the pilots union has thought this through very well and their case should be considered. \*\* _AHEM_ **Waverly** : I thank you for your support, and I commend you for having the all too rare ability to do such a thing for someone when you have had strong disagreements with that person elsewhere. However: You seem to be implying that I have argued in support of arming “all passengers”. If that is the case, I will have to ask for either A) A cite or B) that you please not misrepresent my views in this fashion. Thank you. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\*Okay, so now the pilots (for the sake of discussion) are locked into the cockpit. The terrorists decide to start killing passengers until the plane is landed where they direct. What now? \*\* I would think, the pilots send out a mayday signal and land the plane at the closest place they can, and the terrorists and the passengers have it out, with the passengers winning, albeit with some casualties. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\* > And what the hell does WTC have to do with handguns? I’m thinking that if every person in the WTC at the time had a gun on him, not one extra life would have been saved._\* All the discussions I have seen are about having guns or other weapons on board the plane. I have not seen anyone mention it this context to which you refer. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\*Don’t get me wrong – I’ve recently moved from pro-gun control to a studied neutrality on the issue. I just find it kind of pathetic that you would use the WTC as an (irrelevant) argument against gun control. \*\* I have not seen anyone do that (though it might have happened, I can’t keep up with everything here), except in the very limited context of a (carefully limited) easing of restrictions on weapons carried aboard airplanes, in the hopes that this might prevent further attacks like the ones of 9/11. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > **BTW, do ya really want to trust a bunch of _Air Force_ veterans with guns?! 😃** Hmmm…do I detect a note of inter-service rivalry here? 😃 > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jefnixon \* > \*\*I would rather die from a gunshot than crashing. \*\* I personally don’t want to die at all. But, in a hijacking situation…you would rather die from having the terrorists taking over your plane and deliberately crashing it, taking thousands of other people along with you??? Is this what you are saying? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jefnixon \* > \*\*Anyway, who on earth would hi-jack a plane (for the WTC purposes) that they knew they were never gonna control?? \*\* So…are you saying that if we arm the cockpit crew and/or take other measures that have been suggested here, it will be such a deterrent that hijackers won’t even try anymore? If not, what _are_ you saying? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > **So, out of idle curiosity, why are so many people assuming that every single hijacker in the future will be bent on suicide?** Because we can’t possibly take the risk of assuming differently. See my response to **ticker** at the beginning of this post. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\*Personally, I would feel a lot more comfortable with waiting to find out first. \*\* I don’t understand this statement at all. You only “find out” for sure when they actually crash the plane, at which point it is too late to do anything. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by jonfromdenver \* > \*\* > if the pilot had a gun, five guys **could** take it away from him,_\* How do you know this? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jonfromdenver \* > \*\*and then the passengers would be a lot less likely to try to fight back, \*\* Why do you think this? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sqweels \* > \*\* > But there should be some training, the guns should be registered, and perhaps they should be ‘smart’ guns so they wouldn’t fire if the hijackers wrested them away. > > But these are the kind of things that gun proponents are opposed to. \*\* On airplanes??? Perhaps if you look hard enough you can find a few _individuals_ who feel this way, but then if you look hard enough you can find people who believe in just about anything. I don’t think you are justified in characterizing “gun proponents” in general this way. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sqweels \* > \*\*The erosion of civil liberties in the wake of that attacks is a serious concern. I doubt that Americans’ guns are going to be confiscated from their homes, but registration is sounding more reasonable. The ability of potential terrorists and criminals to move weapons around without leaving a paper trail should appear less attractive given the heightened need for security. \*\* There are a lot of things we _could_ do to make life harder for terrorists, that we _shouldn’t_ do. As you said, “The erosion of civil liberties in the wake of that attacks is a serious concern.” And I fail to see how your specific proposal would have made it any more difficult for the 9/11 hijackers to do what they did. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hail Ants \* > \*\*The Pilot and co-pilot are a professional flight crew. They are totally responsible for the lives of hundreds of people each and every day. \*\* Quite true, and an excellent point. It is hard for me to understand how, given that by getting on the plane you are trusting the flight crew with your life, you would be uncomfortable with them having guns. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\*Gee, gato; so you’re saying it’s okay to sacrifice 200+ lives because one hijacker is endangering one life. \*\* One life? _One_ life??? My jaw just dropped when I read that. Did you see the death toll from the WTC attacks? Up to ~7,000 now, is it? _That’s_ how many lives (at least) a hijacker is putting at risk. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mack \* > \*\*If a policeman can have his gun taken from him, surely an airline pilot can. Should we not consider this? \*\* Yes, it should be considered. However, I have seen nothing to indicate that the risk of this is anything but very small. You will note that the _police_ are still carrying guns in spite of this risk. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658/40 "2001-09-26T12:49:55Z")
> [@](#): > > **Weird Al** : You seem to be implying that I have argued in support of arming “all passengers”. If that is the case, I will have to ask for either A) A cite or B) that you please not misrepresent my views in this fashion. You are correct, you never did state you supported arming all passengers, but you did take issue with those who thought is was a poor idea. In addition: When Waverly stated: “I get the impression that no matter what controls are in place, you will not be happy until there is weapon in your hand.” **Al** Replies: “You are most certainly correct. The problem is that I can’t conceive of a weapons regime that would allow me to have a weapon, but no one else. But I am open to suggestions…“ Either state your position in certain terms or let your comments speak for themselves. Anything else is a dishonest tactic, IMHO. Sorry for the hijack, carry on folks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arm-all-pilots-whats-the-f-in-problem/83658.md?page=3)