It’s a risk we put up with because of the nature of the law enforcement profession. A policeman carries other weapons besides a gun, is highly trained in the ways of self defense (and offense), and often has a partner that’s equally armed and schooled in physical confrontation. I wouldn’t expect this level of training and arming among most pilots.
I agree that the risk of a pilot having his gun taken from him is small, but it’s there.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Weird_AL_Einstein *
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by amrussell *
**
Another assumption. I’m sure I should ask you for a cite, as without a detailed survey of pilot response times we can know nothing about this issue. However, all you’re doing now is looking at the guy with a knife to a steward’s throat. What can he do in that 2/5 of a second, I wonder? What can he do while you’re reaching for your gun?
OK. Either the pilots are able to react at once to any situation developing outside the cockpit, or they’re not. If they are, why can’t this job be done better by trained Air Marshalls? If not, the hijackers have the freedom to take hostages from the passengers and cabin crew and thus be able to make demands of the pilots. The best policy is for the pilots to isolate themselves totally from the terrorists, so that the plane cannot be used to target buildings. In which case, trying to burst out the cockpit door and take out an unknown number of terrorists, whose positions in the cabin are also unknown, is a sub-optimal strategy.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by amrussell *
**
You’re right, Al, I haven’t. And I’m not actually going to look for details of Air Marshall training. If you wish to believe that such training takes half a day, including coffee-breaks and consists of little more than “This is a gun, that’s a plane,” then you’re welcome to. Or, in the alternative, you could believe that as close-quarters combat training for all special services is rigourous and exhaustive, then training for Air Marshalls would be too.
Or you could be suggesting that pilots wouldn’t need to know any of that stuff. Fine.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by amrussell *
**
Why make that assumption? Why wouldn’t there be? This is, surely, a sufficiently big concern?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by amrussell *
**
Members of SWAT teams, special forces, the guys who raided Entebbe. People with those skills and experience.
It’s still really not their area of expertise. Being ill doesn’t make you a doctor.
No, but the AMs have trained and studied how to prevent and handle hijackings. Again, I don’t need to know if the doctor’s ever had diabetes, just that he knows how to a)recognize and b) treat the problem.
Well, had they done so, they might have mentioned it in the article. But even if they have, it wouldn’t be all that persuasive, because they don’t know how to perform tactical analysis.
My main problem with the scheme is this. The pilot’s job, in the event of a hijack, is, now more than ever, to maintain control of the airplane. Asking the pilot to go head-to-head with the hijackers jeopardises that role. If the hijackers are to be fought on the plane, let’s have people on the plane who can deal with them without worrying about anything else.
This just in: (from CBS News broadcast this morning) “Not all of the hijackers appeared to have known that theywere on a suicide mission.”
does there really need to be an explanation here? this isn’t like the movies, where the bad guys conveniently jump the hero one by one, in which they all wait in line to fight. you have five guys jumping one guy. period. yes, the likelihood is brought down by the fact that plane aisles are small, but still, five guys versus one. he would have to be a professional to down five guys without a single one touching him.
I will grant you, Hail Ants, that most commercial airline pilots were in the military (or at least the Air Force).
This is irrelevant.
In the military they were trained to be pilots, not military police or shore patrolmen or even armed infantry. I was a naval officer, which meant I was a middle manager and a bridge officer on a cruiser. It didn’t mean I was even safe to handle a handgun (and in fact, I wasn’t and am not), let alone use it effectively to defuse a crisis. To assert military experience as a qualification is just silly.
Furthermore, it’s worth noting that guards at federal penitentiaries only carry body alarms, not weapons, because the danger they’d be taken and used against them is so high. And these are professionals trained in the very sort of situations you’re describing! What do you say to that?
thank you! this is exactly the point i have been trying to make! fiver just put it a lot better than i have. the point i have been trying to emphasize is exactly what fiver implied: you don’t put weapons into the hands of anyone around possible criminals or in the case of fiver’s example, known criminals. it’s just stupid to do so. you don’t prevent a crime by doing this, you make it easier to occur.
I am for all crew and at least 4 marshalls per plane, to have fire arms, stunners, cuffs, and leg cuffs and gags and drugs for subduing, on the planes. I am all for them to have good training in the arts and weaponry and drug administration while they have to take on this responsibility.
I am sick of the media. They have mutated into something that is horrible. They have been highly annoying since this tragedy has begun. They want to blurtout all the secrets of our military and think they have a right to do so no matter the consequences. I can’t stand them. To me they too, are a kind of terrorist.
I say that you shouldn’t compare a prison guard in a prison to anything but a prison guard in a prison. It’s ridiculous to compare a person that is surrounded by hundreds of violent convicts to someone that may face a handfull of unarmed men (or possibly men armed with razors) in a confined space where they all cannot rush you at once.
You probably meant to be serious, but you made me laugh when I read “you don’t put weapons into the hands of anyone around possible criminals”. Please explain to me your rationalization for the reason that cops have guns. Not to mention that fact that any living human on the planet is a “possible” criminal.
In this article, there are some clear statements about what the Air Line Pilots Association is asking for.
This, coupled with other measures that the ALPA is also asking for, like mesh doors that lock from inside the cockpit, would make it much, much more difficult for hijackers to storm the cockpit to take over the plane.
The ALPA is NOT asking that armed pilots replace sky marshals. The addition of the possiblity of armed pilots is just one more deterrant to would-be hijackers.
Point taken. What I would say is that airline pilots now have a new, required responsibility. The armed defense of the cockpit. If they’re not up to it, well, put 'em behind a desk.
I don’t even know how to respond to this. A prison, where everyone is absolutely a definite criminal, is totally different than an airliner where anyone is a possible criminal.
There seems to be a big division between those who feel that a gun is more likely to be taken away than used to defend. Outside a prison, it is my firm belief that this is absolutely untrue. It is also my belief that people who believe this to be generally true do so out of an emotional fear of, and lack of experience with, handguns.
The debate’s been settled: President Bush says he wants to put armed air marshalls on most flights. He is against arming the pilots:
I suppose y’all could continue to debate it, but I think it’s all moot now.
Isn’t that all going to cost a shed-load of dollars??
Plus it still won’t reduce the risk from international flights - I can’t imagine Air India (or whoever) allowing US Air Marshalls to be aboard every flight to and from the US…
The airline companies are already thinking about raising their prices (no cite for this but give it a month or two and I’ll bet that’ll happen) - this will just cause a further hike (or is the US Govt. going to pay for all the Marshalls?).
Maybe I’m cynical, but I reckon that within a few years people will start complaining about the extra cost and demand a reduction in the numbers of Marshalls…
Unless the US can persude all international carriers to have armed guards on-board the risk will remain…
Ummm…technically correct, but still a bit misleading. I have not taken issue with the idea that arming all passengers is a bad one. I have taken issue with certain arguments against A) Armed Air Marshalls B) Armed pilots and C) Allowing passengers with state-issued CCW permits to carry on the plane, with certain limitations, including that they be American citizens.
I have never (that I recall) engaged in express or implied advocacy of arming all passengers, but I think I have made it clear that I feel that a regime in which no one on the plane is armed (ie not even AMs) is no longer appropriate given the events of 9/11, if it ever was.
Your quotes are correct, but I don’t understand your statement. Certainly arming me != arming everyone.
I am glad you mentioned “the nature of the law enforcement profession”. That encapsulates my answer in a nutshell. The nature of the law enforcement profession is such that it is the job of a law enforcement professional to go out and actively seek out and confront lawbreakers, settle disputes, and do all sorts of other potentially dangerous things. The only thing the pilot has to do with his gun is defend the cockpit.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by amrussell *
**
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Weird_AL_Einstein *
As John McLaughlin would say, WRONG! As a matter of fact, I timed myself. And I am certainly not in the best shape, nor do I have superior reaction time.
Did you not see my note about securing the cockpit door?
See my statement about this below.
As I asked in another post, what are the passengers doing during all this? Just sitting around?
Again, as I said in another post, on long flights pilots need to eat, sleep, and go to the bathroom. Is there room for all this in the cockpit?
Well, duh. Like I said before, the purpose of arming pilots would be to defend the cockpit, something which, in light of recent events, must be done.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by amrussell *
**
You note I said “For whatever reason”. Do I really have to think of one? There are all kinds of possibilities.
In the first place, we wouldn’t be asking pilots to do all the things that SWAT teams et al do. Like I have said numerous times, they would be required to defend the cockpit. In fact from now on they are going to have to do this no matter what, given this why not give them the tools to do it effectively?
In the second place, members of SWAT team, the Entebbe raiders et al are (presumably) still around, and able to speak for themselves. Have any of them spoken on this subject. I think the pilots are qualified to speak on this subject, and I provided a cite. If you think someone else is so qualified, why don’t you find a cite?
If you are living with diabetes you most likely know more about it than the average layman.
Once again, having AMs would be great, but that is not an argument against arming the pilots, as a backup if nothing else. If you want to extend this analogy, you can think of AMs as doctors and the pilots as paramedics. Both have a role to play.
And they might not have, considering that such a thing goes without saying. If the decision was based solely on a sense of panic, I really think that would have been mentioned.
A) How do you know this, and B) Assuming they can’t, why do you presume that they didn’t consult with someone who can?
Yes, and a hijacker trying to enter the cockpit also jeopardizes that role. Hence the need for giving the pilots some means of defending the cockpit in a worst case scenario.
Again, I agree, we should have AMs, but that does not invalidate arguments for arming the pilots. Belt and suspenders, and all that.
You are getting me confused now. Are you talking about Air Marshalls, or pilots? An AM would a professional, and under the administration’s proposal there may be more than one of him. The pilot would be behind a secured cockpit door, rendering talk about “plane aisles” moot.
No it is not worth noting this, at all. Others have already pointed out why, so I am not going to belabor this except to say that I agree with them.
Ummm…by this definition, virtually everything we debate on this board is “moot”. That’s never stopped us before. Not to mention I for one would like to hear from something more reliable than anonymous sources on the issue of arming the pilots.
The only economic analysis I have seen of this idea, done by Anthracite in the thread she started, indicated otherwise. Her analysis may be off of course, but I haven’t seen you or anyone else on this board actually try to work out the numbers on this.
Why do you assume this?
I’ve not found Anthracite’s thread, but even just light browsing informs that there are more than 8,248,269 international departures (1998 figure) from the US. I’ve not found the figures but I would assume that there would be a similar amount of arrivals…? And that’s just international flights. [NB. this figure includes freight fights as well as passenger flights.]
Factor in domestic carriers as well and that is a lot of flights, all of which are to require, say, three (?) Marshalls - so in terms of the man-hours that would involve the costs surely would be enormous.
Someone will have to pay for it - I guess the question is who…
Again, no cite for this, but speaking as a Brit I am fairly sure that many of my fellow subjects would (as I do) feel uncomfortable with the thought of several gun-toting Americans sitting on every flight to and from the US. Perhaps one might argue that this is better than having a load of terrorists on-board but people are going to need a lot of convincing.
Do you think that the US would be happy having foreign Marshalls on flights to America, or do you think that US should insist that there are armed American officers on each and every flight? Would that alter the issues?
Wierd Al
In some cases, you seem to be arguing that pilots should be armed as teh cockpit is vulnerable, and in others ot be arguing that terrorists could not burst in on the pilots as the cockpit is safely secured. I submit that if the cockpit is safely secured, the presence of guns would only encourage the pilots to emerge to fight the terrorists, thus making the cockpit vulnerable. If the cockpit is to be open to all and sundry, then we are extending an open invitation to terrorists. So to clarify the question, when exactly do you think pilots would be using their guns, and why do you think, in this situation, that it would be better for them to do so than to sit behind a locked door?
To the OP…
How about this? Terrorists would no longer need to smuggle guns onto planes. They could just get a fake pilots license (something they obviously can do) and voila…armed terrorist on a plane.
re: reinforced cockpit door…
I’m not so sure the pilots would keep it locked if the terrorists started killing/torturing, or threatening to kill/torturing, passengers. When a hijacker is banging on the door, the pilots don’t know if they plan to ram the plane into a building or just to land the plane in some other country. The history is that most hijacked planes were not used as bombs. So, the pilots may want to definitely save lives (passengers) rather than let them (or even one) die/come to harm on an assumption that the hijacker has the worst motives in mind. Plus, during the hijacking, everyone is in panic and not thinking calmly and rationally. The impulse is to relieve the immediate danger.
Alternative?
How about pilots & flight crews armed with stun guns? Perhaps this is a workable middle ground between no-guns and arm-all-pilots-with-guns.
What is wrong with Americans ?
No other culture in the world is so trigger obsessed!!!
Save some Middle Eastern countries. Put more guns on planes!!! Yes, thats what we need!!! What to do about kids taking guns to school? Give the teachers guns!!! Give all the kids guns so they are able to defend themselves against each other. The next step seems to be giving guns to pets, nuns, newborns and plantlife.
What the world needs is less deaths of innocent people, less accidental and less premeditated violence against one and other. More deep thought, education and care.
There are plenty of ways to prevent the unspeakable tragedies of New York and Washington from occurring again. And I think youll find that the gun idea is about as ludicrous as any idea youll find.
Let me think for a second…
How about time delay locks on the cockpit doors. So the cockpit cannot be opened until the plane has landed, and all passengers are safely off (like a time delay safe).
(With a bullet proof bulkhead of course).
How about a button that the pilot can push which releases sleeping gas which knocks all the passengers out.
Please feel free to patent these ideas, just send me 10% of profits, so I can donate them to a cause of my choice. My email is available.
When will the U.S put an end to it`s gun madness, in Australia we implemented a gun buyback scheme and outlawed all gun ownership except for police and for farmers (still no high powered guns or semi-automatics).
With stiff penalties for gun posession your chance of being shot is virtually nil in Australia (why not try it in America). I fear that if no-one implements my time delay lock idea for aircraft, groups of terrorists will start killing people with fishing line.
Follow my ideas and safe travel will not return it will start.
i was not insinuating that a fighter pilot would not know how to fire a handgun. i was pointing out that there seems to me to be a big difference between aiming missiles at a target on the ground and shooting a handgun at someone standing 6 feet behind you in a cockpit. i’m not stupid, i know that military people know how to shoot. however, how often do you think a fighter pilot has to deal with somebody walking into the cockpit of his fighter jet and threatening to kill him??? having been dragged to several airshows by mr. zoot, my experience has been that most fighter jets do not even have room to stand up in, so the situation of a threatening person suddenly popping up and trying to kill a fighter jet pilot is not one with which they may be familiar. unless it’s common to employ persons of reduced stature as hijackers.
perhaps i didn’t make that clear in my first post.
Where have you been?!? We can’t thank you enough! I am SO glad that you know the solution to all our problems, and it was so simple! Why didn’t anyone else think of it!? You are our savior!
:rolleyes:
Why does it have to be one or the other? Like I said earlier, pilots want a locked mesh door.
Here’s a senario: hijacker opens outer door, but it will take a few seconds to get through the locked door. Pilot or co-pilot pulls his gun and shoots hijacker through the mesh door. Only one person can fit through the doorway at a time, so any other hijackers wanting to get the mesh door open have to expose themselves, one at a time. Each time they do, they are a target.
Sorry, but not just any pilot should be able to carry a gun on a plane, only the pilots that are, you know, actually flying the plane are the ones that ALPA is requesting to be allowed to carry guns. And do you have a cite that shows that any terrorist had a fake pilots license that allowed them access to a plane? Just because some of the terrorists went to flight school doesn’t mean they also got fake licenses.
Please refer to my post where it was clearly stated by the Pilots Association that pilots carrying guns would receive training equivelent to what sky marshalls receive. That would mean training for exactly that kind of senario.
no offense to monty in any way- he is just reporting what he heard.
this statement is the stupided thing i have heard in a while. only an idiot, drunk on wine from the retard vine, suffering from sunstroke and the advanced stages of syphillys (spelling!!)and lead poisoning could think he was going to live through this hijacking! how the HELL could someone come up with this idea?
i suspect Miss Cleo is somehow involved!
yes, this guy got caught, but do you think he would’ve been caught if he did this before the attacks? i think not.