Arming the Pilots

Given that:

  1. Armed pilots have already existed in other cilivan missions - I refer to helicopter pilots I know whose assignment (in Alaska) required that they carry a pistol of at least .45 calibre while flying, in case they had to make a forced landing in bear country. Kodiak bears just don’t listen to reason. I don’t believe any untoward discharges are recorded, and

  2. Disarming the passengers does not provide absolute security, because disarming the passengers is impossible in practical terms, and

  3. Terrorists have already demonstrated knowledge of the doctrine of “acquired weapons” i.e. “use a box cutter to acquire an airplane” and

  4. It can be expected that this doctrine would be applied to acquiring the weapon of the Sky Marshal on board (difficult, but far from impossible)

Two things must be done: the cockpit must be secured absolutely, and anyone in the passenger’s cabin must know that a breach of the cockpit will result in the intruders’ being shot.

Now I know that many consider guns to be icky. So do many of us with knowledge of and practice in their operation. But there are few people in the world (and I say this with the acquaintance of many of the fixed-wing pukes:D) who can be better trusted not to shoot anyone who shouldn’t be shot than an airline pilot.

Airline pilots are among the most highly-trained of any profession, and the amount of training necessary in how (and equally important, when) to operate a pistol is far less than they have already completed.

Furthermore, this is not some bus driver up there. I do not know a single professional pilot who does not regard his passengers as a sacred trust, and is quite willing to fire if it will save his passengers.

So why not train and arm the pilots? Wouldn’t you feel better if everyone knew that there was just nothing for any terrorist to gain in trying to force entry into the cockpit?

I agree that the pilots should have a weapon of last resort. I’ve also posted elsewhere that it might not be that difficult to disarm a sky marshal.

The cockpit doors are already locked, and stronger locks are being installed. The pilots must be trained that under no circumstances will they open the cockpit door for a hijacker/terrorist. I think that the pilots should have a silenced automatic pistol with low-velocity rounds that are designed not to penetrate all the way through the body. Some might think that a gun with a silencer is a little over dramatic, but guns are noisy. Especially inside. (Why doesn’t Hollywood ever point that out?)

Oh. If my heli is forced down in Alaskan bear country, I think I’d rather have something more substantial than a handgun. (Although I know people do hunt bears with them.) Maybe an HK-91 with a collapsing stock.

Based on the incident yesterday (mentally deranged 20 yr. old rushes the cockpit, manages to break in, gets subdued by passengers and crew), I think it’s pretty much a given that the cockpit doors need to be strengthened (they couldn’t have figured that one out years ago?). The gun in the cockpit? It might have resulted in one less mentally deranged 20 year old. Once the door is fixed though, the pilot would conceivably have enough time to get a better read on the situation before the cockpit was breached. In that situation a gun might be a good last resort. Of course, then you get to worry about crazy pilots, but I guess you have that worry even without a gun in the cockpit.

You need not worry overmuch about the crazy airline pilot. He’s been checked out and re-checks as part of his business. The worry is the wacko who slipped through the cracks in the system and is flying a Cessna somewhere.

Did you know that you have to check out more thoroughy to rent a car than to rent an airplane? That’s gotta change.

What do you mean? I’ve never had to take a checkride to rent a car, nor present a medical certificate.

I would like to see the license changed to a plastic one with a photo and a holographic DoT/FAA seal.

The wacko out there flying a Cessna is going to do less damage than a wacko driving an SUV… both carry about the same amount of fuel, the Cessna’s a bit faster, but the SUV weighs over twice as much. Crashing a light airplane into any sizeable building (i.e, bigger than a shed) simply won’t cause much damage. A deranged individual flew a C172 into the White House in 1994; the building was barely scratched.

And yes, the crazed airline pilot scenario is a very real possibility… because it’s already happened.

I’ve never rented a car, but unless you have to sign a stack of waivers and contracts, pass a written test, memorize a number of V-speeds, and take an hour drive with a federally certified instructor, I would say that getting an aircraft checkout is a tad more involved than picking up a car from Hertz.

Keith, you’re talking about what it takes to become a certificated pilot, not to rent an airplane. To wit:

"Hi, I’d like to find out what it takes to rent one of your 172’s. Sure, I’ve got time to fly with one of your guys for an hour. Medical? Here it is. I know that’s a kinda shoddy -looking one, it’s been in my wallet for a while. Here’s my Private certificate - heh heh, it’s been in the same wallet.

BFR? Got one signed off right here in the back of my trusty logbook. I know you can’t read the signature. Guy’s name was Jones. Great guy - I understand he’s flying for the one of the regionals now. No, my three takeoffs and landings are on the page with the rubber band.

No, I’d just like to add the premium for the insurance deductible to my per-hour charge. So, you got time? Great! Let’s go do some spins and stuff."

I know it’s no more difficult than this, because I’ve already done it. I had to show some documents, all of which are pathetically easy to forge, none of which were background-checked, and I had to show that I could fly a helicopter.

That’s what I mean. Scary, huh?

Ravendriver, I was writing about my own experience with a 172 checkout at an FBO in my parents’ city. I don’t know how typical this is for all FBOs, but my checkout instructor had me complete the equivalent of a pre-solo written exam as part of their insurance requirements (Maybe that’s why their rates were so low. :slight_smile: ). I honestly don’t remember if I had to show a photo ID, but I did pay with a credit card.

The fact remains that a 172 is not a weapon, and would not be very effective if one tried to use it as such. It has neither the mass nor the velocity to do significant damage to structures and the people inside them.

Getting back to your original post, it worries me that two individuals, sealed inside a reinforced, unbreachable cockpit, would now have the capability to exercise deadly force against one another. With no way for the cabin crew to know what is happening up front, nor to prevent it, a repeat of last month’s events becomes very possible, whether by outside infiltration of the flight crew, or by an isolated, individual act.

Keith, regarding your worries about two people in an unbreachable cockpit - I think you can relax. Given the heightened security-consciousness that we have learned from recent events, I just don’t think anyone is going to say “Captain Jones? Your regular First Officer is out sick. This is First Officer Abdul-Aziz. We got him through a temp agency.”

No, a 172 is not a weapon - by itself. But it can carry things that are weapons.

I stand by my earlier conviction: we need better security control of who is allowed to fly in US airspace. Credit card or no.

My concern is not with a mysterious individual who happens to show up in a First Officer’s uniform. I’m concerned about individuals like Auburn Calloway on FedEx 705 and (allegedly) the captain of EgyptAir 990, who become capable of destruction when something inside them snaps. I’m concerned about a scenario in which your “Abdul-Aziz” legitimately beings a career, works his way to the big iron, and carries out his mission. I’m concerned about cabin crews and unable even to attempt to stop a hijacker once he is sealed away at the controls.

So can a car. So can a truck. More effectively than a 172, by virtue that a 172 just can’t haul nearly as much weight.

I agree that we need better security control where a credible threat exists. However, it should not be targeted blindly. The issue here should not be controlling every possible way a weapon could be delivered; that would be a waste of resources, would overlook far too many possibilities, and would impede on the freedom, privacy and convenience of far too many innocents. Concentrate instead on preventing the creation and distribution of these weapons in the first place.