As many people pointed out when the plan was first discussed, arming the pilots is not necessary post-9/11. Prior to that, both the passengers and the pilots on hijacked planes were likely to appeased the hijackers in the hopes of getting out alive. Anymore, if you’re on a hijacked plane, the assumption is that if you can’t subdue the hijackers, you’re riding on a missile. So the passengers will attack, and they’ll outnumber the hijackers greatly, and there won’t be room for the hijackers to maneuver. At no point in that process should the pilot open the cockpit door.
I agree that that would be logical, but I’m not so sure that it would actually happen. Modern society implants people with such a strong “be a sheep, don’t stick your head up, hope someone else does something” instinct that even if it’s plainly obvious that rushing the attackers is the best idea that people would actually do that.
But, in fact, that is precisely what happened on United Airlines flight 93.
The smartest thing to do to avoid this problem (and frankly what should have been done long before the September 11 attacks) is to secure the flight deck. If the flight deck is properly secured against intrusion, the likelihood that an attack will result in hijackers gaining control of a flying aircraft is negligible. If it is not secure, and hijackers are able to storm the flight deck, its likely that the pilot will not have time to draw and fire the weapon, especially against multiple attackers before being overwhelmed. It’s not as if you’re going to have space and distance, or indeed, the basic mobility to turn around and accurately fire in the cockpit of an airliner even if the weapon is in easy reach. I’ve trained in defensive tactics from an automobile, and you have a surprisingly limited field of fire and restricted mobility while sitting in a car seat (basically an arc that starts 45° from forward to somewhat less than 90°), and even the most compact automobile is far less cramped than the flight deck of a commercial airliner.
But this is all academic; the fact is that the September 11 attacks were low-hanging fruit, the tragic result of unconscionably loose security that could have been easily averted with the simple and low cost act of making the door of the flight deck secure. In the post-9/11 world, airplane hijackings are out of vogue.
Stranger
Im not sure if exponetially more is a fair thing to say. There are still large percentage of Airline pilots who are ex-military pilots and presumably have good firearm training and excellent reactions under pressure.
The training is very specific to the job. If a cockpit is breached then the recourse is deadly force.
And yes, I expect terrorists to sneak a weapon on board. All it takes to bring a gun on board is a baggage handler working on the inside. All it takes to bring a
non-conventional weapon on board is a boarding pass. Seat belt extensions, stranded rope, #2 pencil, acid, etc… It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to subdue someone using an improvised weapon that will pass inspection.
I’m not trying to be glib. The need for a deadly weapon is real and the use of a gun in a cockpit makes sense. Your concerns about hitting a sensitive area of the plane are not warranted due to a number of factors: triple system redundancy, the location of those systems, the projectiles used and the space all this takes place in. A cockpit is a very confined space. In the event of a breach there is no need to aim the weapon beyond pointing it at the person. The training is specific and takes into consideration all the above.
Even on that flight, the guy on the phone said “Me and some of the men…” in reference to the ones who are willing to take charge. It was probably a small fraction of the flight that was willing to take action.
And I have no cite for this - but I recall reading soon after 9/11 that one of the flights was informed about the first hit on the tower because someone used one of the phones to call home - and they didn’t do anything to resist it. I have no problem imagining people sheepishly waiting for death because that’s how they’ve been conditioned their entire lives.
I’m not saying there aren’t people out there that will do the right thing - but you can’t rely on it.
[QUOTE=Bill Door]
As I said in the OP, I think a secured cockpit door is the best defense. You have to consider that police officers receive exponentially more training than these guys,QUOTE] I disagree. The fire arms training the pilots receive is extensive and taylored to the purpose.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
Cite, please?
Stranger
I guess if I were to modify any regulations, I would hope that at a minimum the pilots weapons did not have a round chambered (or if they were using a revolver, they were sitting on an empty cylinder). No one is going to break through the cockpit door so fast that a person trained in using a handgun can’t cycle the slide once in time to load the gun.
I also don’t think chemical weapons and electrical weapons on a plane are really a good idea. Enclosed airspace and lots of electronics to damage…as far as larger weapons, like beanbag shotguns, well we’re talking about very close quarters here. Even on large planes (I was lucky enough, right before 9/11, to get a cockpit tour of a 777 from Italy, by virtue of being in First) the cockpit and areas up front are really small and cramped.
Overall, I think the odds of being injured or killed as a result of a pilot’s gun going off are somewhat less than your odds of flying in a plane with a drunk pilot (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/21/national/main710789.shtml), or ones that doze off mid-flight (http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/0220abrk-sleepingpilots.html). But I don’t know - guns in cockpits are a new thing, and I don’t have a good record of how many drunk or asleep at the wheel incidents there are per average year.
Pilots still need to exit the cockpit to go to the bathroom so no amount of armour on the door negates that fact.
While I agree that 9/11 was low hanging fruit there has been a fair amount of activity designed to test procedures. The idea seems to appeal to terrorists.
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
Can’t. You’ll have to research this directly. Talk to a police officer and then a pilot and compare notes. You won’t get all the specifics on pilot training but you’ll get the jist of it.
I think there might be some misconception that the training resembles what somehing like conceal/carry training.
No, you WANT a round chambered with the safety OFF. The most likely scenario is an attempt to overpower the other pilot and secure the door as he/she is exiting to the bathroom.
Couldn’t you just have the gun ready to fire and in hand while the guy’s headed for the john and back, and unchambered and safetied at all other times?
Yah, I thought of that after I posted. It may be part of the training already. While I could get pilots to discuss their training in broad terms the specifics were off limits.
I would add that the whole flight crew is probably aware of when the cockpit door is going to be opened. I would expect the food cart to make it’s way up front at the appropriate time. Airline security is not a static science. As strange behavior is observed, techniques are developed to counter them.
You’re kidding, right?
“Cover me, Fred! I’m heading for the toilet! Go go go go go!”
Why would I be kidding? Do you think that the pilots have to play with the gun the entire time the plane is in the air? With the safety off and the chamber loaded, mind! (“Hey, watch me spin this on my finger!”)
That’s the alternative you’re proposing here - the position initially proposed by the post I was arguing against. Gun ready at all times.
(And is it that silly of an idea to have the gun ready during the few times you’re going to open the door? What other circumstance would you have the thing around for? Just in case the terrorists came in through the window?)
Sadly, no, I don’t believe he is. I get the impression that many people here, like most people in real life, have gained the majority of their experience with firearms from films and t.v.
For fans at home, try this. Pull a drill out of the toolbox (remove the battery for safety) and go belt yourself into the driver’s seat of your car with your uber-tolerant significant other, best friend, or least annoying neighbor in the passenger seat. Now, keeping the drill always pointed in a safe direction–i.e., not at the windshield, the console, the radio, your knee, or your spouse/friend/neighbor, remove and replace a drill bit/adjust the torque limiter/et cetera. Then, holding the drill, again in a safe direction, play with the radio/environment controls/lane change indicator/windshield wipers. Carry on in this way for a few minutes while also intently listening to Rush Limbaugh/“All Things Considered”/the latest John Grisham Books-On-Tape. For bonus points, turn around without removing your seatbelt and try to give the lawn troll/plastic flamingo/inflatable Santa Claus that you’ve placed in the back seat a frontal lobotomy.
If you managed to do all this without ever once pointing the drill at yourself, your passenger, your radio, your windshield, et cetera, immediately apply your talents as a world-class magician. If not, consider yourself a normal human being.
Following the Four Rules of Firearm Safety substantially reduces the likelihood of a negligent discharge (ND), or barring that, that anyone will be injured in the case of such an event. However, experienced shooters know that there are two kinds of people who handle firearms; those who have had an unintended discharge, and those who haven’t…yet. Regardless of how normally vigilant you may be, one slip of attention is sufficient for an accident to happen as testified by numerous holes in the floors, walls, and ceilings of the typical police locker room, hence why their are four rules of cascading imperativeness rather than just one rule (“Don’t shoot anyone accidentally.”) Handling weapons while sitting down, handling weapons in a confined space, handling weapons in a moving vehicle, and handling weapons routinely and casually all increase the probability of a lapse of attention and subsequent ND. Combining these factors together multiplies the chance. Is the (questionable, in my opinion) value of arming the flight crew and having them go through the above procedure as a matter of routine worth the risk of shooting out a windshield or putting a round through the flight controls? I think any rational hazards analysis would come up with a “no”, especially in comparison to methods and barriers that secure the flight deck from access to begin with.
And chambering/unchambering, decocking, et cetera a weapon in the cockpit is just asking for trouble. If you were going to keep a weapon in the cockpit, you’d want to place it near at hand, ready for use (i.e. Condition 2 or Condition 1, depending on the type of action) but positively secure in holster or case. There is really no reason whatsoever for the pilot or co-pilot to be loading and unloading the firearm, or handling it while engaged in normal flying. That’s like simultaneously trying to pluck your eyebrows and solve the New York Times crossword while driving on the New Jersey Turnpike at rush hour.
That was a close one! I thought I was a goner for sure that time!
Stranger