Sorry if this is a duplicative thread, but I did do a search and didn’t see an on-point topic.
I’ve heard a lot about why pilots should be allowed to have guns in the cockpits, and I think it’s a good idea. What I haven’t heard is any good reason not to let them have guns. I can imagine one, though I have no cites: the airlines don’t want the pilots shooting each other in a quarrel or accidentally, because they don’t want the liability. What do you think?
Did you ever see Hunt for Red October? “most things in here don’t react well to bullets.” Same principal, except even more so on an airplane. A bullet can easily rip through the thin outter wall of an airplane. They can hit fuel lines, power cables, instrumentation, other passengers, etc. Firing a gun inside a pressurized aircraft at 30,000 feet is very dangerous, even in self defense.
I am opposed to putting guns in the cockpits because I believe it will in some cases prove to be an advantage to the highjackers.
Think about it, with a couple of guns already on the plane the highjackers don’t have to worry about how to smuggle their own guns through all that airport security; they only need to find a way to get their hands on the guns thoughtfully provided for them by the airlines.
A sufficiently ruthless highjacker will be able to intimidate an ill-trained pilot into handing over the guns. All he has to do is get a passenger in a headlock and hold some object to his or her throat, while telling the pilot, “I’ll kill her if you don’t give me the gun!” Some pilots wouldn’t do it, of course, but I’m sure there are some that would. Then once the highjackers have the guns the plane will then be on it’s way to the nearest target.
I would support the idea only if the guns had some kind of fingerprint identification system in the handle so that no one could fire it except the one it was programmed for.
Barring that, I would support having an armed undercover agent disguised as a passenger on every flight. A trained agent would be less likely to surrender his or her firearm, and may even be able to subdue the highjackers. But that would be a pretty expensive plan to implement. Maybe they could do it only on the flights deemed more desirable to highjackers (if you can determine that).
Things may not react well to bullets, but they react even less well to 500mph collisions with steel-and-concrete buildings, and with the ground.
And as we note in every single gun control thread that comes down the pike, it’s really easy to think up nightmare situations where the bad guy gets your gun from you, but that isn’t the same as making a good argument against the point.
Let’s use a little common sense:
If the pilot gives the hijacker his gun, then the hijacker crashes the plane, and the girl dies anyway.
So where’s the sense in giving it up? That sounds like the Oscar scene in Naked Gun 33 1/3. Only a moron would jeapordize the entire plane to ostensibly save a single passenger, especially after what happened last September.
I do agree, however, that having armed security on board is good. But even though you keep your doors locked, it’s not a bad idea to have a dog in the house too.
You know, an enormous proportion of civilian airline pilots have spent some time in the military, and probably have some concept of how to handle a firearm.
Because it is proposed that every pilot given access to a gun in the cockpit receive training in how to handle it, I don’t think it likely he or she’s going to be easily intimidated by any situation a hijacker could think up - especially post 9/11. Hell, nowadays even the passengers fearlessly mob a jerk who starts acting disruptive or even suspicious; why would an armed, trained pilot wimp out? Well argued, Joe_Cool.
As far as bullets endangering airplane interiors, I think this danger is the lesser of the two evils – the greater evil being, again as Joe_Cool points out, the strong probability of the hijacker causing the plane to crash. Besides, isn’t it possible to design a gun that fires bullets which can penetrate hijackers but not airplane fuselages?
I still think that, weighing all the risks on both sides, armed pilots are the way to go.
I’ll have to go with the “most things in here don’t react well to bullets.” club.
So then, what are the alternatives to dealing with a hijacking? How does one incapacitate a potential hijacker without endangering the passengers or at the least, minimize any casualties?
Having security agents on board the plane is a good idea, arm them with non-lethal weapons that are designed to incapacitate the hijacker and ensure that they are as skilled as possible if they have to engage in hand to hand combat.
Let’s also design the plane so that the cockpit is secured against any intrusion and also equipped with it’s own air supply. With the pilots secure the main cabin could be flooded with gas designed to send everyone off into la-la land. If the security people in the main cabin were equipped with their own breathing apparatus tear gas might be an option. It does bring us back to the secanario of providing the hijacker with more tools to use in their hijack though.
Having monitors in the cockpit would allow the pilot and crew to keep an eye on what’s happening in the cabin. If the crewmen see that there is some bozo walking the aisle with a knife and a hostage they pull the switch. If the cabin security persons are able to signal the cockpit this would serve as another measure to have the crew know what’s happening beind them.
If the hijackers were able to smuggle their own breathing apparatus into the plane or if their plane was to simply destroy the plane with explosives everybody is going to be screwed.
Should their intent be to commandeer the plane to use it as a guided missile these might be effective strategies.
Any thoughts?
The idea of armed pilots doesn’t sit well with me. I don’t want anyone on the plane to have a gun, pilots included. Who is to say that pilots aren’t horrible people or that pilots wouldn’t take advantage of possessing a gun?
I just don’t want someone to sneak on a plane, gain control over the pilots and the guns and then hi-jack the plane like they did pre 9-11.
I flew less than a week ago and as I sat in that chair, I knew right then that I felt better knowing that the pilots didn’t have firearms up there in the cockpit.
Tibs.
Tiburon said,
I think that if the pilots are really horrible people and want to kill you, they don’t need a gun to do it. By being in the plane that they’re controlling, your life is already in their hands. If they want the people on the plane dead, all they have to do is lock the cabin door and push forward on the stick.
We’re already placing about as much trust in these people as we can. I don’t see why it would be so hard to trust them with a firearm.
Joe_Cool mentioned gun control threads and seemed to equate that debate with this one. FYI I am not a gun control advocate. But I don’t believe that the possibility of the Bad Guys getting the gun is that remote, and thus this point does not constitute a “bad argument”.
I don’t have the same degree of faith in the pilots that Joe_Cool and pldennison have. Pldennison seems to picture all pilots as ex-marines, ex-special forces, etc. That doesn’t fit the image of the pilots I’ve seen. My picture is more of a soft, middle-aged, closet alcoholic; who may have been tough 20 years ago, but … I’d bet on them wimping out in a confrontation with a determined highjacker.
I feel the best thing the pilot can do is keep the door locked for the entire flight. They can take in a drink thermos and a urine jar if they need to. But don’t open the door until they’re at the destination’s gate!
Pugluvr, again, the cabin area ought to have an armed guard to deal with whatever happens there. And if a few brave passengers want to help, great! But not the pilot.
My wife is a flight attendant and she is very much opposed to the pilots having guns. Just because you can fly an airplane does not mean that you are proficient with firearms. Many of the pilots themselves are against pilots carrying guns. Partly this is because some do not want to carry them and partly because they are familiar with the other pilots and do not trust them. Keeping firearms off the planes, except in the case of air marshalls, FBI agents, etc. should be our main concern.
If I were to posit numerous hypothetical situations describing how the Bad Guy got the gun, then that might be the type of bad arguing that Joe_Cool mentioned. But the underlying point that “The Bad Guy could get the gun Somehow” is a valid argument.
If the pilot comes out of the cockpit holding the gun, or even stays in the cockpit but leaves the door unsecured, then that gun is available to the Bad Guy.
Also, no matter who has the gun, if the door to the cockpit is unsecured, then control of the airplane is accessible to the Bad Guy.
Only if the cockpit door were securely locked for the entire flight would control of the plane be relatively assured.
With an armed agent in the cabin, there is still the possibility of the Bad Guy getting the gun, but as long as he can’t gain access to the cockpit, he can’t gain control of the plane. At worst, he could kill or wound a maximum of six passengers. But once the plane landed safely, he would have to face an army of FBI and police, while he was armed only with an empty handgun.
Further, it has been pointed out that the cabin agent’s gun could be loaded only with non-lethal rounds.
I still believe that an armed security guard in the cabin, flight attendants with cans of mace, and various quick-witted passengers, would pose a greater obstacle to any Bad Guys than a pilot running down the aisle like Bruce Willis (or more probably, like Leslie Nielsen).
I said no such thing. Please don’t mischaracterize my statements.
How many commercial airline pilots do you know in person?
So they don’t have to carry them. We aren’t talking about massive forced armament of all pilots. The truth is that many pilots are former members of the armed forces; if they’re not, chances are they wouldn’t be comfortable having a gun anyway. You’re already trusting the pilot to be responsible for your life; you can’t trust them to make a responsible decision about carrying a gun?
**
That’s not exactly relevant. I’m familiar with other people and I don’t trust them to drive, but so what? In general, the guy flying the plane is in a much better position to decide than the guy who knows the guy flying the plane.
I don’t have anything against arming pilots, but I also don’t think it’s particularly effective.
This is an excerpt of short article I posted on our website about this:
(The rest here if anyone cares)
But one argument against guns in the cockpit doesn’t really carry a lot of weight with me - the risk of doing damage to the airplane. A handgun bullet fired at the skin of the airplane will cause a small hole, which will NOT depressurize the plane. Even hitting a window will not cause that. As for flight controls, they have redundant connections, which are routed differently so a common accident can’t take them both out.
And ‘frangible’ ammunition like a glaser safety slug will disintegrate into a shower of small particles after hitting even the thinnest of barriers. You can shoot a .44 magnum glaser round at two sheets of drywall spaced a few feet apart, and the second sheet will not be penetrated. So I don’t buy the ‘risk to the airplane’ argument.
I also don’t buy the argument that terrorists might get the gun away from the pilot. Look, if we’re already in a situation where terrorists have the cabin under control and are killing passengers and have gotten past the locked-and-barred cockpit door, then a gun in the hands of the pilot is better than no gun at all. Sure, there’s a chance the terrorists will get it, but it’s hard to see how that could possibly lead to a scenario worse than if there were no gun at all.
Bottom line: I don’t believe it’s a huge factor in the safety of the aircraft, one way or the other. So set up good training programs (which most pilots will refuse to take, as my guess), and let the trained ones carry.
There are something like 48,000 domestic flights here every day, the Air Marshal program isn’t going to come close to providing adequate protection. Given that the post September SOP is to shoot down any plane that gets hijacked it only makes sense to give the passengers and crew the tools they need to prevent the need to blow them all up. The “I don’t want anyone to have a gun on the plane” mentality is what led to the worst act of mass murder in history in the first place. One only has to look at the security measures in Israel to understand how much catching up we have to do.
Better take another look at airplanes then. They aren’t made of drywall. :rolleyes: Anything that won’t penetrate the airplane skin also won’t hurt a human. Airplanes are a thin metal skin over a whole load of wires and instruments and hydrolics
The danger isn’t so much of decompression, as of damage to the avionics, etc. Especially if you start shooting in the cockpit.
Redundancy is good, but with a fight in the cockpit AND damage to the flight controls, and you have a recipe for disaster.
If they get that far, then the gun isn’t going to solve anything, all it will do is at yet more volatality to the situation. The real risk is than a armed pilot will decide to be manly rather than responsible and open the door.
I say let the individual airlines decide. I’m quite sure that I don’t trust self selection on the part of pilots to work. The guys most suseptible to testosterone poisoning always seem to want to counted among the armed.
I didn’t say that the thing wouldn’t penetrate the skin. I said it would make a small hole. That won’t depressurize the aircraft.
As for instruments and hydraulics… I just explained that aircraft are DESIGNED to take damage to any one part without affecting flight capability. There are redundant instruments (pilot and co-pilot), plus tiny backup instruments for the ones required for flight safety. They even run on completely different power sources.
An Air Aloha 737 made it safely back to landing after losing the entire forward top section of the fuselage, exposing half the passengers directly to the air stream. A bullet hole isn’t going to do anything drastic.
As for airplane skins, they ARE like what I was talking about. There is an inner pressure hull, a dead space where some wires and things are routed, and the outer hull. Frangible ammunition would penetrate the pressure hull, but that would turn it almost into powder. It probably wouldn’t penetrate the outside hull.
But more importantly, the bullet won’t go through a terrorist and kill someone behind him. And it won’t punch through three inner bulkheads or seatbacks and THEN puncture the pressure hull. One the bullet hits anything it fractures into many tiny pieces.
But even a .44 slug wouldn’t bring an airplane down. They are simply designed to take those levels of damage and keep flying.
Why don’t you trust pilots to handle a gun? You’re already trusting them with your life. Those ‘cowboy’ pilots could take safety shortcuts, do some fun aerobatics, or just take a nap. They don’t. Pilots take their job very, very seriously (there are always a couple of loose cannons like those drunk pilots that were in the news this week, but they are an incredibly small percentage of the pilot population).
If you gave pilots a gun, and a checklist for carrying it and stowing it safely, and a procedure for when it can or can’t be unstowed in flight, they’d follow it. Pilots are GOOD at following procedures and checklists. It’s what they do. The chance of a pilot deciding to become a cowboy and head into the cabin with his six-shooter is about as likely as a pilot spontaneously deciding that it would be fun to do a barrel roll.
If it gets that far, then step two in your scenario is: Then the terrorists fly the plane into whatever they like, killing however many people. Or, if we are lucky, someone gets off a Sidewinder or Amraam in time, and only kills everyone on the plane, and maybe a few unlucky folks on the ground.
Also, the pilots would be shooting towards the back of the plane, not towards their instruments. The chance of hitting something ‘critical’ is negligable. Redundacy means more then 3 control sets, it means they are routed through 3 seperate parts of the airframe.
The pilots MUST have a last line of defense. Air Marshalls are great, but we can’t hire competent ground security quickly. It is foolish to think that we will be able to hire AM’S quickly enough, due to Mineta’s foolish regulations.
American pilots, on the other hand, are by and large already proficient in the use of small arms, since most are USAFR pilots as well. (Who still qualify yearly on the 92F). The only danger in giving them a means to protect themselves is to terrorists, not to anyone else. (Even if the pilot a terrible shot, and shoots 10 passengers along with 5 terrorists, it is still better then letting the terrorists gain control of the plane, no?)
And lets say the pilot is looking to earn his 70 virgins in heaven. And he has a gun. So what? He already has a plane! What is he going to do? Shoot everyone, then crash the plane? It would be a simple matter for a lone ‘rogue’ pilot to imobilize the cabin crew (stun gun, mace, whatever), long enough to slam into the nearest landmark. The gun won’t help, or hurt, in those scenarios.
And don’t knock testerone. Along with unimaginable courage, it is what allowed the passengers of flight 93 (?) to attack their attackers, and avert a greater tragedy on Sept.11.
The reason I feel it’s a bad idea is different than what I’ve seen others express here. Two words.
Security nightmare.
As I understand things, very few people are authorized to take a gun into a concourse. Therefore, when they do bring a gun, their documentation can be thoroughly scrutinized because it’s an event that doesn’t happen very often.
The fear that I have is that there are many pilots, on many flights. If a significant proportion of them become authorized to carry guns aboard, thoroughly verifying their documentation will become very time consuming. At the start, I’m sure, it will all be done. But, over time, as the, uh, novelty wears off, and as time pressures start wearing on the perpetually understaffed security folks, I believe things will slack off somewhat. That’s when it will happen.
Maybe someone will get through the security checkpoint with forged documentation. Maybe they’ll instead get through security with pilots garb in their bags, change into that after they get through security, and access some weapon secreted past the checkpoint by some other person. Maybe they’ll even be an actual pilot, but one that hasn’t been vetted for security clearance. I don’t know exactly how it will be done. But they’ll have some forged documentation to make it look like they’re authorized. And they’ll look like a pilot. And they’ll have a gun. And they’ll walk onto a plane.
The fewer guns that are allowed past the security checkpoint, the easier it is for security to ensure that all folks carrying them are properly authorized. Allowing potentially all pilots to be authorized to carry guns is a very, very, very, very, very bad idea.
I don’t think I used the word very enough. Very, very, very, very, very. Bad. Idea.