Trevor,

I have to disagree with you on this one. I feel that Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and Homeland Defense guru Tom Ridge have made the correct decision on this topic. Even if trained to be a “Federal Flight Deck Officer” per S. 2554 (Arming Pilots Against Terrorism and Cabin Defense Act of 2002) I don’t see them being in a very good position to obtain a clear line of fire as they would have to twist about in their seat or actually get up out of the seat to obtain the approaching target. Also while you have mentioned a statistic of about 65% as being prior military I can attest that I have been on firing ranges with pilots before and in all honesty most of them barely qualified or were “helped” by the firearms instructors to achieve the minimum required score to achieve or maintain qualification. Simply because they are prior military doesn’t amount to much in my mind.

If you have followed prior discussions on this topic that we have held in the forums you are aware that I would like to see something different then covert Air Marshals. I feel the best deterrent would be to place a jump seat on the back of the cockpit door that would be occupied by a trained specialist in full Kevlar gear with an assault weapon facing the passengers. That is until such time as the cockpits are completely separated from the passenger compartment. Then all interim steps could be eliminated.

If an attack was taking place the pilots would be free to maneuver the plane in a fashion to keep approaching people off balance while they head towards an airfield. Rapid changes in pitch and roll can slow down movement towards the cockpit giving the armed Air Marshal the chance to neutralize the threat. A quick signaling system could be installed to alert the pilot to this needed action.

Another feature that I feel has been overlooked is that once the terrorists had taken over the aircraft they have turned off the IFF transponders on the aircraft. This made them virtually invisible to the FAA controllers that have become dependent on secondary radar for controlling. I would like to see redundant systems placed on board that transmit emergency codes in the event the main transponder becomes inoperative or is turned off. Additionally, a discrete panic alarm should be installed in the aircraft so that if an event is happening they could hit the button or switch to activate the emergency transponder thereby notifying the ground that they have a dire situation on their hands. Additionally, once the panic switch is activated the audio from the cockpit should be broadcast on a special frequency so that those on the ground can monitor the crises and determine the best coarse of action, up to and including a shoot-down.

Trevor, I'm with ya all the way. :clap: I saw no mention of this in your article. Did you know the pilots were disarmed in July/August 2001? (I don't remember the exact date.) Could the box-cutter terrorist's have known this? Frankly, I'd rather take my chances with an armed pilot who is a lousy shot than be shot down by our own government.

*nods* I do think that you should arm them!!!!!;)

Trevor, I completely agree. You've nailed down a number of the problems with this situation. At the top of the list being politicians who undoubtedly spend very little time on commercial flights and are more interested in appearingly Politically Correct for personal agendas.

Ken, I've read a lot of your comments in the past and sometimes I agree, sometimes not. This time I certainly do not. I would expect that with the noise of hijackers bashing away at the cockpit door that SOMEONE in the cockpit would have time to turn around. And in close quarters combat with munitions designed NOT to penetrate the aircrafts shell that things would turn out better than allowing some nutcase free roam of the cockpit. I do agree with your concerns over the problem of losing the aircraft on radar. Good idea there.

This is a subject of great interest to me as a firearms owner and believer of personal responsibility. I feel that pilots deserve a fair chance at saving the lives of themselves, the crew, the customers on board and countless others on the ground.

I can only imagine the horror of the crew of the PA flight in September knowing they were defensless to ward off a very small force of dedicated individuals. The good thinking and sacrifice of the heroes on that flight saved many more lives than were loss. If the pilot(s) had of been armed I feel there was a good chance that those heroes would still be alive today.

We trust pilots with our lives every day to transport us. To belittle thier judgement and intelligence by denying them the ability to defend themselves (and us) is absurd and disturbing. I'll trust my life to the hands of a pilot anyday over a suicidal hijacker or military aircraft loaded for bear! Take away the private jets and let politicians fly commercial again and we'll see how they feel after a close-call or two.

Chris.
"Nothing good can come of staying with normal people."

Originally posted by NAHC_LifeMember
Ken, I've read a lot of your comments in the past and sometimes I agree, sometimes not. This time I certainly do not. I would expect that with the noise of hijackers bashing away at the cockpit door that SOMEONE in the cockpit would have time to turn around. And in close quarters combat with munitions designed NOT to penetrate the aircrafts shell that things would turn out better than allowing some nutcase free roam of the cockpit. I do agree with your concerns over the problem of losing the aircraft on radar. Good idea there.

This is a subject of great interest to me as a firearms owner and believer of personal responsibility. I feel that pilots deserve a fair chance at saving the lives of themselves, the crew, the customers on board and countless others on the ground.

We don't have to agree about this as the decision has been made by those in power to do so. Now with the recent news event, how would you feel about pilots under the influence of alcohol having access to a firearm?

Ken, you bring up a good point but, as with many people, you place emphasis on the wrong point.

The question should be: "How do you feel about armed pilots being allowed to consume alcohol on duty?"

If a problem occurs during a flight where firearms and alcohol are mixxed you can be sure the alcohol had more to do with the problem than the firearm. Pilots caught drinking on duty should be dealt with and/or fired. My occupation is very non-critical but if I were to come to work drinking or get caught drinking on the job I'd be fired on the spot! While I'm not opposed to a persons freedom to have a few drinks there's no place for it in the workplace, especially one where people's live depend on you.

If pilots are armed it's with the support of the company/industry/government. If they are drinking on the job I doubt it's with any of that same support.

Entirely too often the arguement against firearms has nothing at all to do with the firearm itself. Those arguements generally support firearms if anyone bothers to read into the real situation. "Man in DRUNKEN rage kills four", "TERRORIST shoots up grocery store", "GANG WARFARE claims more lives". You follow my point? The problem is the people involved, using the firearm as a tool of destruction. Those same people will use knives, bats, chains, bricks, fists, etc to carry out their dastardly deeds.

Legal firearms ownership is proven to deter this sort of behavior. Just check into Great Britains crime rates for the past few years to prove it to yourself.

But I digress... My point is that should be no pilots drinking on duty. With or without firearms!!!

Chris.

Chris,

My question was mine and yours is yours. Both valid and both equally answered as guns and alcohol don’t mix.

On this issue I think you have confused my position. This issue is not one of a right to own a firearm but as to when one is allowed to carry or be equipped with one. Your argument of legal ownership has nothing to do with a person whose job it is to safely TRANSPORT either cargo or persons via aircraft. I am an owner, hunter, and avid supporter of the right to keep arms. I think everyone should learn to safely handle one and become skilled enough to protect themselves. Under the argument you establish it would be equally justified for each and every person flying to have a firearm in order to defend themselves should an attack occur. Obviously then this would make it a certainty that anyone contemplating such an attack would be within their right to bring a gun aboard an aircraft.

I see this from the following perspective. Pilots should operate the aircraft getting it on the ground as soon as a situation begins to surface. If unable to accomplish that they should be able to make the aircraft unavailable for use as a guided missile for a terrorist. The doors which have currently been reinforced need further ability to prevent penetration by a would be attacker. I would like to see them done away with eventually.

What is needed are trained and armed sky-marshals positioned such that they are between the entrance and point of attack. Nothing covert here, full Kevlar and an assault weapon, make it clear that you have a skilled technician ready to dispatch anyone attempting to assault the flight deck. I don’t want shared tasks by the flightcrew. They need to concentrate on getting the plane safely down as expeditiously as possible.

I don’t want to risk my safety on the possibility that there might be a firearm in the cockpit and that given the activity going on the pilot can obtain that firearm and position themselves to assure a positive kill. While I am sure it is virtually impossible to get a view of a cockpit nowadays, unless maybe online, check the seating, consider the shoulder harness, whether a pilot is right or left handed, and then the required movement to get to a shooting position. The cramped quarters make it difficult, at least in my mind, and the protection is better served by being prior to the door.

I'm all for arming pilots. I think that arming the pilots raises the bar for the terrorists. They would have to seriously rethink their plans for cockpit invasion if they knew that an armed pilot was on the other side. There's no way they could threaten them with box cutter knives, nail clippers, or knitting needles. Their only effective counter would be for them to get guns aboard the plane, and that poses logisticals problems that are much more difficult to overcome.

Second, what is preferrable... losing a few passengers to errant gunfire from a pilot who should have spent more time on the range, or losing the whole plane? Pilots aren't going to be shooting will nilly at just anybody. If a situation arises where deadly force is necessary, the whole plane is probably at risk. While being the one getting shot would suck, I think that losing one or five passengers is preferrable to losing 200-300.

You can't really use those two drunken idiots to support your argument. They represent a statistically insignificant number of commercial airline pilots.

The biggest risk that I see on airlines today is the taking of a hostage, particularly children and flight attendants. Knowing that there is a coworker or a child on the other side of the cockpit door being mutilated and tortured could make any pilot decide to give in to the demands of a hijacker.

Originally posted by Bruzilla
You can't really use those two drunken idiots to support your argument. They represent a statistically insignificant number of commercial airline pilots.

I can rely upon them as it is a data point that is only recently being brought about. It is a factor to consider. As well as other factors when contemplating arming anyone. Under current law anyone that has demonstrated abusive behavior of alcohol (and drugs) can be denied the right to own a firearm.

Statistically insiginificant is that Congress put a restriction on their law that would only authorize a maximum of 2% of the pilots being armed. What good would that do?

I have yet to meet anyone airline-related who acts like they have a brain in their head. Until airlines stop trolling the tard homes for personnel, I say an emphatic NO to armed pilots.

I think they should be armed. They are already in control of a lot of lives when they are incontrol of the airplane. Moreover, somebody other than the terrorists should be armed. Heck, maybe if we all took guns on airplanes 9/11 would not have happened.

-Buckley.

I get this strong fear of someone shooting a hole in the plane and causing depressurization whenever there is talk of guns on a plane. They should just reinforce the cabin and keep it locked while in flight. No one in and no one out. Give the pilots a bed pan and a couple baloney sandwiches for the long flights. If the hijackers couldn't get in the cabin, 9/11 might not have happened (even though they might have killed many on the plane trying to force the pilots to open the door). A much better idea then guns, in my opinion.

I see Vrai's point, but I'm pretty sure that there are 246 airline passengers and crew who would certainly vote for guns in the cockpit if they were still around to vote.

$.02 time...

I think we already covered this so, sorry if this is redundant.

Here goes:

I switched my position; I'm now with KK on this one. Pilots are simply not trained to be responsible with a firearm in a hi-jack situation. There are plenty of incidents when cops get shot with their own weapons once things go wrong.

What I am in favor of is continued screening to keep guns and bombs off of planes and lets work on closing the vulnerability in the service areas. I've seen to many "60 Minutes" type pieces where the reporter just roams free pretending to be a food or baggage handler or just aimlessly walking around in restricted areas.

I would STOP screening for pocketknives, nail files etc. It should be understood that while you may have a box cutter, we got grannies crochet needles.

Also, I would LOVE it if right after the seat belt speech the flight attendants stated that in the event of a high jacking it is basically up to the passengers to overwhelm the bad guys and subdue them, the pilots have gotta fly the plane. A little placard showing how everybody can snag a leg or hand or finger or whatever would be cool to. The "bums rush" as it were.

We’ve been well trained on seat belts, tray tables, upright seats and air masks. We can handle this to.

Just set the tone.

"In the event of emergency..."

Hate to disagree with you Larry, but your arguments are invalid. If the passengers are able to subdue the hijacker (and I 100% agree that hijackers better have something better than a box cutter to keep them from getting their ass kicked) then there would be no need for the pilot to draw a weapon of any kind... he just keeps flying the plane.

The point of having a gun in the cockpit is insurance against everything else going wrong. The bad guys don't get caught outside of the airport, don't get caught inside the airport, the passengers chicken out and don't take action, and the bad guys are able to breech the door. At that point the LEAST of your worries is an accidental depressurization of the plane or wounding/killing a passenger by accident. If direct lethal action isn't taken at that point there's a good chance that everyone on the plane, and many on the ground, are dead.

I don't think anyone involved in the discussion is contemplating a pilot playing Dirty Harry as soon as he hears that someone is acting suspiciously in the cabin. He (or she) won't be grabbing up his shooting iron and heading aft. A gun in the cockpit offers a final defensive capability in the case that everything else fails.

I would also point out that El AL pilots have been flying armed for decades, and how many deaths/accidents have occured? Yeah, there's a very slim chance that I could get attacked and eaten by African lions on the way to my car this afternoon, but I don't think I should worry about that fate. Same deal with this debate. People are coming up with all kinds of unrealistic scenarios that have no historical basis nor are reasonably likely to occur.

Originally posted by Ken King


What is needed are trained and armed sky-marshals positioned such that they are between the entrance and point of attack. Nothing covert here, full Kevlar and an assault weapon, make it clear that you have a skilled technician ready to dispatch anyone attempting to assault the flight deck. I don’t want shared tasks by the flightcrew. They need to concentrate on getting the plane safely down as expeditiously as possible.


I have to agreed with Ken on this. I want to add few things. If it was already mentioned before, then I apologize for this.

What if the armed pilot decided to go 'postal'? After so many strikes now these days, I don't think pilot being armed is the ONLY solution.

What if the pilot doesn't believe in guns as there are many anti-gun folks out there? what is the next solution?

Foreign Airlines won't be the same as ours. Think about this for a minute. Imagine how many foreign aircrafts coming to US in a day without armed pilots. I dont know exact numbers but I would say alot of them do come into US.

I have seen pilots walk through the airport just like us passengers do. I think that pilots being armed and walking through the airport are an easy target for terrorist. I have seen pilots using restroom, sitting in the cafe, getting in the taxi cab outside, walking around or taking a nap on one of those seats. If you think that the pilots would have to lock up the guns in a safe locker of some type of locker for guns-only once they get off the plane or boarding a plane then I would think it's too much hassle. The pilot would have to get off the plane and figure where at the terminal they should search to lock up the gun until the next time he/she needs it. I don't see how the pilots could be armed like this unless somebody think of a new system set up where the pilots walk in a special room and get a gun assigned to him/her for that day or for the trip(s).

If the pilot lose the gun somewhere , could that delay the flight or not?

I would prefer well-trained armed marshall of some kind stand in between the cockpit and the rest of the aircraft. I think the person guarding the cockpit would have better firepower than the pilot.

Just my opinion..

Bruzilla,

You say the gun is insurance, I see it as a potential weapon to be used against the crew, a means for the accidental bringing down of an aircraft, a means for a disturbed pilot to bring the plane down, and a false sense of security for everyone.

Having any firearm on board an aircraft makes that weapon available for use if it falls into the wrong hands. The fact that it is located in the cockpit doesn’t mean that it can’t be obtained by an unauthorized person bent on taking over the aircraft or a mentally ill pilot seeking to end their life. Why make it more available for them?

As I understand the airline’s plans, on most planes the gun will be in a secured container within the cockpit. This requires that the using pilot must obtain the weapon as soon as any potential trouble is detected. This means that they aren’t flying the plane trying to get it safely down. They are doing other things. Hearts are pounding, adrenaline is flowing, and they now are in uncharted territory. These are prime human factors when moving towards a disaster.

Along those lines, have you seen these cockpits lately? There is not much maneuvering space within them. Pilots usually climb over the throttle console to get in and out of their seats. Sitting in a seat and trying to use the weapon makes for a poor body position when firing back at the door. Unless very efficient in the use of the weapon chances for a miss are fairly high.

Any errant shot penetrating the skin of the airframe will cause a decompression, most likely of the rapid nature, and this in turn can cause debris to be ingested into an engine causing catastrophic failure resulting in a crash. The bill passed by Congress makes information concerning the effects of such an occurrence classified. They don’t want the average citizen knowing which aircraft are the most susceptible to this type damage.

Finally, the false sense of security comes from fact that the law that passed only allows for 2% of the pilots to be armed. What about the rest out there flying? If we are going to have a plan shouldn’t it be all encompassing?

Now don’t get me wrong. I think we need a form of protection. For me I think it is best to have one that is highly visible as a deterrent, one that is in the best possible place to prevent entry into the cockpit, and one that has the shooter in a position to take the best possible shot without jeopardizing the aircraft. I believe that the cockpit is not the place for this to take place.

Sea Ride and King, your arguments are really stretching reality. A pilot "going postal?" If a pilot wants to go on a suicidal murder binge he doesn't need a gun to do it. Opponents of this issue can come up with all manner of unlikely and impossible scenarios that might happen in some circumstance. Let's look at these:

1. Sea Ride's Pilot Getting Jumped. Okay, let's say an armed pilot gets jumped in the concourse. So what? What is a terrorist going to do now? I spend a lot of time in airports and I rarely ever see pilots walking alone. They're usually always with other flightcrew members unless they are deadheading, in which case they wouldn't have a gun. It isn't easy, or quiet, to jump even one person yet alone two or three. So some terrorists are going to "mug" some flightcrew folks, grab their gun, and what.... run out of the building? Run into a boarding gate and onto a parked plane? Run out on the flightline and demand that a rolling plane stop and let them embark? Just what on Earth do you think they'll be able to do?

What is more likely to happen is that they'll either be immediately gunned down or worst case seize a plane at a gate that will not be allowed to leave.

2. Altercation in the cabin while inflight. Ken, hearts are pounding and adrenaline is flowing in the cockpit for many reasons. Just entering Chicago or Atlanta airspace is enough to do that. Then there's thunderstorms, engine outages, low fuel states, and on and on. There are a thousand different things that go wrong on flights everyday that cause anxiety in the cockpit. Contrary to what you might have heard the airlines don't let just anybody be a pilot in command of an aircraft. They are very selective and perform rigorous screening to make sure some Captain Jumpy doesn't fly his plane into the ground just because a lightning strike shook him up.

A pilot's first duty is to fly the plane, not to resolve disputes and altercations in the cabin. That's why we have flight attendants and the macho passengers who like to impress them. :biggrin: And since 9/11 we now have a lot of irate people who will gladly knock the crap out of any wouldbe highjacker either because they hate terrorists or they want to vent their frustration with airport security. Pilots do not jump out of their seats to rush back to the cabin everytime a fight breaks out or there is an altercation. When that happens their focus is on getting the plane safely down at the nearest airfield, it wouldn't be on grabbing up the shootin' iron and headed aft to keep the peace.

In order for an armed pilot to have a need to take armed intervention in the cabin the situation would have to be well beyond the control of the flight attendents and any assisting passengers, which, after 9/11, there aren't very many of these situations that could realistically pop-up, and if they did an armed pilot would be the least of the passengers' worries.

3. Cockpit Intrusion. I've been in the cockpits of just about everything that flies these days, and you're correct in saying that close-quarters combat there would be difficult. But put the need to use a gun in this situation into some perspective. A pilot would only be using their gun in the cockpit if there was a breech of the cockpit. That means that every other safeguard has been defeated, and the bad guys are about to take control of the aircraft. What options are there to keep control of the aircraft? Tasers? They're only good for one semi-aimed shot. Pepper spray/CS gas? These do not incompacitate, they are an irritant that may not stop someone who's determined to kill himself for the glory of God.

Any pilot today has to assume that someone who's breeching the cockpit has an intent to sieze control of the plane. The "fly me to Cuba" days are over. Once the bad guys control the plane, the game's over... just ask the 9/11 victims. I'll grant you that the cockpit is not the place to fight a battle, but that's where it will be fought. If the pilots win, the plane, passengers, and folks on the ground win. If they lose, everybody loses. A boxcutter may be a preferred weapon in a slap fight, but it sucks to go up against a trained pilot with a handgun with one. And unless a terrorist gets really, really, lucky at security they are going to be outgunned. But even if the terrorist has a gun, at worst arming the pilot will at least even the odds.

4. Accidentally Bringing Down an Airplane??? How in the heck do you think you can accidentally bring down an airplane with a handgun? You could empty a 15-rd magazine in the cockpit and still not bring the plane down. It'll be harder to fly, but there's nothing in the cockpit that you could shoot, even intentionally, that would seriously impede airworthiness.

And then there's rapid decompression. Decompression from a bullet hole is not like you see in the movies where two rows of happless passengers get sucked out through a gaping hole left behind by a tiny 9MM bullet. Rapid decompression results in a fog appearing in the air and a lot of ears popping. The only real danger is from hypoxia, which is quickly countered with the oxygen masks and a descent below 10,000 feet AGL. Explosive decompression can occur from large breeches in the fuselage, but that isn't going to happen from a pistol shot (or two, or three, or four...) Besides, any pilot worth his salt would immediately get below 10,000 feet in an emergency anyway. Forget the movies and remember a few years back when a couple dozen feet of fuselage skin peeled away from an Aloha Airlines B737. Talk about explosive decompression, yet the only person lost was a flight attendent who was caught in the slipstream and sucked out. None of the passengers, belted in or not, were lost.

Yes, an engine can be damaged by Foreign Object Damage (FOD) resulting from some crap falling away from the plane, but again... that's more Hollywood than reality. First, the objects would have to be big enough to cause severe damage to the engine. Second, they would have to fall in just the right way for the slipstream to carry them into the engine's intake path, which would be impossible to do on any jet aside from a DC-9/MD-80 or B727 these days. Most planes now have wing-mounted engines that are immune to debris swept back from the fueslage. Also, all commercial jets have to be certified for flight with engines lost, so unless an impossible amount of debris came down both sides of the aircraft, with massive damage done to both engines, that plane isn't coming down. The odds of you winning the Power Ball lottery are better than you bringing down an airliner with pistol fire.

5. Gun falling into the wrong hands. This is another unrealistic option. Again, a gun falling into the wrong hands on the ground poses no more of a threat than an armed gunman anywhere. There's no way the plane would be allowed to takeoff, and the gunman would be subdued by the cops. And a cockpit is never unmanned while the plane is in the air, so some nut can't just walk in the cockpit door, figure out how to open the container, and take the gun out. That means that someone whould have to breech the cockpit to get the gun and you're back to situation 3 above. Also, do you guys really think that these guns are going to be stored in a lunch box or NAV bag where anyone could get them? I think pilots and airlines deserve a little more credit than that.

Once you strip away all of the Hollywood BS and irrational fears, the options come down to this: The only time that an aircraft's pistol will be accessed and used will be to counter a cockpit intrusion. At that point there is no calvary coming to save the day and the only defense that the flightdeck crew has is what's in the cockpit. If they have a gun they have a good fighting chance... not ideal odds, but a good fighting chance. If they are unarmed then the odds shift dramatically to the bad guys, and the crew, passengers, and folks on the ground lose.

As for false security... I disagree. Even if only two percent of pilots are armed, which planes have the two percent onboard? Back in the 80's there were lots of tourists attacked in rental cars outside the airport in Miami. The reason they were attacked was that Florida passed a law that allowed people to keep loaded guns in their cars. Special tags on rental cars allowed theives to spot rentals, and since only an out-of-state visitor would be driving a rental car away from the airport, these were the only cars that the thieves knew for sure wouldn't have an armed occupant. Once Florida changed the tags, the attacks stopped. I doubt more than one percent of Florida drivers had a gun in their car, but that was enough of a threat to force the bad guys to change their tactics.

Same deal here. Even having two percent of pilots armed will force anyone wanting to seize an aircraft to rethink what they are doing, and take greater risks that greatly improve their chances of getting caught. And I'm sure that after these two percent of pilots prove that they are not gun wielding postal crazies the number of armed pilots will increase to where there's no way anyone will find highjacking an aircraft a realistic scenario.

“Stretching reality”, let me shrink it for you as we look at these (your numbering).
1. Flight line or concourse assaults aren’t an issue with me. Different security needs totally.
2. First off, I said cockpit, not cabin. The whole point of this discussion is not what can happen in the cabin but how the plane can be used. Damn right a lot can go on during a flight to keep the flight crew occupied, toting and using a gun doesn’t need to be added to the possible work load. Contrary to what you might have heard the airlines don't let just anybody be a pilot in command of an aircraft. They are very selective and perform rigorous screening to make sure some Captain Jumpy doesn't fly his plane into the ground just because a lightning strike shook him up. Yeah and I bet you think I should believe that they are 100% successful. Recently in the news we have had drunk pilots arrested attempting to fly. We had the Saudi pilot dive into the ocean up north. How many more of these quality and screened persons are out there?

3. Cockpit Intrusion. Okay, you agree it would be a tough shot. And let’s put it into perspective. You want the attempted hijacker stopped prior to cockpit entry, not stopping him after entering the cockpit. Armed highly visible deterrent between them and the cockpit is the answer.

The pilots need to be free to get the damn aircraft on the ground as fast as possible and shut it down so it can’t be used as a weapon. They will be very busy doing this and one pilot distracted getting the gun, getting into position and getting a shot off will limit the chances of getting the bird safely on the ground.

4. Accidentally Bringing Down an Airplane??? How in the heck do you think you can accidentally bring down an airplane with a handgun? You could empty a 15-rd magazine in the cockpit and still not bring the plane down. It'll be harder to fly, but there's nothing in the cockpit that you could shoot, even intentionally, that would seriously impede airworthiness.
Are you serious, you don’t think 15 rounds could bring the plane down? Previously working on an airframe hardening project gives me some specific knowledge on these matters. A round exiting the skin of the airframe at an extremely acute angle of entry can rip the skin much like the peeling of an orange. This peel can detach and become substantial FOD, furthermore it can weaken the structure resulting in explosive decompression creating more FOD. I remember the door blow out in Hawaii caused by an electrical short. Ripped a whole section of the skin away taking passengers with it and FODed out two engines. By the grace of God and the skill of the pilots they landed safely. And they lost a total of nine, not just one. Additional supporting evidence is the fact that Congress has made this issue classified.
The only real danger is from hypoxia, which is quickly countered with the oxygen masks and a descent below 10,000 feet AGL.
Actually, the target altitude is 12,500 MSL and in reality below 20,000 MSL useful consciousness is such that additional oxygen is not much of a need as long as you continue heading lower. I’ve had physiological training too. AGL is not the correct measurement.

5. My point on the gun falling into the wrong hands is in the scenario of the attacker overpowering a pilot who didn’t get to the gun quickly enough, didn’t stop the attacker, or wasn’t capable of taking the shot. Now they have a tool to stop heroic passengers that would take the plane back like what happened on Flight 93.

These issues aren’t Hollywood paranoia or BS, they are real. When going for the best level of protection removing access from the cabin to the cockpit is the real solution. Until then intermediary steps like strengthening the doors is under way but still a long way off. Undercover Air Marshals while a good idea are in my mind lacking. That is why I think we should have the fully protected and armed Air Marshal stationed between the cockpit entrance and the threat. Give me that and then we can talk about a gun in the cockpit.

Sorry Ken, but I still think you're a raging paranoid on this issue. You won't wake up until the next hijacker takes control of a plane and crashes it into something else.

Your arguments are filled with cans, and coulds, and might bes, etc., and I don't think that's good enough. Yes, a round fired at a highly specific angle could rent the outer skin of the aircraft, but the odds are definately way against that happening and you know that. The use of "out there" possibilities that stand little or no chance of occuring don't make your case for you.

There are over 100,000 airline-level pilots flying in, above, and out of the US, and you want to base a critical decision on passenger safety on the actions of two? Two drunks? Out of 100,000+? How can you pass judgement on airline pilots based on that? BTW, I 100% think that the Egypt Air crash was a proof of concept for 9/11. I think that Al Queda needed a POC before final approval of the plan, and the Egypt Air crash occured six months before the hijackers arrived in the US, plus Mohammed Atta was in Egypt at the time of the crash.

You tale of United Airlines Flight 811 doesn't really apply either. The aircraft suffered a failure of a 10 by 15 foot cargo door, which tore away a 13 by 15 foot chunk of fuselage skin with it. Can you actually sit there and think that a few shots from a pistol could do the same damage??? Also, you should also note that while the engines were FOD'ed out, this was because so much of the FOD came from the inderside of the aircraft... something that wouldn't happen if FOD originated in the cabin or cockpit area. Also, thanks for proving my case that only the engines on one side of the aircraft would be damaged. :) And thanks again for crediting the UAL pilots with being skilled. I guess they're two of the few sober pilots flying.

You're trying to use worst-case scenarios to make a case, and that's a poor way to do it. You mention two drunk pilots but ignore the 100,000+ sober ones, you mention the potential of a very few specific angles of entry for a bullet while ignoring hundreds of other angles that wouldn't result in the damage you describe, and you reference a totally unrelated aircraft incident while ignoring all of the cases of rapid and explosive decompressions that have not resulted in loss of life. Sorry, but your case has no merit.

Oh, you are right on the altitude issue. My bad on that one.

Sorry Ken, but I still think you're a raging paranoid on this issue. You won't wake up until the next hijacker takes control of a plane and crashes it into something else.
No, not paranoid, just interested in actually preventing a re-occurrence, not just giving a few pilots the ability to have a firearm. I want a plan that prevents them from getting into the cockpit, not just what will be done after they get there.
Your arguments are filled with cans, and coulds, and might bes, etc., and I don't think that's good enough.
The same can be said of your position. Believing that pilots, if armed, insure that an attack will be stopped. That is like expecting the police to stop all crimes all of the time. Which isn’t very realistic.
Yes, a round fired at a highly specific angle could rent the outer skin of the aircraft, but the odds are definately way against that happening and you know that. The use of "out there" possibilities that stand little or no chance of occuring don't make your case for you.
No, I don’t know that it is way against the odds. To determine potential for damage we would have to have the type weapon, type ammunition and load, type aircraft, location of bullet impact, and angle of incidence to come to any reasonable conclusion. There are many more variables in the process but it is a reality that a plane could be brought down. Why else would Congress determine that this type of data would be classified? Answer that Mr. Wizard?
There are over 100,000 airline-level pilots flying in, above, and out of the US, and you want to base a critical decision on passenger safety on the actions of two? Two drunks? Out of 100,000+? How can you pass judgement on airline pilots based on that?
Do you really believe that is all there are out there, only two? You don’t think there are more that drink before flying, take medicines that impact their abilities, or do illegal drugs. Again you are being unrealistic? Besides no one is passing judgement, I am simply challenging the wisdom of allowing pilots to have a firearm in the cockpit.
You tale of United Airlines Flight 811 doesn't really apply either. The aircraft suffered a failure of a 10 by 15 foot cargo door, which tore away a 13 by 15 foot chunk of fuselage skin with it. Can you actually sit there and think that a few shots from a pistol could do the same damage???
Let’s see. I take it you believe that a bullet passing through the fuselage can’t impact any electrical wiring controlling such things as cargo doors. Interesting concept there, were you on the Warren Commission with the “magic bullet” theory? Damage can happen, the severity of we have no clear idea or certainty.
You're trying to use worst-case scenarios to make a case, and that's a poor way to do it.
That is exactly how one makes a case, showing what could happen. Ignoring the possibility of it isn’t very intellectual.
You mention two drunk pilots but ignore the 100,000+ sober ones, you mention the potential of a very few specific angles of entry for a bullet while ignoring hundreds of other angles that wouldn't result in the damage you describe, and you reference a totally unrelated aircraft incident while ignoring all of the cases of rapid and explosive decompressions that have not resulted in loss of life. Sorry, but your case has no merit.
I haven’t ignored the pilots, I think that they need to be flying the aircraft and getting it safely on the ground. Not getting ready for a shoot out. I want protection before anyone gets to them. You don’t seem to care about that at all. It is almost as if you have a hero complex with pilots and think they are the only answer to this issue.

As to the specific angle of entry for the bullet I can visualize a cockpit (standard 757 will do), door location, pilots locations and almost immediately I see an angle already less then 45 degrees, probably inside of 30 or less. Depending on the skill of the shooter, and any disruption created by aircraft movement, I can envision a bullet missing the intruder, slicing through the skin of the aircraft or hitting a spar making a larger rip through the skin.

With regard to rapid and explosive decompression, it does become a concern when weapons are used on board an aircraft. You say I have ignored the data about those that didn’t result in catastrophic failure. I guess your “crystal ball” is working overtime to arrive at a conclusion about what I have and have not taken into consideration. I have looked at quite a bit of data over the years on this subject. My point was simply that this is a severe situation (explosive decompressions) and one that can result from the use of weapons on aircraft. Ignoring that fact would have been nothing but a disservice to this discussion.

Bottom line is that you like the idea, I think it has some serious concerns, and I also feel that there is a better way to achieve a safe and secure environment when airborne that allows the pilots to do what it is they are ultimately responsible for. You know, FLYING THE PLANE.