Disarming Americans

[Ken King (Premo)]

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.

[Sharon (Premo)]

Trevor, I'm with ya all the way. 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.

[watercolor]

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

[NAHC_LifeMember]

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."

[Ken King (Premo)]

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?

[NAHC_LifeMember]

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.

[Ken King (Premo)]

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.

[Ken King (Premo)]

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?

[vraiblonde]

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.