Thousands of Pilots Won't Fly Armed, Blame TSA

CNSNews.com ^ | January 15, 2004 | Jeff Johnson

[no_problema]

most libs don't know we're at war.

many libs are still in their jammies and sucking their thumbs--that's what life in america has given them.

and, they're not going to give it up easily, reality or not.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Im quite familiar with automation on todays aircraft...

Good. Then you understand that it's better for a pilot to take care of any problems that will bring the plane down, rather than sit there and get his throat slit. (hard to control the plane while dead)

Yes, air marshals will be great but we can't put a set of them on every flight. We do put pilots on every flight.

[freeeee]

My disagreement with arming pilots is this....Who is going to fly the airplane???

Hate to break it to you, but most of the time you're in the plane it's on auto pilot. Barring turbulence or some other disturbance, after take off and before landing most of what the cockpit crew does is monitor instruments.

Even in the astronomically small chance that didn't work, there's a co-pilot who can fly the plane.

Who is going to fly the airplane???

Without handguns in the cockpit, in the event of a terrorist attack, this guy will be.

[freeeee]

you forgot: (This ad bought and paid for by the Dean For President Committee)

So, who is responsible?

[LTCJ]

The head of TSA serves at the pleasure of the President, who could easily fire him for this state of affairs. We can lay responsibility for this state of affairs at the feet of the President.

Concur. J. Carter disarmed pilots with no legislation and the stroke of a pin. G. Bush could similarly reverse it as well as straighten up the TSA, as you point out. Ultimately and realistically, both the responsibility and authority rest with the President.

[Freeper john]

I also have a challengerII. You are right, this is the fun way to fly. I have an N number so I can legally fly a passenger.

[Hunble]

We need to solve the more important issue of placing shooters in the back of the acft where they should be!

Armed citizens who are willing to protect their and your life, is the obvious answer. They are "in the back" and know what is going on.

To me, each and every American boarding an airliner should be issued a knife or other weapon as they step into the aircraft.

"Let's Roll!"

[JETDRVR]

"Good. Then you understand that it's better for a pilot to take care of any problems that will bring the plane down, rather than sit there and get his throat slit. (hard to control the plane while dead"

Reenforced Cockpit doors for starters. Do you fly for a living? Lets apply abit of reality here! I fully understand you can not place sky marshals on every flight. Lets focus on NOT LETTING THE B$#@&%tards get on board in the first place.

[Freeper john]

That's easy! The second pilot will fly the airplane.

[JETDRVR]

"Hate to break it to you, but most of the time you're in the plane it's on auto pilot. Barring turbulence or some other disturbance, after take off and before landing most of what the cockpit crew does is monitor instruments"


I hate to break to you ..... what if Capt Sky King with his Glock in hand responds to the threat and ooopppss gets clipped. Now you have just made Clarence the copilot vunerable to getting clipped as well. Archie Bunker (iirc) once said in response to the hijackings during the 70s that what we ought to do is give each pax a gun upon boarding. Now thats sound advice.

[freeeee]

arming pilots will only take them away from their primary dutys flying the airplane.

Since you're a pilot, maybe you can tell me what's wrong with this scenerio:

Terrorists take over the passenger cabin. They have overcome whatever resistance they find there, be it marshalls if there are any and the passengers.

Next they attempt to get into the cockpit to take control of the plane. The pilot engages the autopilot (if it already isn't engaged) or the co-pilot takes control.

The pilot aims his weapon at the small door a few feet away. When anyone comes through it, he shoots until the attackers are disabled or he runs out of ammo. This is no difficult feat of marksmanship. Almost anyone could do it.

So, where's the problem?

[JETDRVR]

Roger that. Agree with you 100%

[azhenfud]

"The weapon needs to be re-secured in the locked box if the cockpit door is open,"

That's just like the assinine feds to propose something as useless as teats on a boar hog.

[Freeper john]

Gee you used "Roger" in your reply! You must REALLY be a pilot!

[freeeee]

what if Capt Sky King with his Glock in hand responds to the threat and ooopppss gets clipped.

Sky King never leaves the cockpit no matter what happens in the passenger area. The cockpit door stays closed and locked. If the door is never breached, the pilot lands immediately.

If the door is breached, the armed pilot has an effective means of defense and very likely will retain control of the plane. If in the unlikely event the armed pilot is overwhelmed by the attackers, all they have gained by the pilot being armed is a handgun with very little or no ammo, and their tactical position is little better than if he was unarmed: they have the plane either way. However it is almost certain they will lose at least a few of their number in the attack, perhaps losing the terrorist pilot and thus their ability to use the plane as a weapon. Perhaps at that point any remaining resistance in the passenger area would be strong enough to win.

If he is unarmed and the door is breached he will likely be killed or incapacitated. He will lose control of the plane and it will be used as a weapon or shot down by our people.

[JETDRVR]

"Since you're a pilot, maybe you can tell me what's wrong with this scenerio:

Terrorists take over the passenger cabin. They have overcome whatever resistance they find there, be it marshalls if there are any and the passengers.

Next they attempt to get into the cockpit to take control of the plane. The pilot engages the autopilot (if it already isn't engaged) or the co-pilot takes control.

The pilot aims his weapon at the small door a few feet away. When anyone comes through it, he shoots until the attackers are disabled or he runs out of ammo. This is no difficult feat of marksmanship. Almost anyone could do it.

So, where's the problem?"


Ok Ive started a good round of 'What Ifs" with my comments.
You are not entirely wrong with your statement. Throw this into the mix would the Camel jock in question either A. Rush the cockpit allowing for your scenario of.."The pilot aims his weapon at the small door a few feet away. When anyone comes through it, he shoots until the attackers are disabled or he runs out of ammo"? or would he try to get either one of the crew out of the cockpit into the cabin?

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Do you fly for a living?

Of course that has nothing to do with it. Many people who fly for a living say arm the pilots. Many people who fly for a living say do not arm the pilots. So, because both of these groups fly for a living must we say that they are both correct (arm and disarm)?

No matter how good the screening system is there will always be someone who can get by it. That's why I say put the ultimate capability to stop that person with the person in charge of the aircraft.

By the way, if you really need to know I'm an engineer. I design aircraft for a living.

[JETDRVR]

I could not agree more with ya. IMHO in any scenario like that , (well prior to the cockpit door being breached) I dont know about you , but I would be heading for the deck pointing at the nearest suitable airfield and squawking the aprop code. Executing some good 2g to 3g hardbanks doing VMO on the way down would do alot to keep absolutly everybody flat on their respective asses.

[azhenfud]

Since 9/11, I think any future hijacker would be hardpressed to find a plane load of passengers to remain "passive" and not do everything in their power to beat the living crap out of anyone even looking suspiciously at a cockpit door.

[freeeee]

would the Camel jock in question either A. Rush the cockpit allowing for your scenario of.."The pilot aims his weapon at the small door a few feet away. When anyone comes through it, he shoots until the attackers are disabled or he runs out of ammo"? or would he try to get either one of the crew out of the cockpit into the cabin?

If they want control of the plane, (they must, their attack is useless otherwise), they must try to break into the cockpit.

Try to get one of the crew out of the cockpit into the cabin? I assume you mean the terrorists would tell the cockpit occupants they will execute passengers one by one if they don't open the door.

The cockpit occupants mustn't open the door no matter what. If they do, at the very least everyone on the plane absolutely will die, either by the plane being used as a weapon or by being shot down first. At worst thousands on the ground will die as well. If they don't open the door, the terrorists may very well kill every last person in the passenger area. The passengers will die either way, gun or no gun in the cockpit.

The point is, a handgun in the cockpit doesn't change this fact in the slightest. If you can think of a way it does, I'd like to hear it.