Posted on 05/21/2002 7:34:17 AM PDT by Cagey
WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal government said Tuesday that pilots will not be allowed to have guns in the cockpits of commercial airplanes.
The announcement was made at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing by John Magaw, undersecretary for transportation security. It followed months of debate over whether arming pilots would be a deterrent to hijackers.
Both Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge previously indicated their opposition to arming pilots.
Magaw gave no reason for his decision, which was announced in response to a question from Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the committee.
Airline pilots have been pushing for guns, saying it would allow them to confront a hijacker who breaks into the cockpit. Hijackers took over four commercial airlines on Sept. 11, crashing two of them into the World Trade Center and a third into the Pentagon. The fourth crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.
Flight attendants, meanwhile, have advocated nonlethal weapons, such as stun guns, that they could use in emergencies.
Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., who chairs the Commerce Committee, said guns would not be needed as long as pilots kept cockpit doors locked while in flight.
"You can put the rule in right now and cut out all the argument about pistols and stun guns," Hollings said.
Opponents of arming pilots have said reinforced cockpit doors now required on all planes mean that pistols are unnecessary. They have also expressed concern that an errant shot might hit a passenger or damage a key electrical system on the plane.
Two House Republicans have introduced legislation to arm pilots and the House Transportation Committee is scheduled to take up the bill this week.
So put up or shut up. Because if you know how to circumvent the safety mechanism on an airliners hatches, you need to be talking to the FAA, not me.
P.S. without real strong evidence to the contrary, I will be taking the word of an airline pilot over yours.
That's pretty strong language for somebody who's trying to prove his position with someone else's 'expert' opinion.
c'mon, let's be honest with ourselves, this is not a clintonesque trick (though of course he utilized it), it is a time honored political tradition in the same vein as the "trial balloon"
Quote of the day.
Unless you meant "how our govt doesn't work", please do enlighten us.
You took that as an offer to advance your understanding of the world, which mostly consists of what you've been told.
Give my regards to your friends: the FFA, mechanics, airline pilots, etc. (I guess I'm lucky your dad wasn't a lawyer!)
Hey, what can I say, I don't get it perfect everytime. No one does!
A shot through a window is not not not likely to cause explosive decompression. The windows are made of plexiglass. Even if explosive decompression were to happen it is not a big problem for the pilots. However the violent manouvers you propose might be much more likely to bring it down. Remember the Airbus in NY a few months ago. Sure a passanger might get hit, but that also applies to a Sky Marshall.
Sky Marshalls, what a joke on us. Remember that all but one flight had 5 Highjackers, and they were lightly loaded flights. Don't you see the reason for this. Of course fewer people to deal with, but also much easier to pick-out either a SM or armed Fed on board and deal with them. One HJ would jump-up, announce the HJ and draw the officer out for the others to deal with. Remember, these people know they are going to die so when the officer says hands-up they are going to keep comming. Suppose on the next attempt there are 10 or 15 HJ on board, and perhaps they use a few women and children to confuse the SM. With the HJ in stratigic seat locations, I would be confident they would be able to take out a SM or two. Rememeber these guys are trained. Now the only hope for the flight is a F16. The problem with the SM is that they bring the gun into the cabin where enought HJ can gain control of it.
No, the only real final defense has to be on the flight deck with a armed pilot with a firearm not a stun-gun. Bullets pass very well through a pillow but stun-gun darts don't. Wouldn't have much trouble finding a pillow on a aircraft.
The HJ think "outside the box", anyone who cannot understand why the firearm must be in the cockpit has his head inside and up.
Like I said before. Put up, or shut up.
If I were on a hijacked jet, and wanted to open the door, $5 says I can do it! You want ME to explain how? ** YOURS, you ********** lowlife! You'll just have to be satisfied with the knowledge that I think I could do it -- and that I'm willing to bet the net present value of your ******** intellectual output on it!
Sorry, had to edit that one a little -- It's been nice chatting w/ 'ya.
This could make conspiracy theorists very happy. The excuse for the revocation per your link was that in forty years nobody ever used it. For forty years, nobody ever used airliners like flying bombs, either. Thanks for the good information.
Your response was all too predictable:
“He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak.” - Michel De Montaigne.
“If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.” – Elbert Hubbard.
Why “bet” if you never intended to back up what you said?
- I explained my argument - you have yet to explain yours.
- I tell you that the doors of a commercial airliner cannot be opened in flight.
- You say they can, and offer a bet.
- I call your bet.
- You call me names and say: “You'll just have to be satisfied with the knowledge that I think I could do it!
- To which I say, that even someone with my limited “intellectual output” is not stupid enough to take your word for anything at this point.
It is better to have less thunder in the mouth and more lightning in the hand. - General Ben Chidlaw.
For that matter, the passenger line of defense could be bolstered at trivial cost by putting a nice solid blackjack in each seat-back pocket.
As I've noted elsewhere, I think arming pilots for the specific and sole purpose of securing the flight deck is completely sensible. Neither the training nor equipment would be particularly expensive. Reinforcing the door so it takes at least 30 seconds to open and giving the pilots weapons to use once after 30 seconds are up is apt to be much cheaper than reinforcing the doors to withstand a 15-minute assault. And if there isn't either an available airport within 15 minutes, or an armed pilot behind the door, a 15-minute door will accomplish little once the 15 minutes are up.
If anything, wouldn't the pile-up of terrorist bodies in the door make it harder for each additional terrorist to try to force his way in? True, it would be very hard for a pilot to leave the cockpit under such circumstances, but why would the pilot do so anyway?
After the D.B. Cooper affair, the next generation of 727's were equipped with the safety feature that PsyOp speaks of. At flight speed, a locking device is activated, and the doors will not open. This device is no longer installed on 727's and was never installed on any other aircraft that these gentlemen know of.
This is how it was explained to me by the pilots and mechanics: Think of the aircraft as a bottle and the door as a cork, but the cork is inside the bottle. Once the cabin is pressurized, and the plane at altitude and speed, the cork seals it self into the frame. All agree that no human would be strong enough to open the door while it is at altitude, cruising speed and the cabin is pressurized. This is the reason D.B. Cooper, had the pilot fly low and slow and depressurize the cabin. Once the speed is reduced and pressure is released by the lower altitude and cabin pressure is gone, then the door can be opened.
So PsyOp is correct in the fact that on some models of 727's, no person can physical open the door due to the locking mechanism.
Crowcreek could open the door if he depressurized the cabin first and got the pilot to lower his speed and altitude.
PsyOp, will you settle for $2.50?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.