Posted on 05/22/2002 10:19:39 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
Yes.
Not gonna take that bet.
But I will up ya. Bet you two cases of ale and your favorite, very exclusive, bottle of rum that not a one knows that if you are angry, and shooting a weapon that you mostly will hit everything except what you "intended." Surgical shooting (which shooting in an aircraft must be...don't know, don't have that x), lining up a bad guy, even a very bad guy in the cross hairs demands a calm relaxed confidence that only comes with training and experience....or absolute insanity.
I could support weapons (firearms) in cockpits if Airline Pilots went to a normal work week/month. You know when they weren't flying, they were training (pilot stuff, extremis scenarios, CT & AT classes, use of deadly force, ROE, legal considerations, marksmanship), ...professionals with the proper "security" mindset would happily submit to this if they truly understood....my cross analogy/argument (developing adequate proficiency) is learing to fly...years of training, hours in the air, multiple qualifications and certifications and then maintenance and follow up training oh and evalution. Anyone who doesn't think that developing the appropriate skills necessary to decisively, accurately, unemotionally and skillfully destroy a human being, under great stress...just plain does not know...but that doesn't mean they aren't entitled to their opinion.
How about this for an opinion: I truly feel I can be an airline pilot...whats it really take? Excuse me I need to adjust the action on my keyboard...pull is a little heavy down..where was I? Oh,...a couple times around the pattern, a few bounces and some practice in the simulator and I should be ready to go...I mean with technology and all these days how difficult can it be? Everyone knows that a computer flies those planes and airline pilots are mostly lazy overpaid pampered brats, besides, I've done mastered every one of then there computer software flying programs (you should see me on my nintendo)...uh, thats my story and the heck with you if you disagree; you must be a left wing, liberal, communist pig if you don't see things my way.
Ludicrous?
And America is not Israel.
Now what is the rest of the answer? Training, past experience, which weapon do they use, what calibre? What is the Societal, Cultural mindset. How serious are the Israelis, more specifically the Israeli Airline pilots towards security. What laws support their use and limit their use of firearms? What is the incidence of use? How many times has an Israeli Pilot fired a weapon (in anger, in extremis) in flight. What were the circumstances...and so on and so forth.
What is airport security like in Israel? What about highly qualified pilots who refuse to carry...is that conscientious objectivism? Not trying to overcomplicate here....but.. I support an armed society and would prefer to have all the "tools" in place to defend myself...I would like to be able to carry (again) aboard aircraft, would you deny me, a law abiding, tax paying, earned my rights as a citizen the right to defend myself and my family against a terrorist or a crazy pilot...but look around. Disneyland in this country is more important than the Holy Land. Americans spend more time in front of the tube than they do "living." We pay actors and actresses and sports figures more than we pay young men and women who sacrifice their lives for our basic freedoms...?
The issue is complex. Times have changed. This ain't the wild west no more. Simply issuing handguns to pilots and thinking it is an adequate deterence toward aerial terrorism in the American homeland, the land of Oz is an over simplification.
I am no fan of John Magaw, but I am an advocate of clear thinking, done by skilled, experienced, minds when it comes to Aviation requirements and regulations (hauling around good folks safely) as well as the intracate details and skill sets necessary to determine when and how to efficiently destroy life.
Read carefully Paddles' 'voice.' More importantly think....and think again...read the question again.
There's nothing complex about it at all. Read my response #36, the pilot's not tasked with being a defensive expert. Also, should the pilots choose to carry they'll attend the air marshal school. I have faith in what they teach at that school is quite valuable and not overly complicated. Thousands of folks around the country, with much less, or no training at all have successfully defended themselves against armed assailants without wrecking havoc and killing innocent bystanders.
Times haven't changed. Folks are the same people they were 50, 100, or 4000 years ago. Just because dress, technology and living accomodations have changed, doesn't mean the world, or a particular task, has become to much for anyone to grasp and handle.
When a person mentions "the wild west" they are appealing for an emotional response to visions of wild mayhem. There aren't and never were hoards of bad guys constantly attacking and challenging folks to a gunfight. They had laws back then too and homicidal bozos were hung, or shot quickly after any display of such behavior. In other words, there were deterrents and just as it is today, only disturbed whack jobs did the crimes.
My post #36 gave the reason for allowing the pilot to exercise his right to effective defense. Whatever deterrence armed pilots has is secondary and much less of a consideration. Jihadists and wack jobs aren't deterred by much. They will act anyway. Thhat's why the pilot ought to be allowed the Freedom to pick his defensive measures and not some bureaucratic bozo.
"I am an advocate of clear thinking, done by skilled, experienced, minds when it comes to Aviation requirements and regulations (hauling around good folks safely)"
In general airline pilots are so composed. Right?
"as well as the intracate details and skill sets necessary to determine when and how to efficiently destroy life."
There are old ladies that effectively defend themselves against bad guys. Just how intricate are the details and intracacies of such a confrontation? It's really a simple matter. A bad guy presents himself, threatens everyones life, fails to cease threats and the pilot plugs him. Do you think the folks threatened are going to consider the person presenting the threat on the airplane as someone whose life is worth spit? That sort of claim will only come from some wailing liberal after the incident hits the news.
"I would like to be able to carry (again) aboard aircraft, would you deny me, a law abiding, tax paying, earned my rights as a citizen the right to defend myself and my family against a terrorist or a crazy pilot...
That's really the pilot's decision. If I were a pilot on a general airline, I'd want to be the only one on the plane with a gun. You can have a kbar if you want, but check the gun in the baggage. Crazy pilot my butt. If the pilots crazy, locked in the cabin or not, he can crash the plane and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. Think centrifugal and g forces.
"Disneyland in this country is more important than the Holy Land. Americans spend more time in front of the tube than they do "living." We pay actors and actresses and sports figures more than we pay young men and women who sacrifice their lives for our basic freedoms...?"
What does that have to do with anything?
Course of training:
1. Announce an Emergency Situation over the P.A. Anyone attempting to enter the cockpit will be shot.
2. Shoot anyone attempting to enter the cockpit.
Piece of cake, twenty minutes training for someone who shoots regularly (monthly or better).
My appologies for buttin' in...
You get what you pay for...
Applies to commerce. Freedom, rights, decency, responsibility, duty, honor, self sacrifice, ability and such are not items of commerce. They are traits, concepts and ideas of great worth to America and are not purchased with cash, but with conscious effort and hard work by an individual for his own self respect. Only a fool would attempt to purchase these things with cash.
Agree on the small lightweight .357 snub or a compact 1911A1 (lawyers will pooh on that one IMHO) or the SIG/Glock/HK's possibilities in .45........all loaded with modern frangable ammunition.
If I couldn't carry my 1911A1 as a commercial pilot I believe I'd go with the Glock 30 or the SIG 239 in .357SIG caliber w/ one spare magazine and a ultralight spectra threat level IIIA vest. In a sitting position the small .357 DAO snub's in an ankle rig w/ a spare bianchi strip or two are also an option to consider IMHO...............Just some speculation and suggestions of course.
Stay Safe !
He/She/It was the one who don't get it...
I'm waiting for the day they make a belt-fed Glock-26... That way, my belt (and suspenders) that decorate the waistline can serve dual purpose.
Now lets go to your assertions about Law enforcement officers. Most law enforcement officers get their firearms training in a police academy. It is often less than a day total on the range. In many jurisdictions their requalification is done less than annually. Further the quaslification with the firearm isis all they must do on a regular basis. I have within the past month seen some local, state and Federal officers trying to get up to a minimum qualification level at the range where I regularly shoot.
I have no problem with an annual requalification to a minimum level to do the necessary job. Such requalification would be the ability to hit a human sized target in the kill zone at less than ten feet. we are talking airliner cockpit here. Anyone other than flight crew has who is trying to enter when the plane is in flight is shoot target. Training for the situation is in order. Mastery of hitting a human sized target at ten feet is what is needed.
Now get off the irrelevancies and tell me why rather than having pilots armed you want everyone on the plane dead or everyone on the plane dead and a number on the ground dead. That is what the situation is. We are talking a voluntary program fro the aitcrew with them qualifying. Police training focuses heavily on the don't shoot aspect of the job. Pilots have a far far simpler task they have to shoot only when someone enters the cockpit. Yes the sky marshalls if they are there may help the passengers and the crew in the passenger compartment but the fact is this is needed to prevent otherwise certain death.
Now let me make this clear you have not presented the slightest documentation supporting your claim that law enforcement officers are more competent than former military pilots. I will state from seeing naval aviators on the range on their own time both Navy and Marine aviators went there often. They understood they could be on the ground and that sidearm could be the difference between their life and death. Firearms were a recreation for many of them.
Now I can not speak from personal experience of Air Force pilots. By the way the Navy and Marine Corps have aviators not pilots. I shall ask squantos to address that issue. although he was not a pilot he has many years from the USAF and can well address that most of those who flew had at least a passing familiarity with firearms.
Once more the training issue is addressed by the offer of an exellent organization to provideany necessary training.
You are raising a non-issue. you have negaged in personal attacks. You have questioned qualifications of others who have stated their qualifications many times in the past and due to their obvious factual knowledge of firearms have been shown to have those quaqlifications. we have NRA Training Counselors on this forum. we have Certified firearms instructors and we LEO's and Former LEO's on this forum. We have many former military including many combat vetrans from special operations units including Army Special Forces, LERPS, SEALS, EOD, RANGERS, RECON MARINES, and others. We have former and current Navy airdales. We have former and current Marine aviators. We have former and current USAF pilots. We have many state local and federal LEO's former and current. Why is it they almost all support armed cockpit crew and you object? What special knowledge do you bring to the table. I am willing to listen convince me with FACTS AND LOGIC. But be aware your assertion of something is does not make it a fact any more than your statement that water normally flows uphill would make that a fact. You do not make up facts. Questioning another's obsevations is not fact. Statisitics from referenced sources are facts. You assert that police are better trained than the military aircrew in the use of firearms and that aircrew would need to be trained in excess of what is already on the table for training them. Back it up.
Perhaps we can stipulate some things as fact. According to the FAA there are more than 35,000 commercial passenger flights evry day that would have a use for sky marshalls aboard Given that at a rate of one sjy marshall per flight that means a minimum of 35,000 sky marshalls need to be deployed to achieve that level. Further I submit that in order to obtain adequate security a minimum of two such sky marshalls are needed and the minimum number to cover 35,000 flights per day every day with 40 work weeks and vacation and sick time with one sky marsall we are talking close to 50,000 to 70,000 people. On September 12, 2002 there were less than 500 sky marshalls. I agree that there should be a national id card to allow state LEO's, local Leo's, and armed federal agents to be back up sky marshalls. For the shoe bombers and other threats such could be quite helpful. But there is going to be a whole lot of time passing before we can get over 100,000 sky marsahlls trained and just about every flight has two or three such marshalls aboard. Remember also that we are starting with very few trained deployed sky marshalls in the air now. The cost of being certain that pilots are sufficiently qualified to defend the cockpit as a last ditch defense against a repeat of 9/11 is miniscule on the order of magnitude of .0001 or less in comparison to the cost of training and salaries for a sufficient force of sky marshalls and ther is no down side to this position. With rules of engagement that limit the use of the cockpit crews guns to entry to the cockpit by unauthorized people every such shooting is justified and necessary. So when the pilots land they carry their sidearms to their homes or to the hotels where they stay. That also is a benefit to society. I have not yet accused you of being a liar and a troll I shall not as long as you engage in rational discourse and do not assert those things as facts that are not facts.
As far as those opposed who bring up false issues I would like to have them address that issue.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
Can't remember saying anything like that on this or any other thread. You'd make James Carville proud, my friend.
My position on this has never changed. This is a public policy issue with legitimate concerns that nobody wants to address....they just want to wish them away with tough talk and slander. So I'll ask the question again: Who will be held liable for any accidents and who is going to pay for the training?
BTW, thanks for making my point; "at least a passing familiarity with firearms." is not acceptable--formal, standardized training will be required before any such program will be instituted---tough testosterone talk on this thread notwithstanding.
Harpseal, you need to READ what people are saying rather than jumping to conclusions. So far, I haven't objected to anything, but I have asked some questions that nobody has answered yet.
In my case that'd be a boat load of ammo :o)
Stay Safe !
After airline pilots can we please please get this kind of training for Federal Agents who are armed. I would be absolutely amazed if we could get a Federal agent who could calmly and cooly hit the target when life is on the line as opposed to the innocent civilian. statistically according to Gary Kleck is self-defense shootings the police are far more likey to shoot an innocent unjustifiably then is typical armed civilian. Statistically a police officer is more likely to lose in such a confrontation than an armed civilian and armed civilians are not usually wearing soft body armor.
Annecdotally I have seen numerous LEO's on the range practicing for their biennial or in some departments quadrennial qualification and I have not been impressed by many. Conversely I have seen much better accuracy even under match pressure from some civilians than the "average" LEO. No I have never had to fire on another person inside the USA but I have used a handgun to take down an enemy who was armed with an SKS and I have done it more than one time. It was admittedly more than thirty years ago.
Now as to LEO's the vast majority only actually draw tyhier sidearms on a range. Address the primary issues raised.and the alternatives. What alternative do you propose for the flight crew when the cockpit door is breeched and there is no live sky marshall and a terrorist is coming through the very narrow confines oof that passageway to the controls. he/She has a second to respond before the aircraft is in control of skyjackers and the only other options are shooting down the aircraft or watching it hit a target. I am quite willing to listen. Convince me with logic and facts preferably sourced that an alternative exists. For a discussion of police issues by the way ther is the donut watch bump list. You will soon understand that there are many with a wide variety of experience on this forum and they are not office bound wannabes who are betting cases of brew. If you have experience state it and back it up. Do it quickly becuase I have to go set up tables for the Memorial Day vetrans dinner this afternoon.
You are willing to be fairer than I would but no objection it might deter someone.
... is all the announcements I'd neeed if I were a passenger on such a flight.
Agree on the small lightweight .357 snub or a compact 1911A1 (lawyers will pooh on that one IMHO) or the SIG/Glock/HK's possibilities in .45........all loaded with modern frangable ammunition.
I actually can think of a number of sub compact .45acp pistols that would be ideal for this mission beyond what you have suggested. The EAA witness and many other CZ-75 design based compact .45acp semi autos are out there that are excellent absolutely reliable carry pieces. I have replaced my 1911 variant by Kimber at least for a while with one of these imported by EAA. The finish is indestructible which is important when one lives on the coast and if I ever have to use it in self defense it only costs $400 for the gun that is then forever in the police evidnece room. It gives ten shots withits magazine instead of the usual 1911 variant. It has a double action first shot capability which is really nice when one just wishes for something that slips into a pocket. there are so many fine firearms out there and so little time. Ah well.
If I couldn't carry my 1911A1 as a commercial pilot I believe I'd go with the Glock 30 or the SIG 239 in .357SIG caliber w/ one spare magazine and a ultralight spectra threat level IIIA vest. In a sitting position the small .357 DAO snub's in an ankle rig w/ a spare bianchi strip or two are also an option to consider IMHO...............Just some speculation and suggestions of course.
All excellent suggestions the Taurus titanium in an ankle holster is also an excellent choice IMHO the light weight makes target practice sometimes uncomfortable for some but this is a time when a sore hand after action as the only worry is a decidely positive outcome.
The bottom line is that when they come onto that flight deck the options are stop them or a whole lot of people are going to die. I notice a whole bunch of aitrline pilots who are at various ranges in CT for pleasure and this is before 9/11. There are not a whole lot of legal niceties to defending a flight deck. The person who forces his/her way onto it is by definition an immenent threat of death to a very large number of peoplethe only sound needed at that point is multiple bangs until there is no one able to move another millimeter towards taking over that aircraft. In the past Hollywood has even recognized the "sleeper terrorist" who is not part of the initial takeover whose job it is to deal with any potential sky marshall response. The aircrew is in a compartment with limited access. A very narrow and clearly defined kill zone that any terrorist seeking to transform the plane into a cruise missle must taverse. They have a locked door to delay entry into that lane. Anyone who forces their way into that lane is making that lane a free fire zone. Simple effective and no more thousands dead on the ground. No legal issues there becuase by being in that lane one has declared a direct immediate unavoidable too real threat of thousands of dead innocents. If it does not terminate the hijacking then in point of fact the passengers and crew are no worse off than they would have been without this option.
I won't be on this thread too much longer today I gotta go set up some tables and then play with the new toy. Still a whole lot of fun with the new toy.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed Yorktown Stay Safe !
Personally I believe if the pilot or co-pilot turned around in their seats and cut loose the angles and paths of the rounds at a standing target in the doorway would'nt even come close to the rich passenger in the front row of first class. If they do get hit..........Oh well. I'd rather lose one friendly versus becoming a missle hitting a WTC type target.
Am I ready to be that one friendly, or have it happen to a friend or family member ? No. But then life is not a sure thing so if ya want a 100% gurantee ........keep looking as it isn't possible.
In my experience Uncle Sugars Wind Force average Zoomies and Wingnuts are 1000% "better" with regards to small arms qualifications and mindset than they were in late 70's thru mid 90's. USAF Spec Op's troops are range rats as I observed it first hand. Lots of shoot house cutting the pie point shooters out there.
Cook or Commando in USAF these days are well qualified to conduct themselves with a use of force policy and personal defense weapons (issued or not). If they are now a commercial pilot then I have no doubt they will get the AC back on the ground if someone gets froggy. Simple acts of at least 2 sidearms, a ballistic door/wall and seat backs for the cockpit crew. Backed up by some Flight 93(?) mindset passengers we "should" never see a repeat of 9-11............
Stay Safe Bro !
Stay Safe !
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.