Posted on 06/24/2002 2:27:08 AM PDT by 2Trievers
I AM A PILOT with a major airline who would like to express concerns regarding the FAA’s remedy of using sky marshals to make our skies safe, and present a solution involving “arming” pilots without actually arming pilots.
First of all, where on the airplane will the sky marshal sit? In which class? When is the right time for him to jump into action against the one, three or five terrorists? How does he know how many there really are?
Today we deal with terrorists with well- thought-out plans for accomplishing their objectives. A future revision to their plans will include the method to defeat the sky marshal and get his gun. When they do get his gun and are on their way to the cockpit, we pilots have no other choice than to crash the airplane. We will be defenseless to do anything to stop them from eventually commandeering the airplane, killing us with the sky marshal’s gun in the process, and killing innocent people on the ground with the airplane.
I suppose we can rest assured that our military will shoot the airplane down before it reaches its target!
How will terrorists defeat the sky marshal? Simply by having one or two “sleepers” among their team who will keep low-profiles during the initial minutes of the takeover, and will then either sneak up on the now-visible sky marshal, or innocently offer assistance. One way or the other, they will overcome the sky marshal and get his gun. If the sky marshal sits in the coach class, he will be unaware of what is happening behind the curtains up front. If he sits in business or first class, he is vulnerable to anyone coming up from the rear of the airplane, whether it be a legitimate passenger offering assistance or a “sleeper.” He could have terrorists sitting on all sides of him and not know it! So, how is he to know who is a terrorist and who is not?
Another consideration in this scenario is the proper time to act. Does the sky marshal jump into action after three terrorists have passed him on the way to the cockpit? He has no way of knowing how many terrorists are on board.
Having more than one sky marshal on board does complicate things for the terrorists, but the possibility still exists for them to get the sky marshals’ guns. This makes the FAA’s sky marshal remedy a bad idea! The only time sky marshals are 100 percent effective is when there is only one hijacker/terrorist! This is a perfect example of our government instituting a politically-correct. feel-goodsolution that didn’t involve much thought, if any. Using sky marshals is not the solution — they are a $2 billion waste of taxpayers’ money!
Had it been known to all that we pilots were “armed” and there was no gun to be had courtesy of the sky marshal, any attempt to take over our airplane would not be successful. With a hardened cockpit door and guns in the cockpit, we pilots would be ready for the terrorists. It’s our airplane to defend!
A new policy involving guns in the cockpit and attempted cockpit takeovers should be as follows. It should instruct the flight attendants to step aside — stay out of harm’s way. There is nothing they can do to stop today’s terrorists anyway. A courtesy call to the cockpit is all that is necessary. Unless the terrorists are coming to the cockpit with a gun, they are guaranteed failure. And considering the fact that the majority of major airline pilots have prior military experience, “arming” us should not be of any real concern. Firearms training can be added to our annual recurrent training for those who need it. Besides, what special training is needed to shoot from point blank range?
In my solution to arming pilots, guns would become part of standard cockpit emergency equipment. There would be no gun-toting pilots in airport terminals! Two titanium lockable gun boxes with guns would be installed in the cockpits of our airplanes — one on each side panel near the oxygen mask — another piece of emergency equipment that is there should we ever need it. Pilots would be the only ones issued keys and the boxes would be unlocked when the cockpit door is closed at the beginning of the flight and locked when the cockpit door is opened at the end of the flight. The guns would only be used to defend the cockpit from takeover attempts.
Guns could be permanently attached by steel cable lanyards to the gun boxes to insure that they are not taken into the passenger cabin by pilots to quell a cabin disturbance. In the event of a breach of the cockpit door, pilots would be sitting ready with the autopilot engaged (altitude hold), guns drawn and aimed at the cockpit door, and oxygen masks and goggles on in case of a depressurization. Any person attempting to break the door down would be considered hostile and would be shot upon entry. There would be no mistaking a friendly passenger for a hijacker/terrorist.
Another possible option to ensure the security and the proper use of the guns would be an airplane system where several conditions must be met to unlock the gun boxes. Gun boxes unlock when an engine is running, and the squat switch on the landing gear is open (landing gear is up), and the transponder is set to the hijacking code. This would also alert air traffic control at the same time. Boeing and Airbus could offer the titanium gun box option with the reinforced cockpit door modification and mass-market it to all the airlines, thus making it also an economically viable solution. Reinforcing cockpit doors, installing two gun lock-boxes with two guns per airplane, and freeing up the revenue-passenger seat that the sky marshal would occupy, is not only the best way to prevent the horrific events that occurred on Sept. 11 from ever happening again, but is also the cheapest to the airlines and taxpayers, too!
If the FAA insists on going forward with the sky marshal program, then the proper seat for him is the cockpit jumpseat.
— Kurt S. Wolz, an airline pilot, is a resident of Bedford.
Now for the next question, why not stun guns at the very least huh? Are stun guns 'too violent'? At least until people get off their paranoia juice?
It really should be up to each airline, IMHO. If you own a place and ask people to check in their weapons before entering, it is your right. And they have the right to take their business elsewhere. Only thing is, the government wants the power to throw the book at anyone trying to sneak a gun on board a plane.
This particular battle over pilots being armed is doing a lot of good for gun rights in general.
Hold the airlines accountable, and they would change their liberal song and dance real fast.
A shoulder holster should be all that is necessary to store a firearm while in the cockpit. The concern for armed pilots in the terminals is real, and can be remedied by allowing pilots to be armed only between departure dispatch/ops and destination dispatch/ops. Guns would be stored in company safes at all other times. Pilots always have to pick-up a dispatch-release. They would just be adding the pick-up of a sidearm, if desired.
All armed personnel on an airplane should always know the status of each other. Regular passengers should only assume there are arms on the airplane.
You're right in part ... but if the sheeple weren't so dumbed down, and REALLY thought about things, they wouldn't tolerate standing in the LONG, obstructive lines at airports like they have. &;-)
And I don't care if the airlines go broke.
Since the assumption would be that once the terrorists got compliance everyone would die anyway, the pilots would be unlikely to comply
And once the plane was on the ground and SWAT entered, the terrorists could have their testicles fed to pigs while they watched.
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.