Cockpit guns

[Longinius 1]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TRAVEL/NEWS/07/10/cockpit.guns/index.html

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- To the delight of pilots and chagrin of the White House, the House of Representatives Wednesday overwhelmingly endorsed the idea of letting commercial airline pilots carry guns in the cockpit."

Now, I could be wrong, but isn't this a bad thing? I mean, obviously airport security is pretty good at stopping guns, right. Bot not knifes, or so it would appear anyway. Do you really want me to believe a pilot would be willing to sacrifice the life of a stewardess or copilot if a hijacker held a knife to their throat and ordered him to hand over the gun? I think most pilots would lose their resolve and we would end up with a hijacker with a gun, a much bigger threat than we had before.

Tasers I would understand, or pepperspray or any other similar weapon. But a gun? Come on...

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Guns in airplanes are bad, because guns have a tendency to poke holes in whatever they hit. And airplanes are notoriously intolerant of holes being poked in them. This is just a knee jerk vote that only passed because midterm elections are coming up and every representative wants to show their district that they are helping to fight the WAR ON TERROR (Ltd. The Bush Administration). Dont worry, the Senate will probably shoot it down (hehe, I made a funny).

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ July 11 2002,08:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dont worry, the Senate will probably shoot it down (hehe, I made a funny).<span id='postcolor'>

so true.

this law is nothing but idiotic. i'd rather trust plain-clothed marshal than a pilot when it comes to firearms.

[Oligo 1]

I hope they use squash head munitions or baton rounds or something. I'd hate to see somebody blow holes through the hull of a passenger jet.

[Major Fubar 0]

Probably cost a shitload, but why not redesign aircraft so that the cockpit is completely inaccessable from the passenger compartment...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Internationally I guess this would first have to be accepted by the IATA otherwise no pilot would be allowed to land e.g. on german soil with a gun in his belt!

[billytran 0]

First of all, a bullet hole in the side of a plane will not cause it to suddenly depressurize and suck everyone out or blow up the plane. The only time that has ever happened is in the movie Goldfinger. If depressurization was such a big deal, why would they have air marshalls with guns? Second, pepper spray/tasers are highly over-rated and their effectiveness is doubtful.

Guns in the cockpit are a good thing. Some people say things like "But the pilot needs to be focused on flying the plane!!!" These people are idiots. Just how in the hell are you supposed to fly a plane when a terrorist gets into the cockpit and slits your throat? And as for a bullet accidentally killing someone, that's better than an F-16 shooting the airliner out of the sky, isn't it? If a terrorist somehow manages to get into the cockpit, do you want the last line of defense to be an F-16? I'd rather have a pilot with a gun.

As far as air marchalls go, they can't get one on every plane can they? They're not even on twenty percent of flights right now. If the TSA had something like a two week training program for pilots with guns, that would be a hell of a lot more effective than air marshalls.

[Placebo 29]

You make the cockpit so it can only be accessed from the inside, once the pilot and co-pilot are in there it doesn't get opened until they land again, food and anything else can be passed through by means of a security hatch, thus no risk or threat to the pilot/co-pilot/cockpit

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Yes, but often they are forced to open, e.g. if the terorists give them the choice to open or a hostage must die!

[Placebo 29]

Then let the hostages die, how many died on the planes that crashed into the WTC? How many died inside the WTC?

You make it a contractual legal rule, the cockpit doors must not be opened between take off and landing, no ifs or buts.

[foxer 0]

They have special bullets that will not break the outta shell of the aircraft,soo a bullet wouldn't bring the plane down.What is soo bad about this is what if a pilot wants to die ,soo he shoots the other pilot and just dives the plane into the ground.

[Placebo 29]

It's a bad idea on many levels, it's a typical kneejerk reaction which hasn't been thought through properly, which coming 10 months after Sept 11th is a smidge strange.

[foxer 0]

I don't think they need any guns/others stuff on planes anymore though.I mean If i'm on a plane and see someone try to take over the plane with knifes/box cutter or something i'm going try kick his ass,even though i might get killed or stabbed,i think everyone would do the samething after 9/11.Soo why now add that crap,they should just add a lock door and that's it.

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ July 11 2002,21:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's a bad idea on many levels, it's a typical kneejerk reaction which hasn't been thought through properly, which coming 10 months after Sept 11th is a smidge strange.<span id='postcolor'>

I think it's a bad idea to just shoot an airliner out of the sky without even giving the pilot a chance to defend the plane.

A complete restructuring of the plane so as to make the cockpit inaccessible would coast a hell of a lot of money. You have to figure in the cost of strong doors, the addition of a bathroom in the cockpit, and a whole lot of other things.

Can someone please give me a good reason that we should not allow pilots to have guns in the cockpit? So far your arguments have consisted of calling it a "kneejerk reaction."

[Placebo 29]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ July 11 2002,21:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can someone please give me a good reason that we should not allow pilots to have guns in the cockpit?  So far your arguments have consisted of calling it a "kneejerk reaction."<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm I can count at least three that were given, potential damage to plane/equipment from stray bullets, possibility of hijackers getting hold of the gun, thus going from say box cutters to having a firearm, international issues with countries that have strict firearms laws, see there's three

So what would be the good reasons for giving a pilot a firearm? Other than the fact it will be of benefit to Hollywood producers if they can have a hero pilot running around a jumbo jet shooting terrorists

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ July 11 2002,22:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm I can count at least three that were given, potential damage to plane/equipment from stray bullets, possibility of hijackers getting hold of the gun, thus going from say box cutters to having a firearm, international issues with countries that have strict firearms laws, see there's three

So what would be the good reasons for giving a pilot a firearm? Other than the fact it will be of benefit to Hollywood producers if they can have a hero pilot running around a jumbo jet shooting terrorists <span id='postcolor'>

Potential Damage: The plane is not going to depressurize and cause a great catasrophy. As I said before, that only happened in the movie Goldfinger. One or two stray bullets will not bring down a plane, but do you know what will? That F-16 with sidewinders under the wings. There is a one in a million chance that a stray bullet will do serious damage. I think a pistol is a better tool than an F-16.

Hijackers Getting Gun: I guess police shouldn't have guns either because a criminal can take an officer's gun and shoot people. There isn't much of a chance that a hijacker will get the gun. If the hijacker gets into the cockpit, the pilot will shoot him. A pilot won't start wrestling with a terrorist, he is going to shoot him. The whole thing about bad guys taking guns away from good guys is only in the movies.

International issues: Okay, so maybe they can't take guns to Germany or the UK. I'm sure that the US could try to work out deals with other countries to have pilots with guns. If the US can only work it out with a few countries it is still worth it.

BTW, the pilot won't go running around a plane shooting people. He stays in the cockpit. The gun is there to defend the cockpit.

[Renagade 0]

Dont certaint middle eastern airlines have airmarshals armed with guns,plastic bullets in them i think so they are effective to ppl but wont damage the plane too badly.

As for the pilot having a gun,im sure if properly trained he could do as well a job as an air marsall after all they do have the responsiblility of 300 ppl  on regular flights and the plane can fly itself easily when in the air but do they really need it  

Pepper spray would be a no no with the shoddy air conditioning in plane and could cause more trouble than good.

Id go with a reinforced cockpit door with cctv around the cockpit area,panic buttons/devices in case of a situation to give an early warning and also a failsafe device incase both pilot and co-pilot got put out of action for whatever reason.

Also some way to stop there being hostages that the pilot/copilot would be emotionally suceptible too.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I think we should arm passeners! Yeah, thats it! Just give everyone a gun when they get on the plane. I mean, if we give the pilot a gun, the good guys only have one gun, but if we give all the passengers guns, thered be like 50 good guys with guns! No terrorist would go up against those odds.

Of course one bullet hole isnt going to cause sudden depressurization, but it will cause a gradual depressurization that will be no less harmful once it reaches danger levels. Not to mention, what if a stray bullet goes through the plane and hits an engine? oops. Splits a fuel or hydraulic line? thats bad. And what happens if a terrorist cell actually gets a few certified airline pilots in its ranks? And they are employed by an airline, they can do all sorts of bad shit, especially if they have a gun to point at the co-pilot.

[scout 0]

EL-AL uses reinforced cockpit doors, and they have orders not to open the doors no matter what.

as for the bullet. use of 0.22 wont pass through a body and is used widespread by air marshals for years.

as for arming a pilot: a big no-no. you DONT want pilots to get out of the cocpit, and you dont have the time to train them enough. un trained man with a pistol is far more dangarous then a knife holding terrorist.

i think that idea has come after considering the cost of training and maitaining good profesional air marshals.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

You guys, stop looking for fancy solutions and consider the basics: no security on board is necessary if airport security were the way its supposed to be - vigilant

Someone should come up with a list of acceptable things that can be taken on board in ur trousers or hand luggage, this list should then be distributed amongst travel agents, then airport security has standards they can follow and can enforce them properly.

As for airline companies whinging about losing time for stricter controls, they are welcome to opt for the low-security option, BUT airport can't be liable for any potential damage through hijacking, plus it would be good if passengers would be informed too.

Hows that

(i came up with that at 4am, so dont bite me if it doesnt make sense )

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ July 12 2002,01:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EL-AL uses reinforced cockpit doors, and they have orders not to open the doors no matter what.

as for the bullet. use of 0.22 wont pass through a body and is used widespread by air marshals for years.

as for arming a pilot: a big no-no. you DONT want pilots to get out of the cocpit, and you dont have the time to train them enough. un trained man with a pistol is far more dangarous then a knife holding terrorist.

i think that idea has come after considering the cost of training and maitaining good profesional air marshals.<span id='postcolor'>

my thoughts exactly.

and of course, there's a manuever that pilots can do to airborne hijackers and make them hit ceiling and disable them at least temporarily.

[Frizbee 0]

Wouldn't it just be easier to equip each aircraft with a canister containing a quick acting gas designed to put people to sleep.

When the terrorists try to take over the plane, the pilots simply pull masks over their faces, and press the button releasing the gas into the cabin. THen land at the closest airport while everyone sleeps happily in the back.

Even if the terrorists realized what was happening, how much damage could happen 10 seconds that it takes for the gas to take effect completely??

[scout 0]

a big KA-BOOM?

like a button with a bomb is punched?

if you remember Reid had smuggled explosives on-board.

10 secs. is 10 secs too much.

think again.

[Guest]

Sudan's national airline has the current record of least hijacking attempts. In the 70's there was one attempt. Four hijackers tried to take over a plane that was heading for Egypt. The onboard security guards took control of the situation and disarmed the hijackers. They then put them in first class, restraining them to to chairs. Then they cut their throaths.

After that there have been no attempts of hijacking of Sudanese airliners..

While the Sudan example is radical, I believe that competent air marshals are the solution. El-Al is a very good example of how this can work.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 12 2002,08:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The onboard security guards took control of the situation and disarmed the hijackers. They then put them in first class, restraining them to to chairs. Then they cut their throaths.<span id='postcolor'>

They even put towels under the hijackers so as not to spoil the seats