View Poll Results: Should Airline Pilots Have The Option to Arm Themselves?

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. As a passenger I like getting to where I'm going.

    33 84.62%
  • No. I've always wanted the chance for a real fast visit to a national landmark

    6 15.38%
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 89 of 89

Thread: Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

  1. #81
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

    Quote Originally Posted by Coolguy View Post

    In order for a pilot to use a weapon he would have to open the cockpit's fortified door, thereby exposing it to take over. Not a good idea at all.[/I]
    No... he would wait until the hijackers got thru the door, and THEN use it.
    If they hijackers get the gun, its only -after- they have control of the flight deck.

  2. #82
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

    Quote Originally Posted by Coolguy View Post

    In order for a pilot to use a weapon he would have to open the cockpit's fortified door, thereby exposing it to take over. Not a good idea at all.[/I]
    No... the pilots use the gun only AFTER the hijackers make it thru the door.
    The hijackers get control of the gun only after they have control of the flight deck.

  3. #83
    Global Moderator
    Engagement!
    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,929

    Re: Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

    Wow. How in the hell did I miss this thread of all possible ones....

    Quote Originally Posted by bilbus View Post
    First off, to be a pilot and carry a sidearm, you must go to the air Marshal training center. After being trained, you are tested.

    Tests involve firearm safety, accuracy, shoot or no shoot tests, and live fire cockpit mock ups.
    Nice to see someone in the thread actually had an ounce of real knowledge about this.

    Also, in regards to the original article:

    Take a case against one flight officer who had visited the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles within the last few weeks. While there, the pilot noticed that federal law enforcement officers can, with the approval of a superior, obtain a license plate that cannot be traced, a key safety feature for law enforcement personnel. So the pilot asked if, as a member of the federal program, he was eligible. The DMV staffer checked and said “no.” The next day administrative actions were brought against the pilot for “misrepresenting himself.” These are the kinds of cases that President Obama wants to investigate.
    I hate to say it, but the vast majority of pilots that have came through my office have made me actually worry about them having guns in their hands. They're pilots with a bit of training and suddenly think they're James ****ing Bond. This guy DID misrepresent himself. Pilots in the program know they are not a "government agenda" or even a "federal law enforcement officer" on par with a FAM or some other type. The fact he was trying to use this Program as a way to get untracable licenses plates IS a misrepresentation and the man should be stripped of his FFDO credentials.

    Now, as to the finances for this, if you all want I can go talk to a few people in my office and see if we've heard anything about it. Though there may not be a good answer, because in reality we only see the FFDO's generally for about a 3 month span near the end of the year as they're coming to get new/renewed credentials.
    You down with TPP?

  4. #84
    Tavern Bartender
    #neverhillary
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    68,025

    Re: Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

    Quote Originally Posted by emdash View Post
    I vote Yes. armed pilots FTW.

    YouTube - how pilots SHOULD talk!
    Hey I saw a movie once called Passenger is Seat 57 where people got sucked out. You telling me that Hollywood lied?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)

  5. #85
    Banned Coolguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    01-26-10 @ 02:40 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    846

    Re: Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No... the pilots use the gun only AFTER the hijackers make it thru the door.
    The hijackers get control of the gun only after they have control of the flight deck.
    That very well may be a situation that occurs, yet the cockpit is then still open to takeover.

    But lets use your scenario.
    The door opens and standing there, being used as a shield, is a flight attendant with a weapon to their head. And another weapon coming between the aggressor's and flight attendant's legs, pointing at the pilot.
    'Give me your weapons, or my men in the cabin will start ...
    etc...
    Like I already said:
    Quote Originally Posted by Coolguy View Post
    Even absent Air Marshals, there are many more situations in which pilots having guns, would be rendered ineffective and/or detrimental.
    There are only two reasons to have guns on board an aircraft.
    1) To bring a quick end to a dangerous situation.
    2) In case the person causing the dangerous situation is armed.
    If it could be assured that no one could get a weapon on board then there would be no reason to have any.
    Ony tasers, and possibly tranquilizer guns would be needed.


    It would be stupid for a pilot to open the door to the cockpit (even if armed), in any known hostile situation, because it exposes the cockpit to takeover.
    This renders a pilot's weapon moot in all cases except cockpit breach by an unarmed assailant.
    Last edited by Coolguy; 05-05-09 at 11:21 PM.

  6. #86
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

    Quote Originally Posted by Coolguy View Post
    [SIZE=3][FONT=Georgia][I]That very well may be a situation that occurs, yet the cockpit is then still open to takeover.
    Yes... after the hijackers defeat the door and the armed pilots -- at which time the hijackers having access to the pilots' guns is irrelevant.

    And so, I will assume you consider your "In order for a pilot to use a weapon he would have to open the cockpit's fortified door, thereby exposing it to take over" argument as no longer relvant.

    But lets use your scenario.
    The door opens and standing there, being used as a shield, is a flight attendant with a weapon to their head.
    The door doesnt just open. Ii has to be broken thru.
    But, in any case: You shoot the hijackers, thru the flight attendant if necessary.

    What happens in this scenario if the pilots are NOT armed?

    2) In case the person causing the dangerous situation is armed. ]If it could be assured that no one could get a weapon on board...
    Pretty stupid to make this assumption.

    It would be stupid for a pilot to open the door to the cockpit (even if armed), in any known hostile situation, because it exposes the cockpit to takeover.
    Yes. And that's why the Pilots dont do that, especially the armd ones.

    This renders a pilot's weapon moot in all cases except cockpit breach by an unarmed assailant.
    So?
    The object of arming the pilots is to give them the capacity to use deadly force in defense of the flight deck - not the passenger area, not the flight crew, and not the passengers.

    Why do you think is it a bad idea for the pilots to have the capacity to use deadly force to defend the flight deck?

  7. #87
    Banned Coolguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    01-26-10 @ 02:40 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    846

    Re: Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Why do you think is it a bad idea for the pilots to have the capacity to use deadly force to defend the flight deck?
    I believe I already stated why.
    Quote Originally Posted by Coolguy View Post
    ... but I can see no reason to arm pilots if Air Marshals are present.

    Even absent Air Marshals, there are many more situations in which pilots having guns, would be rendered ineffective and/or detrimental.


    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Yes... ... and the armed pilots ...
    Armed pilots?
    It may just be one, or even none.




    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    And so, I will assume you consider your "In order for a pilot to use a weapon he would have to open the cockpit's fortified door, thereby exposing it to take over" argument as no longer relvant.
    Not necessarily.
    My train of thought at the time making this statement was a dangerous situation in the cabin and the pilot opening the cockpit door to intervene, was "Not a good idea at all". That holds true.

    But this is a good example of why I shouldn't make a post in a hurry because I posted an incomplete thought. I will have to be more aware of that in the future.
    The statement you quote, is in and of itself incorrect, thank you for bringing it to my attention.




    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The door doesnt just open. Ii has to be broken thru.
    If you are saying the door has to be broken, in order for the cockpit to be breached, you are incorrect.
    It can be just opened, thereby exposing the cockpit to takeover.




    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    But, in any case: You shoot the hijackers, thru the flight attendant if necessary.
    I understand your position and may or may not actually engage in it if I were confronted with the situation myself.
    I do wonder how many pilots would actually do this and be willing to sacrifice others of their crew and passengers before they capitulated.?




    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    What happens in this scenario if the pilots are NOT armed?
    The same thing that would happen if they were armed.
    One side wins.




    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Pretty stupid to make this assumption.
    Which assumption?
    Regardless.
    Not at all.
    Present one situation where you may think a gun would be needed that isn't considered dangerous.




    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    So?
    The object of arming the pilots is to give them the capacity to use deadly force in defense of the flight deck - not the passenger area, not the flight crew, and not the passengers.
    I agree. Yet the position is not that defensible



    Fortified Cockpit Doors – Reliability 15%

    After 9/11, the FAA mandated new, heavier, bulletproof doors for airline cockpits across the U.S. commercial air fleet. All commercial airliners now have them installed. While fortified doors are a dramatic improvement, compared to previously existing ones, they are far from a panacea against a motivated terrorist team.
    * Soon after 9/11, a new, fortified cockpit door was breached by a drunken passenger on an international flight.
    * A few months later, an after-hours cleaning crew easily broke one off its hinges on a bet, by running a heavy snack cart into it, instantly gaining access to the cockpit.
    * Some transoceanic flights are up to six hours from the nearest point of landing in an emergency, providing ample time for a terrorist team to work on breaching the door.
    But, by far, the greatest weakness in the fortified door is that it must be routinely opened during flight. Every time the pilots receive a meal, every time they must use the lavatory, the door must be opened, providing a terrorist seated in First Class the opportunity to leap forward through the opened door and through any flight attendant guarding it, to block it open for other terrorists, or worse, to slam it behind him, preventing even the passengers or possible air marshals from gaining entry to help. In tests, APSA personnel were successful in gaining cockpit entry this way, 100% of the time, even though the “flight crew” knew it was coming.

    Flight Attendants must also be able to gain access to the cockpit in order to do their jobs. It is certainly easy to understand how a flight attendant with a knife at his or her throat, and under threat of a horrible death or torture, might give a terrorist access to the cockpit, despite being trained not to.

    On all but a tiny fraction of airliners, the fortified cockpit door is all that stands between a terrorist and anther 9/11. An unarmed flight crew would find it impossible to retain control of the airliner once the cockpit has been breached.

    The reliability of a fortified door in preventing terror attack is 15%, if the terrorists exploit its inherent weaknesses, which we expect they will do.

    Fortified Cockpit Doors – Reliability 15%

  8. #88
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

    Quote Originally Posted by Coolguy View Post
    [SIZE=3][FONT=Georgia][I]I believe I already stated why
    Ah...
    ... but I can see no reason to arm pilots if Air Marshals are present.
    Air Marshals cannot land the plane. The pilots can. Thus, your reason doesn't hold water.

    Even absent Air Marshals, there are many more situations in which pilots having guns, would be rendered ineffective and/or detrimental.
    None of those situations are the reason for the pilots having the guns, and so your argument here is moot.

    Armed pilots? It may just be one, or even none
    So? How does that negate what I said?
    The cockpit os open to takeover after the hijackers defeat the door and the armed pilots -- at which time the hijackers having access to the pilots' guns is irrelevant.

    My train of thought at the time making this statement was a dangerous situation in the cabin and the pilot opening the cockpit door to intervene, was "Not a good idea at all". That holds true.
    Yes. And that's why the pilots dont do that. They keep the door closed and locked. You're describing a situation that won't happen and using it to create an argument agianst arming pilots. That's called a 'strawman'.

    If you are saying the door has to be broken, in order for the cockpit to be breached, you are incorrect.
    It can be just opened, thereby exposing the cockpit to takeover.
    Thats true... if the pilots dont do what they are supposed todo and lock the door. Again, you're describing a situation that won't happen and using it to create an argument agianst arming pilots. That's called a 'strawman'.

    I understand your position and may or may not actually engage in it if I were confronted with the situation myself. I do wonder how many pilots would actually do this and be willing to sacrifice others of their crew and passengers before they capitulated.?
    If the pilots fail to mantain control of the flight deck, they, the crew, and the passengers are dead, and the hijackers now have a very large very fast weapon. Thus, there is no 'sacrafice' of the passengers, as they are dead no matter what. You fail to understand that the armed pilot is there to protect the flight deck so that he may maintaon control of the aircraft, and nothing else.

    The same thing that would happen if they were armed. One side wins.
    That was a rather pathetic response, and a lame attempt to avoid the question. Withoug a gun, the hijackers ALWAYS win; with a gun, they do not.

    I agree.
    Then why do you continue to ask what happens if the hijackers threaten the passengers?

    Yet the position is not that defensible
    After 9/11, the FAA mandated new, heavier, bulletproof doors for airline cockpits across the U.S. commercial air fleet. All commercial airliners now have them installed. While fortified doors are a dramatic improvement, compared to previously existing ones, they are far from a panacea against a motivated terrorist team.
    The entire premise behind arming the pilots is that the passive defense provioded by the fortified cockpit doors isnt enough. Thank you for supporting the position that the pilots need to be able to project deadly force in order to maintain control of the flight deck.

  9. #89
    Banned Coolguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    01-26-10 @ 02:40 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    846

    Re: Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Air Marshals cannot land the plane. The pilots can.
    Pilots aren't Air Marshals. Air marshals have much more training and are more likely able to stop a takeover.


    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    None of those situations are the reason for the pilots having the guns, and so your argument here is moot.
    What?
    You are seriously mistaken.
    Multiple situations in which pilots having guns would be "rendered ineffective and/or detrimental" are reasons that directly apply to the possible effectiveness of arming pilots in the first place.



    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    So? How does that negate what I said?
    The cockpit os open to takeover after the hijackers defeat the door and the armed pilots -- at which time the hijackers having access to the pilots' guns is irrelevant.
    How does that negate what you said?
    You are speaking in the plural; Armed pilots, as if that is the case in every situation.
    Whereas it is only possible that there is armed pilots.


    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Yes. And that's why the pilots dont do that. They keep the door closed and locked. You're describing a situation that won't happen and using it to create an argument agianst arming pilots. That's called a 'strawman'.
    To say that pilots do not do so, is... to be kind, far from the truth.
    The door being just opened is a activity that pilots do routinely engage in and will continue to do so.
    It is not a 'strawman'.



    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Thats true... if the pilots dont do what they are supposed todo and lock the door. Again, you're describing a situation that won't happen and using it to create an argument agianst arming pilots. That's called a 'strawman'.
    You are saying it wont happen, when you do not know that it wont happen.
    The best you can say is that they aren't supposed to, which you have said.
    Again, not a 'strawman'.
    You seem to be assuming that we are talking about only known hostile situations, whereas I am speaking about known and unknown.
    Your allegation that if "pilots don't do what they are supposed to do and lock the door" has no bearing on the argument when obviously the pilots do open the cockpit door for a many valid reasons, as the article showed.



    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If the pilots fail to mantain control of the flight deck, they, the crew, and the passengers are dead, and the hijackers now have a very large very fast weapon. Thus, there is no 'sacrafice' of the passengers, as they are dead no matter what.
    Out of the many aircraft takeovers, how many have ended with all dead?
    So saying they are all dead is only a possibility, not a definite.
    Could that be because you are arguing from the standpoint of a takeover being done for the same reasons as those committed on 9/11?



    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    You fail to understand that the armed pilot is there to protect the flight deck so that he may maintaon control of the aircraft, and nothing else.
    You are incorrect, I do not fail to understand.


    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    That was a rather pathetic response, and a lame attempt to avoid the question. Withoug a gun, the hijackers ALWAYS win; with a gun, they do not.
    No it wasn't.
    Anyone planning such a takeover already knows of the possibility of armed pilots and will plan for it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Then why do you continue to ask what happens if the hijackers threaten the passengers?
    ???

    The defensible position I was speaking about, was the cockpit. It isn't that defensible when it is planned that the pilots are armed.
    Secondly, you are assuming that an armed pilot will just shoot through a fellow crew member who is being used as a shield. Knowing humane nature, I will not assume as much.



    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The entire premise behind arming the pilots is that the passive defense provioded by the fortified cockpit doors isnt enough. Thank you for supporting the position that the pilots need to be able to project deadly force in order to maintain control of the flight deck.
    The information provided shows that the door will be just opened (that you argued against), which thereby exposes the cockpit to takeover, and that it could possibly be done in a manner which doesn't allow those in the cockpit that much time to even un-holster and respond.
    ...
    ... they are far from a panacea against a motivated terrorist team.
    ...
    In tests, APSA personnel were successful in gaining cockpit entry this way, 100% of the time, even though the “flight crew” knew it was coming.

    Flight Attendants must also be able to gain access to the cockpit in order to do their jobs. It is certainly easy to understand how a flight attendant with a knife at his or her throat, and under threat of a horrible death or torture, might give a terrorist access to the cockpit, despite being trained not to.
    ...

    Fortified Cockpit Doors – Reliability 15%


    Now consider the involvement of a flight attendant as one of the assailants.
    ???



    Like I said.
    Quote Originally Posted by Coolguy View Post
    ... there are many more situations in which pilots having guns, would be rendered ineffective and/or detrimental.

    We are going to have to agree to disagree.
    There is no way that I can be convinced that arming pilots is a good idea when planning on the part of the assailants can overcome/overwhelm all three (Pilot, Co-pilot, & Flight Engineer), even if they are all armed.
    What would be a better, but more expensive, would be having more Air Marshals.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •