Government O.K's Pilots W/Guns???

[mastermechanic]

Even though you still do not get it, at least you are thinking outside of the box a little. We are still thinking about yesterday and not tomorrow. Box cutting terrorists are not the threat, unless they get their hands on the weapons in the cockpit...but how about deranged computer programmers...LOL..o.k hear me out before you die laughing, I know this is funny, but I know these airplanes and what makes them tick. Also, the next threat will be someone thinking away from our defenses or through them right. On a 777 for instance, why can't I make the PFC computers lock up or make the wrong calculations? (yes I know you can disengage them in the flightdeck). Why can't I screw up AIM's...I know this is all wacky, but I have to unscrew these computers all the time. It's in the extreme I know, but it's outside the box huh....

 

[ONTHESTREET]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/6/2002 1:41:28 PM mastermechanic wrote:

Pilots need to fly, thats it. We all need to stay alert and observant. Many security issues could be improved, all of which the government has failed miserably. I'm telling you now, this is a bad idea.
----------------
[/blockquote]
On 9-11 apparantly the pilots needed to do a little more than just fly. I agree that the best solution would be to keep all dangerous weapons, people, devices, and chemicals off the aircraft but unless we are prepared to individually interview, body search, do background checks, and physically search each and every bag and person that enters the U.S. airports I do not see any other better way to reduce the risk.

These people on 9-11 used box cutters.....I doubt that they would have been so ready to go against a locked cockpit door knowing that a weapon was waiting on them when they got in.

As far a guns on/in the airport. I have hauled uncountable numbers of sheriffs, Secret Service , and local police, all armed. What I never saw...Not once...until post 9-11 was an Air Marshal. I did however haul large numbers of hunters to Canada complete with their rifles and ammo. The most interesting part of this is the fact that on several occasions I saw a stack of rifles, Unattended, sitting on the ramp waiting to be loaded onboard.

Armed pilots is not the perfect solution. But until we can guarantee that 100% of threats are eliminated it seems like the best solution.

 

[mastermechanic]

If any pilots have more information on this please reply, but it was my understanding that the cockpits were not overtaken, but relenquished to the hi-jackers because of the torture inflicted upon the flight attendants. Which brings me full circle, everyone NOW knows that the aircraft is a weapon, and not just a negotiating instrument. Given that, the pilots are not going to give up a airplane, just as the passengers are not going to cooperate...unless they are being shot by the guns now available in the terminals and on the aircraft...

 

[ONTHESTREET]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/6/2002 2:41:35 PM mastermechanic wrote:

If any pilots have more information on this please reply, but it was my understanding that the cockpits were not overtaken, but relenquished to the hi-jackers because of the torture inflicted upon the flight attendants. Which brings me full circle, everyone NOW knows that the aircraft is a weapon, and not just a negotiating instrument. Given that, the pilots are not going to give up a airplane, just as the passengers are not going to cooperate...unless they are being shot by the guns now available in the terminals and on the aircraft...
----------------
[/blockquote]
I am not sure about all of the airplanes involved but according to what I have seen and heard, (ATC tapes, CVR transcripts etc) At least two of the aircraft recorded sounds of fighting in the cockpit over control of the aircraft. UA in Penn. scuffling was recorded on ATC's freq. prior to the aircraft being commendeered. As I understand it this was 15 to 20 min before the passengers attempted to retake the plane and the crash ensued. (Any one that knows for sure please respond.) According to the briefings that the flight crews received at my airline at least two of the crews were swarmed and put up a pretty good fight before their lack of anything to defend themselves with ended with their death. As you know prior to 9-11 the cockpit doors were pretty flimsey. A creative 9 year old could gain access!

I heard the tape of Cleveland centers recordings, at least the UA flight in Penn. had no warning until they were in the flightdeck.

 

[mastermechanic]

we are currently upgrading cockpit doors...but it's not enough in my opinion...I like the El Al double entry idea

 

[ualdriver]

There probably WILL be a double barrier solution on all the aircraft. I just got back from a PC and our standards captain mentioned that a secondary barrier, probably consisting of some sort of net-type barrier, is being researched and probably will be implemented down the road. I hope this does come to fruition.

 

[ONTHESTREET]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/6/2002 2:41:35 PM mastermechanic wrote:

If any pilots have more information on this please reply, but it was my understanding that the cockpits were not overtaken, but relenquished to the hi-jackers because of the torture inflicted upon the flight attendants.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Just to complete the answer for you I went back and read the transcripts of the ATC communications on all 4 of the 9-11 aircraft.
There was no warning from any of the aircraft, no transponder Hijack codes or any of the ATC Hijack codes used. All communications were normal until lost. If ANY of the crews relinquished control of the aircraft they would have at least informed ATC of the problems on board before opening the door.
After rereading the transcripts it is pretty clear that all four of the crews were attacked with no warning and a fight probably ensued on all of the aircraft. UA 175's crew actually discussed a suspicious transmission that came from AA 11 before communication was lost.

I found the transcripts at Paulboutin.weblogger.com

 

[gogogadget]

You are either for it or against it. Most of the people that seem to be against it tend to have problems with pilots in general. The arguments can and will go on. Pilots on the other hand that are radically for it tend to be really pro gun. Before 9/11 most people had a very concilliatory demeanor when it came to hijackers. Reference all of the previous hijacks in history. Post 9/11 the atmoshpere has changed to a more proactive defensive posture. Guns as a last resort is a good option. Pilots dont come out anymore to handle things like they used to. Being such, an attempted breach of the cockpit should have to go through all of the defensive provisions installed in todays security. Unfortunately things are not better, and regardless of what the CEO's, that are trying to save money, are saying, if any one of them had been on any of these 4 flights or any other hijack in the past, they would have ben happy to have any one of these brave pilots and/or crewmembers with a gun.

It is always better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than to be in the air wishing you were on the ground!

Think about it!

 

[mastermechanic]

There are other ways to secure these aircraft, and other optional equipment to maintain some type of defense. Given all the various scenario's and rammifications, arming pilots or more importantly, introducing firearms on the aircraft and in the terminals, will ultimately result in tragic results. The politicians will rue the day the went along with this one...and the pilot that screws up this one....this is a nightmare on a countdown

 

[frankbooth]

Wow, i used three words with the letter sequence alpha-sierra-sierra in one post! This over-sensitive profanity checker is going to force me to break out the thesaurus

 

[frankbooth]

The main problems I see with guns in the cockpit are logistic. I fly DC-9's in the Reserves and we fly armed now (9mm w/15 round hollow point clip). Believe me, it is a m***ive pain in the rear. Flying in a cramped cockpit with a 9mm in a shoulder holster under your flightsuit feels weird. Just flying from military base to military base is a h***le because you have to turn in your weapon at an armory every time you layover. We do have gun boxes on the airvraft for times when you layover at a civilian field, but that is unworkable for the airlines. Which raises the question: How will the airlines handle the storage and transport of weapons. The only way I see around this one is to make all pilots who are approved to carry federal agents so they can go through security like PCA's and take the weapon with them on layovers. I see a lot of side issues with that as well.

Also, who ***umes the liability when someone or something inevitably goes wrong? The airlines, the gov't, or the pilot?

 

[frankbooth]

Wow, i used three words with the letter sequence alpha-sierra-sierra in one post! This over-sensitive profanity checker is going to force me to break out the thesaurus