Make Mine a Colt-45 Please

[RV4]

If you want to know more than most about the "ARMING PILOTS" program...

Go here and tell us what you think....

Before entering site, please turn your sound on and listen to the captain!

http://64.224.14.56/EUNI/july_02/pilots_01.html

 

[BillLumbergh]

OK, I'll be equal....

Commie Pinko Tree Hugger v. Wing Nut.

Better?

 

[RV4]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/20/2003 4:03:02 PM BillLumbergh wrote:

OK, I'll be equal....

Commie Pinko Tree Hugger v. Wing Nut.

Better?
----------------
[/blockquote]

A Fair Moderator always makes a Good Moderator

Now can you fix that "Rich Text" formatting/posting for us?

Thanks Bill

 

[RV4]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/20/2003 11:29:47 AM BillLumbergh wrote:

Lets avoid the liberal v. wing nut lines, shall we?
----------------
[/blockquote]

When did anyone mention "wing nut"? Is that your slanted dig towards a conservative Bill?

 

[RV4]

FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR!

Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

All it would take is a good right cross and captain Bob could pull off the same suicide over his wife????

If our society refuses to defend itself based on fear possibilites, the thugs and criminals will soon rule our streets!

FEAR, is indeed the main ingredient in terrorism.

My, my, how people seem to forget 9/11

 

[Hopeful]

I like that!

 

[mga707]

Two points:

In the distant past, commercial pilots, as "Guardians of the Air Mail", were REQUIRED to carry a sidearm.
Even after this requirement was dropped (post WWII?), a fair number of pilots continued to discretely 'pack heat', especially after the "take this plane to Cuba" stupidity of the late '60s. This option, of course, ended once flight crews were required to submit to the same security (metal detectors) as passengers.
IIRC, this did not occur until the late 1980s, after that fired PSA idiot (NOT a pilot, BTW) brought down the BAe-146 with all aboard in California.

Don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other. If someone I trust to fly my plane wishes to be armed I don't really have a problem with it.
Just wanted to point out that there have indeed been arms in the cockpit before.

 

[RV4]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/20/2003 647 PM Hopeful wrote:

Where do we draw the line? Should every airline employee be allowed to pack some heat in the name of terrorism?
----------------
[/blockquote]


NO! Every freedom loving American should be allowed to!

Indeed, we return to the Constitution no doubt.

 

[flyhigh]

Are cockpits not equiped with an ax? I once had a flight delayed because the ax holster was broken...

So, if that's the case, what makes anyone think a gun would do anything else. Minus having the gun in your hands the entire flight (a scary thought in its own right) I'd have to say it's useless. What scares me most is the memory of Egypt Air's flight from JFK a few years back. While Egyptian authorities may not want to admit it, I'm believing US authorities that maintain a reserve pilot took the plane down. Well, let's say Captain Bob's wife leave him...he now has nothing to stop him from taking out First Officer Joe and taking a planeload of folks with him.

As for the stats on the use of guns at home...they're just that: Stats! Numbers designed to prove the point of whoever put the numbers together. I lived in Missouri when the concealed weapons vote came up...both arguements are riddled with holes.

The fact that ALPA is now complaining that the gov't would like pilots to lock their guns when outside the cockpit makes me question ALPA seriously!

 

[Hopeful]

Where do we draw the line? Should every airline employee be allowed to pack some heat in the name of terrorism?

 

[Mach85ER]

"Are cockpits not equiped with an ax? I once had a flight delayed because the ax holster was broken...

So, if that's the case, what makes anyone think a gun would do anything else. "

Most knife fights, (ax is basicaslly a knife),
are won by the one that bleeds the least. Two
direct hits from the current ax to the chest
most likely won't stop an attacker. Two .40
Cal hollow point slugs will diminish ones
ability to fight the rest of the way through
the door.

"What scares me most is the memory of Egypt Air's flight from JFK a few years back..... Well, let's say Captain Bob's wife leave him...he now has nothing to stop him from taking out First Officer Joe and taking a planeload of folks with him."

1. The EgyptAir FO could have done it whether
the Captain was in his seat or not. He could
have just pushed forward suddenly on the wheel
with his feet. Nothing can be done in that
case.

2. Pilots do still have to use the lavs as it
stands now. One pilot is up there at times.
Gun or no gun, the risk is the same.

Provide the same amount of armed Air Marshal coverage that El-AL has, every flight, and there won't be a need for pilots to have guns.

 

[dogdriver]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/20/2003 646 PM Mach85ER wrote:

"Are cockpits not equipped with an ax? I once had a flight delayed because the ax holster was broken...

So, if that's the case, what makes anyone think a gun would do anything else. "

Mach85ER,
I too thought that the ax could come in handy. Then I went to work in my little MD-80, sat in my seat and took out the ax. Guess what I found out. There is not enough room to swing the thing nor are you in a position to get any leverage. Try it sometime and you will see how useless it is.

 

[dogdriver]

Those expensive new doors are suppose to prevent that, are they not?

I go back to my human shield example. First guy comes in and lunges on the pilot with the gun...the others storm in and kill the crew members. They now also have a gun to take care of other people that may try to rush the cockpit to take the plane back (like what may have occurred on the United 757).

The only real way to secure the cockpit would be to have a secondary cockpit entrance from the outside only. Similar to another cargo door on the bottom of the plane, it would simply be a set of stairs that allows the crew to enter the plane and go directly up into the flight deck through an isolated compartment. Only opening to the cabin could be through a small door to slide meals to the crews. You get the idea...far more expensive, and current planes can't be retrofitted...but with the right layout - could work quite well.

dfw79,
I agree with the last part of your post, especially the part about being expensive. Therefore, that's just not going to happen. As far as your human shield theory, I think you need to become a little more familiar with aircraft and use some common sense. First of all, the doorway to the cockpit is very narrow. Only one at a time can come through. It acts like a funnel and would make them easier to shoot. On the MD-80, the plane that I am currently assigned to, the jump-seat can be lowered (I do it all of the time) to block direct access to the cockpit. To get in you would have to climb over the seat and that would give me even more time. At this point, the bad guy would be 2 or 3 feet from the end of a gun. One shot to the the head will send him on his way to collect his just reward. Now you have a narrow door, blocked by a jump-seat with a dead guy lying over it. The next guy to try to come in will have an even tougher time getting through that narrow door and climbing over his dead companion. After he's dead, his body will add to the already tight space and make it even more difficult. Need I continue? I hope you get the picture.
Now let's take a look at what you want. The bad guy gets in. I turn and look at him and wish I had my gun because even at 6'3" and 225 lbs I am in a very bad position to fight anyone. Especially a trained terrorist. Shortly thereafter, we are all dead.
Given the choice between the two, I think I like my scenario better. At least I (and everyone else in the plane) have a fighting chance.

 

[410OhOne]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/20/2003 4:03:02 PM BillLumbergh wrote:

OK, I'll be equal....

Commie Pinko Tree Hugger v. Wing Nut.

Better?
----------------
[/blockquote]

How bout Granola Munchin Tree Hugger v. Wing Nut

 

[AA80Driver]

I draw the line where we have 3,000+ and 4 flight crews killed by an identifiable threat. Where would you draw the line?

Are there any other hazads that the flight crew shouldn't be equipped to handle? Admit it...this is a political issue for you and many others. A firearm is a piece of gear to deal with a particular threat, no more, no less. There are plenty of other devices placed on the aircraft to counter abnormal situations that can have negative consequences if misused. I just don't get the hysteria about this particular object.

p.s. flown with guns before...it ain't a big deal.