Arming the pilots or using the Air Marshalls... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Arming the pilots or using the Air Marshalls...


flygirl
12-31-2003, 04:53
I just heard on the news that we might be arming the polits or using more of the Air Marshalls for International flights. It all might get very tricky as I think it would depend on the different countries rules and laws. I think that arming the pilots would be a good thing and using more of the Air Marshalls would be wise as well. Why not just use both?
I don't get to work on the PAX birds, only the cargo ones, so arming the cargo pilots is not realy a priority. We see the same faces each day, so no strangers. Unless someone turned. I have heard many views from our guys, please let me know some of yours.

Exile
12-31-2003, 05:05
Personally I think arming the pilots is a bad move, unless it's for absoloute last ditch self-protection. If the pilots have to stop flying the plane to take on armed assailants it's already gone too far. Sky marshalls would stand a better chance of stopping them reaching the cockpit in the first place.

I cannot see pilots rushing to do CQB handgun training either.

flygirl
12-31-2003, 05:53
We all should take a good look at the security that El Air uses. Very high profile Air Marshall on all of their flights. I'd like to get in on one of the training classes for Air Marshalls. Close quarters training would be very interesting.

SMUNK
12-31-2003, 06:09
Originally posted by Exile
Personally I think arming the pilots is a bad move, unless it's for absoloute last ditch self-protection. If the pilots have to stop flying the plane to take on armed assailants it's already gone too far. Sky marshalls would stand a better chance of stopping them reaching the cockpit in the first place.

I cannot see pilots rushing to do CQB handgun training either.

Suppose that there isn't an air marshall on the flight due to either cost or just a lack of adequetly trained agents?

Would you still consider it unwise to arm the pilot?

Furthermore, the idea that the pilots must "stop flying the plane" is silly. Pilots program the route into the computer and the computer really flies the plane. It's not as if they are up in the cockpit wrestling with a yolk for the duration of the flight. They just observe instrument readings and act in rare circumstances. Many planes even LAND THEMSELVES.

We have a program for training pilots that is more than adequate. What are they gonna do?. . .TAKE CONTROLL OF THE PLANE?!

Roughly 80% of pilots (in the U.S. at least) are ex-millitary and already have considerable weapons experience.

Maybe you've just been in the UK too long.

The point is mute anyway, never again will passengers just sit and allow terrorists to guide a plane as a missile. unless terrorists make up the majority of male passengers. HMMMMM.

HerrGlock
12-31-2003, 06:15
Originally posted by Exile
Personally I think arming the pilots is a bad move, unless it's for absoloute last ditch self-protection. If the pilots have to stop flying the plane to take on armed assailants it's already gone too far. Sky marshalls would stand a better chance of stopping them reaching the cockpit in the first place.

I cannot see pilots rushing to do CQB handgun training either.

Okay, since when is it an either/or proposition?

How about air marshals, reinforced doors, possibly armed flight crew AND arm the pilots?

I don't understand this argument, it's one that people use for home protection as well, "Why not use alarms, dogs, and bolts on the doors? Why do you have a firearm for home protection." Since when does the idea of being armed mean you cannot use the other defensive measures as well?

Have you ever noticed that there are at least two pilots in the cockpit? Perhaps it could be that no one has to stop flying to defend the cockpit. It may be that one could do the job and the other pilot defend.

Why eliminate a defensive measure? I honestly don't understand.

DanH

M2 Carbine
12-31-2003, 07:46
HerrGlock^c Best point of view I've seen yet.

Shortly after 9-11 when I saw the stupidity they were calling airport and base security, along the Gulf Coast, there was fixing to be at least one armed pilot flying there.

I know at least one pilot and mechanic that were armed at one of the small bases;)


We even started standing guard duty ;)
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid96/pb7a4cbd346b862315d25b3d670361f8e/fa209eee.jpg

HerrGlock
12-31-2003, 08:50
Here you go, have a couple of us fly shotgun ...

Oh, the pilots in the pics are armed as well ;j


http://www.cavalrypilot.com/images/58sand1.jpg

DanH

Semper Glock
12-31-2003, 10:38
Originally posted by Exile
If the pilots have to stop flying the plane to take on armed assailants it's already gone too far. Sky marshalls would stand a better chance of stopping them reaching the cockpit in the first place. I cannot see pilots rushing to do CQB handgun training either.

I'm sorry but this really chaps my ass whenever I hear this!! First of all there will NEVER be enough AIR marshalls to cover all commercial flights. Ever. The notion that I'm going to sit there and "concentrate on flying" while being attacked is absurd. Can you drive your car with me in the back seat attacking you? If a fire breaks out in the cockpit do you think that I will fly the airplane or grab the extinguisher and fight the fire? The autopilot is flying most of the time anyway and remember that there is at least 2 of us up there.

If there is a cockpit breach, there WILL be a fight to the death. If I win, we all live. If I loose, you all die. So it make sense to give me the edge and let me carry a sidearm.

Even now if you do manage to get through the door YOU WILL DIE - period. If I have to use the crash axe, my 3d cell maglite, or my size 10 1/2 boots, I am going to kill you. At this point all of the airline security layers have failed. Even the other passengers in the back have failed to stop you. If you are dead, then I don't have to worry about you getting up again and starting another fight before I can get the airplane landed on the first piece of available concrete.

I will know something is going on in the back before you get to me. Those doors maybe somewhat secure but they are not soundproof. I will have time to turn around and get positioned, it only takes a few seconds. I will not be a 'sitting duck'. The autopilot is flying the airplane 90% of the time anyway, so I can concentrate on stopping you.

I do not want a stungun or a taser. These are politically correct, non-lethal answers for a very lethal problem. I do not want fragmenting bullets. I want DoubleTap 165's. You need to be incapacitated now and the DT's should to do it.

A bullet through the fuselage is NOT a big deal. The airplane will not depressurize. Even if it did, it still is not a big deal. It's not fun, but is low on the priority list when faced with a hijacking. Even if a critical system is hit by a stray bullet there is enough redundency built in to ensure safe flight.

Airline pilots are some of the most trained, tested, and scrutinized professionals out there. We have demonstrated that we are trainable. Most pilots have a college education and quite a few are former military (I'm a former enlisted Marine). I don't intend on rushing out of the cockpit waving my gun around over every little problem in the cabin. I use my judgement every day to make decisions that affect your safety. Such as how to get around that monster thunderstorm ahead of us. Dealing with mechanical problems that arise during flight. There are a lot of things that happen during a flight that most passengers are not aware of. That's because I'm trained to deal with it and to use my judgement to make decisions about it. That's my job. I think I can probably use my judgement to determine when it's time for the gun to come out or not. Frontsight has offered to train pilots for free if they are allowed to carry. Maybe Massad Ayoob could develop a class specifically for pilots.

These are the thoughts of one airline pilot. I don't represent any air carrier or pilot group, but there are a lot of pilots who agree with me. I carry my gun everywhere my MI CPL allows me to. It would be nice to also to take it to work with me.

My rant isn't aimed at you, Exile, you just happen to bring it up.:)

M2 Carbine
12-31-2003, 10:59
Makes you want to scream doesn't it Semper Glock

You are trusted with a multi million dollar airplane and hundreds of passenger's lives and "they" still say you are too stupid to use a gun properly.:(


I usually don't win any friends when talking to the missinformed that don't want the pilots armed.:(

I just go on an "Ego trip" and tell them, "You haven't a clue what you are talking about. I can fly the helicopter, eat a hamburger and kill your ass with a pistol and not miss a stroke."

That usually gets the question, "You can eat while you fly a helicopter". ;f


Semper Fi

HerrGlock
12-31-2003, 12:38
Let's see...

Flying an 869,944 pound molotove cocktail with 400+ people aboard in excess of 500 MPH (just as a for instance), talk on four radios, tune multiple nav-aids, monitor four engines, and have enough training to know what to do if any of that goes screwy before any of the passengers know something's wrong and people think that shooting someone is going to take any thought away from any of that?

Take thought away. Okay, personal experience.

This was one flight and was possibly the busiest 4 hours of my life.

Single pilot (OH-58 A+), JAAT as the coordinator. Want to know what all is going on during this?

FM1, FM2, UHF, VHF radios. Helicopter. 50-100' hover (yes, hover. gotta see everything that's going on.)

Artillery on one FM radio, Apache gunships on the other.

VHF used for air-to-air, ATC and common freq for training area. Must make calls every 15 minutes.

UHF for A-10s to bring them in, call hot or not and talk to the FAC (Forward Air Controller) before he hands them off to me.

Still at a hover, A-10s call their IP and tell me to give them 3 minute inbound. Timing is everything. The trick is to have artillery start firing, arty backs off, Apaches come up and shoot as A-10s are inbound. Apaches drop back down as A-10s roll in. Apaches back up as A-10s leave.

Gee, who tells everybody when to do everything? Me. Yes, JAAT is a training item and evaluatable on check rides. So, what all is going on here:

fuel check at cruise and then again at hover, rechecks about every 10-15 minutes.

Call admin 15 min check in to ATC

Time Arty so that last round impacts when A-10s are leaving IP and do time of flight so you know when to call the SEAD and know when they will call rounds complete.

Talk A-10s in, ensure they are clear of traffic and other hazards.

Talk to Apaches and get them starting to come out of hover hole when the arty is complete, call them down when A-10s are inbound.

Clear A-10s in hot IF you know they have the right target and they are in a firing range (or weapons free zone)

Call Apaches back up when A-10s are egressing, decide if A-10s require a reattack and coordinate if necessary.

Sounds easy, right? All while maintaining hover over a decent area that if your engine quits, you have a chance at least. Keeping the aircraft +/- about 20' altitude, keeping it out of the trees. Watching out for other aircraft that may not know you're playing out there. Writing frequencies and call signs down for those you do not have from the briefing. Okay, here's the kicker. I'm a mid-time pilot. 1,500 hours. There are people just joining the airlines with twice or three times my hours.

and someone wants to tell me that on a straight and level flight, 4 miles above the ground, a pilot's going to have problems defending the cockpit from intruders? Huh? Must be someone who doesn't fly, has never flown, and only is repeating what they hear from other people who have a problem with armed pilots. It cannot be someone who was in a military cockpit (as were the majority of the commercial pilots up there today)

DanH

Hank Bodmer
12-31-2003, 16:30
Originally posted by HerrGlock
Let's see...

and someone wants to tell me that on a straight and level flight, 4 miles above the ground, a pilot's going to have problems defending the cockpit from intruders? Huh? Must be someone who doesn't fly, has never flown, and only is repeating what they hear from other people who have a problem with armed pilots. It cannot be someone who was in a military cockpit (as were the majority of the commercial pilots up there today)

DanH The real issue with arming the pilots has to do with the whole RKBA issue and not security. If it makes sense to arm the pilots,(and it does)pretty soon everybody else will want to be armed.

The liberals want firearms reserved for use ONLY by the all powerfull goverment.

dozing4dollars
12-31-2003, 18:24
Flygirl,

In point of fact, the TSA DOES NOT want U.S. International Pilots (flying U.S. flag carrier aircraft) armed! They are looking for "mostly domestic" pilots according to their own website. The selection process is ONEROUS at best and large numbers of airline pilots, with military and even LE backgrounds are being rejected to carry a weapon in the cockpit. Some of these rejected applicants formerly carried nuclear weapons on their aircraft but now cannot be trusted with a small handgun in their cockpit. The bottom line is this-the TSA got the FFDO program shoved down their throat by Congress and they are going to be as obstructionist as possible.

I have written them about this-we fly the biggest jets, with the most fuel, at the fastest speeds, with the greatest number of paxs onboard. I think they are concerned about the weapons carriage issue abroad, even though our Air Marshal's already have the protocols established.

One more thing, I have been an airline pilot for 20 years, flying both domestic and international routes, to "hotspots" around the world since 9/11. Guess how many FAM's I've had onboard? You guessed it- CLASSIFIED!! ;t


HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Bushflyr
12-31-2003, 20:15
Guess how many FAM's I've had onboard? You guessed it- CLASSIFIED!!
;Q

flygirl
01-01-2004, 04:03
I understand the frustration of the topic. And wish to thank all of you for your very candid opinions. They are all very valid. I talk to our crews each day on this very "HOT" topic. I do know that our NCA crew members will not be allowed arms.Singapore Airlines will not either,and I won't even get into the Air China policies. But these are our cargo birds that I speek of. And cargo has no voice and make the very best passengers. If the field of Air Marshall were open for me I'd be honored to fly with all of you. Alas I am too old for the program, but then who in his right mind would expect a beautiful 40+ woman to be a Air Marshall. And the places I could hide my weapon would amaze you. ;f

Texas T
01-01-2004, 04:17
Originally posted by flygirl
but then who in his right mind would expect a beautiful 40+ woman to be a Air Marshall. And the places I could hide my weapon would amaze you. ;f And we 40+ men just love to play hide and seek. ;P ;f

One of the deputies in the dept where I volunteer came BACK after being an AM. He hated it. Hours upon hours of sitting on your butt just waiting/watching for something to happen. At least when you're on the street you're in and out of the car all day.


T

Exile
01-01-2004, 14:12
I'm not against arming the pilots, I only think it should be for their last ditch protection, i.e. the terrorists have got past air marshall or any other measures. I don't think it's a good idea to put the pilots as the first line of defence.

If we are going to use automation as a reason for the pilots to be able to take on armed conflicts and therefore be expendable, we must question the reason for having pilots at all.

Personally I would like to see cockpits structurally sealed from the passenger areas but I appreciate that's a non-starter, certainly in the current generation of aircraft.

I do apologise if I offended your perception of your own ability to deal with a situation, I just don't think you should be put in that position.

I have certainly been in the UK most of my life and perhaps it is a culture thing. Less and less of our airline pilots are ex-military. Those that are would only, in the majority of cases, received minimal small arms training anyway.

M2 Carbine
01-01-2004, 14:46
Exile,
What is so sad is if a pilot (or passenger) on each of the 9-11 airplanes had nothing more than a piss-ant little 38 pistol, 9-11 would have been nothing but some dead sub human terrorists (and yes maybe a few innocent folks).

For the lack of a few hundred dollars in steel and our out of control politically correct beaurocracy there are thousands of people dead and we are at war.

pilot718
01-01-2004, 22:55
These are the thoughts of one airline pilot. I don't represent any air carrier or pilot group, but there are a lot of pilots who agree with me. I carry my gun everywhere my MI CPL allows me to. It would be nice to also to take it to work with me.


Bravo Semper Glock, I could not have said it better myself!!! ;Y

mbsigman
01-01-2004, 23:09
Bravo Semper Glock, I could not have said it better myself!!!

And I second that emotion.

Mr Exile, I don't know if you have children. If you do, and if your children had been on one of our airplanes or one of United's airplanes that were turned into weapons, I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that you would have wanted our flight crews to have been armed to the teeth. As one rather eloquent board member has stated, only one .38 pop gun in those cockpits would have made a huge difference in our history.

There is no way in hell that FAMs can be on all flights. Period.

I know some of those pilots that fly ANG combat air patrol missions over our cities. If given the order by the National Command Authority to shoot, you can bet your bippy that the missiles WILL FLY. If your loved ones are on that unfortunate airplane, they die. If only one armed pilot can change that outcome, wouldn't you want that option that your children might live?

Don't give me that United Kingdom culture crap. Those bastards didn't attack London, they attacked US. US. Far as I'm concerned, when the Jews say the words 'never again' it is fully applicable here.

And if some POS tries to come through the cockpit door when I'm a crewmember, one of us will keep flying while the other makes sure that he (or them, as the case may be) turns into a DEAD POS. You can take that to the bank.

NEVER AGAIN.

Mike

ysr_racer
01-01-2004, 23:22
Flying a plane and being a gunfighter are two different things. I'm against arming pilots. I've never been that impressed with their skills, and I've known a few.

Fly the planes, do your job, let the AM's do their job.

mbsigman
01-01-2004, 23:38
You just don't get it. FAMs are not on every flight. That is physically impossible. And what if there are no FAMs on board? What are we supposed to do?

Lessee.....There's always high-g maneuvering. Oh wait - can't do that. Our aircraft are stressed to +2.0/-.5G, and our company stresses that anywhere near either of those limits will probably either tear the engines off the airframe or, worse, excessive maneuvering will in all probability cause other structural damage that will render the aircraft unflyable. Can you say 'tear the tail off'?? Can't speak for other aircraft, but the MD80 I fly doesn't fly really well without the tail. Ok, that won't work.

Well then there's always the bulletproof doors. Oh, this is a great public relations bandaid, but any airline pilot can tell you that this is not the all-encompassing panacea that our public relations departments say it is. I will not divulge more information than that (because my posterior anatomical region is up there, for one) on a public forum, but it ain't perfect.

We can always try to talk to the poor, misguided individuals. Perhaps our powers of persuasion can be useful in a situation where the SOBs are busting down the cockpit door after having killed some flight attendants.

Do you have any idea what goes into the training of a Federal Flight Deck Officer in terms of shooting and weapon retention training? They don't simply wave a magic wand, chant omni-omni-vor and *poof* you're an FFDO. But you knew that, right?

And exactly what marksmanship skills are you talking about? As I sit in the cockpit, the distance from my outstretched left arm to the cockpit door is 38 inches. Perhaps you would have a problem hitting a target from that distance; I can assure you that (God forbid I ever have to use a weapon at that distance) I WILL NOT MISS.

I will not be a victim, and I will not be food for a terrorist. My passengers can take that to the bank.

Mike

flygirl
01-02-2004, 03:25
I just heard from one of our Singapore pilots that they will be allowed to carry tazer guns. The training is complete now, the next move will to be arming the Cargo Pilots. Good for them. It seems that the Singaporean government is hand in hand with Uncle Sam.

Bushflyr
01-02-2004, 05:35
Originally posted by ysr_racer
Flying a plane and being a gunfighter are two different things. I'm against arming pilots. I've never been that impressed with their skills, and I've known a few.

Fly the planes, do your job, let the AM's do their job.

Moron.

dozing4dollars
01-02-2004, 07:13
I find the new U.S. government mandates for armed Air Marshal's aboard specific airliner's bound for the USA quite ironic and hypocritical in view of the following:


1. we have too few Federal Air Marshal's on our own U.S. aircraft flown to/from overseas locations.

2. they do not want to arm U.S. international pilots flying U.S. aircraft to/from the USA (even with no FAM aboard)


****Don't let the F-15 and F-16 guys be the only armed pilots in America at the ADIZ...

**********************************

Many of us want to help this nation become safer after 9/11. Like our forefathers,the Minuteman, we are all guardian's of this nation's security. For more info about the armed pilot program, its current deficiencies and how YOU can help make a difference, please see the following link:

http://www.secure-skies.org/AirlinePilotsComments.asp






Glock 9MM,10MM,40SW,357Sig

ysr_racer
01-02-2004, 07:15
I'd rather see the stewardesss armed then the pilots.

Keep the door shut, do your job, fly the plane. Now I know all pilots walk on water and are able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, but once you open the door, it's all over.

Trust me, you'll never again see a successful hijacking of a jet that crashes into a building. In fact #4 on 9/11 didn't hit a building and the passengers did it all without the help of the pilots.

Hank Bodmer
01-02-2004, 08:02
Originally posted by ysr_racer
I'd rather see the stewardesss armed then the pilots.

Keep the door shut, do your job, fly the plane. Now I know all pilots walk on water and are able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, but once you open the door, it's all over.

Trust me, you'll never again see a successful hijacking of a jet that crashes into a building. In fact #4 on 9/11 didn't hit a building and the passengers did it all without the help of the pilots. In all due respect, your logic escapes me!.

If what you say is true, arming the pilots will ONLY result in pilots carrying around a gun they will never use. So what! It's their choice!

Your whole argument is classic liberal dogma, the only people with access to firearms should ONLY work for the government. NOBODY else is capable.

ysr_racer
01-02-2004, 08:42
Since we're letting the pilots do the AM's job, maybe we should let the AM's fly the plain? After a 40 course, of course. I'm sure they could learn everything the needed to know.

dgg9
01-02-2004, 08:53
Originally posted by Exile
Personally I think arming the pilots is a bad move, unless it's for absoloute last ditch self-protection. If the pilots have to stop flying the plane to take on armed assailants it's already gone too far.

Would you rather they had theit throats cut? Wouldn't that be going to far? The co-pilot could defend the cockpit while the poilot flies.

Sky marshalls would stand a better chance of stopping them reaching the cockpit in the first place.

Maybe, maybe not. The SM could be neutralized. Also, SMs are a total red herring. You would need 100,000 Sky Marshall's to have 2 on every flight. It's not possible and never will be. Put that from your thinking. Arming pilots is at once effective and actually available.

I cannot see pilots rushing to do CQB handgun training either.

They don't really need much training to hit a target that must pass through a narrow door. And the issue is only this: is it better than the alternative.

dgg9
01-02-2004, 08:56
Originally posted by ysr_racer
Flying a plane and being a gunfighter are two different things. I'm against arming pilots. I've never been that impressed with their skills, and I've known a few.

Fly the planes, do your job, let the AM's do their job.

Hard to do your job when you're bing killed, isn't it? The "they should fly the plane" line is the silliest thing I've heard yet.

There will never, in our lifetimes, be enough SMs to cover more than a tiny fraction of flights. Sms are NOT and never will be an alternative.

dgg9
01-02-2004, 08:58
Originally posted by ysr_racer
Since we're letting the pilots do the AM's job, maybe we should let the AM's fly the plain? After a 40 course, of course. I'm sure they could learn everything the needed to know.

Front runner for Inane GT Post of the week award.

ysr_racer
01-02-2004, 09:11
Why not just arm the stewardesses? They're already outside the cockpit? Or just let everybody with a CCW carry? Makes as much sense.

Oh that's right, I forgot, pilots are supermen. ;Q

Having a violin doesn't make you a concert violinist any more then having a handgun makes you an anti terrorist operator.

dgg9
01-02-2004, 09:15
Originally posted by ysr_racer
Why not just arm the stewardesses? They're already outside the cockpit? Or just let everybody with a CCW carry? Makes as much sense.

Um, no, that's a foolish and absurd comparison.

Can you really believe that taking on terrorists in the crowded cabin, where people are all around, and where the risk and bystanders can be anywhere on a 360 degree plane is the same as only needing to shoot an umabiguous target that is funneled through a narrow cabin door?

Having a violin doesn't make you a concert violinist any more then having a handgun makes you an anti terrorist operator.

More silliness. The AM is an anti-terrorist operator but the pilot doesn't need to be. The environment is completely different, much more limited, much easier to handle.

Are you seriously confused about the difference?

Hank Bodmer
01-02-2004, 09:22
My last thought on this issue.

When we know that TSA has come to grips with this problem will be when the security screener says,"Do you have a gun." You say no, he says, "Go get it, your not getting on this plane without it!"

Just kidding, maybe!

M2 Carbine
01-02-2004, 09:58
Originally posted by ysr_racer
Why not just arm the stewardesses? They're already outside the cockpit? Or just let everybody with a CCW carry? Makes as much sense.

Oh that's right, I forgot, pilots are supermen. ;Q

Having a violin doesn't make you a concert violinist any more then having a handgun makes you an anti terrorist operator.

I'm one of the Supermen with 23,000 hours as a pilot and I've been shooting 49 years.

Care to tell us what your qualifications are that makes you an expert on this subject?

ysr_racer
01-02-2004, 10:11
Originally posted by M2 Carbine
I'm one of the Supermen with 23,000 hours as a pilot and I've been shooting 49 years.

Care to tell us what your qualifications are that makes you an expert on this subject?

Same as you, NONE. 23,000 hours of flying has NOTHING to do with being a counter terrorist. Like wise, bird hunting don't count.

M2 Carbine
01-02-2004, 10:18
Originally posted by ysr_racer
Same as you, NONE. 23,000 hours of flying has NOTHING to do with being a counter terrorist. Like wise, bird hunting don't count.

;p

mbsigman
01-02-2004, 10:29
This from ysr:

"Keep the door shut, do your job, fly the plane. Now I know all pilots walk on water and are able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, but once you open the door, it's all over."

Careful. Your complete lack of knowledge on the airline industry and aircraft security in particular is showing.

If the cockpit door could never be breached, why the need for a FAM?

We're trained to never open the door in a disturbance situation. So if the door is never opened then the world should once again be safe, right?

You have NO IDEA of what you're talking about. The cockpit door, LIKE ANY DOOR, can be breached! Then what??

All you do is hurl insipid insults at the ones who are strapped into these aircraft day in and day out.

Fellow GTer's, I'm reminded here of the old saying that a liberal is nothing more than a conservative who has never been a victim of a crime. Perhaps if one of ysr's family members had been murdered in the attacks he'd feel differently, even if he is happily living in the people's republic of kalifornia.

Unbelievable.

Then again - maybe not!

Mike

ysr_racer
01-02-2004, 10:45
Wow, the 10 or 12 days a month you guys work, must be getting to you. You should go on strike. :)

Semper Glock
01-02-2004, 11:06
Since I am not a FAM (why does everyone want to call them sky marshals?) and have no Counter-Terrorism training, then I should just sit there and fly my plane regardless of what's going on in the back? If the door gets kicked in then I should just wait for the FAM's to do their job? Oh wait, that's right. There aren't any on board. I hope that big dude in 1B is willing to do something because I am required to just fly my plane and nothing else. From the sounds of it I should probably just turn in my CCW and all of my guns as well because I'm not qualified to defend myself.

You don't get it ysr_racer, do you. It doesn't matter what kind of weapon I have whether it is a firearm or just an arm with a fist at the end of it. If that door gets kicked in (notice I said nothing about leaving the cockpit) there is going to be a fight. No if's, ands, or butts about it. I will not die sitting there. Either the other guy can fly or the autopilot or NOBODY. Airplanes don't suddenly fall from the sky with no one at the controls. The fight won't take very long, a couple of seconds at best. If I loose than it doesn't matter if the airplane is out of control because I will be dead and won't care. A couple of shots COM to the bg might be just enough to get the cockpit secured again and is the preferred method instead of a 5 minute melee using improvised weapons. And a COM shot is not that difficult from a few inches.

From what I can tell just about everyone that subscribes to the "the pilots should just concentrate on flying" theory have no experience flying and little or no shooting experience.

Happy New Year to all!

pilot718
01-02-2004, 11:12
Originally posted by dgg9
Front runner for Inane GT Post of the week award.

I SECOND that motion!!

Though I believe the signature line of fellow GT member proguncali sums it all up ..."Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Thats right I done said it!!

ysr_racer
01-02-2004, 11:13
I'm not saying don't fight back, you got an axe? Use it. Know how to fight? Kick his ass. I just see too many people that think a handgun makes them superman.

Me personally, as a passenger, if I see somebody beating on the cockpit door, I'll do my best to kick the crap outta them. (As I'm sure most of the other passengers will do)

Like I said, you'll never again see a plain load of passengers sit by and do nothing.

ysr_racer
01-02-2004, 11:16
Originally posted by pilot718
I SECOND that motion!!

Though I believe the signature line of fellow GT member proguncali sums it all up ..."Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Thats right I done said it!!

See, this is the "I'm a pilot, I'm a god" mentallity that scares me. Im surprised some of you guys need plains to fly :)

dgg9
01-02-2004, 11:21
Originally posted by ysr_racer
I'm not saying don't fight back, you got an axe? Use it. Know how to fight? Kick his ass. I just see too many people that think a handgun makes them superman.

Let's see if I understand the "logic" here. It's ok to fight back -- but not with effective tools. We can't arm pilots because it takes years to be an effective gun handler -- but an axe is instantly effective against a half dozen hijackers.

So, your reason for demanding that pilots must use the inferior weapon is...?

Here, I'll consolidate your previous positions...select one:

1. Because a solution that is MUCH better than nothing is unacceptable unless it's perfect 100% of the time. I.e., better to fail always than be partially successful.

2. We should rely on the 1% chance that an AM will be on the flight.

3. Everyone knows that rather than have multiple, overlapping and redundant solutions, we have to restrict ourselves to only one solution -- the AM solution that covers a handful of flights only.

4. Because it's impossible to shoot a hijacker who has to come through a small door, funneled in and single file, without 7 years of training, BUT we can expect a 60 year old pilot to engage in H2H combat with at most an axe against a team of 24 year old terrorists.

Which is it?

dgg9
01-02-2004, 11:22
Originally posted by ysr_racer
See, this is the "I'm a pilot, I'm a god" mentallity that scares me.

I get scared too by imaginary, fictitious hallucinations. But then I wake up.

Semper Glock
01-02-2004, 11:23
A handgun doesn't guarantee anything whether in the cockpit or on the street, but it sure as heck stacks the odds towards your favor. It's all about the odds.

pilot718
01-02-2004, 11:30
Originally posted by ysr_racer
See, this is the "I'm a pilot, I'm a god" mentallity that scares me. Im surprised some of you guys need plains to fly :)

Not one of us here has ever claimed that as a pilot or a law-abiding gun-carrying citizen that we are in anyway affiliated with the fictitious Superhero crowd. Possibly the carrying of a firearm makes you feel like Superman, or maybe you just enjoy running the streets in tights and a cape.

What we are saying here is that with all the safety systems both within the aircraft and on the ground, how could one more precaution (see arming pilots) be a bad thing?

Oh and it's spelled P-L-A-N-E, not plain.

Exile
01-03-2004, 06:13
Well this has been interesting

I think we're all actually on the same side which is something. We just have different opinions about how to deal with it,

Semper Glock; I'm sorry your ass is chapped I hope it heals soon.

M2 Carbine/Herr Glock; I never suggested pilots aren't capable of using a handgun effectively, but you are presuming they are all willing to. I have served with some excellent pilots who couldn't shoot small arms for ***** (and I bet you could think of a few too if you really tried).

Bushflyr; Nice rifle, mind your weight/c of g limits though.

mbsigman/dgg9; I've never said there shouldn't be an armed response on flights. My view is that the pilot's shouldn't be the first line of defence(however keen and capable they are to kick ass). As for the culture comment that was first raised by someone else. Welcome to the real world of terrorism, you've had an impressive start. Sucks, doesn't it? Liked Fort Worth by the way, particularly Ricksy's and Fogo de Chao(yes I know that one's Dallas).

Arm the pilots by all means, but please don't both get shot because I've never flown a fixed wing bigger than a light twin.

Safe flying!

dgg9
01-03-2004, 08:19
Originally posted by Exile
I've never said there shouldn't be an armed response on flights. My view is that the pilot's shouldn't be the first line of defence

No one thinks they should be first line of defense. An armed pilot is simply better than a helpless pilot when all the other lines of defense have failed. It's inexpensive and low-risk insurance, nothing more. It's an ADDITIONAL line of defense that wasn't there before, and is one of the few sensible and practical things we can do in short order.

mbsigman
01-03-2004, 23:22
I've been giving this thread some thought, and the bottom line is that no matter how much ysr or exile or anyone else whines and spouts inane anti-pilot, anti-guns in the cockpit drivel, the fact is that airline pilots (and now cargo pilots) in this country have been and are being trained to carry guns in the cockpit. As I type this approximately two classes each month are being added to the growing roster of FFDOs.

Will some terrorist s.o.b.'s (sorry for the bad language, but frankly that's the only appropriate way to describe them) try to broach a cockpit door and make another attempt at an attack on our country? Who knows? Anyone seen the news stories this week regarding foreign carriers cancelling flights due to the threat of terrorism?

At least if something like that happens we won't be food. If ysr or anyone else doesn't like the policy or doesn't agree with the policy, too bad. That's the law now in this country and it isn't about to change.

If they don't like it then they don't have to fly. But if the unthinkable does happen again, I still say that if their kids were on board (assuming that they have the capability of producing children) these and other naysayers will PRAY that the pilots are armed.

Additionally, ysr is only showing his ignorance of airline operations when he states (erroneously) that we only work 10-12 days per month. I did 16 days last month with an average duty period of 11 hours per day. Away from my home and my family. That's 176 hours worked. An intelligent person would check his facts before he starts spewing baloney.

The expression 'urination into the wind' (or words to that effect) comes to mind here.

Mike

flygirl
01-04-2004, 04:11
mbsigman:


Good post. I can see that we all have very different views on this subject. Most are even vaild. It will be very interesting to see the final outcome. As for me I am even willing to take the pilots shooting just for practice, and loan them one of my weapons to carry.

" anything for a free flight.....lol "


;a

TheGrinch
01-04-2004, 08:58
Hi Flygirl,

See what you have stirred up! :cool:

This comes up over and over and over. The same points, many stated from an understandable position of ignorance of what it takes to fly an airliner, how vulnerable the jets are to small arms, and what other means exist to defend against hijacking (how many FAMs are available, how effective cockpit doors are, and the structural problems of sealing a cockpit from the cabin- I'm not sure even the new 7E7 has this feature in its design). More than anything, most opinions have no idea as to the tactics available to the bad guys, the project the events of 9/11 to future attempts. We need a strategy that is effective against far more than a few maniacs with box cutters.

Many of these concerned have been rendered moot. The United States government IS arming pilots.

Look at what is happening as a result of the steps taken. The bad guys are looking at carriers that don't have FAMs, or armed pilots, or even strengthened doors. Deterrence works, imagine that...

Grinch

mbsigman
01-04-2004, 11:08
Great post, Mr Grinch.

Mike

ysr_racer
01-04-2004, 12:28
Originally posted by TheGrinch
...all at their own expense, inlcuding loss of pay at their respective companies, having to get the time off to attend without any extra dispensation...

I never knew a commercial pilot that would do anything without getting paid for it, and then cry about how much they were paid.

Every commercial pilot Ive known (4 or 5) worked 10 to 12 days a month, made well over 100k and cried like a little baby about their pay, every chance they had.

If Id have known how over paid and under producing they were, Id have go to flight school.

Hank Bodmer
01-04-2004, 12:56
Originally posted by ysr_racer
.

If Id have known how over paid and under producing they were, Id have go to flight school. Maybe, and maybe not!

Or do you only have to speak and understand English?

Sorry, couldn't help myself!

TheGrinch
01-04-2004, 13:17
ysr racer-

I have zero respect for someone who would endanger his fellow Americans by opposing a program to protect airline passengers out of petty jealousy.

It is obvious that your opposition to the idea of armed pilots does not emanate from any logical evaluation of the facts, capabilites or even the threat, but rather from an envious, distorted view of the profession. No one here can help you with that.

All of the pilots and aviation mechanics here know from your posts, that people like you do not have the attitude to make it in aviation. We see this over and over, the folks who rail against the profession are the one without the gumption to compete in a performance critical arena. They are too lazy to obtain the educational requirements, the license requirements, and comply and complete the training and constant evaluation. Ask anyone around here if they became successful in whatever field they chose by complaining about the accomplishments of others. They just saw what they wanted and overcame the obstacles.

The people on this forum understand what it takes, and are willing to put in the effort, take the risks, and pay the dues to work in aviation. I have great respect for those remarkable people, no matter what they do for a living.

Grinch

flygirl
01-05-2004, 04:09
Whatever it takes to keep them in the air and not landing into the side of something, count me in. Again I state that it's too bad that I have to miss out on the FAM work, as I have passed the age limit to start. Have to have been enrolled and employed darn near just out of Kindergarden. And again I ask; who in their right mind would expect a 40+ lady to be a FAM?? If the chance did come along I would willingly take the coarse it takes to fly the friendly skies as a FAM.

I don't think that the cargo flights are much of a worry. We know ALL of our guys, and it would be very hard to hide in some AKE container or to not be noticed if you strapped yourself to a pallet....lol. ;)

dgg9
01-05-2004, 07:09
Originally posted by flygirl
Again I state that it's too bad that I have to miss out on the FAM work, as I have passed the age limit to start. Have to have been enrolled and employed darn near just out of Kindergarden.

Actually, I've read that they've been hard pressed to get enough people (the job is at once demanding and tedious) so the age requirement is only <40 but that's waived if you're ex-fed-LEO.

http://www.federaljobs.net/airmfaa.htm

Exile
01-05-2004, 07:54
I'm surprised there's an age limit on the training. Our firearms officers are judged on their ability, not their age. I know quite a few retired officers who were fully operational on weapons and protection teams right up to enforced retirement (55years). Maybe they weren't quite as quick on the run as they used to be (although a lot were), but they mostly shot better and made better tactical decisions than the youngsters. I didn't start until I was just under forty so I'm still a comparative youngster!

HerrGlock
01-05-2004, 11:37
Mandatory reitirement age for Fed LEOs is 57. Cannot initiate training after 37. Must be 36 on the day you step into the academy.

This, from the Forest Service's page, is typical posting:
Persons age 37 or older are not eligible for appointment unless they are presently in a Federal civilian law enforcement position or have served in such a position in the past.

DanH

M2 Carbine
01-05-2004, 23:00
Originally posted by ysr_racer
I never knew a commercial pilot that would do anything without getting paid for it, and then cry about how much they were paid.

Every commercial pilot Ive known (4 or 5) worked 10 to 12 days a month, made well over 100k and cried like a little baby about their pay, every chance they had.

If Id have known how over paid and under producing they were, Id have go to flight school.


Don't bother going to flight school.
WOW,you already know 4 or 5 commercial pilots. So you already know all there is to know about being a pilot.;Q
Do you know any aircraft mechanics? You might qualify as an aircraft machanic to.;e

And to think we wasted all those years in training and all we had to do to become aviation experts was to know 4 or 5 pilots.;f

ysr_racer
01-06-2004, 09:24
Originally posted by M2 Carbine
So you already know all there is to know about being a pilot...


I don't know anything about being a pilot (other than they complain a lot).

I thought we were talking about fighting terrorists / hijackers?

dgg9
01-06-2004, 10:02
Originally posted by ysr_racer
I don't know anything about being a pilot (other than they complain a lot).

I thought we were talking about fighting terrorists / hijackers?

WE are talking about that -- YOU seem to have a different agenda. Hint: the words "pilot" and "complain" from your first sentence is a clue to that agenda.

flygirl
01-06-2004, 23:01
Strange thing about this age thing. I was offered/recruted to go out for the 911 dispatch job training. I was told that there were no restrictions on that part of the ladder. I think that the phrase "dispatcher" is a little misleading. Now if one of our planes were in distress I'd know what to tell it. ;e

tSuperflyTNT
01-07-2004, 07:18
Airline A allows pilots to carry firearms as a last line of defense against terrorists.

Airline B publically states no crewmember on this flight or the entire airline has a weapon. After all, what could a terrorist possibly do with a hijacked airline full of Jet-A and innocent people?

Max is a terrorist. his soul purpose in life is going to be one mission, one day, and he is going to do whatever it takes to perform his mission, even if he has to die trying. he cannot fail. Allah won't let him.

Which flight will Max take?

tSuperflyTNT
01-07-2004, 07:29
Flying aside, I don't really like walking into a tall building or sporting arena knowing my brothers and sisters' last line of defense is a transponder, a flight manual, and a shoe while 300 people are relying on them to get them home safely

M2 Carbine
01-07-2004, 09:23
Originally posted by tSuperflyTNT
Airline A allows pilots to carry firearms as a last line of defense against terrorists.

Airline B publically states no crewmember on this flight or the entire airline has a weapon. After all, what could a terrorist possibly do with a hijacked airline full of Jet-A and innocent people?

Max is a terrorist. his soul purpose in life is going to be one mission, one day, and he is going to do whatever it takes to perform his mission, even if he has to die trying. he cannot fail. Allah won't let him.

Which flight will Max take?

And, which flight would you and I take;)

TheGrinch
01-07-2004, 12:45
In the interest of equanamity, I should point out that virtually all of the US Airline CEO's signed a letter to the TSA Administrator in opposition of arming pilots. Many think they saw this as a power ploy by their employees, rather than the natural desire of pilots to protect their passengers and fellow Americans on the ground.

In the Brit case, the pilots themselves are opposed.

Grinch

Bill Lance
01-12-2004, 05:56
ysr_racer stated he would have gone to flight school. Maybe he did, and did not get hired with an airline--hence the sour attitude toward employees. :(

Patriot328
01-12-2004, 19:56
ysr_racer,

your ignorance of the profession is appauling, but that's for another thread (i'd be happy to show you my W2.. it has nowhere near six figures in it)..




What is more appauling is I'm on site called "GLOCKTALK" for God sakes and I'm hearing people saying to NOT arm pilots... are you serious?!?!!!

Arming pilots isn't the only line of defense.. it's the LAST line of defense to prevent the aircraft from being taken over by terrorist. It's not to save the lives of the people on the aircraft.. It's not to have a gunfight in the back... it's to be the end all be all last ditch effort to stop terrorists from gaining control of the cockpit and by default gaining control of a 200 ton bomb and striking the heart of america again.


Oh, and that "it's four hours from the nearest airport" is the biggest bunch of bull**** i've ever heard... excuses....


Be an FFDO.. make a difference...!!

SHOOTER629
01-12-2004, 20:35
^6

Sgt H
01-22-2004, 12:14
I'm not a pilot. I want to make that clear from the start.

However, I do have anti-terrorist training. I also have flight line defense training, hand to hand training, lots and lots of firearms training (I even teach it) and training in law enforcement and VIP protection (body guard stuff). So what, right?

Here's the so what. The term "Defense in Depth" is one used a lot these days. It means multiple lines of resistance to a threat. This gives a better chance of STOPPING not slowing down a threat than just one line of defense,(let's say Air Marshalls alone). I know defense in depth not flying.

In my opinion, having defense in depth on a passenger aircraft with its precious "cargo" is the best answer. That means having crews trained in, for lack of a better term, "hand to hand COMBAT", ARMED Air Marshalls, cockpit doors that a train couldn't get through AND ARMED PILOTS. Not just one of these lines, but ALL OF THEM. Crews and pilots can be trained to defend themselves. They're a smart bunch of people. That training will defend the lives of the passengers they are responsible for.

The cockpit should be an almost impossible place to gain access to if have no business there. The threat MUST BE STOPPED. If it isn't STOPPED in the isles and does gain access to the cockpit it/they must be STOPPED there. Only the pilots stand between them (blood thirsty murdering terrorists) and innocent people just trying to get from point A to point B.

Training and arming pilot?....of course! We've seen what happens when the threat isn't STOPPED before reaching the pilots. The images still hurt.

When we fly in a plane our lives are in the hands of the pilots. A firearm to defend themselves and us should be there too.

elgoatropo
02-01-2004, 22:50
Originally posted by ysr_racer
I never knew a commercial pilot that would do anything without getting paid for it, and then cry about how much they were paid.

Every commercial pilot Ive known (4 or 5) worked 10 to 12 days a month, made well over 100k and cried like a little baby about their pay, every chance they had.

If Id have known how over paid and under producing they were, Id have go to flight school.

Brethren, it sounds like this persistent fellow is on to us. He could blow the lid off the whole scheme.

YsrRacer, you are obviously a very intelligent person if your posts are any indication. I think you have THE RIGHT STUFF. You are in the club. Don't worry about the fomality of obtaining your airman's certificates or medical. That's just to deter the wannabe's. Report to the secret underground MD-11 sim training facility under Mount Rushmore first thing Monday morning. And bring your golf clubs, because the actual training process only takes about two hours. I'll have Sue make up your Gentleman's Certificate of Wealth and Privilege I.D badge which will get you into any hotel or restaurant in the country free. This message will self-destruct in ten seconds.

elgoatropo
02-03-2004, 07:17
YSRRacer, what happened to you? We waited all monday morning for you, and you didn't even call. Listen, if its about the two hours of training, don't sweat it. It's kind of like a driver's ed course where you grade your own test and they give you the correct answers. Did I mention the secret pilot lounge steam baths at all the major airports? You're in, man. Don't blow this.

ysr_racer
02-06-2004, 08:54
Sorry I couldn't make it. This working 40 hours a week thing cuts into my free time. Ask one of your friends that does it. They'll explain it to you.

M2 Carbine
02-07-2004, 18:38
Originally posted by ysr_racer
Sorry I couldn't make it. This working 40 hours a week thing cuts into my free time. Ask one of your friends that does it. They'll explain it to you.

40 hours a week;P What a slaker.

My week consisted of 7 straight 14 hour days, of which 8 hours can be flight time.
Then many times in the evenings I had to maintain the aircraft "off the books" because the FAA says you can't work over 14 hours. (Part 135)
I,ve made as many as 200 take offs and landings in a day but an average day was about 25.
I started flying in 1960 and the year I retired I finally made 50 grand.
So much for the 6 figure BS.

And no I'm not complaining, because that's what I wanted to do for a living.

I can't even begin to count the pilots I know that were killed in their aircraft.
Something way over fifty, three last year.

So pardon me if your breaking your back with your forty hour week isn't very impressive.;1

elgoatropo
02-07-2004, 19:28
Two hundred takeoffs in a day!? Were you flight instructing, Carbine?

Quote: Sorry I couldn't make it. This working 40 hours a week thing cuts into my free time. Ask one of your friends that does it. They'll explain it to you

I'll have to ask a friend what it's like to work 40 hours a week. I am used to working more like 70. If I was working 40, I wouldn't know what to do with all my spare time.

I would never begrudge a United captain his 200K salary, because I know how much work it took him to get there. And he could also be furloughed at any time. I have heard plenty of bellyaching from guys who never invested any time or money to build a career, yet still can't stand anyone who makes more money than them.

Remember that fancy car you bought when you got out of high school? Remember all the partying you did? That's when I was driving a $300 car and staying up late studying, borrowing money for tuition. If I get a job with the majors someday, I'll think of you while I drive around in my Ferarri.

M2 Carbine
02-07-2004, 22:13
No elgoatropo, that was flying in the Gulf of Mexico oil fields.
Some of the jobs kept you hopping. Some fields had dozens of platforms, sometimes from maybe 20 seconds to a minute or several minutes away from each other.
200 was an unusual day but 150 was pretty normal (in the early days, 1970s and 80s)

The closest I can figure, I got something over 135,000 offshore landings and never broke a bird. ;f

No, I never begrudge any pilot his salary. We have all earned a years salary in a few minutes.

http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=208088

elgoatropo
02-08-2004, 11:08
Helicopters. I see.

About the only way you could log that many landings in fixed wing would be giving your students touch and go practice all day. I have probably done as many as 80-100 in a day. Thank God for 152's stout gear.

M2 Carbine
02-08-2004, 12:11
Anchorage

That's got to be some beautiful flying there. I've only seen pictures but Alaska is something else.

I flew in the Rockys.
Fun, interesting flying. Fire fighting, survey work, etc.
I kick my butt I didn't get more pictures.
Mountain flying is beautiful but dangerous. A friend was killed in the Bell G3B1's we were flying.

A good mountain heliport;Q
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid61/pb1ddd0f10eb1d1663c3d99742e0e6178/fc246ad0.jpg

elgoatropo
02-08-2004, 13:36
I gotta say its beautiful. If you live here, you get a lot more bang for your buck being a pilot, since the road system is so limited. You can find great fishing holes just a few minutes out, all to yourself. Here is a pic I just snapped off the front porch. Sorry about the quality.

THe sky is actually blue today. I guess I need a better camera than this junky webcam.