Hrm, Master at Arms for aircraft...that'd work damn well.

Yeah, that post of mine was one big fat screwup after another. I initially assumed insufficient training for the gun...then added in a knife assuming a master with both weapons. Oops.

Kudos to you sir - it takes guts to admit when one has made a mistake. Thank you for having the stones not only to check out what I suggested you check, but to further admit your error.

I do understand where you're coming from, and why you may feel as you do, but here is something else to consider:

Until recently (i forget the exact date), if a commercial airliner was carrying US Mail (which they do quite frequently), the pilot was REQUIRED to be armed by federal law and FAA regulations.

Now, if they can be obligated to be armed when there is mail aboard, why on earth should they not be allowed to be armed just on general principles?

The pilot is ultimately and totally responsible for the well being of his passengers as long as that plane is in the air. No different than the Captain of a ship. That is his plane - not the FAA's, not the airline's, not the government's - but his, as long as it is flying. Should he not avail himself of every tool possible to ensure its safe operation?

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

To quote the aircraft mechanic..."What do you think this is, the 1950s?" Apparrantly the windows are built to withstand collision with geese at 500+ MPH.

I've always agreed that pilots should be armed. The reason for the knife vs gun thing, I practice with a friend rather often, and in close quarters the knife wins almost every single time. I've only gotten off a single 'shot', wheras I ended up getting 'stabbed' every other time. When the roles are reversed, I can often pull off the win. Admittedly, I'm also doing this with an ex-marine and I have no formal combat training, but he swears by knives for close quarters. I hope that explains better where I was coming from.

Dead terrorists also don't kill passengers...

Not just that, but bear in mind the B29 was pressurized - and they got a lot of very big holes punched in them during WWII without suffering decompression
In close quarters and when you're intending to kill the attacker, yes, a knife is better - but you better plan on getting hurt, and you better hope he didnt bring a gun to your knife fight.

A gun need not be fired to end a fight either. Keep that in mind.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Sure it would. Are you suggesting that AMR, Delta and UAL be allowed to start their own weapons training program for pilots? Remember that these companies are in it for the money not for defense. If they were interested in protecting you from a terrorist, (or a drunk), the cockpit doors would have been secured decades ago.

Think about all organized weapons training programs and who runs them; local and state police, FBI and CIA, military...none of these are civilian corporations looking to make a buck for their shareholders.

If you'd rather re-regulate airlines, indeed, run them as "state" airlines, go ahead and arm the entire crew. Even then, the pilot's primary function is to fly the plane.

Imagine the scenario of a hijacked airliner on 9/11 with an armed pilot - low altitude, still within heavy traffic and traffic control; lot's of communicating, lots of following directions, lots of check lists and charts - not quite assholes and elbows anymore but plenty to do to fly the plane safely.

Which would have been preferable:
1.Something happens in the back, passengers get shot or stabbed, someone attempts to break into the cockpit but can't, the pilots land the plane.
2.Or, someone busts throught the cockpit door and lunges at the pilot whose back is to the door just a few steps away - the pilot struggles to fly the plane, find his gun, and fight with the intruder while passengers are being killed in the back. The intruder is presumably already armed if he is a terrorist with an organized plan; he already has the upper hand.

What if he's not a terrorist with a plan and a weapon? What if he's a pissed off drunk? The pilot still must find his gun and fight the intruder while flying the plane and then a pissed off drunk gets shot.

What if the pilot himself/herself is the terrorist? Strangely, the perps of 9/11 were trained pilots. Is it beyond imagining an airline hiring a terrorist? They are going for cheap these days and the US is still a prime place to receive training. What if he's the only one on board with a gun?

Wouldn't it have been better if the intruder never got to the cockpit?

Wouldn't it be better if you didn't have to trust a money grubbing airline to provide your safety from terrorists by training their crew to fire weapons? These are the folks that decided food, leg room, service, and frequently, maintenance, were too expensive. You know airlines don't provide initial training for pilots to FLY those planes. That is provided by the pilots themselves or the military.

Put a minimum of one Sky Marshal on every single flight and a camera at a secure cockpit door.

I can't believe this is even a consideration while we still load freight and mail with no screening at all. All that anthrax mail that circulated around DC and killed a few folks a couple of years ago - could easily ride several feet beneath your seat circulating the same air through the cabin and the baggage compartment. There are no regulations...still. You don't have to be a suicide bomber to bring down a plane. Ship it...USPS next day air...if a dog sniffs it, it's one in a million, try again. Every day at dozens of airports, hundreds of airplanes loaded with passengers and fuel, line up on the taxiway awaiting their turn to take off - with interstates and parking lots a spit away and nothing between them but a chain link fence.

We are still so incredibly vulnerable and stupid. Can we try being reasonable and practical for a change? How about proactive! There's an idea.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

Of course the fact that no one had ever actually done anything like that, and no one ever thought they WOULD might have had a little something to do with it.

Also, do you have any idea what it would take to harden a door on an airliner? You're talking some pretty serious structural changes if you want the door to be near entry proof.
Thats actually not true. There are numerous firearms training programs out there which are run by private citizens and companies. I assure you, there is most definitely a market for it. Some of them are so good the military, FBI, and many police departments send their people there.

The police departments run their own for COST reasons - and they arent so much "firearms training programs" as "when and when not to use deadly force" programs. There is a difference.
Why must it be state owned for the crew to be armed?
You did notice the bad guys got hold of the planes right?
Again - you DID notice that the pilots werent armed on 9/11 right?
So what? That can still happen now - just that the drunk wont get shot. I really dont have any sympathy for someone being on the wrong end of a stupid tax though - if someone gets drunk and gets stupid, he made his choice
HELLO! He's in control of the whole fucking PLANE! As many pilots have pointed out, that has to be the dumbest objection anyone has EVER raised.
Sure it would have. That would take a rather radical redesign - actually rebuild - of the airplane though.
I'd rather trust a for-profit company than a government agency - sure.
You really want the airlines run by the same rocket scientists who run the DMV?
Let me see....there are over 10,000 flights PER DAY in the United States. That would require a minimum of some 50,000 - 60,000 air marshals. In addition to that, they would have to have some kind of support structure, and likely you'd want to have more than one on each plane. So now we're up to something on the order of a couple hundred thousand person agency.

Exactly from where do you propose we obtain those people? How do you propose to pay them? Never mind the fact that they would be responsible to no one, have no actual obligation to protect anyone, and would eventually be identified and easily subdued.
Yep thats right - and those are just a few of the reasons why people like me (who fly a minimum of 2x a week) have about had it with the TSA and the simpletons who support government management of the airlines and security.
Thats kinda the whole idea behind armed pilots my friend.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

emphasis mine in both instances.

This is the key. This is why we need to shift focus away from arming pilots.

A person innocently states that a pilot should be allowed to carry a gun and the very next comment shifts carrying a gun away from the pilots option to the pilots burden - "pilots SHOULD be armed". Not a blink - not a single comment regarding the subtle but important shift from right to obligation.

It sounds so noble - that plane belongs to the pilot! Well if that plane belongs to the pilot, (captain specifically), then the pilot should have the authority to order a bullet-proof, tamper-proof cockpit door! That pilot should be allowed to examine each and every passenger before they board the plane. At a bare minimum that pilot ought to be able to trust the airline to protect HIS ass too.

How noble. What a glamorous, noble profession. I'm sure any pilot would happily sign on to this new job requirement just for that nobility.

Lets not confuse this job with a fighter pilot whose job it is to defend America. This kind of pilots job is to get you from point "A" to point "B" without creating a smoking crater.

This is the way it would play out in court too. Not only would it be allowed, it would be required that every individual pilot carry a gun and just like his flight training, he'd pay for it himself and be responsible for recurrent training and be responsible for policing the aircraft he used to fly.

And as long as pilots are armed, there is no need for the government to spend money on Sky Marshals and no need for the airlines to spend a shitload of money on cockpit security.

Put it where it belongs.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

This is a common misconception but hardly true. There were American companies pushing their plans for reinforced cockpit doors before 9/11. That cockpit door has been a source of concern for decades.

Again. Usually not true. Not only is it not that difficult but it's already been mandated and carried out for the most part...

And who do these companies train? Not General Motors employees. The bread and butter is still those that do this for a living. I've been through firearms training, it was required for concealed weapons permit. Otherwise, I was on my own.

Because you're asking commercial pilots to defend passengers from terrorists! Put a weapon in their hands, they take on this additional job.
Yes, I did. Walked right through that door they did. That's the point.
Again, the terrorists came right through the door. Fire axe was right there behind the captains head but the pilots had their backs to the door and were taken by surprise on top of doing their job of flying the plane. Wouldn't have mattered much if it had been a gun. My scenarios are just that - I intentionally did not recreate the day exactly as it happened because I'm looking for a solution. Pretty stupid to make the same mistakes over and over, wouldn't you agree? So the obvious problem is the terrorists walking right through the door. Read the scenarios again.

That's not the point. The point is that it is a needless risk to the pilots, the passengers, and one stupid drunk. Who's flying the plane when the drunk comes through the door?

He's not. Not unless you're flying part 135 with less than 9 passengers in which case, as far as national security goes...whatever - fend for yourself. What if Capt. Kirk has a heart attack or needs to take a pee? Who is flying the plane? My husband flew with a guy who was all gung ho for arming pilots right after 9/11. He's the guy that made my husband think twice about what I'm telling you now. Real nut case this guy. Point being, if you want one pilot to carry a weapon, they all need to and that takes away any volunteerism.

not at all, as mentioned before. But now that we're on the topic again, if you're concerned about the expense, what are you willing to pay to train 600,000 commercial pilots to train to use firearms while flying the airplane? It took far more redesigning to impliment noise pollution regulations. What's it worth to you?

I'd rather trust a for-profit airline to fly my ass from "A" to "B" and the government to protect me from terrorists. It's sort of their job.

My point exactly. Re-regulation does not sound like a good option, (not that privatisation's been real successful ). However, if you want pilots to protect you from bad guys, you may as well take a lesson from Israel.

So I take it you had no intention of paying pilots for this added responsibility? Nice. Now THAT's a smart move. As to where do you propose we obtain these people: http://jobs.faa.gov/. This is where you'll find the application for Sky Marshall as well as applications for Air Traffic Controller, etc...all government jobs. I applied in 2001 but had no response. thought I'd be a shoe in with weapons training and pilot experience. Apparently, they had no trouble filling the positions.

You know what? I don't know what your problem is but you're just rude as hell. First you say I'm dumb and now you say I'm a simpleton. I'm glad you've had all these long discussions with pilots about this and spent all that time on airplanes reading the in flight magazines and pondering the ignorance of folks like me. This is important enough to you that you get hot headed presumabley because you travel a lot. What do you suppose my steak might be? Show me the same courtesy you showed Porras and the same grace he showed you. I've done nothing to offend you other than oppose your argument.

Your idea of being proactive is to not only ignore our mistakes of the past by claiming a reinforced cockpit door is too expensive, but add one more variable to an already overly complicated problem!...my friend.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

Is the gunwielding actually necessary ? Firearms going off in the high technology environment a present day cockpit is, might do more harm than they avoid.
Could not more security be achieved by biometric authentication ? The steering wheel itself (if that's the right word) could incorporate hand measurement and recurring fingerprint authentication. If the plane falls into the wrong hands (literally) it could send some sort of specific distress signal and for instance the rudder could be blocked temporarily. That would at least have rendered the 9/11 goal of the hijackers impossible.

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder

Perhaps I'm a bit old fashioned, but I want pilots in the cockpit, flying that plane. And if there is any critical situation, I really want the pilots in the cockpit. So sealed off bulletproof doors seem like a good idea to me. And if you want to put up a gun fight with potential terrorist, bring air-marshals or so. If there is one person on a plane that I don't want to see engaged in a shootout it's the pilot!