Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting 26point2 (Thread starter): In the aftermath of JetBlue 191 I wonder, once again, about the logic of a pilot carrying a firearm. I never understood why this would ever help to begin with but, to the point, what if a lunatic pilot went berserk again with his government approved firearm in hand? |
Quoting 26point2 (Reply 5): Thanks..good stuff. Now we all know about the axe. And again, why do we have the guns? |
Quoting 26point2 (Thread starter): |
Quoting boeingfever777 (Reply 10): |
Quoting 26point2 (Reply 8): It makes the pilot feel safer but why? |
Quoting 26point2 (Reply 8): Is he really going to fire off a warning round, or worse, shoot the wrong guy? I think the latter. |
Quoting N353SK (Reply 12): The only way a firearm would ever be intentionally discharged would be in the event of a breached cockpit. While it would certainly be a tragedy to wound a bystander, it is still an outcome preferable to all 150 passengers being killed. |
Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 13): accidentally |
Quoting N353SK (Reply 12): intentionally |
Quoting Max Q (Reply 18): Guns in the Cockpit are a terrible idea, an idea only endorsed in, you guessed it, the gun loving USA. |
Quoting boeingfever777 (Reply 17): Having a firearm greatly diminishes someone trying to hurt the pilot, crew, and passengers. |
Quoting seven3seven (Reply 22): Quoting 26point2 (Reply 11): Perhaps, but no one seems to be able to answer the original question: how is does a pilot with a gun make flying safer? Anyone trying to breech the cockpit will find out. Stop listening to the media hype about this poor Jetblue pilot. The system worked. |
Quoting boeingfever777 (Reply 17): Can guarantee you if AA & UA pilots on the 9/11 flights had firearms would have been a different outcome. |
Quoting columba (Reply 25): A pilot with a gun is a good idea when he flies a F-16 over Afganistan, they don´t belong in the cockpit of a a civil airliner. |
Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 27): The only place guns should ever be allowed on civilian plans is unloaded in the cargo hold. Bullets should be placed in special containers if the need to be carried on a plane. I find both armed pilots and armed air marshals to be spectacularly bad ideas, and I'm very pleased with the Norwegian government's repeated denial of CO's requests to have armed air marshals on flights to Norway. |
Quoting 26point2 (Thread starter): |
Quoting Rara (Reply 24): |
Quoting Reply 29): Letting pilots carry guns is a stupid idea. Pilots like it because it allows them to avoid TSA security lines. |
Quoting EY460 (Reply 30): I just don't understand the need of a gun on a plane. Aren't all cockpit doors armoured now? How could a person make his way to the cockpit? The only way a person could enter the cockpit is when the door is open (i.e. toilet breaks). |
Quoting EY460 (Reply 30): And if a person is trying to take control of the plane from the cabin, pilots can always use evasive maneuvers FedEx style (flight 705). |
Quoting norcal (Reply 31): So you're advocating that pilots become test pilots? That's a far more dangerous idea than a gun. Not every pilot is ex-military fighter pilot or trained in aerobatics. Plus these aircraft aren't designed to do that stuff. Doing barrel rolls and other aggressive maneuvers not only interferes with the hijackers, but also the passengers and flight attendants trying to subdue them. Not to mention that any innocent people not strapped in could be injured or anything on tray tables become flying projectiles. How'd you like to get hit in the face with a lap top or a briefcase? |
Quoting Reply 29): Letting pilots carry guns is a stupid idea. Pilots like it because it allows them to avoid TSA security lines. |
Quoting columba (Reply 23): A pilot with a gun is a good idea when he flies a F-16 over Afganistan, they don´t belong in the cockpit of a a civil airliner. |
Quoting EY460 (Reply 30): And if a person is trying to take control of the plane from the cabin, pilots can always use evasive maneuvers FedEx style (flight 705). |
Quoting Max Q (Reply 18): Guns in the Cockpit are a terrible idea, an idea only endorsed in, you guessed it, the gun loving USA. A country that refuses to acknowledge the connection between having millions of guns and, surprise, surprise thousands of people getting shot and killed every year. |
Quoting Max Q (Reply 18): Cancel this dangerous program ASAP. |
Quoting norcal (Reply 28): How about all the normal lunatics who are given guns or worse concealed carry permits? |
Quoting Reply 29): Letting pilots carry guns is a stupid idea. |
Quoting SEA (Reply 15): Honestly, it seems stupid to allow anyone to have a gun on a pressurized tube hurtling through the atmosphere, but I digress, |
Quoting EY460 (Reply 32): We are talking about extreme situations. There are side effects with this but there are also side effects with a gun. Pilots are not snipers and using a gun in a restricted space is not easy (a bullet through the fuselage, somebody else hit by mistake). I don't think that what happened on Jetblue flight 191 makes gun on a plane more dangerous since if a pilot goes nuts there are many other ways of doing damages. |
Quoting Acey559 (Reply 35): The manual at my airline specifically says we will NOT engage in evasive maneuvers should that sort of situation arise because of the danger involved and the probability that someone will be injured, and because evasive maneuvers are said to be largely ineffective. |
Quoting 4holer (Reply 41): Strange controversy here. Seems to me, that in a situation where a Bad Guy is attempting to take control of the cockpit of an airliner, an armed pilot decreases Bad Guy's chances of success in increases the pilot's chances of saving the lives of passengers. (and people on the ground) I prefer giving the pilot every option I can to keep me safe. |
Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 40): Don't pilots go through a psychiatric test when they go through their firearms training? |
Quoting Max Q (Reply 18): The likelihood these guns carried by FFDO's will be used in the manner envisioned is very low, more likely there will be another accidental discharge, an FFDO going nuts and shooting the other Pilot or a combination of both. Cancel this dangerous program ASAP. |
Quoting EY460 (Reply 32): We are talking about extreme situations. There are side effects with this but there are also side effects with a gun. Pilots are not snipers and using a gun in a restricted space is not easy (a bullet through the fuselage, somebody else hit by mistake). |
Quoting GT4EZY (Reply 38): Playing devils advocate here....why not arm the senior cabin crew member/purser/CSD? Chances are that they and the passengers are likely to be in grave danger before the flight crew and aircraft are. In theory they would use it only if there was risk to life/self defence.....an action which doesn't need any authorisation from the Captain. |
Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 40): Don't pilots go through a psychiatric test when they go through their firearms training? |
Quoting 4holer (Reply 41): Strange controversy here. Seems to me, that in a situation where a Bad Guy is attempting to take control of the cockpit of an airliner, an armed pilot decreases Bad Guy's chances of success in increases the pilot's chances of saving the lives of passengers. (and people on the ground) I prefer giving the pilot every option I can to keep me safe. |
Quoting MountainFlyer (Reply 37): In 2010 (latest data I've seen), nearly every major category of violent crime was at it's lowest levels of TOTAL crimes (not percentage) since 1985, despite a 30% increase in the population since then, record gun sales, record numbers of concealed carriers, and arguably the loosest gun laws in a generation. The levels have been decreasing steadily for nearly twenty years. |
Quoting boeingfever777 (Reply 17): Can guarantee you if AA & UA pilots on the 9/11 flights had firearms would have been a different outcome. |
Quoting UALWN (Reply 46): Yet in 2010 the number of intentional homicides per 100,000 people in the US was 4.8, while, in, say, Canada was 1.6, in the UK was 1.2, in Germany was 0.8, an in Japan was also 0.8, but that also included failed attempts... This difference may have something to do with the much greater availability of firearms in the US. More firearms don't seem to lead to increased safety... |
Quoting pliersinsight (Reply 47): A policy of not cooperating with hijacker demands or opening the door would have worked just as well. |
Quoting EY460 (Reply 44): That's not a bad idea. And about stun guns? They might be more effective and with less collateral effects. And they could also be used with violent unruly passengers. I'm sure we'll see a decrease in number of unruly passengers with stun guns regularly used. And it could have been used in the case of B6-191 too. |
Quoting UALWN (Reply 46): Yet in 2010 the number of intentional homicides per 100,000 people in the US was 4.8, while, in, say, Canada was 1.6, in the UK was 1.2, in Germany was 0.8, an in Japan was also 0.8, but that also included failed attempts... This difference may have something to do with the much greater availability of firearms in the US. |
Quoting UALWN (Reply 46): Yet in 2010 the number of intentional homicides per 100,000 people in the US was 4.8, while, in, say, Canada was 1.6, in the UK was 1.2, in Germany was 0.8, an in Japan was also 0.8, but that also included failed attempts... This difference may have something to do with the much greater availability of firearms in the US. More firearms don't seem to lead to increased safety... |