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. What exactly are these pilots planning to do? And, to the point, what if a lunatic pilot went berserk with his government approved firearm in hand ?

[Edited 2012-03-29 18:35:15]

What a lot of people don't know is that there is a very sharp crash axe that is kept in the cockpit and can be just as deadly as a firearm. If you take the gun away, there's still the crash axe, which can't be removed as it is required equipment. Not to mention, if a pilot when "berserk" all they would have to do is take control of the plane and do what they wanted with it.

Keep the guns.

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?

What if a lunatic airport police officer went berserk with his government approved firearm in hand?

You're worried about a gun when s/he is "packing" the column or side stick?

I think a pilot carrying a gun makes them a target. I have not been in favor of pilots carrying guns from the start.They can cause more harm then do good.

What a lot of people don't know is that there is a very sharp crash axe that is kept in the cockpit and can be just as deadly as a firearm. If you take the gun away, there's still the crash axe, which can't be removed as it is required equipment. Not to mention, if a pilot when "berserk" all they would have to do is take control of the plane and do what they wanted with it.

Keep the guns.


Thanks..good stuff. Now we all know about the axe. And again, why do we have the guns?

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 2): What if a lunatic airport police officer went berserk with his government approved firearm in hand?

Exactly. There have been plenty of police officers who have lost it while on or off duty...we still give them guns. Why should FFDOs be any different?

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 5): Thanks..good stuff. Now we all know about the axe. And again, why do we have the guns?

Why do we have TCAS, dual / triple hydraulic systems, EGPWS, etc? None of that is necessary to get us from A to B. It's an extra level of safety. Plenty of people swear up and down a cockpit will never be breached again. We don't know that to be fact, and until we do we add the extra level of safety.

But the pilots have guns. How is this safer? It makes the pilot feel safer but why? Is he really going to fire off a warning round, or worse, shoot the wrong guy? I think the latter.

The selection process for the FFDO program is very intense and they certainly factor mental stability into the equation. I spoke with a captain the other day who wasn't selected the first time around because he told them he liked to have a beer on his overnights. Not heavily drink, but have a beer. Granted, nobody can ever know if they'll have a mental breakdown but the point being is that they try to weed out those who they think are more susceptible. I say we get rid of air marshals and keep FFDOs because it is much more effective and cost efficient to have armed pilots, but the way this administration loves to waste money, I'm not shocked they want to slash the program.  

Quoting 26point2 (Thread starter):

1/1,000,000 that this happened to a pilot... Most all pilots that are FFDO cert are 100% stable individuals.

Quoting boeingfever777 (Reply 10):

Perhaps, but no one seems to be able to answer the original question: how is does a pilot with a gun make flying safer?

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 8): It makes the pilot feel safer but why?

Because for the past 10 years pilots have come to the realization that they are targets, and that any attempt at a cockpit breach will be by individuals who are prepared to die.

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 8): Is he really going to fire off a warning round, or worse, shoot the wrong guy? I think the latter.

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 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.

Not entirely true...

A US pilot a few years back accidentally discharged his gun on the flight deck...

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-3965159.html

Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 13): accidentally

Quoting N353SK (Reply 12): intentionally

I'm not disputing the fact that guns can be dangerous. What needs to be understood is that a person who attempts to force entry into a cockpit is doing so with the intention of killing everybody on board, including himself. The only way to prevent this is by lethal force.

[Edited 2012-03-29 21:16:47]

Honestly, it seems stupid to allow anyone to have a gun on a pressurized tube hurtling through the atmosphere, but I digress,

Quoting N353SK (Reply 14):

Edited: you and I are posting things at the same time all over the place  

I am neither disputing nor for a particular position. Merely pointing out things.

Fair is fair

[Edited 2012-03-29 21:19:13]

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 11):

Pilots are targets as they control and fly the plane. Having a firearm greatly diminishes someone trying to hurt the pilot, crew, and passengers.

Can guarantee you if AA & UA pilots on the 9/11 flights had firearms would have been a different outcome.

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.



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 Max Q (Reply 18): Guns in the Cockpit are a terrible idea, an idea only endorsed in, you guessed it, the gun loving USA.

I'll be honest...this is kind of surprising coming from you...not that you say questionable things at all...but somewhat refreshing in a sense given your perspective on airline ops

Thanks Max Q. Respected 100%+

Quoting boeingfever777 (Reply 17): Having a firearm greatly diminishes someone trying to hurt the pilot, crew, and passengers.

It doesn't stop them from trying whatsoever. Like I said earlier, anybody who has the intention of bringing down an airliner is already prepared to die. The presence of lethal force decreases the chance of any sort of attack being successful.

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 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.

The system most probably doesn't work. The gun wont just lie around in the cockpit ready to be used, it will be hidden in some kind of holster. The "bad guy" will break into the cockpit and put a knife on the pilot's throat, do you really think, that pilot or co-pilot will be able in that situation, also being somehow immobilized in the seats, to quickly grab the gun an react?

No way!

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 boeingfever777 (Reply 17): Can guarantee you if AA & UA pilots on the 9/11 flights had firearms would have been a different outcome.

No - you definitely can't "guarantee" it. It's not even likely (but of course we'll never know).

Remember that things were different before 9/11. Aircraft were hijacked all the time, but most always were then taken somewhere to land. The idea that step one in a hijacking would be to kill both pilots would have seemed positively insane. So I cannot imagine that, even if the pilots had been armed, their first instinct would have been to blast away the moment the hijackers entered the cockpit, which probably would have been the only way to prevent what was coming.


To answer the thread question: to arm pilots is definitely a strange idea that I don't working anywhere outside of the US. That said, if I were flying in the US and the pilot was experienced with handling guns and had one around... let's say I wouldn't be overly concerned with it. I wouldn't feel any safer, but it wouldn't bother me either.

[Edited 2012-03-30 02:11:02]

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.

   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 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.

Very well said.

A NW 757/767 Pilot once had a blog on a flightsim website that he regularly updated.

In one post, he discussed his being enrolled in the FFDO program. He seemed confident and suppoted the program and the security he felt it brought to the industry.

He addressed questions regarding the ammunition and explained how the frangible rounds would cause minimal damage to the aircraft if a stray shot should hit the inside of the fuselage. He also correctly pointed out that even with normal ammunition, it would be very difficult to cause sever damage.
The small hole a shot through the fuselage would make would not result in an kind of explosive decompression, only a gradual decompression which would be manageable.

The pilot ended his post with: "If any one decides to force their way into my flightdeck, they will receive a short sharp shock courtesy of Smith & Wesson"

The likelyhood of an armed pilot missing his target is low, due to the fact that they would only draw their weapon if someone was trying to force their way into the flighdeck. As we all know, it's quite tight in there so all they have to do is point the gun at the door, wait for the assailant to enter and bang. Point blank range, the frangible ammunition splinters in the body, no through shot and the situation is over.

I for one welcome these armed pilots and feel safe with them sitting up front.

[Edited 2012-03-30 05:10:08]

Quoting 26point2 (Thread starter):

How about all the normal lunatics who are given guns or worse concealed carry permits?

Quoting Rara (Reply 24):

Yes the mentality before 9/11 was different, hence no guns. However if there had been guns then that would mean that security procedures would also have been different. Probably more in line with what we have now where no one is getting into the cockpit no matter what they threaten or who they kill in the back.

Letting pilots carry guns is a stupid idea. Pilots like it because it allows them to avoid TSA security lines.
This should go down as yet another overreaction to the tragedy of 9/11. Guns and airplanes dont mix.

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). I think a double door or something similar is safer than a gun. 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 Reply 29): Letting pilots carry guns is a stupid idea. Pilots like it because it allows them to avoid TSA security lines.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Actually pilots avoid TSA security lines in other ways like Known Crew Member.

Another way is simply riding the employee bus. At many airports it's in a secure part of the airport that requires a SIDA badge to access. Park your car, hop on the bus and you're at the gates in a few minutes with out ever going through TSA.

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).

They are stronger but not impenetrable

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).

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 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?

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.

[Edited 2012-03-30 07:10:38]

[Edited 2012-03-30 07:11:03]

Quoting Reply 29): Letting pilots carry guns is a stupid idea. Pilots like it because it allows them to avoid TSA security lines.

http://www.knowncrewmember.org

There are much simpler methods of bypassing security screening. Known Crewmember is expanding to most of the USA's moderately busy airports.

Carrying a firearm as an FFDO is a huge hassle. It's faster to simply go through normal security at a small outstation that to go through the rigamarole that an FFDO is subject to. International destination pose an even bigger pain in the rear end. The only reason somebody would apply to become an FFDO is because he knows that anybody who tries to bring down a jet will either succeed or die trying.

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.

You can do what you want in your country. We'll do what we want in ours. Call me back when you have 18 or so crazies decide that they want to kill 3000 people.

If you honestly think a pilot having a gun is a bad idea, pilots are a bad idea in general. I mean, it's not like they don't have a method to manipulate the controls to crash the airplane, right?

-DiamondFlyer

[Edited 2012-03-30 08:38:35]

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).

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.

Pilots carrying guns at work is ridiculous. Seeing as how they're locked in the cockpit and nobody can get in that they don't want to get in, the opportunity to ever have to use that gun will never present itself. My impression of most of the pilots that carry the guns is that it's an ego thing. I always roll my eyes a little when they come on toting their gun. Completely just to make themselves feel like they're big and strong and in charge. Whatever....

   I wanted to stay out of this one, but I couldn't resist.

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.

Please, spare us the irrational rhetoric and read some statistics. 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 Max Q (Reply 18): Cancel this dangerous program ASAP.

Yes, it's so dangerous that a grand total of how many people have been injured or killed by it in the last ten years? (crickets in the room)  

Quoting norcal (Reply 28): How about all the normal lunatics who are given guns or worse concealed carry permits?

I refer you to my previous statement.

Quoting Reply 29): Letting pilots carry guns is a stupid idea.

Yup, I suppose all those many people who created the FFDO program forgot to think about that.  

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,

I suppose they forgot to think about that too, since, you know, all planes suffer a massive explosion if a gun goes off just like in the movies.  


Why is it that any discussion on guns, anywhere, brings out endless amounts of (largely) misinformed, MSM driven, emotional drivel? If you're going to argue against something, at least use rational, fact-based arguments.

No, No, No. There is little need IMO for them to carry guns. They could possibly have been of use during 9/11 but that isn't a certainty. It all happened very quickly and there might not have been enough time. Besides, these days we have armoured flightdeck door and pilots spend the majority of the time behind it with little opportunity for anyone else other than cabin crew to get in. It would quite simply be an overkill. Hell, even police in the UK aren't routinely armed.....something that police and the general public here wishes continue.

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.

Of course, I totally disgree with the above scenario aswell but arming the flight crew isn't worth the risk or the effort IMO.

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.

The fire arm is the last resort. Pilots don't come roaring out of the cockpit guns blazing in some attempt to retake the plane. If there is an attempt on the cockpit the pilots immediately land the plane ASAP and the door is never under any circumstance opened. Given the post 9/11 mentality of passengers it's unlikely any attempt to breach the cockpit would be successful anyways. The passengers and FA's will rise up. We saw it with the underwear bomber. No one wants to be seated in a missile.

If the cockpit door is breached the pilot simple puts one in the chest from nearly point blank range. The odds of missing are fairly low even for an untrained person, however FFDOs are trained to shoot. The term "shooting fish in a barrel," comes to mind. There are now many layers of defense to protect the cockpit, the gun is the very last layer when all else has failed.

Furthermore terrorists are trained in rigorous hand to hand combat, we are barely trained and the training is fairly stupid and ineffective against a seasoned fighter. A gun greatly evens the odds.

"Evasive maneuvers" are far more dangerous to everyone on board the aircraft. Galley carts, cans, service items, laptops, briefcases, iPads, iPods, etc. being hurled around the cabin are a much bigger risk.

And before you even say it depressurizing the airplane and hoping the terrorists pass out is also a poor option. They aren't stupid, they train and know where the FA's walk around bottles are they'll take them by force. All you would accomplish by depressurizing is immobilizing the very passengers and FAs that could help you.

A pilot going crazy with out a gun is still a big risk. There are plenty of items in the cockpit that are just as effective as a gun at immobilizing another crew member. It all comes down to the element of surprise, which is why vigilance like the JetBlue first officer demonstrated is far more effective than taking guns away.

There were no guns in the Egypt Air aircraft yet one crazy pilot managed to crash the aircraft.

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.

Exactly, instead of doing evasive maneuvers you should be concentrated on landing the plane ASAP and protecting the cockpit at all costs.

Don't pilots go through a psychiatric test when they go through their firearms training?

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 and 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.

Edit: typo

[Edited 2012-03-30 09:53:30]

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.

  

You would think, huh? Seems to me that too many people with degrees from the University of Main Stream Media and Secondhand Information have better ideas of how everything works than the people who actually run these programs.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 40): Don't pilots go through a psychiatric test when they go through their firearms training?

I do not know for sure, but I would be extremely surprised if they didn't.

[Edited 2012-03-30 09:25:33]

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.

Ha, this is hilarious! How many people have died as a result of an FFDO going nuts, or "accidentally" shooting someone? How is this a dangerous program? I fail to see any of your points!

Our rest rules are more of a "dangerous program" that needs to be canceled, as last I checked, people actually have died as a result of that!

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).

Again, you have no idea the training involved or anything, yet you throw out ridiculous statements like, pilots are not snipers and such. Why would a pilot need to be a sniper, if the target is 2 feet behind them, storming the flight deck? They are not shooting through the cabin at row 56 or anything. The weapon is strictly to be used in the flight deck, as a LAST RESORT!

All of you who are against FFDOs, have your reasons and such. But let me tell you, if the plane I am on is threatened to be taken over, and the flight deck is breached somehow, I sure as hell would want an FFDO to flying us!

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.

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.

[Edited 2012-03-30 10:03:11]

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 40): Don't pilots go through a psychiatric test when they go through their firearms training?

I can say for a fact that they do go through vigorous back round checks, one on one interviews as well as psychiatric tests, before they are even selected to go through the program!

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.

Preciously, which is why I am dumbfounded as to why so many people are against the idea! I can understand if innocent people have died as a result of this program, but every indication is this program is safe and if needed, could work if put to the test!

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.

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 boeingfever777 (Reply 17): Can guarantee you if AA & UA pilots on the 9/11 flights had firearms would have been a different outcome.

A policy of not cooperating with hijacker demands or opening the door would have worked just as well.

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...

Using that same list where you got those numbers, the US is solidly in the bottom half in intentional homicides. Not as good as some as you pointed out, but far from the worst as the media community would have everyone think.

While I disagree that those numbers present the whole story (there are endless statistics we could debate on here about guns), I do not wish to derail the thread, so I won't debate more non-aviation related gun statistics than I already have.

However, I did want to reply to you mainly to tell you thank you for actually presenting facts in your argument instead of just leveling some uninformed opinion as fact. Kudos to you for that.   

Quoting pliersinsight (Reply 47): A policy of not cooperating with hijacker demands or opening the door would have worked just as well.

Perhaps, but I think you're looking at it from a 20/20 hindsight point of view. At that point, no one had ever used planes for suicide missions as human guided missiles. Nearly all previous hijackings had involved some sort of demand with the hijackers ultimately hoping to leave the situation alive and free, so the mentality to cooperate with them to prevent as little collateral damage as possible was the norm, and arguably the best option given the history of airline hijackings at that point.

[Edited 2012-03-30 10:26:04]

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.

I'm not sure a TASER would be good for the aircraft electrical system. Plus the intended target will likely be touching other passengers when the jolt comes. Also the wires from the TASER hooks to the unit fly around quite a bit.

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...

No, firearms have little to do with it. In America, we don't have such an appreciation for human life that other nations do. Guns don't kill people, people kill other people. If there were no guns, people here would just stab one another. Most murder in America can be blamed on our disconnect between right and wrong, not a ready supply of ammo.