| Author | Message | ||
     Don Perkins Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 261 Registered: 9-2003  |
Y'all remember the flap over allowing pilots to have guns in the cockpits of commercial airliners? It took a while, but finally the FAA gave its blessings and the TSA started trying to figure out how this would be done. Now we're learning that the process of approving pilots for firearms is moving slowly, and the Bush Administration and the TSA seem to be making a conscious effort to make it just as tough on the pilots as possible. Check these facts: 1. The site for pilot firearms training is in a remote area of New Mexico. 2. Pilots must pay their own way to and from the training site. 3. Pilots must pay for their rooms and for all food during the weeklong training session 4. Pilots must take unpaid leave from work while the training is being conducted. 5. The training includes intrusive psychological exams. If that isn't enough, check this out... the TSA is actually disqualifying many of the pilots who apply. Think about that for a second. The FAA says that you are psychologically balanced and skilled enough to command the cockpit of a commercial airliner with over 200 people in the back, and then the TSA says you aren't fit to have a firearm handy to protect that cockpit from a terrorist. What gives? They don't want pilots to have guns because they're afraid that some innocent passengers might be injured in a gunfight with terrorists; but if the terrorists take over the aircraft because the pilots had no means to defend the cockpit all of the passengers will die when an Air Force fighter shoots the plane down. Why is it so difficult for the anti-gun crowd in this country to engage in rational thought? | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 397 Registered: 12-2001 |
What's so intrusive about the exams? | ||
| Duncan Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 1427 Registered: 12-2001  |
Ok I did. I think there is a large difference between flying a plane and firing a gun. Someone with some anger issues might be fine controlling a plane and doing so with aplomb, while at the same time not worth the risk of putting a gun in his/her hands. It is not that big a deal. Some people should not have a gun no matter what they do for a living. You want to arm a NYC bus driver? and yet they are responsible for 40-60 passengers at a time, but lord knows I would not want any of those guys having the capacity to shoot a weapon, terrorist threat or no terrorist threat. "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" Wayne Gretzky | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1781 Registered: 5-2001 |
A few innocent passengers will not be wounded in a gunfight with hijackers, instead they will all die when the cabin depressurizes. | ||
| newone Citizen Username: Newone Post Number: 116 Registered: 8-2001 |
I was waiting for someone to bring up the "Hollywood" depressurization line....would never happen.... I happened to catch (quite by accident) a show on Discovery called "Mythbusters." These 2 guys take urban myths and other types of myths and try to either prove or disprove them. The episode I caught they actually pressurized a sealed airplane to 8psi (I believe) which would equal the pressure of a plane flying around 32K feet. They put a crash test dummy in a window seat, hooked up a 9mm pistol (with a semi-waddcutter round)to a remote firing control and fired into the cabin. The round went through the plane and guess what? No explosive decompression! Nothing sucked out at all. They then sealed the hole and aimed for the window, repressurized and fired through the window. Guess what? No explosive decompression! Myth busted..... | ||
| newone Citizen Username: Newone Post Number: 117 Registered: 8-2001 |
Here's one of many articles I found debunking explosive decompression from bullets. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26481 | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4317 Registered: 5-2001 |
I believe the psychological exams for pilots are tougher than for air marshals, which I find kinda silly. I believe that the air marshals use either sub-sonic or fragible ammunition to minimize the possibility of piercing the airplane skin. I would presume that the pilots would use the same. The funniest thing about all this is that into the 1950s pilots of planes carrying US Mail (most commercial flights) had to be armed to protect the mail in the event the plane made a forced landing. I don't believe any training was done, just hand the guy a .38 and a holster and let them go. | ||
| JJC Citizen Username: Mercury Post Number: 172 Registered: 12-2002 |
Am I missing something? What do the anti-gun people have to do with the regularions the TSA set for pilot/gun training? | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1785 Registered: 5-2001 |
It's more that the gun lobby wants guns everywhere. Note to conservatives: sometimes we lefties amuse ourselves by citing articles on Fox, the Washington Times, or some other known conservative outlet, to bolster our points. Why don't you have a little fun for once, and instead of citing a World Net Daily piece, find something on The Nation or Mother Jones? It'd make a much bigger impression on me at least to see something that goes against the natural bias of a publication than to see the same old dogma. | ||
| newone Citizen Username: Newone Post Number: 118 Registered: 8-2001 |
Fine Tom Do a google and find the articles. I chose one, whoopdie-doo...I don't even read World Net Daily - just grabbed one article. Here's two more (1 from Australia - an anti gun country) Try this: http://www.udpl.net/goldfinger.html Or this: http://www.anss.com.au/Myths-about-Sky-Marshals.htm BTW - do you even know if your publications have an article on this topic? Doesn't matter who wrote it, the findings are still the same - a round or three will not take down an airliner nor suck people out of the cabin. | ||
| Brett Citizen Username: Bmalibashksa Post Number: 581 Registered: 7-2003 |
I don't think pilots should have guns. They are trained Pilots not Law Enforcment. If they want to protect the people use Air Marshals, they're trained for that type of situation. | ||
| newone Citizen Username: Newone Post Number: 119 Registered: 8-2001 |
I've got no problem with that Brett but unfortunately there are not enough Air Marshals to be on every flight - wish there were. Until then, the pilots should be armed - also, let traveling law enforcement people carry when flying - I know the FBI does but not sure of others. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 367 Registered: 6-2003 |
Statistics show that police officers, who are trained with weapons and experienced in arresting people, are frequently shot with their own guns. I recall this as being about 20% of fatal shootings. There is a real danger in putting weapons into the hands of people who are not practiced in using them. If we're that concerned, an armed air marshall is a far safer bet. | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 404 Registered: 12-2001 |
True, but aren't many pilots Air Force vets? Should expedite training a little. That was once the case anyway. In fact, there was a time when many adult men knew one end of a gun from the other. Maybe arming people was less dangerous back in those days. Didn't some NBA player accidentally blast his limo driver recently? Guns are dangerous in the hands of untrained people. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4320 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think the purpose of requiring pilots to attend a training program is so that they will know how to safely handle a handgun. As I posted earlier, in the past airline pilots were required to be armed to protect the mail and with very little if any training. | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 244 Registered: 3-2003 |
Back in 68, a friend of mine was on a C 141 over the Pacific when there was a sudden depressurization at 35,000 ft. The cabin immediately filled with a cold fog and the pilot dove for the ocean to level off at about 5,000 ft. all were ok, lotta burst ear drums and bloody noses and a few gi's were hospitalized. The point is, I'd rather risk a depressurization stopping a terrorist then letting the terrorist stop the plane where he wanted. | ||
| Ukealalio Citizen Username: Ukealalio Post Number: 359 Registered: 6-2003 |
What is irrational is Dons initial post. By your own admission, Dumbya's making it difficult for the pilots not the anti-gun crowd. Are you saying Dumbya is getting pressured from the left?, Ha, he couldn't care less and will do anything he can to get his particular agenda through. The NRA are the irrational lunatics. Sending their goon, Charlten Heston to hold rally's the day after children die from gun violence is so pathetic , it's beyond words. It makes me ashamed they let this feeble old fool play Moses. | ||
| Michael K. Mc Kell Citizen Username: Greenerose Post Number: 187 Registered: 9-2003 |
Did anyone give thought to most pilots are ex- military? All pilots carry a side arm in the military. Why would anyone not want a pilot to have a fire arm? If some one has plans of taking control of a commercial plane they must first think of the pistol in the pilots hands. Much like states allowing carry permits. If your going to rob someone they might have a gun too. This conversation can go around for ever like politics and religion. Michael K. Mc Kell | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 252 Registered: 3-2003 |
I fly somewhat regularly. I want pilots to have a sidearm. Just in case the bad guys control the passengers I don't understand the TSA's relunctance to issue and train. Most pilots, esp those who want to carry (not all do), could be trained and certified in two weeks at police ranges near airports. Cost of a sidearm: roughly $400 to $900. Cost of a plane: $?. A building $?, lives $? Seems like a no-brainer. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1805 Registered: 5-2001 |
well it seems as though pilots are going to be able to have guns, as soon as they are properly trained and screened. Nobody is banning them, so what's the problem? Remember the news of a few weeks ago? How al Qaeda has probably infiltrated airlines enough so that they have actual pilots on staff? Shouldn't we take SOME steps to be sure that we WANT these guys to have guns? | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 254 Registered: 3-2003 |
Tom: See Duncan's first post above and the obstacle's presented to pilots. On paper we have a program in reality we don't. at least it's not very pilot friendly. I share your concern about certain pilots, but that threat seems mostly to be on non US carriers. I think you mean "we should take some steps to insure that we DON'T want......" That's where BI's come in, and I am sure or hope that certain pilot's flights are monitored more closely. Enough speculation, because we can carry this to ad infinitum. The pilots should have sidearms. It's a last resort-period. | ||
| Brett Citizen Username: Bmalibashksa Post Number: 587 Registered: 7-2003 |
It’s not firing the gun that is an issue; almost any one can pull the trigger and hit a target that is 5-6 feet away. I feel the problem lies with teaching someone when to pull the trigger, when not to pull the trigger and the biggest problem, can they pull the trigger when it’s needed. A pilot is not a cop, just like I don’t want a cop to fly me home, I’m not sure I trust a pilot to handle a criminal. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 371 Registered: 6-2003 |
I fly very frequently and I definitely don't want the pilots to be armed. I want them to stay in front and fly the plane, secure behind armored doors, if necessary. Frankly, if anyone's going to be armed, it ought to be the flight attendants, and preferably with non-lethal weapons. | ||
| newone Citizen Username: Newone Post Number: 124 Registered: 8-2001 |
I'd much prefer the guys up front to come out and handle the situation - as was mentioned, most have military background. Much better than getting a sidewinder up the rear.... As for when, how and if to pull the trigger, that's what part of the training involves (similar to private citizens going for their CCW). | ||
| ashear Citizen Username: Ashear Post Number: 916 Registered: 5-2001 |
It seems to me that even if you do arm the pilots (which I am iffy on) the last thing you want to do, having installed armored doors, is have them open the door. The guns should be a last resort if someone gets the door open, but if there is trouble in the rear that door should stay closed. | ||
| newone Citizen Username: Newone Post Number: 126 Registered: 8-2001 |
ashear I believe (not sure) that is what the pilots would do. I'm sure terrorists would threaten to kill someone to get the door open - but I assume that scenario would also be handled in the training. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4379 Registered: 5-2001 |
The SOP is that the pilots don't open the door no matter what the threat, but get the plane on the ground ASAP, with a few slow rolls and maybe a loop to keep everybody off balance (are passenger jets certified for light aerobatics?). An issue is that the new doors aren't bank vaults by any means and can be broken into fairly easily. I believe I read a story about one being broken open by a drink cart running into it!! | ||
| newone Citizen Username: Newone Post Number: 127 Registered: 8-2001 |
I don't know - can a B777 do a barrel roll? | ||
| ashear Citizen Username: Ashear Post Number: 919 Registered: 5-2001 |
Newone - Okay that just seems inconsistent with what you said "I'd much prefer the guys up front to come out and handle the situation." That is what I was responding to. |
