ARMED PILOTS program a joke. whats going on?
Moderator: S2k Moderators
ARMED PILOTS program a joke. whats going on?
GUNS IN COCKPITS
You do remember the flap over allowing pilots to have guns in the cockpits of commercial airliners, don't you? 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 seems to be making a conscious effort to make it just as tough on the pilots as possible.
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.
And ... get this ... 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. Add to this the irrationality of the anti-gun fools. 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?
http://www.boortz.com
You do remember the flap over allowing pilots to have guns in the cockpits of commercial airliners, don't you? 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 seems to be making a conscious effort to make it just as tough on the pilots as possible.
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.
And ... get this ... 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. Add to this the irrationality of the anti-gun fools. 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?
http://www.boortz.com
0 likes
Pilot firearms
A pilot I think should carry a firearm to protect him/her and the planes cockpit from a terrorist. It could save the lives of not only the pilots, the passengers as well.
But one issue is what if the pilot is a terrorist?? That doesn't help. Something needs to be done to avoid that problem.
Jim
But one issue is what if the pilot is a terrorist?? That doesn't help. Something needs to be done to avoid that problem.
Jim
0 likes
- george_r_1961
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 3171
- Age: 64
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2002 9:14 pm
- Location: Carbondale, Pennsylvania
one too many
I believe that one firearm on an aircraft is one firearm too many. One bullet thru the fuselage and its all over. I have no problem with non lethal weapons such as stun guns or tasers.
0 likes
- streetsoldier
- Retired Staff
- Posts: 9705
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:33 pm
- Location: Under the rainbow
1) Most of the commercial pilots were Navy, Air Force or Marine-qualified once, so firearms shouldn't be that much of a problem.
2) What psychological standards are being employed, and by whom?
3) As to ONE site per course, that's outrageous! VA has Quantico, CA has two (SF, LA) of the best "Hogan's Alley" courses of fire in the country, AL has one of the best counter-terrorist firearms courses in the world, etc. There are NO lack of course sites...just a lack of foresight.
4) Pilots actually having to engage terrorists in a firefight is a "last-ditch" option...not only would the "Allahu Akbar" crowd have to get past the sky marshals and passengers, but also the hardened access to the cockpit.
In sum, it's BS, pure and simple.
2) What psychological standards are being employed, and by whom?
3) As to ONE site per course, that's outrageous! VA has Quantico, CA has two (SF, LA) of the best "Hogan's Alley" courses of fire in the country, AL has one of the best counter-terrorist firearms courses in the world, etc. There are NO lack of course sites...just a lack of foresight.
4) Pilots actually having to engage terrorists in a firefight is a "last-ditch" option...not only would the "Allahu Akbar" crowd have to get past the sky marshals and passengers, but also the hardened access to the cockpit.
In sum, it's BS, pure and simple.

0 likes
Re: one too many
george_r_1961 wrote:I believe that one firearm on an aircraft is one firearm too many. One bullet thru the fuselage and its all over. I have no problem with non lethal weapons such as stun guns or tasers.
its been proven that a bullet will not bring a plane down. cant happen. as far as a pilot being a terrorist and using a gun, that makes no sense. a pilot wouldnt need a gun to sabotage an aircraft. just fly it into the ground.
besides, a pilot could find numerous ways to smuggle a weapon on board.
0 likes
- streetsoldier
- Retired Staff
- Posts: 9705
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:33 pm
- Location: Under the rainbow
More...if the Government wants to arm pilots, and the pilots want to go, why can't either the Government or the airlines (or both, with tax incentives) grant them the course funds, travel expenses and lodging to get the training they need?
We are talking about a "world of DUMB" going on here.
We are talking about a "world of DUMB" going on here.

0 likes
Re: one too many
rainstorm wrote:[ as far as a pilot being a terrorist and using a gun, that makes no sense. a pilot wouldnt need a gun to sabotage an aircraft. just fly it into the ground.
.
True, but the pilot then would have to struggle with whoever else is in the cockpit. If the f/o tries to slam the plane into the ground, you can expect that the captain will put up a fight, call for help from the passengers, and most likely eventually get the aircraft back under control. But one pilot could kill the other with almost anything, it doesn't need to be a gun.
0 likes
- streetsoldier
- Retired Staff
- Posts: 9705
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:33 pm
- Location: Under the rainbow
Why not? I had to requalify every six months as a St. Louis patrolman...and when not on duty, I averaged expending 300 rounds a week at the range in 1st District (Holly Hills on the South Side, now gone).
I didn't earn and maintain my NRA Distinguished Expert, Police Combat Revolver rating by sitting on my duff, y'know.
I didn't earn and maintain my NRA Distinguished Expert, Police Combat Revolver rating by sitting on my duff, y'know.

0 likes
http://www.disastercity.com/flt243/
a bullet will not bring a plane down. the tiny hole a bullet would cause(if it went through the plane) would have no effect. this plane had half its top come off and landed safely
a bullet will not bring a plane down. the tiny hole a bullet would cause(if it went through the plane) would have no effect. this plane had half its top come off and landed safely
Last edited by rainstorm on Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes
Re: one too many
If it's proven lemme see the source..I think it's hearsayrainstorm wrote:george_r_1961 wrote:I believe that one firearm on an aircraft is one firearm too many. One bullet thru the fuselage and its all over. I have no problem with non lethal weapons such as stun guns or tasers.
its been proven that a bullet will not bring a plane down. cant happen. as far as a pilot being a terrorist and using a gun, that makes no sense. a pilot wouldnt need a gun to sabotage an aircraft. just fly it into the ground.
besides, a pilot could find numerous ways to smuggle a weapon on board.



0 likes
rainstorm wrote:no, planes have redundant systems. for instance, only a catastrophic failure in hydraulics can cause a plane to crash. a bullet could not do it, impossible. the hydraluics in a commercial aircraft have 3 separate control lines, in case 1 or more fail.
True. And, even if they lose most of the hydraulics, the plane can still be landed using only throttles (they did this in a test aircraft in CA years ago.)
0 likes
nystate wrote:rainstorm wrote:http://www.disastercity.com/flt243/
This was caused by a mechanical problem. Cracks in the fuselage were not reported to the proper authorities, and a result, that happened. However, I see your point that the plane could still land safely, even with no roof.
exactly, and a bullet hole would be tiny, and have no impact whatsoever in a planes fying ability
0 likes
- streetsoldier
- Retired Staff
- Posts: 9705
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:33 pm
- Location: Under the rainbow
Johnathan,
You are assuming that a terrorist would know where to find these "targets" on a "heavy"...not very likely.
Besides, handguns are not the most accurate firearms...short barrels and sight picture, limited range/power, etc. And the "bullets of choice" on these flights is Corbon Safe-T-Slugs, which use slightly smaller sub-sonic charges behind a penetrator point with fleshette shot following. MAN-stoppers, not metal-penetrators.
The likelihood of a hit JUST "SO" to bring a "heavy" down is astronomical.
You are assuming that a terrorist would know where to find these "targets" on a "heavy"...not very likely.
Besides, handguns are not the most accurate firearms...short barrels and sight picture, limited range/power, etc. And the "bullets of choice" on these flights is Corbon Safe-T-Slugs, which use slightly smaller sub-sonic charges behind a penetrator point with fleshette shot following. MAN-stoppers, not metal-penetrators.
The likelihood of a hit JUST "SO" to bring a "heavy" down is astronomical.
0 likes
yep soldier: another example:
Flight SV162 experienced an explosive decompression of the cabin while climbing through 29.000 ft over international waters near the State of Qatar. The aircraft had departed Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and was enroute to Karachi, Pakistan. An emergency descent was initiated and a successful landing was made at Doha International Airport in Qatar. Two passengers were killed when they were ejected from the aircraft through a hole in the cabin floor which had resulted from the forces of explosive decompression.
PROBABLE CAUSE: "The Presidency of Civil Aviation determines that the probable cause of this accident was an in-flight, fatigue failure of a main landing gear inboard wheel flange resulting in the rupture of the aircraft's pressure hull and explosive decompression. The failure of the flange,was the result of the failure of the B.F. Goodrich Company and the Lockheed Aircraft Company to properly assess the safety hazard associated with the type of wheels installed on aircraft HZ-AHJ. Contributing to the accident was the lapse of effective quality control procedures by the B.F. Goodrich Company and the failure of the Federal Aviation Administration to provide adequate surveillance of the manufacturer."
and even if a bullet penetrated the hull of an aircraft, it would have no effect, it would just be too tiny
Flight SV162 experienced an explosive decompression of the cabin while climbing through 29.000 ft over international waters near the State of Qatar. The aircraft had departed Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and was enroute to Karachi, Pakistan. An emergency descent was initiated and a successful landing was made at Doha International Airport in Qatar. Two passengers were killed when they were ejected from the aircraft through a hole in the cabin floor which had resulted from the forces of explosive decompression.
PROBABLE CAUSE: "The Presidency of Civil Aviation determines that the probable cause of this accident was an in-flight, fatigue failure of a main landing gear inboard wheel flange resulting in the rupture of the aircraft's pressure hull and explosive decompression. The failure of the flange,was the result of the failure of the B.F. Goodrich Company and the Lockheed Aircraft Company to properly assess the safety hazard associated with the type of wheels installed on aircraft HZ-AHJ. Contributing to the accident was the lapse of effective quality control procedures by the B.F. Goodrich Company and the failure of the Federal Aviation Administration to provide adequate surveillance of the manufacturer."
and even if a bullet penetrated the hull of an aircraft, it would have no effect, it would just be too tiny
0 likes
- george_r_1961
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 3171
- Age: 64
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2002 9:14 pm
- Location: Carbondale, Pennsylvania
Simple solution
If we keep any and all weapons off of aircraft by use of stringent security measures we wont have to worry about what happens when a gun is discharged inside the cabin now will we?
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests