Pilots: Gun certification moving slowly

[TahitiNut]

Pilots: Gun certification moving slowly

By LESLIE MILLER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- While the pace of training and deployment of armed pilots on commercial flights has picked up, supporters of the program say the Bush administration still is making it unnecessarily difficult for crews to take guns into the cockpit.

Pilots who monitor the program estimate that between 4,000 and 4,500 have been trained and deputized to carry guns since the Federal Flight Deck Officer program began in April 2003. That total is about three times as many as a year ago, yet a fraction of the 95,000 pilots who fly for U.S. airlines.

David Mackett, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance, a group formed to lobby for guns in the cockpit, said tens of thousands of his colleagues are interested in the program.

"We have an armed pilots program that's arming very few pilots," said Mackett, who hasn't signed up because of the way the program is run. He said many others won't join for the same reason.

<more>

Well, the urgency of this 'defense against terrorism' is certainly evident. :eyes:

[DRoseDARs]

1. Good, I hope it stalls and falters in current form...

Gun + flying aircraft + bullet hole in the fuselage = explosive decompression -> crash'n'burn

Taser + flying aircraft + electrical jolt to fuselage = minimizes the chance of crashing the fucking plane through crew error



While I'm ambivalent towards having armed security personnel onboard planes, this idea of arming pilots was and remains to be absolutely insane. Lock the cockpit, make the door bulletproof, and arm the crew with tasers or some non-lethal weapon (tasers can kill, but they probably don't cause explosive decompression when they miss their target inside a plane). You need to minimize the chance of accidentally bringing the plane down through crew error, not increase it. :crazy:

[slackmaster]

9. Explosive decompression is an urban myth - Busted by Adam and Jamie

You've been watching too many James Bond movies. Explosive decompression is a myth.

...With the plane up to pressure, Jamie uses a 9mm handgun rig he made to fire a bullet through the skin of the plane. The bullet makes it all the way through, but nothing happens other than a jet of compressed out the hole. No explosive decompression. They repeat the test again, this time shooting a hole in the passenger window. Again, nothing more than a jet of compressed air.

Next, they take some det cord and decide to just blow the whole passenger window out. Buster also gets to sit in the seat right next to the window. The plane gets up to pressure again, and they blow the window totally out. No explosive decompression, but buster did manage to get sucked out the window partially. Now that they have replicated the myth, it’s time to replicate the results.

They rig up a grapefruit size shape charge and put it facing the skin of the airplane, again buster sitting in the seat right next to the explosives. The plane is taken to 22psi, and the charge is set off. The resulting explosion was a little bigger than anyone wanted, but everyone was ok. Part of the plane roof and side ripped totally away, but Buster was still sitting in his seat, although the row of seats in front were now on him....

http://www.mbcore.com/myth.php?id=1

[DRoseDARs]

10. Oh, so every hijacker uses a nine-mil. I see, I stand corrected...

:rolleyes:

You do know it's just a TV show, right? Far more extensive scientific testing is required to prove or disprove explosive decompression.

[slackmaster]

11. Well then, perhaps you can provide SOME proof that it's ever happened

I won't hold my breath waiting for a link.

You might check the history of every war starting with World War II. Military people have been carrying loaded weapons in pressurized aircraft since at least that far back. If you can find a single instance of a plane exploding because someone discharged a small firearm (let's say anything up to and including .50 caliber) in a plane I'll concede that ED is not just a fanciful myth.

[DRoseDARs]

12. That's the point: No formal testing seems to have been done...

...else we wouldn't be having this arguement. This guy is trying to dismiss the possibility based on some edutainment* program on the Discovery Channel instead of providing a legitimate study on the matter. I choose to err on the side of caution and worry about the risk instead of being a gun-nutter. While I will concede that ED likely takes a lot to initiate, even that TV program showed it didn't take much to cause a casualty resulting from structural damage.

*Edutainment = education + entertainment

[slackmaster]

13. If ED happened surely there would be historical examples

Find one and I'll get off my high horse.

I understand ballistics, I understand pressurized aircraft, and I've never heard of a pressurized airplane popping like a big balloon because someone fired a gun through the fuselage.

[DRoseDARs]

15. We never imagined someone would crash a plane into a building...

Sound familiar? It should, because by and large we didn't but now in hindsight it seems so obvious. Has anyone actually scientifically studied the possibilities of ED or other severe in-flight damage caused by gunfire or are you all just crossing your fingers and relying on "Well, it never happened before, who'd imagine it could happen?" -type mentalities? Seems like bad policy to me.

You say you understand ballistics. Good for you.
You say you understand pressurized aircraft. Swell.

Have you ever actually put the two together under controlled testing conditions or are you satisfied with circumstantial evidence? Remember: Corelation does not by necessity equal causation in good science.

[slackmaster]

16. Pathetic analogy

Do you think that in all the history of aviation that nobody has ever accidentally fired a small arm from inside of the plane and punctured the skin while the cabin was pressurized?

Has anyone actually scientifically studied the possibilities of ED or other severe in-flight damage caused by gunfire or are you all just crossing your fingers and relying on "Well, it never happened before, who'd imagine it could happen?" -type mentalities? Seems like bad policy to me.

Yet you are proposing that we shouldn't allow pilots to carry guns for self-defense based on an unproven theory.

Have you ever actually put the two together under controlled testing conditions or are you satisfied with circumstantial evidence? Remember: Corelation does not by necessity equal causation in good science.

Circumstantial evidence that firing a small arm inside of a pressurized aircraft does NOT cause the aircraft to explode is overwhelming. Otherwise you would be able to find examples of that happening in the past. But you haven't produced even a single one, or made any effort to explain why there is no historical record of such an event.

[DRoseDARs]

17. "Overwhelming evidence" eh? You've yet to produce a single link yourself

...And you have the gaul to chide me? :eyes:

Why are you defending a wait-and-see policy towards safety? The reason we don't hear about guns being fired in airborne craft is because it doesn't happen often in modern aviation. At low altitudes flown by early aricraft decompression or other significant structural damage was less likely. Modern airliners fly much higher now and their internal air pressures are subsequently greater. We simply don't know what can or would happen at such altitude in such a scenario. We know what bombs can do, but why not guns? Why do you continue to defend this ignorance? If a official scientific study were done that showed the risk to be minimal, then I would be made more comfortable. But I'm not about to be satisfied with sporadic stories.

[slackmaster]

18. Burden of Proof fallacy

You're demanding proof of a negative. I cannot prove that an explosive decompression is impossible.

All you have to do to prove that it is possible is provide a single historical example of a small-arms discharge causing an airplane skin to rupture catastrophically.

Here's the deal: In over 70 years of pressurized aircraft cabins it has not happened even once. The null hypothesis must be that small-arms fire cannot cause such an event. Your move.

Why are you defending a wait-and-see policy towards safety?

I'm supporting pro-active intervention just like my senator Barbara Boxer. We know what can happen when a plane gets hijacked. I'm comfortable with the level of firearms training pilots are receiving.

Why do you continue to defend this ignorance? If a official scientific study were done that showed the risk to be minimal, then I would be made more comfortable. But I'm not about to be satisfied with sporadic stories.

If you want to sponsor a study please knock yourself out. I feel safer knowing there is a chance the pilot of my plane may be armed with a gun than I would feel if I (and potential hijackers) were sure that the pilot was unarmed.

I think you're just afraid of guns. It must be traumatic for you knowing that my side of this issue has won, but that's your problem.

[DRoseDARs]

22. And this right here is why I dismiss your arguement...

"I feel safer knowing there is a chance the pilot of my plane may be armed with a gun than I would feel if I (and potential hijackers) were sure that the pilot was unarmed."

Gee, sure glad to know you choose "feeling" safer over "knowing" you're safer. I'm not going to bother with this further. It's clear you choose your gut feelings and secondhand stories over concrete data gathered through scientific study and aren't about to be reasoned with. I'll just end this for my part by saying make it impossible for hijackers to reach the cockpit or the avionics. If there are specially-trained security personnel in the cabin armed wtih firearms, I remain abivalent about it but prefer that over giving the pilots any reason to leave a fortified cockpit in any hijacking scenario. A pilot's first and only concern should be to get the plane safely to the ground, not dealing with what goes on in the cockpit. If the hijackers can't get to the pilots of the avionics, there's no reason to arm the pilots. Ever hear of testosterone or adreneline? Even intense training can be forgotten by someone acting on impulse. Pilots are not immune to this aspect of Human nature. I think terrorist activities over the past few decades have shown quite well that pilots should just fly the plane.

And no, I'm not afraid of guns asshat. I have several in my home and support the Second Amendment as it was originally envisioned. I do not, however, see any wisdom in providing distractions to people who operate a machine that can be sent careening into thousands of people.

[DoNotRefill]

20. Talk to a military pilot sometime....

it's a myth. In order to endanger a plane, you'd need to blow a hole at least larger than 4 inches by 4 inches. Planes are not, believe it or not, airtight. They have a "sphincter" which is used to adjust air pressure, and they keep enough air to stabilize the pressure. You're familiar with the B-29 of WWII fame, right? It was pressurized, so that it could operate safely for the crew at very high altitudes. If a single bullet would have caused explosive decompression, they'd have never, EVER used it on a military aircraft, because people tend shoot at those during wars.

You CAN cause explosive decompression in an aircraft, just like you can open the entry door while at 30,000 feet (don't try this one at home, kiddos, the various organizations/agencies out there don't have ANY sense of humor about this kind of thing) in a pressurized cabin. Of course, you need to be pretty much superhuman to do so. This is why they don't have big cages on the door to keep people away from the opening mechanism...once you get to any kind of altitude, it ain't opening, period.

Here's something you might find interesting...

http://avstop.com/AC/FlightTraingHandbook/PressurizedAirplanes.html

[Aviation Pro]

2. This fucking pretz....

David Mackett, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance

Who never saw a day of ground combat in his life as an Air Farce pilot is the exact reason pilots should not be armed. Apparently, he has never heard of upset training, maneuvering to an unusual attitude or perhaps setting his plane's presssurized altitude to FL350 (after donning his O2 mask) when confronted with a terrorist.

[MHalblaub]

3. I wait for the headline: Pilot shoot down own plane.

During a long distance flight the pilot released a bullet during cleaning his gun...

They used cutters and now guns are delivered for free.

[Forever Free]

4. I disagree, pilots should be able to arm themselves

if they want to. If they can operate a complicated machine like a passenger airliner, I believe that they can safely operate a personal firearm, if properly trained.

[DRoseDARs]

5. BIG "if;" not even cops/soldiers hit their mark with every bullet shot...

All it takes is one bullet piercing the fuselage at the wrong altitude...

[slackmaster]

19. According to Ian Fleming's novel Goldfinger a dagger can do that

If the screenwriters for the movie based on that novel had stayed true to the original story, perhaps we wouldn't have ever heard of a gun causing a plane's skin to rupture.

[Bridget Burke]

6. Guns in cockpits were OK--Until July 2001

The Federal Aviation Administration rescinded a rule allowing commercial airline pilots to be armed the same month it received a classified briefing that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network may be planning hijackings of U.S. airliners.

As WorldNetDaily reported Thursday, an FAA spokesman confirmed that its armed-pilot rule, which was adopted in 1961 in response to the Cuban missile crisis, was repealed in July 2001 – just two months before the Sept. 11 attacks – because in 40 years' time, not a single U.S. airline took advantage of it.

www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27672

The link is WorldNetDaily but I remember the story from other sources. This was the same month Ashcroft dumped commercial flights.

Personally, I'd prefer the air crew concentrated on flying the plane. Let the government put armed marshalls aboard if the danger is so high.

Again, I wonder: Why was that particular time chosen to ban armed pilots?

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Quelle Ironique!

This was reported by right-wing World Net Daily; and three years ago, no less.

Yep, some of the cooler heads in the Conservative box have been on to the massive fraud that is Bushism. Unlike us, they have no place to go, and nothing to do but weep as they pray.

--p!

[ck4829]

7. OMG. The Stupidity

Terrorists can get guns but Pilots can't.

[DRoseDARs]

14. Pilots need to fly the fcking plane. Let cabin security deal w/ problems.

Doesn't take much: Bullet-proof door with locking inside the cockpit. Might not be able to prevent hijackers from causing havoc in the cabin, but at least they won't get the controls. Anything that draws the pilots out of that cockpit endangers everyone on the plane and anyone on the ground. Giving them guns instead of baracading them in the saftey of the cockpit simply encourages them to leave the cockpit and use their guns. Arming the pilots is the foolhardiest thing I've heard in a long time and wholly unnecessary.

[DoNotRefill]

21. Ummm...SOP....

is that if the cockpit is secured but the cabin isn't, you keep the cockpit secure and land the plane so that help can come. Regardless of what you may have seen in a Steven Segal movie, they can't put HRT into a plane at altitude. The idea of having armed pilots is that if they are coming through the cockpit door with, say, a cutting torch, that the people inside don't have to rely in a frigging fire axe for self defense.

The pilots stay in the cockpit. If no passengers are able to get into the cockpit, they can't steal their guns, right? And we have to trust the pilots, after all, they're flying around in what turned out to be huge freaking people-packed guided missiles on 9/11, right? So if we trust the pilots, and nobody can get into the cockpit to steal their guns, what possible HARM is there in their being armed? And if the hijackers DO get into the cockpit, don't you want the pilots to be armed? Let's say that your worst-case scenario happens. The hijackers manage to get into the cockpit, a gunfight ensues, and according to urban legend, the side of the plane blows out, so the plane crashes right then and there. That's NOT the worst-case scenario. The worst case scenario is that the hijackers get the plane and drive it into the Sears Tower or some other high-rise.