Guns and Cockpits.

RhumbRunner13

No alts, no "Iggy"
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Posts
3,463
DEBATE OVER ARMING PILOTS IS OVER
Pilots Support House and Senate Bills to Begin Training Program

(Removed for privacy and identification)....praised members of the House and Senate for their
recognition of the need to arm America's pilots with lethal
weapons through the bi-partisan legislation.

The Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act (H.R. 4635) in the House,
sponsored by Congressman John Mica (R-FL) and Congressman Don
Young (R-AK), who head the Aviation Subcommittee and the
Transportation Committee respectively, was marked-up in the
Aviation Subcommittee yesterday and will be brought to the House
floor within weeks.

In the Senate, the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism and Cabin
Defense of 2002 (S.2554.IS), a much stronger bill sponsored by
Senator Bob Smith (R-NH), Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) and Senator
Zell Miller (D-GA) will possibly be introduced this week as an
Amendment.

Both bills mandate an armed pilot training program be implemented.


An email recieved today, any opinions or discussion?:cool:

Rhumb:)
 
A feel good measure that will probably do little harm or good. I doubt very much if in the future that passengers will let a hijacker take over the cockpit of an aircraft, and "bulletproof" doors would go a long ways towards that.

I imagine that if we arm pilots, that even with training, we will see "accidental" (read negligent) discharges in cockpits and other places, but then again maybe not.

Again, I think it is a feel good thing that will have little effect one way or the other.
 
Shy Tall Guy said:
A feel good measure that will probably do little harm or good. I doubt very much if in the future that passengers will let a hijacker take over the cockpit of an aircraft, and "bulletproof" doors would go a long ways towards that.

I imagine that if we arm pilots, that even with training, we will see "accidental" (read negligent) discharges in cockpits and other places, but then again maybe not.

Again, I think it is a feel good thing that will have little effect one way or the other.

I think you are probably correct. I wonder if passengers will feel just a little more secure knowing if somehow someone "bad" did manage to breach the cockpit, that a pilot might have the ability to stop him or them. It's probably similar to carrying life rafts on commercial jets, when was one ever used?

Rhumb:cool:
 
Hmmm,interesting.....

.....does the lack of response reflect a belief that terrorists aren't much of a threat anymore, other methods might be more effective or that when your time is up you're done anyway?

Rhumb;)
 
Shy Tall Guy said:
A feel good measure that will probably do little harm or good. I doubt very much if in the future that passengers will let a hijacker take over the cockpit of an aircraft, and "bulletproof" doors would go a long ways towards that.

I imagine that if we arm pilots, that even with training, we will see "accidental" (read negligent) discharges in cockpits and other places, but then again maybe not.

Again, I think it is a feel good thing that will have little effect one way or the other.

Agreed but I still think it is a very bad idea. Any accidental discharge on a pressurized airplane in flight is most likely going to cause a fatal crash.
 
With some of the special bullets (i forgot what they call the damn things) piolts with pistols in the cockpit should be safe enough.

they need something more than a fire axe.
 
Great i fucked up my own name!

I'll blame it on KillerMuffin.
 
fgarv1 said:
With some of the special bullets (i forgot what they call the damn things) piolts with pistols in the cockpit should be safe enough.

they need something more than a fire axe.

I can't think of any bullet that is not going to punch through the thin skin of an airplane.

Maybe a very, very light load for low velocity and a small calliber would not punch through the fuselage but it would still go throught the glass.

I think most airplanes still use normal plexiglass and not lexan so almost any bullet is going to punch through.
 
Azwed said:


Agreed but I still think it is a very bad idea. Any accidental discharge on a pressurized airplane in flight is most likely going to cause a fatal crash.

The only time this ever happened was in a James Bond movie ("Goldfinger" I think it was). It's HIGHLY unlikely that a bullet hole in the cabin would even cause depressurization what with the overkill the new aircraft have in redundancies.

Lets see, you trust the pilot to fly a 400 ton monster, with yourself included, from point A to point B. Knowing that at anytime he could dive the SOB into the ground, but you don't trust him with a gun in the cockpit to protect you from a terrorist. Hmmmmmmmmmm, strange logic.

And by the way, what do you think the "Air Marshalls" are carrying? B-B guns?

Rhumb, I doubt that any terrorist will ever get near the cockpit door again, but I would hope that if they do, they're met with a quarter ounce of lead to the pre-frontal lobe of their brain as they breach the cockpit door.

The public paranoia over guns, particularly among the young, is right on the verge of disgusting. What a bunch of cowards.

Ishmael
 
Azwed said:


Agreed but I still think it is a very bad idea. Any accidental discharge on a pressurized airplane in flight is most likely going to cause a fatal crash.

I understand the concern but it's pretty much unfounded. The only real danger would be if a window were blown out. The aircraft would not likly even depressurize, but there would be a continuous rush of air out of the broken window. A bullet hole through the soft aluminum side of an aircraft would hardly be noticed.

The bullets that fgv is talking about are like bird shot that are packed under pressure so they will remain whole when hitting soft tissue but break apart if the hit something as hard as metal or plastic.

Question is, would you feel more secure knowing that if someone got into the cockpit it was pretty much over, or more secure having them have a "last line of defence"?

Rhumb
 
Ishmael said:


The only time this ever happened was in a James Bond movie ("Goldfinger" I think it was). It's HIGHLY unlikely that a bullet hole in the cabin would even cause depressurization what with the overkill the new aircraft have in redundancies.

Lets see, you trust the pilot to fly a 400 ton monster, with yourself included, from point A to point B. Knowing that at anytime he could dive the SOB into the ground, but you don't trust him with a gun in the cockpit to protect you from a terrorist. Hmmmmmmmmmm, strange logic.

And by the way, what do you think the "Air Marshalls" are carrying? B-B guns?

Rhumb, I doubt that any terrorist will ever get near the cockpit door again, but I would hope that if they do, they're met with a quarter ounce of lead to the pre-frontal lobe of their brain as they breach the cockpit door.

The public paranoia over guns, particularly among the young, is right on the verge of disgusting. What a bunch of cowards.

Ishmael

You know your posts always seem so hostile and very condecending lately whats wrong with you.

I am not paranoid about guns at all and I am confident with my ablity to handle one.

People should be afraid of guns they are severly destructive devices and should be respected always. If you had gone through HS in the past few years where school shootings were becoming very common you might be a little paranoid about guns too. I don't call that cowardly at all not with all the crap that has gone on in schools lately.

I am not at all comfortable with guns on an airplane. An air marshal carrying a gun is a feels a better to me then a pilot. Even if they say they are going to train the pilots up to the profficency of an air marshal I am still not comfortable with it.

How much damage would a bullet fired in the cockpit do to the equipment and instruments there?
 
Az....

"How much damage would a bullet fired in the cockpit do to the equipment and instruments there?

The greatest danger in the cockpit would be hitting a main cockpit window. If something like a .38 or .44 were used it would probably not be fun, but I have no doubts that it would not cause a catastrophic failure. The cockpit windows are several layers of glass, vinyl and electrolytic layer that is heated to maintain it's strength in the extreme cold at altitude.

There was an incident many years ago were a 707 had complete failure of the main inner and outer layers of tempered glass. The crew was amazed to see that the rather thick vinyl inner layer that remained bulged outwards rather than being forced in towards the interior from forward speed.

As to anything else in the cockpit, it would be about as dangerous as you shooting your 5 inch kitchen TV with a .22. There just isn't much that can cause a problem, at least not considering the next alternative.

Hope some of that helps your understanding of the environment.;)

Rhumb:cool:
 
Azwed said:
I can't think of any bullet that is not going to punch through the thin skin of an airplane.

Maybe a very, very light load for low velocity and a small calliber would not punch through the fuselage but it would still go throught the glass.

I think most airplanes still use normal plexiglass and not lexan so almost any bullet is going to punch through.
Actually, fgarv1 is right, there are a number of prefragmented projectiles that are lethal, but usually fragment upon striking a hard surface. The MagSafe and the Glaser projectiles use pellets inside a copper-gilding jacket. When they strike something hard they typically do not penetrate it. When they strike the human body, they usually penetrate a few inches then fragment causing quite a bit of damage. Such projectiles are used by people who have to worry about over-penetration and richochet, such as air marshalls and court baliffs.

Just the same, explosive decompression due to a bullet hole in the airplane skin is not what I was worried about when I mentioned negligent discharges. If a pilot shoots out his controls, or his co-pilot, what then?

Interesting. Me, a certified gun nut, arguing against arming pilots on the basis that they might negligently shoot someone, when I normally would argue for it. But I still think that arming pilots is just a feel good measure and therefore a bad idea - feel good measures usually give a false sense of security.
 
Thanks. Rhumb

I had assumed they would be .22 sized weapons.

What was that one flight, I think it was coming from Hawaii, that had the roof of the plane rip off from metal fatigue? Or am I remembering that all wrong.
 
Shy Tall Guy said:
Just the same, explosive decompression due to a bullet hole in the airplane skin is not what I was worried about when I mentioned negligent discharges. If a pilot shoots out his controls, or his co-pilot, what then?

Yes that is something I was really worried about. With all the electronics and in the newest airplane designs with fly by wire system how much damage would a bullet do to the controls/instruments.
 
Azwed said:


You know your posts always seem so hostile and very condecending lately whats wrong with you.

I am not paranoid about guns at all and I am confident with my ablity to handle one.

People should be afraid of guns they are severly destructive devices and should be respected always. If you had gone through HS in the past few years where school shootings were becoming very common you might be a little paranoid about guns too. I don't call that cowardly at all not with all the crap that has gone on in schools lately.

I am not at all comfortable with guns on an airplane. An air marshal carrying a gun is a feels a better to me then a pilot. Even if they say they are going to train the pilots up to the profficency of an air marshal I am still not comfortable with it.

How much damage would a bullet fired in the cockpit do to the equipment and instruments there?

I'll let Rhumb answer on the intruments, but one would hope the pilot would be shooting towards the hijacker, not the intrumemnts. And there are two sets of instruments, at the least. In some cases three sets.

80% of commercial pilots are military trained. They are, for the most part, already proficient with weapons. Some specialized training is required, but far less than you might think. And the pilot is already a very highly trained and proficient individual. His psycological profile is updated regularly. They are, all in all, better qualified and more stable than the Air Marshall.

I carried a gun to High School in my days. A target rifle to be sure, but a gun none the less. If you want the school shooting to end, end feel good education and throw the scum that would use a gun at school out on the street were he/she will rob a store and get blown away by a cop.

And the type of bullet your searching for Rhumb is called a 'frangible' bullet. Not entirely necessary, but marginally safer in an aircraft.

Ishmael.
 
Azwed

Any accidental discharge on a pressurized airplane in flight is most likely going to cause a fatal crash.

I know other posters have pointed this out to you, but a fatal crash would not happen. I don't remember the exact date, but several years ago, the aluminum skin on a Jumbo jet peeled away and left a gaping hole. The exact diminsions escape me, but it was like 15 feet long. The only fatality was a lady sitting right next to the hole who was sucked out the side. I don't remember if they ever found her body.

People should be afraid of guns they are severly destructive devices and should be respected always.
Partially right. Guns should be respected, but not feared. A gun sitting on a table will not fire itself.

If you had gone through HS in the past few years where school shootings were becoming very common you might be a little paranoid about guns too. I don't call that cowardly at all not with all the crap that has gone on in schools lately

Ok, if you have been through a school shooting, I can respect that and respect you for living through that. If it was a concern to you, I can understand that, too. I thought about it when I went through school, too. This is off topic, but would all of these tragedies have been as severe if some of the teachers were armed? We will never know. The only one which comes to mind straight away which probably wouldn't have been affected by this is the two kids down south with rifles outside the school. Then again, if so much as pistol fire were returned, they would have probably turned tail and ran quickly, not sitting there picking out new targets. I have no problem with allowing pilots, or teachers to be armed. Currently, there are some firefighters who carry guns because of the area they cover. Good topic, Rhumbrunner!!
 
Ish.......

"Rhumb, I doubt that any terrorist will ever get near the cockpit door again, but I would hope that if they do, they're met with a quarter ounce of lead to the pre-frontal lobe of their brain as they breach the cockpit door."


If I were a terrorist who wanted to take over a flight, knowing that passengers will be far more on guard now and willing to risk everything to stop me, I would find a way to disable all of them very quickly. Can you think of any way to do that? Once you have, you have all the time you want to breach the cockpit door!:eek:

Rhumb:cool:
 
You know, I always wondered about this. Maybe someone knows the answer. I know these are lots of what ifs, but......

Let's say 4 hijackers with guns threaten to kill the passengers while the plane is in the air. The cockpit is secure and the perps can't get to the pilots.

The pilots don gas masks and release some kind of instant sleepy time gas into the cabin. The hijackers are out cold.

You would of course have to prevent gas masks from being carried on board so the bad guys wouldn't wear them.

Is this too simple? Am I missing something?
 
Re: Ish.......

RhumbRunner13 said:
"Rhumb, I doubt that any terrorist will ever get near the cockpit door again, but I would hope that if they do, they're met with a quarter ounce of lead to the pre-frontal lobe of their brain as they breach the cockpit door."


If I were a terrorist who wanted to take over a flight, knowing that passengers will be far more on guard now and willing to risk everything to stop me, I would find a way to disable all of them very quickly. Can you think of any way to do that? Once you have, you have all the time you want to breach the cockpit door!:eek:

Rhumb:cool:

Yeah I can actually.
 
miles said:
You know, I always wondered about this. Maybe someone knows the answer. I know these are lots of what ifs, but......

Let's say 4 hijackers with guns threaten to kill the passengers while the plane is in the air. The cockpit is secure and the perps can't get to the pilots.

The pilots don gas masks and release some kind of instant sleepy time gas into the cabin. The hijackers are out cold.

You would of course have to prevent gas masks from being carried on board so the bad guys wouldn't wear them.

Is this too simple? Am I missing something?

I remember this being suggested somewhere but I forget where. The problem with it that I heard was that while most people will just fall asleep that same gas could kill some people if they are over sensative to it.

I think the chances are pretty small of that happening but I don't think anybody is going to bankroll a system like that if it might kill a few passengers.
 
Miles,

Good point, but there is a flaw. Almost anything currently available to knock people out, can also cause very bad side effects in a small portion of the population. All it would take is for one innocent passenger to have a heart attack and die and the liberal ACLU will file a lawsuit so fast it will make your head swim. The liability is just too great.
 
miles said:
Is this too simple? Am I missing something?
Fraught with problems:

1) If the system malfunctioned it could put everybody out, including the pilots, without warning. Who is going to fly the plane then?

2) Whatever you use, there is going to be someone with a heart problem or other problem that may die from the knock out gas. Acceptable risk given the alternative? I doubt the FAA or the public would agree.

3) A lot of people do indeed carry "gas masks" on board flights, for a very good and legitimate reason; to survive a plane crash that involves a fire. There are a number of companies that manufacture and sell masks designed just for this purpose.
 
There would be a way out fo the gas litigation problem. That would be for congress to indemnify the air carriers from liability in the event such a system would have to be used. Which, by the way, is part of the the bills that are being voted on. If a pilot has to use a hand gun to prevent a hijacking and a passenger is injured, or killed, in the process. The air line will NOT be able to be sued by the surviving family. The bills before congress carry full indemnification in them. Probably really pisses the Trial Lawyers Association off.

Ishmael
 
Good question, Az.......

Azwed said:


Yes that is something I was really worried about. With all the electronics and in the newest airplane designs with fly by wire system how much damage would a bullet do to the controls/instruments.

All of the "electronic boxes" are down below the main cabin floor, generally just aft or forward of the nose gear (the E&E compartment). It would be analagous to you having your computer and all the stereo equipment in your basement with eletrical cabels coming up with nothing but "signal" on them. There is really nothing in the cockpit that "controls" anything any more, and the wires that "control the controllers" are multiply backed-up.

Rhumb
 
Back
Top