Pilots carrying Guns

[kcope]

Just read an article about pilots carrying guns on flights. Here's an excerpt:

"Not all pilots who want to carry guns will be able to. They have to volunteer for the program, {pass background checks and psychological tests} and make it through a week of rigorous drills."

You might think a person who is responsible for hundreds of people's safety, flying an aircraft capable of taking down a skyscraper could maybe squeak through a background and psychological test.

I think the world just got too complicated for me.

[SidVicious]

I would prefer pilots carry Tasers. They can shoot as far as 15 feet, but it won't penetrate the skin of the aircraft. They cost about the same as a pistol, but they're non lethal. They incapacitate immediately, unlike a real gun. (Sure, an ideal hit could drop somebody in their tracks, but I'm taking into account the accuracy potential of reasonably untrained shooters). A heavy caliber will drop someone quickly, but at a greater risk of consequences should the pilot miss the attacker and hit the side of the plane. Something like a 9mm or less have a record of not being effective 'man-stoppers'. Unfortunately, a heavier caliber brings the possibilty of over-penetration of the target. I really don't want to see a pilot carry a .45.

I can't understand why nobody wants to consider the Taser. To me, it's such a perfect answer to the problem.

I am not a gun-hater. Far from it. I just feel a real handgun is not the best solution in this case. Effective combat pistolcraft is very difficult to master.

Just my .02.

[island911]

Seems to me, the 9/11/01 flight 93 passengers had it right. If it comes down to a situation of group of guys tyring to take over a plane, the 'safety' of the actions used (to stop the attackers) is a non-issue.

That said, I would say a pilot with a gun, even a .45, would be fine, and a much safer than with a Taser. Even if the pilot shots holes thru the plane.

Recently, in Seattle, someone attempted to break a buddy out of a police guarded hospital room.
They hit the guarding officer with three Taser hits.
The guarding officer ended up subduing, and arresting, the attacker.

So, perhaps that says why nobody wants to consider the Taser. (they don't perform well against the determined)

[island911]

remember the Aloha Air flight that had an 18-foot section of the plane peal away in-flight due to metal fatigue/corrosion?



This plane landed with a hole a Little bit bigger than 10mm.

[pwd72s]

A friend of mine is a pilot for American. (So far, anyway) When he flew F-111's he was trusted by the government to carry nukes AND have a firearm in the cockpit. Considering the destructive power he once controlled, to argue against him carrying a gun in the cockpit now is laughable.

[SidVicious]

Ok, I stand corrected.

I just have a little experience with pistols, and from what I know, most people will not hit their intended target under stress. I would consider a hijack situation very stressful. Granted, we are talking about very close-quarters engagements, so the probability of a first-round hit should be higher than in an average street situation.

I just don't relish the idea of comparitively poorly trained people carrying pistols in airplanes. Given close proximity between aggressor and defender, I think the logical choice would be a .45 ACP. Perhaps there are frangible bullets that could address my concern of overpenetration that would still satisfy other people's demands for protection via a real handgun. Didn't there used to be a "Safety Slug", made by Glaser, or somebody like that?

Certainly some of the pilots would seek to enhance their skills regarding handguns. I'm not trying to imply that all pilots would be ham-handed pistoleros with difficulty hitting a barn if they were standing inside it. I'm just a schmoe with some concerns.

[speeder]

Island, That is some photo, do you know what their altitude was when this happened? Seems to me that if it was anything over a few thousand feet, those people would be dead popsicles even if they stayed in their seats. Still, that must have been a scary ride. Free upgrade for everyone after that sucker, no?

As for tasers, they do not always work, in fact they tend not to work when you need them to the most, from what I've heard. And it is true that people miss when shooting in real life, (as opposed to the movies), but if it is a situation that requires lethal force on a jetliner, a hole in the fuselage would be a minor concern. And the shooter is not going to miss 10 times, (or however many rounds he has).

[hoff944]

a smaller cal. hollow point can stop a person just as good as a .45 without having to worry about penetration. Even if you did use a .45 they have hollow points in .45 cal. A bullet hole in the skin of an airliner would not be enough for the plane to depressurize. I wonder if the pilot program uses the wax bullets in training like the air marshalls so they can use an actual airliner to train in so they know what not to shoot at?

[SidVicious]

Guys, I'm kind of in the role of Devil's advocate. I own and use firearms. A couple dozen, actually. And I belong to the NRA, so I want you to know where I'm coming from. I'm just never comfortable with the skills of other people, when it comes to firearms. Very few people can match my level of experience. I'm just trying to be mindful of the fallout when some pilot shoots his window instead of the bad guy.

I do favor the .45 for it's hitting power. I like big bullets. That's just me. I really miss the 120mm smoothbore I used to shoot. That's a different story...

[island911]

Originally posted by speeder
Island, That is some photo, do you know what their altitude was when this happened? . . .

the roof ripped off Aloha Air- lines flight 243 at 24,000 feet over the Pacific Ocean.

[kcope]

Chances are nowdays if you have a terrorist on board your dead anyway. What difference does a hole in the plane make. At least the passengers and crew are belted in and have oxygen available.
If its any comfort to you fliers out there the ammo carried by sky marshalls and pilots is a special low velocity fragable variety thats not as likely to put a hole in the skin of a plane.
Most combat shooting situations are panic scenerios, even an expert is going to miss some of his shots so a person with out much training might only get one hit on target but that might be enough.

[Dantilla]

A bullet hole in an airplane's skin will not be a problem. The explosion is a Hollywood myth.

A pressurized airplane leaks. Every seam leaks a little, and the pressurization system keeps pressurizing away. The system would not even notice one more leak the size of a bullet.

The pilots who pass will be using .40 calibers.

[SidVicious]

A .40 is better than a 9, IMHO.

I'm all too familiar with Hollywood images vs reality. I've never heard artillery in a movie that sounded like the real thing. And cars don't always blow up when you roll them. I'm sure I'm not the only one here with unplanned offroad experiences that came to a stop wheels up.

With proper training, sure, many pilots I believe would be competent with a sidearm. I just have little faith that competence will be attained. I figure if someone like myself has misgivings, then there must be a whole lot of people who have concerns far greater than mine. I'm pretty conservative, to say the least. When we passed our concealed-carry laws in Texas, the liberals said there'd be blood in the streets. Didn't happen. I supported the new law and am glad we have it.

I just can't get comfortable with this idea yet, but I'm sure if I was a pilot I would pushing for it.

I've spent years on ranges, both as shooter and as rangemaster. I know and respect firearms too well to treat them cavalierly, that's all.
Not trying to make any enemies here.

[Eric Coffey]

Interestingly, there is a consensus from the airline (pilot) community that a lot of pilots aren't too thrilled about the idea of guns in the cockpit. I think it all boils down to responsibility. Pilots already have a lot on their shoulders (and minds) just with their current workload. Adding the large responsibility of carrying, and potentially firing a weapon is asking a bit much IMO. Then there is the issue of the pilot's judgement, and/or trusting the co-pilot's judgement. To quote a recent article on the subject in "Flying" magazine: "There are no dual controls on 40-caliber Glock." That said, I am all for armed personel on ALL flights to and from the U.S., but would rather see more effort put toward the air marshal program. I think a highly-trained individual (with an MP-5 in plain sight!) right outside the cockpit door would be more effective, pose less risk to safety-of-flight, and be a lot more intimidating to would-be terrorists.

[Trevor]

Ummmmm Dantilla, you are way wrong. Do you have any idea how much pressure an aircraft is under? If you are flying at 20-40,000 ft the aircraft cabin is pressurized to 8000 ft, think of the difference in pressure. Anyone remember the United flight on it's way to Sydney, the LOT flight over Paris, the JAL plane flying into Haneda? Depressurizations are really bad things. Do I want to carry a gun while I'm flying? No it's not worth the hastle the odds are against it. But should we be able to? Yes, the pilot's job is your safety, and he will do whatevery he has to.

[hoff944]

Trevor: A bullet hole would not cause the plane to depressurize. I've seen the results from tests. Even if it did depressurize you are way better off than having Achmed in control of your plane.

[DonDavis]

You mean like this?

[SidVicious]

I'd love to have one of those Barretts. Just can't figure what I'd ever do with it.

[hoff944]

Target shooting man! I don't think they have a one mile range.

[Trevor]

hoff944, bullet hole equals depressurization.