The administration seems really opposed to letting airline pilots have the ability to defend themselves. A great disapointment. Why be opposed to armed pilots. Each pilot has the ability to kill everyone aboard if they desire anyway. Sky Marshall's are more hazardous with these type of people than none at all, unless the Marshall rides in the cockpit with the pilots. Just another big government solution for a problem that could be solved much easier. Arm the pilots. This also in my mind eliminates the need for the cavity searches at the gate as well. Its the PC way to handle it I guess. Bad guns you know (except in the hands of the super human government official I guess)
A sky marshall is nothing more than a way for a terrorist to get a gun aboard an aircraft.
The first terrorist gets up and starts slashing throats (probably the one's he suspects of being a sky marshall first). Takes a few bullits (he does not care as he is dying for Allah anyway) while the others overpower the sky marshall and take his weapon. Now they have a firearm, and guess what no one else does.
If I were the Airline Pilots Assc. I would refuse to fly because of their rediculous fear of the armed pilot. I don't fear flying I just don't want to because of the stupid new regs that do zero to solve the problem, and the intrusive actions taken "for security" reasons. I feel that I am not the only one.  The more security proceedures they impose the more people that will turn to other means of transportation, some from fear and some to avoid the hassle. Just had to vent.

Every time I fly, if I sit by the emergency exit door the girl comes over and asks if I am capable of opening the door and willing to assist passengers out the exit. I have to go through a briefing on how the door works, and if she's satisfied I can sit there.

What if we had a system whereby the young guys get first choice for isle seats. But the only way you can get these seats is if you promise to open a can of whoop ass should SHTF and promise to jump any MOFO who's trying to screw with the AM, which by then you would have to assume he has identified himself as he's already shot one jerk off.

Would a system like that work and would the young men of today be up to the task?

It would probably work to some extent but things happen fast at times. They could have the Sky Marshall's gun before you awoke from your nap. Besides it frustrats me to think of the mentality of the feds. Basically they tie your hands behind your back and ask you to defend the plane against better armed agressors. Of course if someone knows they are to die the decision is very easy. I am overjoyed however that the terrorists did not use guns. If they had they would be banned today and the whole investigation and news reports would revolve around the evil gun and how easy it was for the terrorists to get them. But they can't ban box cutters can they? I'm for either ensuring multiple individuals with firearms in the rear compartment (10+) or none at all or perhaps issue stun guns to every other passenger. Arm the pilots of course either way.

2 part answer, Yes.



No.

Huh???

I am sorry, but I just don't support the idea of pilots or ANY only semi-trained personell carrying guns on a plane.  This is NOT your ordinary self-defense situation, where someone with only minimum training could handle it. We aren't talking about a mugger in an alley, we are talking terrorists who may have a bomb.  It isn't just the ability to shoot some asshole with a box-cutter, it's the training to determine whether the guy DOES have the bomb he's claiming to have, the knowledge of the right time to try to take him, etc...
I think we need WELL trained sky marshalls---ex-Delta or SEALs would be preferable---if we are serious about preventing hijackings.

The fundamental flaw I see is that it would take one or two terrorists to make the air marshalls show their hand.  Assuming one or two per flight, that would require another 3-6 terrorists to overpower them.  It doesn't change the game, it just increases the costs.  We would still benefit from having "sleeper" good guys, who just sit there and act like everyone else so there is someone who hasn't shown their hand if there's a second group.  This is why I think CCW's, law enforcement, military, etc. should be encouraged to carry on planes(after going through additional training).

I personally would go with armed pilots.  It would be a layered defense.  Any attackers would have to get thru the armed marshalls and the security door.  This would be the last & final defense, at least the unauthorized people would not gain control of the airplane.  What are the chances you are going to get a suicidal pilot versus a terrorist attack? it is a matter of odds. There is no 100% sure thing.

Since the terrs are not likely to present the 'bomb' for inspection by the sky marshall, perhaps the sky marshall should have a phd in phsyc, to better tell if the terrs are lying, as well.

And since an in-depth knowledge of the plane is necessary, maybe the sky marshalls should have at least 10 years of experience as airline pilots.

And since fast, accurate shooting is absoultly necessary, perhaps they should also be proven IPSC winners (I don't know about the Delta guys, but some SEALs are marginal shots).

And, since it might come down to hand-to-hand, maybe they should all have ten years training in Brasilian JJ also.

Any other suggestions about the training these guys need?

I'm not crazy about the idea of having pilots armed with conventional firearms.  Nothing against them, but CQB just isn't what they're trained in.  Now, just a thought, but a 14" Remington 870 loaded with either bean bag or rubber baton rounds might not be a bad idea as a last line of defense at the cockpit door.  Minimal risk of breaching the fuselage, but [b]very[/b] nasty at close range.

Sky Marshals make sense to me, as long as they're on 99% of the flights.

Let the pilots fly the plane, behind a vault door. That's their job. Hell, give them pistols too, I don't care.

Let a Sky Marshal sit in the cabin section, and let him do his job if need be. I think that a guy trained to do one thing, like shoot bad guys in a small area would do a better job than a guy who's first duty is to keep 400,000 pounds of steel in the air.

Being an airline pilot, I say not arming us is incredibly stupid.  Of course some would refuse the sidearm but a great majority of us would take it.  Look at what we have had for the last 30 some years for defense: crash axe, fire extinguisher.  In training, they say use these.  Thanks alot.  Both are very awkward to use.  And they don't do too much.  The crash axe is made for hitting a door that isn't moving and with the pilots being able to get a good, controlled swing at it.  The fire extinguisher can be used to try to disable the intruder by blowing Halon into the bg to take away oxygen but it does the same to the guys in the cockpit too.  Not as bad but if you keep doing it, you'll start feeling the effects.  Not good.  BG can just step back and take a deep breath and go in for another attack.  Thanks.  Believe me when I say there would have been NO DOUBT that the fated aircraft on 9/11 would have had a drastically different fate if the pilots were armed.  The least of our worries are a bullet punturing a hole in the airplane.  Just makes a whistle sound.  I've had stuff like that happen and with holes much bigger than a .45 P+ load would make, and it don't worry anyone.  A pistol in the cockpit would be SOOOOO EASSSYYYYY to handle in the correct way and with close proximity to the door, a very simple shot.  Taking out the cockpit door isn't that hard but gives the pilots about 6-10 seconds if it was taken out expeditiously.  That's with a good and quick breach.  You should see how quick we turn and react when the flight attendant doesn't knock and opens the door when we're looking at porn.  And that's a silent approach.  
On another note, I heard in Brazil they just recently passed a law that allows passengers to carry on planes.  At least someone gets its right.

Nude beaches, dark skin, AND this!  I think I'll be vacationing in Brazil soon.  Now I just need my stepmother to teach me some Portugeuse. [:)]

Holes, if you are in fact a pilot I would think you of all people would know that the story about Brazil arming their pilots was total bullshit. They did not arm their pilots.

Frankly, I haven't noticed that the "pros" trained in "CQB" are really as good as it as your average Gunsite grad. Sure, the "pros" have the repelling skills down, etc., but when it comes to the specifics of using a pistol, they are not really superior to anyone with good training.

Handgun bullet holes are not likely to cause serious decompression problems. The shotgun with the bean bag load might pose a worse problem, by busting out a window (I don't know that they would do this, but with all that momentum, I'd want to find out before I endorsed the idea). Besides, up close I'd rather have a handgun. Easier to retain. Faster to get into operation.  

I think the Sky Marshal idea is OK, but I think it makes sense to arm the pilots, too. Putting them behind a "vault door" may not be such a good idea. Put them behind something that will hold back the terrs long enough for them to fight back with their pistols, sure.

The Sky Marshals will be hired for the job. Just like cops, security guards, and prision guards are hired for their jobs. I'm not a "pro", but I outshoot most "pros" I've shot with, or seen shoot. My guess is that quite a few of the pilots can already outshoot most of the "pros". I don't think pilots should be [i]required[/i] to carry, but they should have the option. Perhaps Gunsite/Frontsight type training should be required for them to carry. Hell, the civilian schools turn out the best shooters anyway.

i'd like to see entire aircrews have the option to carry, after background checks and training. this might result in as many as half a dozen armed people scattered about the airplane with an interest in landing alive.

.
Correct.  They didn't arm their pilots.  They just allow passengers to carry.  Read closely next time.

I was on a flight yesterday from Nashville to Detroit.  The first people on the plane were a handcuffed prisoner and two cops.  Having two armed men on the flight did not seem to bother anyone.  The problem with the September 11 incident is securing the flight deck.  They need to secure that area.  This will keep the terrorist away from the controls.  

It is that simple.    

Just a reminder, a breach of the pressure vessel is not a problem.  A few bullet holes will not bring down an airliner.  I understand this goes against everything we learned from 'Airplane' the movie.  Planerench out.

What makes you guys think that the Air Marshalls do or will travel alone?  The training shown on the news showed some working on groups of two.  Second what do you think an Air Marshall would do if you pulled a weapon to assist them.  My guess is that you would recieve several rounds to your upper torso and or head before you could says wait I am a good guy trying to help. Any movement towards them  Finaly, if you can get a firearm legaly what would prevent a terrorist from legaly purchasing a firearm and bring it on an aircarft?

Putting one on each and every flight will be expensive. Possibly several would be put on [i]some[/i] flights.



The same would be true, of course, for civilian CCW on the ground. Or, off duty police CCW on the ground, for that matter. Certainly, mistakes happen, but I think that the Marshal would be in a postition to determine friend from foe before he goes for his weapon.



Uh, right now they seem to do just fine with box cutters. They wouldn't do so well with box cutters if some of us were armed. Since the airplane is owned by a private corp., I'd be happy to pass a strict CCW test to carry on board (my RTKBA does not extend to other's private property). Hell, in this case I'd be fine with background checks and mandatory training.

If the odds were that a number of passengers were packing, it would be stupid for a terr to attempt a hyjacking even if he had a gun. Even if there were several terrs with guns. They would have to go back to placing bombs in planes. Which wouldn't be good for the passengers, but it would help out our larger buildings.

I have no problem with the idea of arming the pilots but i think that is the least effective of the solutions. If the pilots are having to get into a gunfight in the cockpit things have already gone wrong. And holes45 if you think your that fast that you can draw your weapon and get off a proper shot before the bg closed the 2 to 3 ft distace to you, then you may want to sit in an open seat in your house with a shoulder holster on and have someone stand 6 ft behind you, when they say go you try to get the gun out before they get to you. it will open your eyes to the harsh reality. your not that fast,very few in the world are that fast.  making the cockpit door reinforced is a good idea but if the terrorist has a bomb then the door will only serve to show where the cockpit was. i think that the air marshalls can do the job required most of the time. my idea is to arm all of the flight attendants, there are more of them and they are spread out throughout the plane, together with the air marshalls it would make an effective team. Patriot dave if you think that the air marshalls are just another fed then you have never seen them train, they are specifically trained for handgun fighting. and that is there only purpose.they are very very good at it. the whole arming the pilots is a worthy idea but they are not supermen capable of moving faster than the terrorist, remember action is faster than reaction.and if you have ever tried to draw a weapon in a cramped cockpit it produces a lot more problems than you may think.

Vortac is correct. Air Marshals do not recieve standard federal training in firearms. To start there is no other mainline fed agency that has a weapons manipulations test as part of the initial interview process. Air Marshals place almost all emphasis on training to shoot and to shoot very well. They do not just train once at the academy, they have a very progressive CQC program. They just don't attend Gunsite once for a week and think "gee now I am a true operator" give me a break. Going to Gunsite or anywhere for a week is only as good as skills retained five minutes after you leave. IPSC is also not reflective of reality, if you think it is you are sorely mistaken. IDPA is much more realistic. "Race" type guns are for games. There is nothing wrong with games and training but don't think that the Air Marshals think that CQC at 40,000 feet is something to be taken lightly. Most federal agents train very little, not considering HRT,SWAT,SOG,BORTAC, etc. They just don't stress the handgun aspect like the Air Marshals. The Air Marshals are not the only solution. Arm the pilots too if they want to carry and they are proficient. Most of the older Air Marshals came directly from true operators leaving SF. Lets see if they can maintain their level of quality. If they can with the new hires, we are that much safer in the sky. Before the attacks there had been a few incidents where pilots would refure federal agents from boarding armed. The pilots have the final say in that matter and most local LEOs cannot fly armed without stringent guidelines met and usually when that happens they are transporting a prisoner. There are quite a few flights that have armed federal agents on board already by chance, on 09/11/01 we weren't so lucky. I am all for RTKBA but we may never see the day where there is CCW on major carriers, it just won't happen. Right now the Air Marshal and stronger carrier doors is a real good beginning response to the problem at hand. What we need to look at now is REAL security on the ground, but the fine line is where does security end and infringment begin and just what people are willing to put up with.  With the true patriots all for the cause and libs with a 15 minute attention span, it should be interesting.

Don S,how will they ID friend or foe?  If you made any move for a weapon I think you would be shot without hesitation. I think their job would be easier if they don't have  to worry about not shooting someone trying to "help".  If you want to help just try to jump the guy that is trying to disarm a Marshall. You may not get shot and you would be doing something helpful.

How will you ID the bad guys?  The same argument put forward concerning disarming a Air Marshall could easily be applied to regular people carrying  a gun.  

It is a physical security issue you need to secure the flight deck.  If it had been, the Sky Marshall issue is moot.

I seems that it would be extremely difficult for say 3 or 4 armed people on a flight that don't' know each other and have never trained with each other to coordinate an effective response to a group a terrorists.  Do you thing you are going to have time to take a poll of your fellow passengers to inquire who is armed and what they are going to do to stop a highjacking.  

I used to carry a handgun when I flew part 121 (same category as a 747 in the view of the FAA) when I was up in Alaska.  We used to practice for several contingencies when no passengers were around and I can say that even in the more cramped quarters of a Beech 1900, a pilot armed can fairly easily get rid of a bad guy.  Now I fly something much bigger and believe me, it's much easier.  There is also a thing called a jumpseat that folds down just in front of the cockpit door which deters someone trying to break the door down.  This gives more than enough time to pull a jigsaw puzzle out and finish it before the BG gets in.  Putting the jumpseat down is just as good as a deadbolt.  Believe me when I say that it is a tremendous task to get into a threatening position to the pilots with that done.  
It ain't as hard as you try to make it out to be.  

BTT

Again..I am not opposed to the pilots having guns, I think it is a good idea, but by time the fight gets to the cockpit we have already let it get to far. You may have experience in drawing your weapon in a cockpit, but how many of your fellow pilots do? the last thing I as a passenger want is you to be engaged in a gunfight in the cockpit. First off you would be sending rounds downrange right toward your passengers. second off you would be in a awkward position for a fight. If the gunfighting can be left to someone other that the pilots than that would be ideal . arm the pilots, because everything can go wrong and I would like as many layers of defense as possible. And as the last line of defense it is a good idea. But lets hope it never gets that far.

The guys trying to take over the plane are the terrorists.



Certainly that is how they would interpret it now, since carry is prohibited.



That's fine, but my priority isn't to make the jobs of federal law enforcement easier. I'd rather end hyjacking.



Or perhaps the Marshal will decide you are a threat and shoot you.



They are the guys trying to take over the plane.



For economic reasons, few marshals will be on any given plane. Most might have one, some might have several, others none. So the terrs have to only overpower one or two guys. And with proper intel, they may know who those guys are.

On the other hand, the terrs would have no idea who and how many passengers might be carrying on a given flight. At least if we set up a good system for allowing CCW. Multiple armed passengers are a greater threat than one marshal.

You mean the new air marshals? The old ones were cancelled back in what, '73?



The level of skill I've seen from Gunsite grads exceeds that of the leos I've watched. The only exception being leos with Gunsite training, and one leo who was an old hand in the Bear Vally days.



Actually, top "game" shooters are the very best pistol shots. Certainly, neither IPSC nor IDPA teach good tactics. But they do a very good job of testing and improving shooting skill.

The interesting thing is that IDPA effectively has more restrictive, and inherently less realistic, rules than IPSC does. IDPA seems to get better respect in some circles because the guns are more "realistic". I understand that the IDPA folk were trying to get away from the "gamer" attitude of IPSC, but I don't think they choose a good way to go about it.



I don't think it is going to happen--but I'm still going to argue for it.



I disagree. The real solution to this type of attack is the ability of someone on board to end the threat with a handgun. When this is something the terrs have to consider, the whole operation becomes too expensive for them.

We have invested into ground security, but it will always be broken. Always.

Of course, terrs can always avoid anyone armed in a plane by planting a bomb. But this route doesn't provide them with a guided missle.

All it would have taken on any of the three flights was one person with a gun. Certainly, three or four strangers would not coordinate perfectly, but the fact is they wouldn't have to be to be effective.

The flight attendants union wants to carry mace or pepper spray or some such. They have come out against the pilots being armed.

The pilots union wants the pilots to be armed.

That tells me that the flight attendents are perhaps not the most martial group around. I think they are a poor bet to arm, since I do not think they are up to the job emotionally or mentally.

I am not against arming them per say, I just think that few would choose to be armed, and that few of those would respond effectively do an attack in any case. Specially since that as a group they seem to have taken the FAAs "don't resist" policy to hart.

Edit: In addition, the flight attendents have to move around the plane as part of their job. This means one could be isolated and disarmed if she was carrying. If she wasn't carrying, she wouldn't have quick access to her weapon.

I guess I'm not really in favor of putting semi-trained Sky Marshalls on a plane-  Try this on for size:  CS gas which can be triggered by the pilot at any time there is a major disruption in the passenger cabin.  A video camera/monitor will give him a good look at the trouble.  On release everyone in the passenger cabin goes to sleep and the pilot heads for the nearest airport after declaring an emergency.  The FBI and Federal Marshalls can sort it out on the ground.  What do you think?  Does CS gas work fast enough and how would it affect someone with medical problems like heart trouble etc???
[thinking]

Pressure bulkhead!

cs does not make you go to sleep, in fact if you have military training then you have probably been thru it a couple of times already and you can still operate once it's been deployed. i do however agree with letting all the legally armed people carry thier guns on the flights. what terrorist is going to want to face a possible plane full of pissed off and armed citizens. as long as it doesn't get everyone shooting in all directions it would be a good thing. i think therein lies the problem, the govn't and the airlines are afraid of everyone just starting to shoot, and in such close and highly populated quarters it could get real bloody. but it's better than hitting large buildings and killing thousands more.

DonS,

I can assure you that the Air Marshals were not cancelled in 73. Maybe you are thinking of when the program went from "Sky Marshals" to under FAA control and became Air Marshals. We have had Air Marshals all along. They were just used much less on domestic flights and were operating on international flights. If you think it was cancelled you don't know what you are talking about.
As far as Gunsite goes I guess you feel that that school is the end all be all, which is fine, especially if you go every year. There are a lot of LEOs who need more training no doubt, but then again there are tons of non-LEOs who have no training and want to get on a plane armed after watching a video, no thanks. I can just imagine the outcome.

ISPC does not produce the best shooters. It produces the best gamesmen/women. Take away the fancy guns and see what happens. Especially when you have to make split second decisions at 40,000 feet. Speed isn't everything. You can't miss fast enough to win:))