Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 5/22/2002 10:34:38 AM EDT
I'm all in favor of armed response to terror aboard commercial flights by trained operators but pilots in the close confines of the cockpit may be better served by other weapons or tactics than handguns. A handgun may be good in a few cases but I believe different training outside of firearms should be ultilized. Armed air marshalls would rush the area of the cockpit with an armed response while pilot struggled with bad guy. Pilot attempting to bring to bear a handgun in the tight spaces of cockpit would be at a disadvantage. That's only my opinion, I'm sure there are differing views on this.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 10:43:29 AM EDT
Disagreement here. Reasoning: 1) Virtually ALL of the airline pilots WANT to carry. THEY must think it will work. 2) How could Sept 11 have been ANY worse simply because of 4 pistols? 3) My dad is a multiengine pilot, 10,000+ hours in military heavies, he's all for it. 4) Most airline pilots are former military pilots, meaning they liklely carried as pilots in the service and are familiar with firearms. 5) Think about it, there are 2 guys sitting there doing the job of a simgle guy, usually it's on autopilot anyway. Cramped quarters= fatal funnel for the stupid bullet stop coming in the door. Frangible bullets are not going to drill a hole all the way to the tail. 6) Alternatives suck. Ever try to double tap a taser?
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 10:46:18 AM EDT
That's fine, but you can't just say something like this and not have an alternative weapon or tactic in response. A small handgun is probably smaller then a worth while taser. A handgun is the cheapest method with fatal results, fatal results is what we need. Imagine what this would do for America, and the gun community, and our safety as a whole. Here's the headlines. "Pilot stops what would be terrorist with handgun on flight XXX" Not only would it scare the bajesus out of any future terrorist, it would be a great step for us as America showing the world, and ourselves, that we can defend ourselves. I don't even understand why when it comes to guns and the government, they just can't give it a chance! If it didn't work out a few times, pull the idea. But no, they would rather shoot down a plane with over 100 passengers then take a chance having a handgun in the pilots possession. Where's the logic!?
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 10:54:05 AM EDT
HELLO PEOPLE, AIR MARSHALL's ARE NOT ON EVERY FLIGHT!! I believe that the estimates to make that happen, even if qualified individuals were available, is about $4 Bilion per year. I believe that all citizens should have training when available and should be allowed to carry, but that is a different debate. When that plane leaves the ground, when that ship leaves the port, you are on your own. Terrorists will manage to get weapons on board, passengers are not allowed nail clippers. The second choice that the government has given passengers is - We will have the military shoot down the plane! That sounds okay, unless you happen to be the defenseless passenger on the plane that the military is locking their weapons systems on. Does anyone really believe that the pilot is just flying the plane when the cockpit door is being breeched and someone is attemping to slit their throat or when they are listening to the flight crew being murdered outside? As for me, I would prefer to go out fighting, not wimpering. I want this last chance before that missile is launched.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 10:57:18 AM EDT
I don't know about this one...I think I have to disagree here. I do understand your concerns about pilots being armed though. My thinking goes like this...since armed sky marshals can't be on all flights then both pilots on-board should be armed as a last line of defense. These men should have protocols to deal with potential hijackings and should never engage a threat beyond their area (cockpit). I disagree that a handgun would have limited use in the confines of a cockpit. In fact it is my opinion that a handgun would be the most effective weapon available for the job. While Mace, stun guns, tasers, etc have their place, they would probably not be effective against a well trained and determined opponent. Recent police tests have confirmed that as well. These items are best used in law enforcement to take the will of a fighter who is not that determined to begin with. Give these pilots guns, so they can have a reliable means of thwarting a hijack attempt. A firearm is the ONLY reliable means of doing so. And give them the training so they can use it to maximum effect. That way if terrorists knock down all the flight attendants after they use pepper spray on them, and after they bust through one of the new reinforced cockpit doors....the pilots can hit them with a few rounds of Glasers or Mag Safes and put em down for the count. The vast majority of the time the planes are set to auto pilot anyway, which would leave both pilots free to shoot if need be. It would be hard for them to get past a wall of lead, unlike the other non-lethal devices. Think about the airlines in Israel. How many of those have you seen hijacked lately? None. Why? Because all the pilots are armed. This is the only way to prevent future attacks folks. If sky marshals could be on every flight then it would be different. But they aren't and never will be so this is the next best option. How would all of you feel if you were a pilot and knew that the best means of keeping yourself, your crew and the passengers safe was denied to you? I would be so pissed off that I would refuse to fly until granted access to protect myself. This is what the pilots should do....go on strike and you'll see those suit and tie folks in Washington change their attitude in a hurry.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 11:11:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/22/2002 11:14:04 AM EDT by hound]
Oh my gawd...who let the HCI bunch in here? No limits....let anyone on the plane carry..just check their ammo..frangible only...here is a headline for you---Hijacker shot by 24 people, only two passengers injured------compare that to WTC hit by jet-----anybody got a problem with that? Or are all yo guys going to toe the reasonable restrictions line and training required....you sound like NOW, who would rather have a woman strangled with her own pantyhose and raped than to use a gun. If I am on a plane and the hijacker uses me for a hostage, shoot me. The needs of the few..... Other tactics? how about this one--dead hijackers any way and anywhere....
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 11:16:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hound: Oh my gawd...who let the HCI bunch in here? No limits....let anyone on the plane carry..just check their ammo..frangible only.......
View Quote
Easy, Hound. Try readingthe initial post, he asked if PILOTS should be allowed to carry, not whether or not something else should or should not happen. Don't fight the question, answer it: Should PILOTS be allowed to carry or not?
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 11:21:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/22/2002 11:22:59 AM EDT by zonan]
Originally Posted By FL_BOY: HELLO PEOPLE, AIR MARSHALL's ARE NOT ON EVERY FLIGHT!!
View Quote
Hardly any flights. If there is an air marshall onboard, he is required by law to inform the captain. I have heard an airline captain say that he has [b]never[/b] had one on any of his flights, nor has he heard of any other captain that has.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 11:24:16 AM EDT
I did answer and you quoted it----let anyone... As for the easy part..it is so depressing to see the opinions expressed in this page...reasonable restrictions, training, armed air marshalls.Do any of you guys take responsibility for your selves or do you need the nanny state to save you.....My personal pledge...anyone on one of my flights tries this and they get a surprise....galley coffee pots are great for thunking heads.....
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 11:33:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/22/2002 11:34:35 AM EDT by Ken226]
We dont need to arm our pilots as a last resort to another 9/11. We already have a last resort, an F16 with sparrow and sidewinder missiles and a 20mm gun. Come on guys, why is common sense so uncommon? I will not fly anywhere for any reason until at least the pilots are armed.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 11:50:53 AM EDT
My understanding is that air marshals are on less than 1 percent of airline flights. That makes them about as useful as tits on a boar hog. The pilots should be armed. Hell, everyone on the place should be armed. [img]www.dimensional.com/~mwluse/sept11_b.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 12:06:46 PM EDT
Note to self; When confronted by a martyr with a box cutter, have a gun ready at hand.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 12:28:11 PM EDT
Read my post again. I'm all in favor of armed response to terror aboard the plane. If it were me flying the plane I would have a sidearm if allowed, or if I could be discreet enough to do it if not allowed. The point is how best to deal with an attacker inside the cockpit, it's kinda like the inside of your car. Could you get a pistol off your hip under a seat belt, under your shirt and then fight with someone in the front of the car? To underscore what I'm saying, let me just say that I would kill the motherfucker before the pistol came out. I would hit him fast and crush his windpipe or get on his neck, destroy his eyeballs, cut his carotid artery, etc. Do you understand what I mean? I could do this as a reaction faster than pulling a pistol. It requires the right training and mindset to do this however. That's the alternate force I mean. Impact and edged weapons would be available to be employed in the cockpit, as well as the pistol. My point also is the impact, edged, and manual methods are as a rule handier in most cases.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 1:00:33 PM EDT
Hound, So I see you think we should just turn armed people loose aboard planes with no training at all? That's an idea almost as bright as a 30 watt lightbulb. Nobody here is saying that they should be restricted and all that kinda crap...just that they should receive training so they might be able to hit something. Common sense stuff.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 1:03:14 PM EDT
I just thought of something else. This news is probably enough for those MF's to be saying, " ahhh the great Allah has blessed us again, the US is not allowing pilots to carry firearms still, we thank Allah for making this happen". Gets me sooo heated!
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 1:04:56 PM EDT
There are several problems with arming pilots. 1/The airlines don't want the liability 2/ Potential terrorists now have access to weapons on each flight. These pilots are regular joes, not Delta operators. I agree that they have a better chance if armed but does anyone here actually think they can prevail in a surprise attack by numerous, trained, motivated, blood thirsty terrorists? Keep in mind they are busy flying not in condition yellow looking to upgrade! I think the incognito air marshall with the training to handle crisis situations would be a MUCH better solution. The tangos don't know where he is, big advantage. Just my opinion.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 1:12:43 PM EDT
Direct answer---I would rather have granny with a scatter gun killing half of the passengers and the hijackers than to EVER have to wake up and see parts of the skyline burning. Is that answer enough?
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 1:20:11 PM EDT
That's great hound, but if you could kill the terrorists without killing half the passengers, wouldn't that be better? That's all I am saying. They should be expert marksman. I have also noticed that some people have reservations about pilots having guns because the terrorists could get them. So what if they did? If they gain control of the plane it wouldn't make any difference! They are going to crash it into a building anyway! What would the gun hurt at that point?
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 1:20:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ipschoser1: There are several problems with arming pilots. 1/The airlines don't want the liability 2/ Potential terrorists now have access to weapons on each flight. These pilots are regular joes, not Delta operators. I agree that they have a better chance if armed but does anyone here actually think they can prevail in a surprise attack by numerous, trained, motivated, blood thirsty terrorists? Keep in mind they are busy flying not in condition yellow looking to upgrade! I think the incognito air marshall with the training to handle crisis situations would be a MUCH better solution. The tangos don't know where he is, big advantage. Just my opinion.
View Quote
These are all once again very weak points considering we had 2 large skyscrapers and about 4000 dead civilians. Your points might of been worthwhile a year or 2 ago, but since what's already happened, I can't believe the punches the US is pulling. I'm friggen heated again!!
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 1:28:06 PM EDT
1) If everyone can carry a firearm onto a plane. Very few "regular people" would do it. If you wanted to hijack a plane THE HIJACKERS could just walk on with their guns. 2) Air Marshalls may be a good idea. But the amount of flights they can be on is limited. Also 1 Air Marshall per flight is spreading them kinda thin. 2 per flight would be better but only half as many flights would be covered. 3) Flight Attendants want means of self defense. Stun guns, self defense courses etc. The should also have resatriant devices MANDATED to be on the aircraft, handcuffs flexi cuffs etc. 4) Flight Attendents also want "personal alarms" to immediately notify the cockpit crew if there is trouble in the cabin. 5) Pilots can do things to make life tough for people in the passenger area. Cut back on the air, not fun unless you are in a seat with a O2 mask over it. They can also dive/climb the palne so that anyone not seated is being thrown around. They should have SOP's and training to do this kind of stuff without damaging the aircraft. 6) Pilots should have guns. The cockpit is the line in the sand. as soon as someone penetrates the cockpit door, even a little, the pilots should react to that as the deadly threat it is. The armed pilot, gun, should never leave the cockpit. If you control the cockpit you control the plane. 7) The FAA/Airlines should set up "what ifs" in case a hijacked plane lands at ANY commercial airport. By that I mean having FD/PD/EMS responses planned. Including possibly Federal responses to a hijacking. 8) Passengers should be ready to defend the plane they are on. Guy with a box-cutter making demands. Stewardess I'd like a pillow case and a six pack of soda........
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 1:41:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/22/2002 1:42:33 PM EDT by waterblade]
Thank God that I read OLY/HMC's responses before my own reply. The answer in progress is the door barrier. Pilots should NEVER have guns. It takes at least two people to fly a commercial airplane. (period) You can't fly/contact ATC/ and shoot someone at the same time. The authorities are only seconds away from any transmission from a pilot and they could be waiting after touch-down. The flight attendants do have means to restraint. The best answer has to be prevention of weapons aboard and a solid barrier.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 1:45:55 PM EDT
After 9/11 they did require reinforced cockpit doors to be installed. Prior to 9/11 though, no one really seriously thought that hi-jackers were going to take over a plane and use it as a weapon. In the past they've always landed and negotiated. There was a previous 4 plane hijacking that ended up in Morroco. The passengers were released and the 4 planes were "scuttled". The hi-jackers also escaped. The problem is that planes have weight limits. Anything that is built into a plane is evaluated for it's benefit vs. weight. So if we go adding weight to planes they have a lower cargo hauling ability.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 1:56:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By waterblade: Thank God that I read OLY/HMC's responses before my own reply. The answer in progress is the door barrier. Pilots should NEVER have guns. It takes at least two people to fly a commercial airplane. (period) You can't fly/contact ATC/ and shoot someone at the same time.
View Quote
BULLSHIT. Where did you get this information? The radio transmit button is on the control yoke, the radios are centrally loacted between the seats. Most of the time during flight, airliners are flown by ZERO pilots, they use autopilot extensively. Ever fly commercial and see one of the pilots exit the cockpit to stretch his legs? What's that, a daredevil move?? Come on. Even if it's NOT on autopilot, letting go of the controls in a proplerly trimmed aitcraft does...NOTHING. It continues to fly in a straight line. It doesn't plunge into a screaming dive just because you let go of the yoke. I'll say it again, my dad is retired AF, he's got 10,000 hours in heavies up to and including C5s, he thinks it would be a great idea. There is plenty of manpower up front to be able to deploy a handgun upon cockpit entry.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 2:05:20 PM EDT
I think the pilots should have the flexibility to carry a handgun if they want to. Hell if they want as far as I'm concerned they can add in a nice USMC KBAR knife for backup! I'd slit their rag-head throats myself in a heartbeat. You can't put Marshalls on every airline flight.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 3:31:13 PM EDT
Yes, I think that pilots and passengers should be allowed to carry. If you make the cockpit door an impentrable fortress, then what happens if there is a normal crash or some other accident and rescue people need to get into the cockpit? There are a few somewhat plausible reasons why pilots don't NEED guns, but I have yet to see anyone give any reason why pilots SHOULD NOT have guns. Also, what's with the frangible ammo? This stuff about airplanes being downed by a single bullet through the fuselage is a James Bond fantasy. Air constantly leaks out through the fuselage - it's next to impossible to seal everything perfectly forever. Air is continuously taken from just after the compressor in the engines and used to pressurize the cabin. There is some part whose name I can't remember that regulates airflow into the cabin based on cabin pressure. In the event of a bullet hole, fresh air would simply flow into the cabin faster to replace the air flowing out. Give them good hollowpoint ammo, or possibly FMJ, the better to penetrate the cockpit door and hit the terrorists before then enter the cockpit.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 4:01:47 PM EDT
1) If everyone can carry a firearm onto a plane. Very few "regular people" would do it. If you wanted to hijack a plane THE HIJACKERS could just walk on with their guns.
View Quote
Speaking strickly for the "regular people" in Florida that is BS, why would a CCW holder not carry on a flight? (I'm an engineer, I already know that bullet hole does not equal complete depressurization.)
2) Air Marshalls may be a good idea. But the amount of flights they can be on is limited. Also 1 Air Marshall per flight is spreading them kinda thin. 2 per flight would be better but only half as many flights would be covered.
View Quote
It has already been stated that Airmarshalls are only only 1% of all flights - not enough. Remember there were 4 aircraft on 9/11, wanna take odds that at least 1 wouldn't have an airmarshall?
3) Flight Attendants want means of self defense. Stun guns, self defense courses etc. The should also have resatriant devices MANDATED to be on the aircraft, handcuffs flexi cuffs etc.
View Quote
Standard issue to each aircraft should be a bag of large zip ties - restraint problem solved.
4) Flight Attendents also want "personal alarms" to immediately notify the cockpit crew if there is trouble in the cabin.
View Quote
Uhh... ok, but sounds reminescent of "I've fallen and can't get up."
5) Pilots can do things to make life tough for people in the passenger area. Cut back on the air, not fun unless you are in a seat with a O2 mask over it. They can also dive/climb the palne so that anyone not seated is being thrown around. They should have SOP's and training to do this kind of stuff without damaging the aircraft.
View Quote
You better check your sources - most of these systems are automatic and the pilot has very little control, especially once the aircraft reaches altitude. Remember we are talking Boeing commercial aircraft not fighters - what aerobatics that are possible would only serve as a minor hinderance to a determined terrorist.
6) Pilots should have guns. The cockpit is the line in the sand. as soon as someone penetrates the cockpit door, even a little, the pilots should react to that as the deadly threat it is. The armed pilot, gun, should never leave the cockpit. If you control the cockpit you control the plane.
View Quote
Passengers too. The passengers that downed the flight in Penn. proved that the citizenry is ultimately responsible.
7) The FAA/Airlines should set up "what ifs" in case a hijacked plane lands at ANY commercial airport. By that I mean having FD/PD/EMS responses planned. Including possibly Federal responses to a hijacking.
View Quote
Most of this already exists.
8) Passengers should be ready to defend the plane they are on. Guy with a box-cutter making demands. Stewardess I'd like a pillow case and a six pack of soda........
View Quote
Might work for you, but let's take a petite woman who observes the threat - other than a firearm what are her choices at heading off a terrorist? Ryan
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 4:02:14 PM EDT
Citadel, you moron, I suggest you fly on your Daddy's airplane and learn. Unless you fly across the pond..... Auto-pilot doesn't cover it. 15 yrs commercial pilot- 10yrs ATC.... Pilots don't have TIME to shoot!
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 4:09:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/22/2002 4:45:24 PM EDT by CITADELGRAD87]
Waterblade: Right back at you. "Daddy" is a retired Maj. Gen. with, as I said, TEN THOUSAND plus hours in heavies. THIRTY plus years in the AF. Pardon the hell out of me for taking his word over yours. Again, bullshit. I know how to fly, but I have never flown a multiengine. However, BULLSHIT. If the plane is trimmed, you don't need to be horsing on the yoke constantly to keep it in the air. CERTAINLY both pilots don't need to be. It's not a frigging B24. As if "daddy" wasn't enough, there's the ENTIRE AIRLINE PILOTS UNION that disagrees with your take on how strenuous it is to fly. "AT least two" to fly? So bigger planes need 3? Silly, "moronic" me, I thought the trend was ELIMINATING flight crew headcount, they have done away with the flight engineer position entirely. BULLSHIT. EDITED to add: Stop trying to convince people that flying is so mystical. Most people would be shocked to learn how simple it is to keep a plane flying straight and level, however, if you are a pilot, you know that full well. EDITED AGAIN to add: You did not dispute a SINGLE fact in my post. Radios are centrally located, one man can AND DOES fly most if not all the time. Autopilot is used extensivley, despite your claim. Even if it's not, and more importantly, though, it DOES NOT TAKE "TWO PEOPLE MINIMUM_PERIOD" to fly a commercial airliner. It doesn't, end of story. If it did, we'd lose a plane EVERY time one or the other was incapacitated. That's frigging ridiculous.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 4:18:11 PM EDT
"Armed air marshalls would rush the area of the cockpit with an armed response"..... TO FIND THE DEAD PILOTS! Anybody know how to fly a plane? [:D]
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 5:56:40 PM EDT
First Ryan take a breath. 1) What percentage of adults in FL have CCW? Out of those how many carry every place they go? What percentage of adults are anti-gun or have never held a gun. That's what I meant. Also it still doesn't keep the TERRORIST from simply walking on to the plane with a gun. Gee 5 terrorists on a plane with guns, vs the passengers, that will be partially unarmed and those that are armed will be un-organized. 2) That was partially my point, but then again having a few "out there" is a better deterent than none. 3) So you agree with me. 4) Yes kinda like that, but it would give the pilots the an immediate notification that something bad is happening and they should prepare, notify, and divert. 5) You are incorrect. Pilots may employ automated sysstems as flying aids. Airbus have some automated systems to keep the pilot from oveflying the plane. But next time you fly think about taking off. They can do that for a while. NASA uses Boeing 707's to simulate weightlessness. They just dive at a constant rate. Nothing slows a guy down like 0-g's followed by a trip to the floor then ceiling, repeat as needed. PILOTS were on the news talking about being able to do that after 9/11. Check YOUR facts. De-pressurizing the passenger area can also been done relatively easily from the cockpit. Just so YOU are clear I'm talking about depleteing the breathable air, nothing more. Slows a fella down when you either pass out or need an O2 mask, which in commercial jets are attached to the ceiling over seats. 7) No it don't airports have plans for fires, crashes, emergency landings, passenger sickness, and so forth, very few have an SOP for terrorist activity. 8) If the plan is 190 unarmed passengers, and 5 terrorist armed with box-cutters, and the other passengers KNOW that the terrorist have plans to use the plane as a missile. I would give the odds to the passengers. ESP if the flight crew gets immed. word of trouble in the pasenger area, and refuses to let anyone gain acess to the cokpit, and is ready to immediatley divert to the closest airport.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 6:25:52 PM EDT
1. Give the pilots guns. 2. It doesn't take two pilots to fly a comercial aircraft. 3. Ever try to find a good spot to shoot down an airliner over lets say New York? By the time someone (other than those aboard) figures out something is going on, the plane is going to be over a populated area.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 6:34:32 PM EDT
I feel that the pilots should be armed, for the purpose of retaining control of the plane. This would be in conjunction with reinforced doors. As someone mentioned before, not knowing where the SkyMarshal is (or if a SkyMarshal is aboard) lends him an element of surprise. However, as was the case in Sept 2001, multiple hijackers can be aboard the aircraft. Given that their locations and numbers are also unknown, this leaves both "sides" on equal footing with respect to "surprise". Also consider that the SkyMarshal must be able to see the threat to confront it. Should one/a few hijackers perform a diversion in order to "make" the SkyMarshal, then the benefit of the SkyMarshal is lost. Of course, placing the SkyMarshal in more tactically controllable positions, such as the extreme front or rear of the plane would help in that respect. However, being near the rear removes him from the area of protection (cockpit), and being near the front doesn't allow him to face the threat while seated. Either position causes him to lose the element of mystery, as then the hijackers know where he is (either front or rear). The purpose, in my view, of firearms in the cockpit is to ensure that the cockpit remains secure from takeover. In conjunction with reinforced doors, it should be a real possibility. While the door absorbs the initial breaching attempts, the now alerted crew trains sights on the single point of entry, commencing fire on breach. I will admit that I have never flown an aircraft, but I do have a hard time believing that the crew could not take a few seconds to fire through a 7'x2' opening during flight. Yes, the crew should concentrate on getting the plane to ground as quickly and SAFELY as possible, and the safest way to do that is by ensuring that nobody is fighting with them for the controls when you are near the ground with very little reaction time. Thoughts for now... -Ed
Link Posted: 5/23/2002 3:57:26 AM EDT
It is my understanding that virtually all Air Marshals are located in, and fly out of, Washington DC. Does it surprise anyone here that the Politicians want more protection than is available to us common folk (who fly out of the other 99% of airports)? Steve Nicholas
Link Posted: 5/23/2002 4:18:15 AM EDT
All of this ignores the facts. Giving people the "option" to fly armed, be they pilots or passengers, doesn't make us any safer. There has to be consistancy. Either ALL pilots are armed, or there is always an armed marshall, or both. I don't want safety of NYC, or the Capitol Building, or some Nuclear Plant to be dependant upon whether or not some citizen "chooses" to fly armed that day. To safeguard flights, there must ALWAYS be an armed presence, not just the option.
Top Top