Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/18/2001 2:53:03 PM EDT
I think this solution makes good sense. It wouldn't cost that much vs. air marshalls. Most airline pilots have been in the military and have had training with firearms. Have a pistol or carbine locked in the cockpit and lock the door. Make it a rule. First thing after a Hijack land the plane. If ther Hijackers start to hurt people they get shot. I would also give the Flight Attendents peper spray. Not lethal if it gets taken away Thanks
Link Posted: 9/18/2001 3:00:16 PM EDT
Right on! Being familiar with polymers, the technology exhists to mold plastic bullets that will not penetrate the air frame, but are just strong enough to fracture a skull. Each pilot should carry. The flight crew could also use zappers. I think that anyone complaining on a plane will do it with a smile. [thinking]
Link Posted: 9/18/2001 3:04:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/18/2001 3:03:36 PM EDT by erickm]
my question is why DIDN'T they give them weapons? cabbies who drive 1990 model ex-cop $2000 caprices carry wepaons.
Link Posted: 9/18/2001 3:08:59 PM EDT
You're absolutely right... it wouldn't cost as much as air marshals and it is a good idea. As an aspiring pilot, I probably wouldn't travel the "not-so-friendly" skies without SOME form of protection. However, would you want to take the pilots duties away from flying the aircraft? Its like arming surgeons to curb hospital crime... its cool so long as they're not doing anything important... catch the drift? The only times a pilot would be able to really fend off would-be hijackers would be during the cruise portion of flight. I figure it wouldn't take too long for hijackers to figure that out.
Link Posted: 9/18/2001 3:17:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dck47: You're absolutely right... it wouldn't cost as much as air marshals and it is a good idea. As an aspiring pilot, I probably wouldn't travel the "not-so-friendly" skies without SOME form of protection. However, would you want to take the pilots duties away from flying the aircraft? Its like arming surgeons to curb hospital crime... its cool so long as they're not doing anything important... catch the drift? As a captain at a big airline, I can fight back at any phase of flight. Either with the controls of the airplane or with some kind of weapon. If anything happened that need both pilots' attention, turn on the damn autopilot. It's not that hard. It would be much more cost effective to spend lets say $500-900 on handgun courses for pilots instead of having an air marshal take up a seat on random flights. Right now the government and the Airline Pilots Association is working on all these factors and more. You will most likely see stronger cockpit doors, some kind of new lethal, less than lethal, or non-lethal weapon in the cockpit. Air marshals will be back strong at first and eventually go to a random pace. And one of the more important things is pilots will be trained much differently in regards on how to deal with a high-jacking. No more complying with the terrorists. The only times a pilot would be able to really fend off would-be hijackers would be during the cruise portion of flight. I figure it wouldn't take too long for hijackers to figure that out.
View Quote
Link Posted: 9/18/2001 5:16:50 PM EDT
Because they're cowards and want everyone else to be, too. It's the "call 911 and everything will be ok" mentality. It's "don't take the law into your own hands" crap. Pilots used to be able to carry when they could go around security. That ended in what? 1990? The airlines & the FAA seem to think that by disarming the good guys, the bad guys won't hurt anyone. Now, they're confiscating nail clippers from passengers. Tell me, holes45. If you put on the autopilot and both pilots come out of the cockpit, what happens next? The terrorists win, that's what. Wanna bet that's what happened on all four flights last Tuesday? Real smart. Norm
Link Posted: 9/18/2001 5:24:50 PM EDT
A friend of mine was 2nd pilot on 727's in the late '60s and he always carried a .45 auto. Can't remember when the rules were changed though. Perhaps a member or two are commercial pilots and can fill us in on why/when things changed. W
Link Posted: 9/18/2001 6:36:04 PM EDT
Because Gov't types don't feel like they can take credit for a course of action unless they can point to a budget line item.[:|]
Link Posted: 9/18/2001 6:45:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/18/2001 6:48:29 PM EDT by Skibane]
Arm the pilots? Too easy to overpower them while they're flying the plane. Only 2 of them on any given flight, which isn't very good odds against 5-6 terrorists. Finally, everyone on the plane knows who the only 2 good guys with the guns are. Sky Marshalls? Can our government afford to put enough of them on EVERY flight to thwart 5 or 6 hijackers? Doubtful. Sounds reassuring to the public, though. Arm the passengers? [B]Now[/B] you're talking about serious, cost-effective, stealthy firepower: [I]"In light of today's horrific events, wherein a group of highly-trained, highly-motivated terrorists apparently armed with knives and/or box cutters hijacked no fewer than four civilian airliners, I'd like to offer a proposal for your consideration. Is it time, in light of the state of our world today, for a new category of "concealed carry" licensing? Let's call it, for lack of better phraseology for the time being, CCW-ATQ (ATQ = "Air Travel Qualified"). What I envision is a category of armed citizens who are a subset of those with "CCW" licenses. They would undergo much additional training, akin to the training given to the "Air Marshals" whom we've all read about. They would undergo background checks, etc., much like individuals seeking higher security clearances. Once certified, a citizen possessing a CCW-ATQ license would be approved to carry a weapon aboard a civilian airliner. The aircraft crew would be notified whether or not they had any CCW-ATQ certified passengers, but would NOT be given names or seating assignments (terrorists would know if such was provided to aircrews, thereby making such passengers easy targets..........nullifying much of their effectiveness). I don't offer this suggestion lightly or flippantly, but as a proposal for protection of air travellers in American airspace. I cannot help but think that if such was allowed today, the hijackings just might not have been so successful."[/I] — Recent FreeRepublic post by [B]RightOnline[/B]
Top Top