I've heard counterpoints

Post #9,114 by wharris2 9/14/01 1:15:31 PM Reply	I've heard counterpoints 1) Pilots should have small arms in in the cockpit so that they could fight off anyone attempting to force their way in the cockpit. That gives a would-be terrorist a known source of a gun aboard an aircraft. Training all commercial pilots in the use of firearms (practice, etc.) is almost a practical impossibility - for that matter, there are some people who you just would not want to hand a gun to, not necessarily because of being a security risk (hell, they're already in the cockpit, if they want to kill themselves they can already do it), but because they can't hit the broadside of a barn. 2) Cockpit doors need to be beefed up and maybe should have two doors like an airlock. Certainly in future aircraft designs this should be done - but I heard interviews with people who said the cockpit currently depends on the cabin air supply. You certainly couldn't put an airtight airlock in. But the door can certainly be beefed up quite a bit. The current designs, you wouldn't even have to give them more than an anemic kick - and I've been on flights where there's not even a door, just a curtain. 3) If terrorists start killing passengers in an attempt to lure out the pilots, Assuming this is in fact what happened, I don't think the "luring" tactic will ever work again, even without specific guidelines to that effect. 5) There was a discussion about the destuctive potential of firing a gun on board a plane at high altitude. On the other hand, what's more destructive, a dead terrorist and a puncture and decompression, or a flying bomb? Even wthout special ammunition, I'd think the risk could be worth it . Non-puncturing ammo would of course still be a good idea. That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing [as freedom], on which all the good and evil of life depends, is clearly my opinion; yet arms ... should be the last resource. - George Washington
Post #9,144 by rsf 9/14/01 2:48:25 PM Reply	Re: I've heard counterpoints 1) Pilots should have small arms in in the cockpit so that they could fight off anyone attempting to force their way in the cockpit. That gives a would-be terrorist a known source of a gun aboard an aircraft. Training all commercial pilots in the use of firearms (practice, etc.) is almost a practical impossibility - for that matter, there are some people who you just would not want to hand a gun to, not necessarily because of being a security risk (hell, they're already in the cockpit, if they want to kill themselves they can already do it), but because they can't hit the broadside of a barn. They addressed this in the interview too. The terrorist could take the guns from the pilots but then you have the situation of a terrorist without a gun trying to take a gun from an armed pilot. The odds are in the pilot's favor. The pistols would be locked in the cockpit so that when a member of the flight crew is strolling down the aisle, they can't be disarmed by a surprise attack. Also, since most commercial pilots are former military, they should be trainable in small arms use. Furthermore, since the guns would be for the pilots' self-defence, good aim is not too crucial. They don't have to hit a terrorist at 50yds holding a stewardess as a body shield. They just have to stop a guy trying to breakdown a cockpit door at 2yds. Ray
Post #9,202 by Ric Locke 9/14/01 7:32:11 PM Reply	What occurs to me -- The pilots have the ability to pop the oxy masks and depressurize the airplane. Why not? They have their own (independent) supplemental oxygen, so there's no air safety implications. Of course this depends on having a door that gives at least a few moments' time delay; or somebody else giving them a few moments. It doesn't take long -- 2-3 minutes in my experience -- for anoxia to put just about anybody down. People sitting in the seats would have their masks; but anybody wandering about the aisles would be in deep trouble. They could, of course, grab a mask from somebody, whereupon they're tethered. Not perfect -- the terrorists could carry supplemental oxygen of their own. Of course, the cylinder would be moderately prominent, even on the current security x-ray machines, and might cause Questions To Be Asked. And of course there's a danger to emphysemics, heart patients, etc., but if the alternative is that everybody dies for sure, why not try it? Regards, Ric
Post #9,203 by rsf 9/14/01 7:38:53 PM Reply	Re: What occurs to me -- Better yet, you could flood the passenger area with sleeping gas. Passenger oxygen masks too. Gas mask would be hard to conceal. Keep them all knocked out until the FBI boards. Ray
Post #9,204 by ChrisR 9/14/01 7:44:23 PM Reply	Problem with such methods... ...is that it also makes it easy for a terrorist to subdue the passengers if they happen to get at the controls in fairly short before the crew can react, thus depriving the passengers of putting up a resistance.
Post #9,250 by gdaustin 9/15/01 1:13:54 AM Reply	Words from a Pilot The gun issue came up yesterday on KRLD, a local news/talk radio station in Dallas. They interviewed a pilot, asking for suggestions about what to do about hijacking. The pilot explained that it takes close to 20 seconds for him to get out of his seat and face the back door of the cockpit. There is a shoulder harness to remove, plus a seatbelt, possibly a headset, and then care to ensure that the controls are safely passed to autopilot or to the co-pilot (avoiding kicking the pedals, etc.). There is a fire axe and fire extinguisher in the cockpit, and (believe it or not), both have been used to subdue passengers trying to enter the cockpit. The sleeping gas idea only works if the hijackers aren't aware that sleeping gas is on the airplane. Thus, with our blabbermouth press, the hijackers would certainly be aware of such a measure. Even if they didn't know, they would discover it on the first hijacking, and future hijackers would be aware enough of it. (Might be worth a try, even with hijackers knowing, since it would be really difficult to get your own masks and equipment through the security checkpoint.) The cabin decompression idea puts passengers at risk, but the risk might be worth ensuring that you get the plane down safely. I think new stronger doors should be a requirement at the next maintenance heavy check as well as a hijack button for the flight attendants to signal the pilots not to enter the cabin. And I'm still in favor of reinstituting Sky Marshals, as well as allowing soldiers and law enforcement officers to carry their weapons on board provided they don't drink inflight. I would require the soldier/law enforcement officer to "preregister" with the airline, with the PD providing the documentation, or the military, prior to the soldier/law officer arriving at the airport. (In other words, the security needs to be thorough enough to ensure that a hijacker does not board the plane "pretending" to be a soldier or law officer.) Glen Austin

Welcome to IWETHEY!