ABC's This Week discussion about arming pilots

[Futo Inu]

I thought it instructive to point out Cokie Roberts' comments during the discussion/debate. George Will spoke in favor of arming pilots, Cokie is adamantly opposed. George Steph...etc. is more or less for it, and Sam D. was more or less against it.

First, Cokie says that she doesn't want pilots armed because one of them might have a bad day or go looney and come out of the cockpit shootin. (paraphrasing). But the reeeeally interesting part was when, after G. Will pointed out that pilots WERE armed up through the mid 1970s, Cokie's response was, get this, "Well, I'm glad I didn't know that, because I would not have felt safe."

So, forget about what the data shows - the facts - all that matters is how you feel, eh? Tell you what, Cokie, we'll arm the pilots again, as they want and as many Americans want, and as is quite obviously safer, and we just won't tell you about it. Then you'll FEEL safe, and ALL of us, including you, will actually BE safer. :barf:

 

[Jeff White]

Cokie is an idiot. Surely if a pilot went looney or had a bad day, he could just dive the aircraft into the ground, wouldn't need a gun. As a matter of fact, didn't they conlude that that was the cause of a recent crash with into the Atlantic. She should go live in her foam rubber house where she drinks only distilled water and eats only tofu....There is no way to live a totally risk free life.

Someone should have pointed out just how many people she trusted with her life on her way to the studio Sunday...

Jeff

 

[EnochGale]

Unfortunately, on the PlasticGuntalk board, quite a few folks buy into the Cokie line. I pointed it out and seemed to be offensive to the list owner and was shut down.

If you want the thread, you can look for it.

I was quite surprised that so many did not support the arming of pilots. Some thought it was discriminatory and all passengers should be armed. Some went "Cokie" and were scared.

I also started a rousing debate on whether if there was a terorist attack in the mall, etc. - you should oppose it. Many folks wouldn't as it was not in the CCW handbook as something you should do.

Sigh! I'll probably have to stay here after the Mods on PlasticGuntalk get mad at me again.

 

[SA Scott]

I saw it also, and the irrationality of Roberts' anti-gun sentiment was palpable. A pilot responsible for multi-million dollar equipment and tens or hundreds of lives, when subject to mental instability, will be inclined to harm others with a handgun? Rather than using the aircraft?

They can be trusted with some of the most sophisticated controls and electronics on the planet, but cannot safely manipulate a firearm.

"An airplane is the only place I feel safe from guns." Highly illustrative of the hill we're climbing...

SA Scott

 

[KSFreeman]

What is the silly obession with the pilots having guns? Is it the soccermommies wanting someone to look out for them?

The pilots are not/may not be able to come out from behind their hardened doors while Akmed is playing Hutu with the stews and the passengers. Arm the passengers, let the pilots take care of themselves.

 

[Don Gwinn]

What is the silly obession with the pilots having guns? Is it the soccermommies wanting someone to look out for them?

. . . . let the pilots take care of themselves.

Answered your own question there.

 

[KSFreeman]

Don, I have no problem with the pilots being armed. But treating them as saviours is just silly. Arm the passengers.

 

[Jeff White]

Doesn't anybody look at the deterrent factor of having the pillots armed? The terrorists don't just want to destroy the aircraft and passengers, that would be easy enough to do without sacrificing their lives for. They want to seize the aircraft and turn it into a poor mans cruise missile.

If the flight crew was armed they'd have to smuggle a lot more effective weapons then boxcutters onboard to have a reasonable chance of success. If they ran amok in the cabin, the aircrew most likely wouldn't turn over the controls anyway, what way out would anyone have then? If the operation becomes too hard or hasn't got a reasonable chance of success, the terrorists will try something else. I'm not against arming the passengers, I just don't see it happening in today's climate. Maybe if we score some big wins in changing back to a reasonable society..but not before. For the life of me I can't understand what anyone has against arming the flight crews....

My personal gut feeling is that the next attack won't involve an airliner. We are acting insanely trying to close the barn door after the horse ate the barley. We've given them everything they wanted to accomplish by the way we act at the airports now. Osama won round one. Every time we do something different then we did before Sep 11th and every small freedom, convenience and liberty we give up in the name of security is another small victory for the terrorists and another reason for them to keep up the fight.

Jeff

 

[Destructo6]

Aren't the pilots armed now? My understanding is they have a nice, fat axe in the cockpit, yet there have been no cockpit axe murders.

Does Cokie not understand that the pilots have a much more destructive weapon than a gun, namely the plane, to abuse if they really wanted to go nanners?

Silly woman.

 

[Futo Inu]

Hmmm - wonder why those axes didn't make an appearance on 9/11? Maybe cuz the hijackers stormed the cockpit before they could grab it. At least the hardened doors will give the pilots more time to grab the axe/gun/taser, whatever they ultimately get.

 

[C.R.Sam]

They want to seize the aircraft and turn it into a poor mans cruise missile.

That is a biggie, but just taking out a plane load of folks is also an effective act of terrorism.

Crash axe, fire extinguishers, hot coffee and other goodies are better than nothing.

A major problem seems to lie in the normal mind state of so many. The terrorists, hijackers etc, are normally allowed to get too far before anybody jumps them........if even then.

There will be more passengers and cabin crew willing to jump in from the git go than in the past....but how long will that last ?

I worked for a major airline that seemed to have a zero tolerance policy, unwritten, toward hijacking and aircraft destruction. We had attempts but they were all unsuccessful until the mid 70s.

Let the crew, pilots and stews, be armed if they so desire.

Next step, let the ccw passengers carry.

Sam

 

[Jeff White]

Sam,

I don't deny that just taking out a plane load of folks is an effective act of terrorism. But it's been done. And it can be done again without hijacking the aircraft ala Lockerbie. The terrorists are at war with us and I don't think they would consider the loss of an operative in what was almost sure to be an unsuccessful hijack attempt an acceptable risk. Especially knowing they would face an armed flight crew with what improvised weapons they could smuggle aboard.

In a perfect world, we'd arm the aircrews and allow passengers who had CCW permits to carry onboard if they so desired. Unfortunately our world is far from perfect.

I'm beginning to wonder if Mineta and Magaw aren't having Walter Mitty-esque daydreams about being the person who has to order a hijacked airliner shot down by an ANG F16 and wondering who will play them in the inevitable TV movie on the incident.

Mineta should resign now. September 11th happened on his watch. If he were an honorable man who had a conscience, he would. Magaw should never have been appointed. Didn't Waco happen on his watch when he was BATF director? Why is he back in public service? Shouldn't he be enjoying an obscure retirement somewhere, thanking whatever God he believes in that he's not languishing in prison? I guess the concept of the man at the top being acountable for everything his organization does or fails to do is sadly outdated.

Jeff

 

[madison46]

Only question that matters....

would an armed pilot have been able to stop any of the hijacked planes?

I answer 'Yes'. End of story, lives saved.

 

[Christopher II]

Arming the pilots won't work.

Scenario - Abdullah and Achmed hijack a plane with box cutters or flint knives. Whatever. They grab a stewardess (flight attendant?) and drag her up to the door of the flight deck. Then they cut her throat, right by the cockpit door so the pilots can hear her scream.

Achmed says, "Both of you pilots, open the door and toss your guns out, then come out with your hands up. Next person we kill will be little seven-year-old Suzie."

Think the pilots will cave? I'm pretty sure they would. Not many people have the training needed to handle a situation like that.

Armed passengers? Such a situation wouldn't play out the same. Since A&A don't know who's packing heat, the first person they grab just might ventalate them. Or their seatmate might do the same.

Armed pilots vs. armed passengers is pretty similar to cops vs. armed citizens on the street.

- Chris

 

[EnochGale]

Christopher II - you are incorrect. If you look at the backgrounds of the folks in the PA plane that crashed, several of them had some martial arts training. Also, defense against box cutters is not that difficult.

Given the choice of thousands of deaths, trained pilots will not fold. And given the choice of plunging into the ground, a wave of passengers, even holding their seat cushions will overwhelm what we have seen.

So you are needlishly fearful. I'm not sitting there and dying over a box cutter and to be frank, the stewardess and kid are expendable when we go for the hijacker.

 

[Pendragon]

I dont think you have to be a tactical genius to realize that in that scenario - some people are going to die, but you can at least keep the body count to those on board the plane as the worst case scenario - you give up the controls and who knows what will happen.

Also - some people think that the plane over PA was shot down. On the face of it, it seems plausible - and the government is only too happy to support the heroic "passengers forced it down" scenario.

I am as far as you can get from the tin hat crowd, but when you look at the PA plane, the TWA 800 and the one that crashed in a NY neighborhood - you have to think that a lot of planes are going down - either shot down from the inside or the outside - hard to know but the fed does not want people thinking that any planes are getting shot down or blown up because it would absolutely kill out airline industry and other parts of the economy.

 

[org1]

Knowing what we know now, and pilots knowing it as well, I don't think there'd be any throwing out of guns. Anyone who has the attributes to reach the front of a large jet isn't going to be "touchy-feely) enough to think he can reason with or expect mercy from someone who wants control of the airplane. Anyone who thinks so hasn't spent any time around aviators. Two or three or fifty deaths in the back don't match up to the whole airplane crashing into a bunch of buildings AND killing not only the three or fifty plus all the rest.

There more likely would be the impulse to open the door and one of the pilots go back to shoot some terrorists, but that's another subject.

Probably the passengers would have already taken care of the problem by that time anyway, and all that would be required would be cleaning up the mess.

I see the pilot's armament as a deterrant more than anything else.

 

[Christopher II]

Also, defense against box cutters is not that difficult.

Rolls off the tounge very nicely, doesn't it?

Given the choice of thousands of deaths, trained pilots will not fold.

Trained in what? To my knowledge, most pilots have no combat training whatsoever, save old military service (worse than useless.) They certainly aren't handing out courses in psychological threat management, hostage negotiation, etc.

And given the choice of plunging into the ground, a wave of passengers, even holding their seat cushions will overwhelm what we have seen.

Get real. One truism concerning human nature is that people will ignore precedence in favor of fantasy if the fantasy is more attractive. All the hijackers have to do is promise that they just want to fly to Cuba and the passegers will sit there all sheep-like. Pilots too.

and to be frank, the stewardess and kid are expendable when we go for the hijacker.

Easy to make that choice when the kid isn't yours.

Armed pilots might serve as a deterrent, but then again, maybe not. Armed passengers would work better (I suspect most CCW holders have a better grasp of reality than I've just described) but are no pancea. Like it or not, there is 100% solution.

- Chris

 

[Don Gwinn]

I don't recall anyone offering armed pilots as a panacea. Of course it won't solve everything. If we can't do something unless it solves all problems we're going to be here awhile. Guns for pilots, hardened cockpits, and armed Air Marshals are all good things and all provide some redundance. But it's not a choice between one or the other. We can do all three. However,

1. Guns for pilots have the weakness that they may not help if the pilot is surprised. No, a gun won't help if a pilot gives up when a terrorist does something terrible, but this is akin to arguing that seat belts do no good because some people won't wear them.

2. Hardened cockpits are good, too, but unless we're willing to shut the entire fleet down for a few months, it's going to take awhile to get that done, not so? What do we do in the meantime if pilots can't be armed to defend themselves. Once the cockpit is hardened, most will still have doors to the cabin, so what happens if the pilot isn't armed and the hijacker does get through?

3. Air Marshals are probably better than either one. They have the one advantage your average friendly police officer doesn't--they will be there when TSHTF rather than a few minutes away. However, we don't have anywhere near enough of them or a way to hire and train a tenth of what we need anytime soon. So again, what do we do until we get them trained?

Armed passengers is a great idea in my book, but it is not on the table right now. Might as well propose armored titanium android pilots. It's a nice idea, but it isn't going to happen anytime soon unless there's a major shift.


I also agree that the next attack doesn't have to be an airliner. Some of the things that could be done to harbor cities with ships. . . . . still, that's no reason not to take cheap, simple, effective measures to make it safer to fly. One of the basic precepts of strategy is that if your enemy demonstrates that he is unable or unwilling to stop your attack, you should repeat it and keep doing damage until he stops you. I remember once running the same play 13 or 14 times in a row against a team that couldn't stop it. It was called an 87 belly. We ran it over three different possessions and scored with it twice until they finally stopped it. There was no reason to run anything else.

If you want to see some really fun discussion on this one, check these out:

http://www.wmay.com/forums/topic.as..._id=13&Topic_Title=If+firearms+are+boomsticks
(The host had flown off the handle on the air when I called a gun a tool. I swear, he said they should be referred to as "boomsticks." That's not a personal attack, just a little Army of Darkness reference.)
http://www.wmay.com/forums/topic.as...&forum_title=Issues+Of+The+Day&M=False&S=True

 

[George Dickel at Work]

I would rather have the pilots armed than the passengers. I have known too many people that own handguns and can't hit the ground with one. I don't want a bunch of them trying to shoot at a hijacker spraying bullets all over the place hitting everything and everyone instead of the actual target. Just because someone has a CCW doesn't mean they are capable marksmen.