[CNN] Pilot's Union Wants To Pack Heat

[OF]

On the 'Breaking News' banner...more details soon, apparently.

- Gabe

www.cnn.com

BREAKING
NEWS

Pilots union to ask Congress to allow pilots to have guns in cockpit. Details soon.

 

[OF]

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/24/gen.pilots.union/index.html

Union wants armed pilots in cockpits

September 24, 2001 Posted: 5:26 PM EDT (2126 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The world's oldest and largest pilots' union is seeking congressional approval for it members to carry firearms into airline cockpits and be granted arrest authority.

Officials with the Air Line Pilots Association say pilots have no choice but to arm themselves to maintain security in the sky following the four September 11 hijackings in which the World Trade Center's twin towers were destroyed and the Pentagon was damaged. The fourth flight crashed in rural Pennsylvania, killing everyone on board.

The union has already sought an increase in the number of available federal air marshals who would travel among passengers on commercial flights, but says that is insufficient. There aren't enough marshals to travel on every scheduled flight, the association says.

Pilots should receive extensive classroom and firearms training to become actual law enforcement officials, with training to be done on a voluntary basis, union officials say.

Sen. John McCain, ranking Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, which considers airline security issues, says it is still too early to say how Congress will respond to the proposal.

"We've got to hear from the Justice Department, call in the experts, before we take such a step," he said. "But I would be guided by the experts' view."

The FBI says it is considering the proposal.

The union represents more than 66,000 pilots employed by 47 airlines in the United States and Canada.


SIDEBAR:

Could a bullet damage the airplane or bystanders?

Certain ammunition, known as prefragmented or frangible bullets, contain many tiny pellets and are designed to break up after hitting a hard surface, potentially minimizing the risk of ricochet or damage to the plane's fuselage.

 

[Watch-Six]

Phase 1, let the aircrews be armed. Phase 2, let the rest of us be armed. Watch-Six

 

[OF]

I hear that!

- Gabe

 

[Waitone]

<slaps his knee and yells in a lusty voice, >

"You know, that's a good idea! Its a shame all those second amendment fanatics couldn't figure it out! What good are those knot-heads if they can't come up with a common sense solution to a dangerous and vexing problem"

Its about friggin' time those who would protect us began using their heads!

 

[Mad Man]

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/war/warmail.html

Monday September 23, 2001

Jerry,

Doug Jones ("Reactions" 20 Sept. 2001, http://www.jerrypournelle.com/war/reactions.html) called the heroes of Flight 93 "militia", and referred you to Randy Barnett's NATIONAL REVIEW column on the subject.

Several years ago, former senator Gary Hart (D-CO) wrote a book called THE MINUTEMAN: RESTORING AN ARMY OF THE PEOPLE. While I still haven't gotten around to reading it, Glenn Reynolds (http://instapundit.com/) wrote a review in the May 1999 issue of REASON, at http://www.reason.com/9905/bk.gr.it.html

One observation that Professor Renyolds makes in the first paragraph of his review is "that citizens used to relying on professionals for the defense of their liberties would come to take their freedom lightly."

After sending a copy of the FAA's Federal Air Marshal job notice (http://jobs.faa.gov/CIVIL_AVIATION_SECURITY.HTM) to one of my friends (an avid shooter, CCW permit holder, and genuine rocket scientist at Martin-Lockheed), he replied that it would be much more effective -- and just as important, more economical -- to allow private citizens who meet the qualifications for being a FAM to serve as "unpaid volunteer deputies," similar to the citizen-militia concept.

I would love to see that happen, for a variety of philosophical, practical, and selfish reasons. But the chances of private citizens being allowed to carry guns on planes are about zero, no matter how qualified they are.

As you have stated in your comments about Civil Defense, the "professionals" wouldn't want any competition (Mail, Sunday 23 Sept. 2001, http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail171.html ). Professor Reynolds notes that "the militia system foundered on the twin rocks of public apathy and elite dissatisfaction."

At this time, even pilots are not allowed to carry firearms. Rep. Ron Paul ( http://www.house.gov/paul/ ) has introduced HR 2986, which would allow pilots to carry firearms. Considering that many pilots are ex-military, and in their younger days were trusted with much more powerful weapons than a handgun (eg - M-61 20mm cannons, nuclear warheads, etc), it is sad statement that they have not been permitted to carry the most effective means for self-defense on the vessels they command.

One e-mail going around, attributed to an airline pilot of 21 years, states: "Is it dangerous for pilots to carry guns? No. Pilots are some of the most mentally, physically and psychologically tested people on earth. Additionally we are drug and alcohol tested all the time. We are highly educated, have a unique understanding of how mechanical things work, and have eye/hand coordination second to none. We are also required to undergo rigorous recurrent training and checkrides every nine months. (A great place for firearms requal.) There is no safer group of individuals to issue defensive firearms to." ( Captain Duane Shaw, but I cannot verify the source, since this was forwarded to me through a mailing list).

I don't know if the above is 100% accurate, but given the choice between an airline pilot and and a police officer -- both picked at random -- I have more trust in the pilot to carry a handgun, and not just in an airplane.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ref: "Reactions" http://www.jerrypournelle.com/war/reactions.html

Interesting take on Flight 93- the men who saved the day there were, by definition, militia. Re-arming the appropriate people aloft will do more to promote safety than any amount of preflight chicken delays, body searches, and intrusive questioning.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-barnett091801.shtml

and also, a cogent plan for air security-

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel091401.shtml

Food for thought.

-- Doug Jones, Rocket Plumber http://www.xcor.com

 

[Dennis]

We gotta get this Dave Kopel fella to run for public office! He sounds like a TFLer!!

 

[GeekWithGun]

 

[Goet]

I am totally and completely opposed to arming airline employees.

It would be just way to dangerous for the children.

 

[fmjcafe]

Could a bullet damage the airplane or hurt bystanders?

Any time you discharge a firearm in a small crowded space someone could get hurt.As far as damaging the aircraft,yes some damage could be done,with loss of cabin pressure being the most likely event.With Glasers I doubt,however that any damage could be done to the aircraft systems that would result in a crash.

I`m totally in favor of aircrews being armed.As far as the general public being allowed to carry guns,I`m not too sure.Theres no telling what the public will be loaded with.FMJ`s would not be a good idea.The aircrews at least have a general idea where critical systems reside within the airframe.I do think that the passengers should be allowed any type of edged weapon they want to carry.Taking pocket knives away from the flying public only aides the bad guys.

 

[C.R.Sam]

Loss of cabin pressure as a result of small arms fire is NOT a problem.

Dinging of hydraulic or electrics would be a problem but most likely not a major one due to redundancy of systems required in airliners.

The no firearms policies for flight crews of the past have been individual company policies.......not federal rules.

Sam....ex AOPA, ATP

 

[Art Eatman]

Within the last few days, I have read articles about what the FAA thinks. (I believe one of the articles was in WND; maybe a link to the WashPost.) At present, pilots CAN have a handgun; most have never bothered. The FAA's spokesman sez they want to disallow pilots to be armed. :barf:

In some discussion about guns and passenger planes, the main danger (again, from reading) is that a stray bullet could cut an important hydraulic line, or wiring to computerized controls. The cabin pressure deal isn't such a much, and "explosive decompression" just doesn't happen.

I realize that there is redundancy in most control lines of whatever sort. Further, there's been plenty of discussions about frangible bullets, etc. I guess the best qualified to really answer this are the Israelis...

Art

 

[faraway]

GunGeek, cool editorial cartoon. As for arming flight crew, if they want to carry, whatever. I'd rather see a policy where at least one of the air steward(esses) be qualified to be armed. At least that way, some of these incidents could be stopped before the lunatic gentry acquire 50+ ready made hostages. Conceptually, once the hostage situation occurs the cabin crew has already lost practical control over the flight. Issue the steward(esses) some quality pocket autos with mag safes or glasers. Then again all this has to be viewed in the light that my location is 300 some miles from any airport able to fly anything bigger than a Cessna.

 

[Vladimir_Berkov]

What they should do is simply have an "air gun-safety course" offered by the NRA, and staffed by knowledgeable experts. If you take the course and have a valid state CHL, you can carry on the plane provided the weapon you carry cannot damage the plane. That means no rifles, .50 Desert Eagles and the like. Only .45 or smaller, and using frangible ammo.

 

[boing]

And it only took 6,000 dead people for them to wake up. I wonder if they'll go back to sleep in a few months.

 

[Glamdring]

Question for pilots & military history buffs, considering how B-17's could continue to fly after being chewed up by LMG and 20mm cannon rounds. Shouldn't a modern airliner be able to take several rifle rounds most any random place without to much problem?

Plus what about allowing pilots ability to shut off pressurization for passenger compartment without triggering O2 masks...nap time for everyone or at least tie them to an O2 mask.

 

[Hutch]

Glam', B17's didn't have a pressurized cabin or cockpit. Recall the pictures of waist-gunners on "12 O'Clock High" hammering away with the .50's thru what amounts to an open window.

 

[Dangus]

Lets show these guys our support!

 

[Mike Irwin]

The B-29 was the first generally operational aircraft in the US arsenal to have the crew compartment pressurized.

Pressurization could be lost due to battle damage, at which time the crew would simply revert to back-up oxygen systems.

 

[SKN]

One Senator's Opinion

This advocacy may not get very far. At the conclusion of today's hearings on airline security Senate Majority leader Richard Gephardt told the assembled press that he was not in favor of it.