A few months ago, I was idiot tube surfing and came across an old All in the Family rerererun where Archie Bunker was ranting about an airline hijaking. He said that guns should be given to ALL passengers when they board the plane.

The annoying recorded laugh track implied that this was one of Archie's notoriously outlandish statements...but think about it.

The pilots union should call a strike.

I'm going to have disagree on this. I think the pure idea of pilots using a weapon is not bad inherintely, when one considers the safety of the plane, but are we supposed to just pass a law or change a rule to allow any pilot to carry a gun?

Who is going to account for their training and proper use of a gun? I have to say I'm surprised to hear this kind of thinking amongst AIs. Why, because its truly Idiotic to trust that every pilot who has a gun will A) know how to properly use it, B) know how to properly use it on a plane.

Unless I missed something and the legislation that was being proposed included a training program and a special licensing system for pilots and their guns, then I fail to see how any sane person could support handing out guns to any pilot who wants them.

Everything I've heard about arming pilots, whether from the pilots or elsewhere, included proper training before authroization to carry.

What happens when terrorists smuggle weapons on board and start killing passengers to force the pilot to open the door?

In that scenario, they die as the pilot gets their ass on the ground, ASAP.

Or what happens when a passenger packs his shoes with exposives in a way where it doesn't get noticed and lights his shoes to blow up the plane? Golly, that could *never* happen, could it?

What about some suicide-murder-minded nut that depressurizes the cabin at altitutde by popping the exits?

They still have the fire axe in case somebody tries to get in. Recent tests of reinforced doors have failed to keep nutcases completely out, but they have delayed them to the point where the fireaxe-wielding pilot has pulverized the scumbag and ko'ed them.

They still have the plane as a weapon, too. The flight characteristics of the plane won't let them completely bash the crap out of anyone in the cabin without possibly losing a major component, but there are emergency manuevers that will allow them to toss freestanding unbelted individuals like a salad.

If you weren't wearing your seat belt, too bad. Not like the crew didn't warn you or offer to help.

There need to be "security" officers on the plane, separate from the pilots. If these end up being one and the same as the flight attendants and somehow merged with Air Marshals with stun weapons, so be it. If air travel costs go up, so be it. It's a part of doing business, and the airlines skimping on security for their own profits and for the stockholders, well, it's just the way of the world. Consider it the same cost of doing business as any risk, like environmental impact or the risk of lawsuits from doing something carelessly or stupid.

I don't see how arming pilots solves anything. Especially after they've had a few drinks, ha ha. But seriously, you make the cockpit door as tough as possible, and you make sure the pilots don't open it for any reason whatsoever. Not the best news for the rest of the plane if somebody decides to take hostages, but at least the plane doesn't get used as a missile. And even if the terrorist gets a gun on board, I doubt any passengers are going to sit there and wait to die. Not after 9/11. They're going to "let's roll" all over his ass.

Then again, maybe we should arm everybody who's in a position to need a gun. Maybe give a discount to public school teachers?

OK, where do you put restrooms for the pilots?

And if the door is barred, and no one can enter, what's the problem with allowing the pilot to carry a gun? It doesn't hurt, and it may help.

Yes, everybody who's in a position to need a gun should have one, if they want it. Some of the places where this is done (34 states) are some of the safest places to live.

Actually, while I support the arming of pilots if they are properly trained, and pilots themselves think they need it, the reinforced door is actually a major deterrent. As just about anyone with a knowledge of airline security knows, no one does it better than El Al. El Al uses air marshalls, but does not arm their pilots. After the 9/11 attacks I was watching an airline security exec discuss what El Al does. The cockpits are sealed with a door that has a steel exterior and an oak interior. It, according to policy, is never opened once the plane takes off, and the floor on the cabin side is wired so that if by some miracle the would-be attacker does manage to penetrate the door, the pilots can electrocute him on the spot. Now, that's security.

I think it would make more sense to have some controllable sleeping gass from the cockpit, that the pilots could release into the cabin.

I may be wrong, but show me where these proposals included proper training for pilots, as in learning close quarter combat? I mean anti-terrorism squads have to train constantly to be able to board a plane with a gun and avoid shooting an innocent passenger, I'm supposed to believe that a pilot goes through some training and poof he's an expert? This can't be.

There doesn't seem to be truly forward looking and comprehensive plan as to what in the hell these pilots are going to be doing with their guns and how, and when.. What are the rules of engagement?

Start answering these questions with compelling answers and then maybe, just maybe there will be more support for such an idea. Right now it just appears like a reactionary idea. I have more support for putting air marshals on board, at least that has some historical success, to the best of my limited knowledge on the subject.

By all means, let's have air marshals. Last I heard, about 1% of flights have a marshal. Your best bet is to fly on the same plan as a US Senator.

I also like the wired cockpit floor idea.. Nice one.

I have been boycotting the airlines as a paying consumer until they can prove to me that there security system is what they have as thier top priority.

I still beleive that is not the fact, the fact of commerical US airlines is still the bottom dollar.

The only airlines I know is making and has made a concerted effort, post-9.11 to improve security conditions for their pilots and paying customers is JetBlue

The first mistake was the multi-billion dollar bailout or reward for 9.11 to the airliners.

If they will not have thier paying customers best interests (staying alive) in mind as a matter of principle our tax dollars shouldn't be used to maintain their industry. At lest we whsould allow the capitalistic market forces sort this out and let the best airline company finish first.

To me a security focused airline company and airport woudl be so pro-actively aggresive they woudl have tons of security info and analysis to show the public.

Logan Int'l Airport (two planes of 9.11 hijacked there) immdiately post-9.11 hired an ex security Chief from EL AL.

We need security profiling like EL AL and most of Europe and not be afraid to do it.

Capitalism and market forces via known proactive security measures from competing airliners not handouts make them earn our trust back.

Accountability like Rudy Giuliani ([Link: www.rudyforpresident.org)...] did in police dpartments in NYC. Each station had a weeekly report in how they are and have reduced crme. IDF ([Link: www.idf.il)...] has statistics for everything on their website for their public to see.

This is another finer point Michael. Nice. Why should we just accept that this is a risk of business, as someone above put it.. Something we should just accept as part of flying, that airliners are trying to make the most money. Who really cares? I don't. I don't fly and won't fly until I see a marked improvement in their security, and a real committment to my safety.

What ironic is that if you ask the government why we bailed out the airliners, they'll tell you how critical air travel is to our economy, and that if we let them fail, how devistating that would be.. Great, if its so critical, why aren't we forcing them to use some of that money to improve security, and I'm not talking about putting a bar on a freaking cockpit door. Puleeez..

I think El Al has the right idea here, but it's not all about pilots with guns.

As Jamie points out, El Al's cabin doors are sealed during the entire flight. (And yes, the pilots have their own separate bathroom.) The idea is that at all times, the pilot is exclusively responsible for flying the plane.

Which necessarily precludes any pilot-as-air-marshal scenarios. I could support arming pilots, provided that the guns are there only to keep bad guys out of the cockpit, not fight off run-of-the-mill hijackers. Yes, that means that if the hijackers threaten to set off a bomb, the pilot must continue to fly the plane. Even if the hijackers start executing passengers, the pilot must continue to fly the plane. Even if passengers' children are being tortured, the pilot must continue to fly the plane.

Because the worst-case scenario is no longer just dead passengers and crew. And any scenario where the pilots open the door to the cabin is unaccetable.

Look, if you give guns to the pilots that just means that the terrorists don't have to bother with smuggling. Anything you've got can be turned against you.

- Enough -

True.

Simple Cost sum analysis.

3 Scenarios:

All passengers are dead and plane lands safely.

All passengers kill or restrain hijackers and if any security professionals as passengers (i.e. US Marshalls).

Hijackers get hold of plane and kill many more people not on the plane ala 9.11.

It is important to have cultural and popularly known security measures such as Israel that go unchalleneged and are a amtter of fact. These are used as deterrence because they are as or more solid than anything else.

If you remember Golda Meir and the Munich '72 Olympics that laid down the gauntlet of a firm terrorist kidnapping scenario policy.

Kidnapping people will never result in your demands being met by Israel. That lesson was installed at the cost of many lives but theoretically it saved many more.

Widely known cultural security laws that are unchanging are very powerful.

I'm of two minds about this.

Obviously, an armed cockpit crew should be the last line of defense, not the first; all other considerations aside, they're supposed to be flying the plane, not shooting it out with potential hijackers.

On the other hand, the first time that a hijacker tortures a flight attendant or a passenger to death in lieu of being let in to the cockpit, The New York Slimes and the alphabet-soup TV news programs will be screaming bloody murder (literally and figuratively) about how human life is much more valuable than following some stupid and overly rigid policy about not opening cockpit doors. (Imagine the pilot being grilled on 60 Minutes by Morley Safer, with shots of "Underperformin'" Norman Mineta, and a righteously enraged Eleanor Clift and Barbara Ehrenreich cut in).

"Controlled sleeping gas" is a technoporn unsolution; it doesn't exist, and isn't likely to exist in our lifetimes. Don't even include it in the list of potential countermeasures.

(So, incidentally, is the threat of popping the doors at altitude. Opening any exterior door in any airplane begins by having to move it in. If someone can actually do this against cabin pressure at altitude, he can rip through the cockpit door -- or the fuselage, for that matter -- with his bare hands. It's an empty threat -- although the passengers may not realize that.)

I think Michael may have hit the nail on the head here. Guns in cockpits are not really a deterrent. They don't guarantee anything, other than one more dangerous variable into the equation.

It doesn't as Michael points out send out any strong message about the difficulty of hijacking a plane. So a gun is in the hands of a pilot, who's to say he can keep hold of it for very long, and that it won't be used against him and the passengers.

Its just not a conclusive deterrent like El Al's measures are.

I didn't know the El AL stuff, but that makes sense.

And I was joking about arming school teachers, but apparently some people think that's an option. Hey, maybe if we armed altar boys, we wouldn't have to worry about all those bad-touch priests.

No controlled sleeping gas? Ok, what about depressurizing the cabin and cutting off some of the oxygen?

Who cares what the New York Times might say. We shouldn't be setting policy based on what people are going to say. They will always say something. Israel figured this out recently, that everyone will always hate it, so who cares what they think.

Again, why use guns as a last line of defense? Does El Al? What's the precidence for that? Why not use the wired floor and perhaps stun guns?

Still more calls for guns, but no true forward thinking strategy for what and how they would be used, not to mention the incredibly variety of skills amongst so many pilots. An anti-terrorism task force recruits based on the applicants ability to conduct quality close combat and anti-terror counter measures. Pilots are first recruited by their skill to fly. So there will be no parity in their skills to use a gun, it will be a lopsided and unpredictable solution since some planes will have pilots that will undoubtedly not even want to have a gun.

Its just not the solution.

This is one of those things that people get all bent out of shape about, primarily because they're not terribly familiar with the structure or systems in operation of aircraft, the effect that firearms or electrical weapons would have on structure, flight characteristics, navigational and communications systems, or the fact that by the time a pilot is forced to make a decision to use that weapon in flight--if that game wasn't already over with, it certainly will be now.

The main inhibitors to those flight crews on 9/11, in preventing the attacks with their aircraft, was nowhere near enough security information and a policy of placating hijackers. We can change those two things without having to legislate a damned thing--and I expect they will.

What's going to end up happening here, is that current systems (on all commercial jets nowadays, with the possible exception of severely dated freighters) that are designed for zero visibility landings--known as CATIII--will be enhanced in conjunction with the GPS units to produce reliable ground overrides. Meaning that a hijjacked aircraft can be taken over completely from ATC command centers and guided onto militarized airfields, where anti-terrorist teams will deal with them.

Oh, and as for how the pilots can go to the bathroom if they have to stay inside a reinforced cockpit, good point. Maybe they could hang onto their beer pitchers from the night before?

From all that we have seen of the "terror" threat so far they prefer to do their work without serious physical opposition.

Notice all the Jewicides that go off prematurely when the guidance system is asked a few questions.

Note Flight 93.

The biggest deterrant is a known willingness to resist. Armed pilots and passengers are the biggest possible deterrent. But even the current "bare handed" technique is a great help.

The terrs. put a lot of time and effort into their work. Just like in any business failure is expensive. It also makes getting new "employees" harder.

If what we have seen in the last 8 years is the terrorists best shot they will lose the war to sex, drugs, and all night raves. Same as the USSR before them.

All we need to do is hang on for ten or twenty years.

We will win because we are more adaptable than they are. Same as it ever was.

Maybe they will start teaching weapons use at flight schools.

Too late for Atta and Moussoui who could have been the teacher's pets.

Jim,
Sometimes pilots leave the cockpits for something other than a quick wazz or flirtations. There are times when they really need to get a visual on their aircraft (not under the best of circumstances, mind you) but it can certainly help them determine how far from the "best of circumstances" they really are and maybe glean some insight into whether they can troubleshoot the problem or whether they'll have to call for a reroute and emergency landing.

Okay. I still don't see how it's going to help if they're strapped. How does El Al handle that kind of stuff?

No controlled sleeping gas? Ok, what about depressurizing the cabin and cutting off some of the oxygen?

I don't see how this would be effective. How would we be able to monitor which people would suffer oxygen deprivation effects faster?

Reinforced cockpit doors that remain closed during the flight already do something that would have prevented the events of 9/11 - they force the terrorists to make themselves known on the flight before they are able to gain control of the plane's controls. Add to this the "let's roll" attitude of the passengers/flight crew and the ability of these terrorists to re-create the 9/11 scenario becomes far less likely.

People with concerns about the pilots' training, etc. need to read the information available on [Link: www.alpa.org....] Most if not all of the concerns posted here are unfounded. It is also worth noting that just because you cannot think of a scenario where an armed pilot is really the last hope in a hijacking doesn't mean there is no such scenario. I can think of at least one scenario in which a band of hijackers can overcome every obstacle -- sky marshals, stun guns, cockpit doors, pilot maneuvers, electric floors, even armed pilots, although the last is by far the hardest, least likely part.

I'm with Charles. Dumb decision by Mineta, MacGaw, et al.

The answer to the bathroom question may be found in how does NASA or the military deal with pilots in cramped or close quarters and can't carry a head on the plane because of space requirements? Where does a B-2 pilot/crew go?

Catheter? Wearing adult diapers? Ultra-small facilities within expanded cockpit? Force airplane manufacturers to retrofit aircraft? Design toilets into the seats? Mandate radical change in aircraft design so fly-by-wire planes have cockpit in entirely different location from traditional location, fed by videoscreens screens?

What about space to get up and stretch, since pilots are just as suceptible to long-flight blood pooling and injury?

The airlines are going to lose a few seats in all of this, maybe even a bulkead, a little less profit for them to rake in now that this is no longer just an unregulated moneygrab and has become a *very* risky business.

Just some random thoughts.

It's not that I can't think of a scenario where an armed pilot is the last hope. And if there's anybody who needs a cap in his ass, it's some dumbass splodeydope. I just think the pilot should be more focused on getting the plane on the ground in one piece, away from any tall structures, than on drawing down on some terrorist. Save that shit for Wesley Snipes.

If the point is for the pilots to keep the cockpit door shut so nobody can get in an take-over the plane, then how are they going to shoot anybody with said gun?? Do we really want some gung-ho pilot, deluded by too many Schwarzenegger movies, emerging from the cockpit brandishing his newly polished and never firedcolt .45 in such a closed environment?
No, we don't.
Why?
Because I don't want to watch the whilly terrorists sneak into the cockpit behind him, kill the other pilot, lock the door, and THEN fly the plane into a building.
That's why we have air-marshalls OUTSIDE the cockpt who are trained not only to handle guns in a closed (not to mention pressurized) environment but also in hand-to-hand combat and the like.
If there's a marshall with a gun, and the passengers are ready to roll, as we know they are, then there is no benefit in giving the pilot a gun. His job is to get the plane on the ground ASAP and to use emergency maneuvers to rearrange the cabin and the unbelted terrorsits.
Further, what if these terrorists succeed in getting a pilot onto a plane and in the cockpit. Isn't it extraordinarily more likely that the other pilot will be able to get up and unlock the door if he hasn't been shot.
Putting a guy I don't know at the controls of a 500mph speeding bullet on the other side of an impenetrable door with a gun doesn't inspire much confidence. It's much more likely one of them will accidentaly shoot out the avionics while twirling the gun on his finger in a feeble Roy Rogers impersonation before dispatching a would-be terrorist anyway. Then it doesn't matter who has a gun does it?

Neb's characterizations of gun-wielding cowboy pilots aside, I'd rather the pilot had a gun or some other form of lethal force at his disposal than didn't.

Just how many air marshals are you under the impression we have, anyway, Neb? We do not have air marhals on every plane, and in the event that the passengers aren't as ready to roll as you think they are (who'd have thunk someone could take over a plane with boxcutters??? after all), I'd like for the pilot to be able to be standing on the other side of the cockpit door with a gun at the ready if the terrorists are on the other side of it. Just because I can't think of a situation where it would be the only way to save the day doesn't mean I can't think of a number of situations where it would be helpful.

Of course, I believe that we'd have a much more civil society, and a lot less crime if more of our citizens had guns.

(who'd have thunk someone could take over a plane with boxcutters??? after all)

one must remember that conventional wisdom when dealing with a hijacking was to do as they told you so they could land the plane in some remote area and issue demands and release you.
No doubt that is what went through the minds of all the passengers, up until the moment that they slammed into the WTC.
At this point, I don't think (and I hope this is the case) it will matter if the guy has a machine gun, body armour, and flame-thrower, nobody is going to buckle-in and nervously flip through the airline's variety mag and hope for a better ending.
One armed pilot is not effective. 150 terrified passengers converging from all sides armed with everything from wine bottles to high-school state-champ rings willing to fight to the last one standing as the plane descends rapidly toward the ground and waiting SWAT team; that's a pretty stacked deck, in favor of the good-guys.
I'm far from a gun control advocate, I just think that guns don't kill people, stupid people (or people with no trainning and delusions of heroism) with guns kill people.
Put it this way, I wouldn't give you a gun, unless I knew that you knew exactly how to handle it. But I wouldn't give me a gun either.

Sorry, nobody seems to have provided a reasonable explanation for the lack in gun skill parity amongst the hundreds and hundreds of pilots in this country. But you still want to arm them.

And..

The armed pilots legislation call for pilots who chose to bear a sidearm to receive the exact same training as air marshalls.

- Ben Noah -

I am not sure what you mean by:
"lack in gun skill parity amongst the hundreds and hundreds of pilots in this country"

If you are suggesting that American commercial airliner pilots lack the skills to use handguns I think you may be mistaken.

Most if not all American pilots are former American AirForce pilots and therfore have all received proper if not superb handgun training among some of the other firepower training I am sure they receive.

The reason that it takes so long for counter-terror teams to train is two-fold. One, they are offensive in nature. It takes a whole lot more skill and tactics to cover open areas, assault a target and avoid a bloodbath when the opposition is able to set up a defensible perimeter. Second, the nature of teams require that everyone works together until they can anticipate how everyone will respond to any given act. It ain't really a valid comparison to what is expected of a pilot with a gun.

The fly the plane vs. shoot a gun dilemna isn't a big issue either. Planes have this neat little thing called auto-pilot. They also usually have two pilots, at least the ones that are big enough to tempt hijackers. If auto-pilot is to be used, when a plane reports an incident aboard, air traffic control can clear any traffic out of the heading corridor the plane will be travelling through until an all-clear is reported by the pilot with an authorization code. In a plane with two pilots, at least one needs to stay in the cockpit and the gun(s) never leave.

Also, most pilots come out of the military. I have read Sarge's stories about his gun training over at his site, but aren't pistols standard issue to pilots in the military. So they should have at least some familiarity with what to do.

Security people will tell you that a system needs two key aspects, vigilance and depth. The more layers of security that a splodydope needs to go through to execute his/her mission the more difficult it becomes and the more likely the chances of it being foiled before death and mayhem. Why stop the depth of security on the ground? Air Marshalls bring depth, but it is more of a game of roulette for the splodydope with the odds stacked seriously in favor of splody. The only reason to hijack a plane is to take control of it. If the chance of this occuring is nil, there are more inviting targets elsewhere. While it may not seem like it, splodydopes do act with rationality. They are just willing to accept far greater personal cost. They would be termed 'extremely risk averse' by economists.

What the concerns that I have read here and elsewhere boil down to is a concern with implementation, not a fatal flaw with the idea. It is a reason to go forward with great care and thought, not a reason to bury our heads in the sand and forego prudent measures to protect the public.

All of this talk about how the pilot's job is to "fly the plane" displays a fundamental misunderstanding of piloting a modern airliner. The plane flies itself, to first order. The pilot is there primarily in case something goes wrong. If one of the things that goes wrong is an Islamakazi trying to get into the cockpit, then the pilot's job becomes to prevent that.

Pilots know this, and that's they want to be armed. Idiotarians like Ridge and Mineta don't get it, but think they know better than the pilots how to do their job..

Yeah, and if something DOES go wrong, I want the pilot concentrating on what's in front of him, not what's behind him. I'd prefer not to rely on autopilot in that case. If you make it so these idiots can't bust through a plywood door into the cockpit, and the pilots are going stay in there no matter what... That just seems obvious to me. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I haven't seen anybody do that yet.

I'm with Jim.. I just don't see a really compelling reason to give them guns when El Al has been successful as it has in no small part due to its ability to secure the cockpit.

Michael, true that many pilots were Air Force members, certainly not all, and by recent news accounts (i'll see if I can find them), the number of Air Force to commercial pilot conversions are on the downslide.

Also, having the skill to shoot a gun is not the same thing as having a skill to shoot a gun in a close quarter combat style while also being responsible for the plane and its passengers.

Is there a precidence for arming commercial pilots on a scale even remotely similar to our commercial airline industry?

I didn't know that the legislation supported included air marshal style training, that is an important point, and I can at least start to entertain the idea remotely in my mind knowing this, but still I don't see the real compelling reason. Simply secure the cockpit, install better weapons and bomb sniffing equipment at airports, start firing and *prosecuting* the corporations that ran these security outfits. Also, raise the godamn prices of travel if need be, put more air marshals on flights, install those GPS controllers that would overide planes and fly them into militarized zones.. Do everything you possibly can do before burdening the pilots with defending the plane with a weapon that could end up hurting more people then it helps.

Bah!

I was also unaware that trainning would include some kind of close quarters trainning. But I think it bears mentioning that SWAT team members and the like drill day in and day out, getting used to the rumble-tumble of combat and the confusion, chaos, pain, and consequences contained therein.

I think it is difficult to ask someone, who has attended what would essentially be night school for self-defense, to enter a highly stressful and dangerous environment in order to prevent a trained terrorist from taking control of the plane. What are they going to do, set up shooting ranges for the pilots in the baggage claim area along with plane raid simulations and weight rooms where they can "work-out" between flights? There is too much room for an accident here including shooting the wrong person, puncturing the skin of the plane, being overcome by the terrorists, jsut plain freaking out, and/or worst of all, and I think some people are ignoring this point, opening the door of the cockpit.

If you open that cockpit door, you are changing the game completely. If you keep it closed and never come out, there is NO WAY that the Islamicazis can get in there short of blowing the door off (to do that they have to flight through every single passenger on the plane). If the point is to make the cockpit impregnable, let's not tempt fate by giving anybody any reason to think that lowering the drawbridge is ever a good idea. The pilot should know that there is a problem in the back, maybe use gas or evasive maneuvers to see what happens at that point. BUt his primary function should be to get onto the ground. Once the plane lands, the options for the good guys increase exponentially while those of the terrorists move inversely.

The other problem as well, is that I think that hijacking a US aircraft and using it as a missile is going to be extraordinarily hard to do nowadays, but getting a bomb in the belly doesn't sound like it's any harder. Ain't no gun out there that can stop a guy from sitting in his seat and setting the damn thing off.

I think we should spend less time turning our pilots into vigilante gunslingers and more time making sure who's getting on the plane and if they've got anything they shouldn't in their bags.

The purpose of an armed pilot/co-pilot is a last ditch means to defend the cockpit. Nothing else. It gives them the chance to get the plane to the ground, one way or the other, before the plane can be taken over and used as a weapon of mass destruction.

The alternative is to be shot down.

What happens in the cabin is a matter between the cabin crew, the passengers and the terrorists.

It's as simple as it is terrible.

It's war.

Michael:

Hmm.. so you're saying that the gun would only be used in the event that an impregnable cabin door was breached? And as a last means of defense in such a case, when the plane is about to be shot down? Does that mean also that the pilot would get a radio call saying "American Airlines flight #blabla, this is Air Force Delta bla bla, if you have your gun handy now's the time to use it, because we're about to shoot a missile up your rear!"

Is all this last minute stuff clearly defined in the legislative proposals? Are these rules of engagement clearly delineated and governed by law?

If they are, and there is an impregnable door to be broken in the first place (which there sure as hell is not), then I support the idea. But unless I am missing something (and still I haven't read the damn legislation so maybe I'm speaking out my arse but I doubt it), there is no clearly defined rules of engagement, and there is still no impregnable door! So I don't support the idea of a gun in the cockpit for last ditch measures as you suggest.

I'm still willing to have my mind changed, if I really believed it would be a justifiable risk. Maybe someone outside of this thread could do it, because so far on this thread there's been more good reasons not to give them guns then to give them guns.

"I want the pilot concentrating on what's in front of him, not what's behind him"

Let me repeat. For the most part, there is *nothing* going on in front of the pilot. If there is, it's a rare exception, not the rule. Most of the time, a pilot has nothing to do. There is nothing to concentrate on. The chances are, that if there is a hijacking taking place, that is the *most* important event going on in that aircraft, and there is nothing more important than preventing it from occurring.

People seem to have this bizarre notion that piloting an aircraft is like driving a car. It's much more akin to being the captain of a ship.

Rand Simberg writes:
People seem to have this bizarre notion that piloting an aircraft is like driving a car. It's much more akin to being the captain of a ship.

Listen to Rand, people.

We can’t anticipate every possible situation. But we can provide the people in charge with the means to improvise a solution. Even if it’s not a perfect solution.

Because terrorists will continue to surprise us.

And as Michael points out above, the alternative is to be shot down. Think about it.

I guess it comes down to this:

A pilot needs every possible means at his disposal to defend the cockpit. That such means include a gun, is not an unreasonable view. Defending a small space against men coming through a well-fortified narrow opening isn't terribly difficult, tactically speaking.

That said, defending the cockpit should be the pilot's only concern. That means that the pilots are not county sheriffs, air marshals, or a SWAT team. They are behind a steel door, and while that door is intact, their job is to call for help and land asap. As long as that door is intact, the pilots do not open it, regardless of what is going on in the passenger cabin. This is what I meant by "flying the plane" -- as opposed to opening the cockpit door, and letting someone else have a turn.

The loss of some passengers, all the passengers, or even the entire plane is, sadly, no longer the worst-case scenario we have to prevent. In the case of hijacking, the pilot's only responsibility is to keep the plane from being a guided missile. Everything else is someone else's problem.

A pilot doesn't have anything to do when he's trying to land a plane? Huh?

Let's see. Terrorists are trying to take over your airplane.

You:

a) ignore them, while they kill crew and passengers in the rear, and hope that you can find a field somewhere nearby immediately that can support the landing of your aircraft, and additionally hope that they won't break down the door while you're trying to do that, because if they do, not only your ass, but the keesters of everyone else aboard, as well as those of whoever are targets are on the ground, are grass, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it, because you've been disarmed by the idiot pissants in DC.

b) keep the plane flying straight and level (which takes essentially zero effort, particularly since ATC is aware of your situation, and can divert any traffic that's ahead of you), while guarding the door with as much weaponry as the bureaucrats in Washington, in their wise benificence, have granted you.

And because, unlike some posters in this comments section, you're not an idiot, and totally unfamiliar with how airplanes and cockpits work, you know that if, in extremis, you do have to land the aircraft, either you or the co-pilot can do it, while the other continues to guard the door with the gun, as a last line of defense.

So which is the preferable situation? (a) or (b)?

How about internet technology to solve all these dilemmas?

1. A internet based recorder in real-time (nixes black box need).

2. remote control over-ride of aircraft controls.

3. webcam of cockpit.

4. Secure internet identifications and check-in via retina scans or the like.

Technology can be useful if applied.

I wrote about this a while ago on Magz-OCP:
[Link: magz.4arrow.com...]

Calling people idiots when they don't agree with you and try to figure out what you're talking about... Level-headed.

And this talk of them being "disarmed" is pretty telling. I wasn't under the impression that they were ever armed in the first place.

Look, during my time as a ground handler, a load master and, eventually, a mechanic--I've gotten to know quite a few pilots in my time. I'm pretty familiar with the work these guys do, and I'm even more familiar with the aircraft they do it in.

So, lets talk brass tacks:
The space between pilot seating and the cockpit door, in a 767, runs @ three feet deep.
So let's imagine that you're this pilot--doing your job, but still prepared to fight for command of your aircraft.
The time it takes somebody to cross that span is exactly how long you have to:
1) Notice the entry
2) Determine the threat
3) Get a hand on that weapon
4) Aim
5) Make your shot

So, you're flying the aircraft, going through your checklists, listening to ATC, and somebody comes through the door behind you--low an behold--it isn't the trolley dolly. Now, it's decision time:
Is this person here to commandere my aircraft, or is this just some idiot who mistook the cockpit for the john or some retard (in the traditional sense) who thought it'd be great to see the view from here?

No matter how brave you are, or how prepared you are mentally for a fight to control your aircraft--this intruder has more than enough time to pull the axe off that wall and be all over you. And now, you have some idea of what it was like to be piloting an ill-fated 767 on the morning of 9/11. Because I know that none of you are stupid or delusional enough to believe that you could actually overtake a flightcrew with a boxcutter, or a spork from that shitty business class breakfast.

Let's say you can get your hand on that firearm first:
You and I might be willing to accept that any intruder (regardless of intention) has placed themselves and that flightcrew at enough risk to warrant the use of deadly force--do you suppose his family will accept that as justifiable grounds for his untimely death? I know the answer to that--and so do you. The answer is, that it took you all of thirty seconds to incur enough in civil liabilities and bad public relations press to destroy any hopes of a struggling carrier's economic survival. No insurer in the world would cover that possibility, not even with another man's dick. Your ears haven't even stopped ringing from the shot, before your employer is wiped the fuck out--and your career along with it.

Let's say you don't kill the intruder, but damage your aircraft instead. This aircraft you're piloting costs between $110-135 millions dollars; the bulk of that expense is located in your immediate vicinity, around you and directly underfoot. Better put two bullets in that gun--'cause if this guy doesn't kill you, you'll be wanting to put one through your own temple when you realize that you've clipped through vital avionics, electrical and hydraulics, and punctured one of your fuel tanks... Now, what might have been, has been utterly eclipsed by your very real action that has placed every life onboard in mortal danger. Shrewd.

Like I said before; there a lot of very good reasons not to do this. But there is only one good reason to do it: You want to be a badass. I don't blame you--I would too. But this environment is not coducive to your success as a badass. In fact, this environment is conducive to everything but your coming out of this scrape--looking like a badass.

Is anybody here a commercial airline pilot? No? I thought not. Nobody knows more about any and all of the issues you're babbling about here - and babble is a fair description of what you're doing - than the pilots themselves. And the vast majority of them want guns. I'll listen to the experts on this, thanks, not the amateurs.

I couldn't agree with you more, Mr. Quick. Pilots should be deferred to when we're discussing matters of flight.

Such a pity, that nothing can be agreed for hijack prevention aboard planes post 9-11.

Just more political agenda being touted.

One thing I'd like to see the next time I fly, is for the flight attendants to say what to do in case of a hijacking, along with showing where the life preservers are located and such.

The airlines prepares their passengers for worst case emergencies, except for a hijacking.

When are they going to get with it?

Are they omiting a pre-flight hijacking preparation because the passengers might get scared and feel uncomfortable?

Because I know that none of you are stupid or delusional enough to believe that you could actually overtake a flightcrew with a boxcutter, or a spork from that shitty business class breakfast.

On the other hand, those bread rolls can be quite an effective projectile weapon.

Umm, I meant simply "projectile." Yeah. And the quote is from Tiger Lily.

Excuse me, while I plug my brain back in.

I apologize for the "idiots" remark (at least insofar as it referred to anyone here--I still believe that the Beltway is full of them). I'm very frustrated about this issue, but that's no excuse.

Pilots *have* been disarmed, because they did, in fact, used to be armed, up through the mid-1970s, I believe. I'm not aware of any adverse incidents as a result. Had they still been armed on September 11, the result might have been different. It certainly couldn't have been any worse.

You guys want precedent for arming pilots, it is only recently that pilots were disarmed. I do believe that up through the sixties or seventies pilots had the choice of carrying or not carrying a gun. All we want is a return to that policy.

And for all this impregnable door business will solve the problem, I have one word for you-Titanic. Why, its so big it will never sink, nothing will ever go wrong so we don't need lifeboats. Uh, it hit what? Never saw that coming. Oh well.

The job of a hijacker is to find weak points in security and exploit it. I would say the ability to take a plane by force with only minimal opposition is a weak point and will be exploited again and again. Next time they just might rely on brute force and numbers on a plane, rather than weapons. Because of the layout of a plane, it is difficult for everyone on a plane to engage in a fight, regardless of intent. If a team of hijackers numbers in the teens, rather than five or six, it could control the cabin long enough to gain access through the door into the cockpit. When you have 10 guys with no regard for personal safety rushing through a door against 3 guys defending it doesn't look good for the good guys. Guns would help even the score, as they serve as force multipliers.

I don't think anyone here is saying leave the plane the way it is and give pilots guns. I think that improving the cockpit door is taken as a given. Giving pilots guns provides one more security feature. The gun needn't be the biggest or baddest on the market. A simple .22 pistol will do the trick. Bullets that fragment on impact would also reduce the likeliness of damage to equipment in the plane.

And an earlier post had it right, I too would like to see the rules and legislation to implement this. Rather than just say no, this won't work so we need to stop now it would be nice if someone took the attitude of how can this work.

I agree that we should defer to the experts on matters of flight as well. Of course battling terrorists isn't a question of flight is it?

Again, the role of the pilot is not just to drive the airplane.

He is the captain of the ship (which mostly flies itself), and is ultimately responsible for everything that goes on aboard it. If one of those things is a hijacking, then he's responsible for doing everything he can to thwart it. Deliberately depriving him of all reasonable means with which to do that is, to my mind, madness.

If the legislation doesn't go through, I hope they strike over this.

Regarding the comments about El Al pilots not being armed, there are a couple of fundamental differences between El Al and the U.S. airline industry which I suspect are being overlooked.

For one, El Al is a single airline with a security force of over 11,000 personnel that runs security for both airports and planes. The U.S. airline industry is a composite of more than a dozen airlines. Total U.S. airline security personnel are expected to reach around 65,000, and some lawmakers are squawking that even that is too high. Just considering the 10 largest U.S. air carriers, that's only 6500 security personnel per airline.

Second, El Al puts multiple sky marshals (I've read that there are up to 5 per flight, placed in strategic positions in the cabin) on every flight.

Third, El Al uses PROFILING on the ground to screen passengers, along with computerized cross-checking of passport and other identification docs. They also have more sophisticated baggage checking equipment than the usual xray devices.

Implement El Al-style security from the ground up and you will see fewer pilots demanding to be armed. Until then...

I think its totaly appropriate to refer to those non specific peoples outside of our group as idiots when they act like it, but since we're all here with very related ideaologies and we try to keep things civil here we should cut eachother some slack.

This thread's gotten too long to reference each person's entry by name, but:

to the fella who suggests that there's a lot of political agenda pushing going on, not at all. i think those of us here against guns in the cockpit are willing to be convinced, but so far nobody here has been able to make a consisten compelling argument.

to the fella who showed a precedent for guns on pilots, let me be more clear, I would like to see the precedent for those guns being successful in stoping a hijacking. Are there any?

to the fella that suggested that the inpregnable cockpit door is subject to the failure scenario of the titanic, can someone show me (and maybe this happened but i haven't been able to find it) where any modern El Al plane had its cockpit breached?

also, how come no one has answered tiger lily's question about the effect of bullets hitting the avionics system? that's not a legitemate consideration because tiger lily isn't a pilot? are the rest of us pilots? if not than it suggests we shouldn't disucss the issue at all? we're also not ambassadors, state department officials, employees of the pentagon, etc. so perhaps we shouldn't hold any dicussion on any issues which we are not complete masters in the subject in?

i think the disenters here are calling for at least a more concise and compelling reason for these guns. we're passengers, and we have a legit reason for debating this (not babbling). just beause a group (or an interest) of people want something doesn't mean they should get it. pilots are *not* experts on fighting terrorism by any stretch of the imagination. they are experts at flying the plain, and they need to be given the best tools to do that.

Rand Simberg writes:

Again, the role of the pilot is not just to drive the airplane.

He is the captain of the ship (which mostly flies itself), and is ultimately responsible for everything that goes on aboard it. If one of those things is a hijacking, then he's responsible for doing everything he can to thwart it.

Right. My addition to that is that when a plane is hijacked, we now have to presume that there is intent to take over the cockpit and fly this plane into something. As the captain, it is the pilot's responsibility to ensure this doesn't happen. And that means that he is not entitled to grab a revolver and rush out of the cockpit. Note that I'm not saying he shouldn't have a gun at all; only that he can only use it to defend the flight deck, not rescue passengers.

From the point of view of the pilot, anything less than a repeat of WTC II has to be viewed as the lesser evil. Let the passengers, air marshals, and the FBI Hostage Rescue teams deal with other hijackers. The pilot's only tasks in a hijacking should be

1. Keep the hijackers out of the cockpit.

2. Land the plane asap.

Ben Noah writes:

also, how come no one has answered tiger lily's question about the effect of bullets hitting the avionics system? that's not a legitemate consideration because tiger lily isn't a pilot?

First, because they make fragmentation bullets that break apart when hitting something more solid. They work against humans through impact, not penetration.

Second, because if hijackers do take over the cockpit, I'd be better if the avionics didn't work.

Not to sound like a broken record, but in the wake of 9/11, a lost aircraft is not the worst-case scenario.

I wasn't proposing that anyone "rush out of the cockpit," (though that might be appropriate under some circumstances--I'd rely on the judgement of the pilot--it's his call). But he should have all means available to defend the plane, and ultimately, if it comes to that, the cockpit. This decision was foolish.

I appreciate that the rhetoric has been scaled back a bit. Just because someone is a skeptic doesn't make them an idiot. Just because someone doesn't take your word as an article of faith doesn't mean they're incapable of reason.

So when pilots were allowed to be armed, how did that work out? Why was it changed?

To the poster who asks if there's any recorded instance of armed pilots preventing hijacking. Not that I'm aware of (which doesn't mean there aren't. But prior to September 11, other than at El Al, the prevailing philosophy was to negotiate with hijackers, so there's no particular reason that it such an instance would have occurred.

But why should the burden of proof be on those who claim that it would prevent hijackings? To repeat, there were no adverse effects of allowing pilots to be armed in the past, so why should we expect any in the future (i.e., it seems to have been proven safe).

As to whether or not it would be effective, while it may not have prevented what happened in September, that's only because the philosophy continued to prevail on three out of four of those planes that hijackers were to be negotiated with, not fought. On the fourth plane, the passengers didn't learn until the cockpit had already been commandeered. But there's no doubt in my mind that if the pilots had known of the hijackers intent, and had been armed, there would have been a much different outcome.

And I'll ask again, since none of the antis seem to want to answer it--how could or would have armed pilots made anything worse on that day?

I don't know exactly why the pilots were no longer allowed to carry, but I don't think that it was because of any particular incident.

I suspect that it was part of the general shift in philosophy to implement total gun control in the aircraft in the wake of the flurry of hijackings. And it was probably part of the general trend toward societal gun control that started in the sixties and seventies (a trend that having waxed for over thirty years, is now thankfully starting to wane).

How would they have made things worse?? Consider this:

You're flying the plane, the glare from the sun glances off the windows, you take a sip of your hot coffee and settle down for a long flight to LA when suddenly, you hear a scream behind you. As you turn around, the door bursts open and 3-5 trained (though you don't know this) men burst through the door with a stewardess in arm and boxcutters brandished, probably one to the woman's throat. Actually, let's forget the hostage and just say they burst through the outhouse door between the flight-deck and the main cabins. Before you can even reach for your gun, assuming it is in the pilot's seat somewhere, your co-pilot has probably been dragged from his seat and you feel the cold steel against your own throat. Now, not only have you failed to brandish and use your weapon (not that it's anyone's fault, there's just not enough time), but you have provided the terrorists, previously armed with only knives, with a firearm, a much scarrier proposition at that point.

So now you say that they can't get through the cockpit door that quickly, so the pilot will have time to get up out of his seat and point his fragmentation bullets at the door while the other two do the necessary things to land the plane. I agree with that. But let's say that the terrorists start killing passengers. This is a commercial airlines pilot, not a trained soldier (at least not anymore). You can't tell me that he isn't tempted by the screams from the cabin to go out there and regulate on some terrorist ass for a couple minutes. PLus, he thinks, "I have a gun. What do they ahve? Knives. I'll totally be able to take them on." So in a moment of human weakness, the cockpit door opens and all is lost. Further, if they do get through the cockpit door, one guy can take a couple of these "bullets," if they even hit him, while his cronies overpower the flight crew. Now bullets are ricocheting off the control pannel and sensitive avionics in the flight deck.

I propose you don't give the pilots the option to be heros for the passengers, you make them get the plane on the ground. And I'm not totally against the idea of a stun gun which makes damaging the plane less likely and is a close-combat weapon that takes little to no trainning whatsoever; a real last line of defense weapon that can be used when the Islamicazis are literally on top of you.

If you make a door you just cannot get through and be sure that nobody is getting anything on the plane, the good guys have the upper hand without exponentially increasing the danger to everyone's safety. I'll take a steel reinforced door and 80 pissed-off and frightened passengers against some knife-wielding psychos anyday. And I'll take that before I start handing untrained and unqualified people firearms.

Enough writes:

Second, because if hijackers do take over the cockpit, I'd be better if the avionics didn't work.

How is that a good thing though? There is a random chance such a plane could land in the middle of a populated area killing hundreds, possibly thousands.

Rand writes:

And I'll ask again, since none of the antis seem to want to answer it--how could or would have armed pilots made anything worse on that day?

And how would it have made things better? That's our problem. You are not clearly outlining the benefits of this. Why isn't a wired floor like El Al sufficient? Why not a high powered stun gun? Why something that could be used to further damage the plain or its passengers?

Where does it say in the legislation (and if its there please show us, maybe we're missing it) exactly what the rules of conduct are?

Why should civilians want them to have a gun without a clear structure for its use? The pilots in effect become officers of the plane. Is there a chain of command? Who regulates their training?

If these things are part of the legislation, these are your best means of convincing the dissenters in this group, but you haven't cited these things, instead letting your argument rely on some very scattered and uncompelling reasoning, like "this is a war", the pilots want it and therefore its good.. etc. etc...

I can be convinced, and I think a few others here could be, but you're putting the burden of proof on us when we are of the likeminded philopshy of those who blocked the resolution. The burden is on your to convince us!

I guess I'm now an "anti," since I'm not jumping up and down and clapping my hands over everything Simberg says. And it seems to me that there has been a lot of discussion about how an armed pilot could make things worse. The big comeback seems to be, "Hey, what's the worst that could happen?" It would certainly be viscerally satisfying to see a hijacker get mowed down in a hail of bullets, I'll give you that much. It sure is fun to watch in the movies. I just remain skeptical that giving pilots guns in the real world is a good idea.

Your "worse" scenario still sounds like it's better than what actually happened. I doubt if the plane could have been flown into the twin towers under the circumstances you describe...

And nobody is proposing that the pilots be "untrained or unqualified." Many (in fact, most) of them are military veterans, and the ones that aren't have already expressed willingness to get training.

Of all the options that have been discussed in this thread the ones that make the most sense to me are the reinforced door, wired floor and stun guns in the hands of the entire flight crew, provided they have been well trained in the use of these weapons.

There can be an infinite number of possible case scenarios, each only limited by the imagination of the person submitting said scenario, but in a crisis, there is no way to determine how any one person or persons will actually act. Training only goes as far as a person's ability to apply it under duress.

Michael's recap was spot on. Those items do appear to provide the best defense with the least risk to innocent people and the least chance of causing situations to get out of control.

Maybe this is simply the way it appears to us. I am still open to a more compelling argument for guns, but so far it hasn't been presented.

Ben, can you show me prior to 9/11 where someone crashed a plane into a major metro area on purpose? It only takes one for a catastrophe to occur. But how is this for a scenario, shape charges make quick work of steel and I think they are of a non-metallic make up that could get on a plane(not like that stops all the guns, knives and other stuff smuggled on in recent months) with a watch or pager providing the firing mechanism. The door is attacked one of two ways, the hinges or locking mechanism because they are the weak points. You don't need to destroy the door, just one side where it is secured. They have access to the cockpit, now what? A gun will allow the pilot to control the choke point that is the door much easier than hand-to-hand battle. A choke point is crucial because it allows a numerically inferior force to hold its position. A doorway will only allow two people max at one time to effectively move through it. It is now a one on two fight, with the one hopefully having a gun, not needing to get in a physical fight where the two would have a strength advantage.

CQB is difficult because of the movement that is required. You need to know where everyone, good, bad and innocent, are and will be, keeping your fire directed at the bad, hoping to avoid the innocent. This has no bearing on what we are talking about because the pilot is not moving and knows where everyone is. Anyone coming through the door is bad, period. Target acquisition is a much easier issue and can be taught relatively quickly with a little continuous training to keep skills sharp. They don't need to be taught marksmanship, because we are talking 10 feet max range. Gun safety yes.

I think that everyone here is forgetting a little recent history. The 9/11 hijackers did not have just boxcutters, but CIA knives as well. A CIA knife is made out of hardened plastic and is just as sharp as steel. A friend of mine has one that he takes with him on every plane he rides on. It looks like a hair brush, with the brush portion acting as a sheath. No one would ever know he has it until he used it. We can not imagine everything a terrorist or 'evildoer' is capable of or willing to do. All we can do is put into place a system that will deny them control of planes. If the air force is going to shoot down any plane that is taken over by hijckers, why not at least give a fighting chance to those on the plane before that happens?

Dan Dixon makes a good point about the difference in security measures at El Al. But it's also not just them, it's Ben-Gurion Airport. When I flew in on Air Canada last summer, as soon as I got in to the airport, I was drawn out of my tour group by security. Why? I'm dark skinned, and I don't have a Jewish last name. Only because I was there with Birthright Israel did I not have to go through their interrogation process. My dad, not Jewish, goes to Israel infrequently for business. He was born in Tehran. When he boards an El Al flight, he goes through interrogation, at least one time for three hours. He doesn't mind--he knows that his flight will be safe. El Al screens every single one of their passengers, and puts them into three different risk categories. The lowest risk are Israeli Jews and those with names like Liebowitz or Meyer. Medium risk is people like me, non-Israeli, non-Jewish last name. High risk are Arabs and nationals/natives of Arab countries. Is it a shame it has to come to that? Yes. But it's also the reason El Al doesn't get hijacked. The problem from a domestic standpoint is that your average businessman who counts on the hourly shuttle between Boston-NYC-DC, or needs to get on the first available flight from New York to LA isn't gonna stand for a lengthy screening process. Similarly, in our Priceline/Travelocity/Expedia travel culture, we'd all balk at paying the prices necessary for El Al-like security.

All these concerns about damaged avionics, innocents being shot accidentally, hijackers getting the gun first, etc are only pertinent under one presumption: that the hijackers don't plan to destroy the plane while using it as a guided missile.

Instead of having armed pilots as a penultimate line of security, we have unarmed pilots who will be forced to fight hand-to-[insert terrorists' smuggled weapon of choice here, or substitute gun appropriated from overpowered sky marshal (see below)].

If the pilots lose the fight for cockpit control, the final layer of security is to shoot the plane down. I'm fairly certain this will harm innocents and damage the avionics.

Ben asks why El Al's wired floors, etc are not sufficient. In conjunction with other measures comparable to those which El Al uses, adapted to the particular differences in our commercial airline system and theirs, perhaps they would be. But there are no plans to install wired floors. They don't even have reinforced cockpit doors installed on all planes yet, or enough baggage screeners, or enough air marshals.

Neb ponders the very real temptation a pilot will face to open the cockpit door and try to assist passengers being attacked by terrorists. This potential temptation alreadly exists, with or without guns in the cockpit. Nobody is proposing removing the cockpit axes, fire extinguishers, or other objects which could be employed by pilots tempted to try and save five year old children from having their eyes gouged out and fingers cut off one by one in front of the cabin cameras or microphones. Of course, this presumes such coercion is attempted due to the cockpit door actually being unbreachable (an unlikely scenario for the forseeable future).

The concern that onboard guns might be used by the terrorists also currently exists. If a sky marshal draws his weapon on a terrorist who is trying to kill a flight attendant and reveals him/herself to the other terrorists, they will have the opportunity to try and over power him. Several may die trying, but one will most likely prevail. Any potential "let's roll" passengers will then face a formidable obstacle.

I dunno Jim...seems pretty clear-cut to me. Pilots should have guns.

Until the early 80's some pilots were still allowed to carry handguns. It was an option that individual pilots had and they trained for the event that they might have to resort to using a gun. The fact that so few people, especially passengers, knew they had them and that they were not used should say something about pilot judgement. As a last line of defense nothing has been invented yet with the deterrance of a handgun in the hands of someone trained to use it. The pilots who carried them had ready access just like military pilots.
The reason pilots started carrying firearms was in response to hijackings and after the pilots started carrying, hijackings decreased.
The fact that a pilot could choose if he/she wanted to carry and go through specific training would make it hard for a hijacker to know who, or even if anyone in the cockpit had a gun.

- lori -

TRUE.

Perfectly stated.

Free gun ownership made America great. It's why we will always be better than those panty wipe Europeans. Without guns, we couldn't have defeated those infidel Native Americans.

I'm confused.

What's the downside to armed pilots?

If terrorists have taken over the plane, a gun doesn't give them any additional capability.

Moreover, an armed pilot makes it more difficult for them to take over the plane - it does not make it easier.

I note that no other measure is subject to the "it must handle all circumstances perfectly" constraint. (That includes the pilot. Every so often, one dies in the saddle. And then there's the one who took a plane-load into the ocean.)

"If terrorists have taken over the plane, a gun doesn't give them any additional capability."

It would, it would prevent people from overwhelming them (or at least, it would allow them to kill the first 10+ people to rush at them, which would have a chilling effect on everyone else).

>> would have a chilling effect on everyone else

I don't think that they'll be "chilled". Why? Because they know what happens if they don't retake the plane.

It's a different situation now. We've stopped relying on the good intentions of our attackers.

Of course, it's always been hard to believe in the good intentions of someone who says that the contents of your pocket are worth more to him than your life....

Guess one man's "clear-cut" is another man's "call me skeptical..."