AP says that passengers are split on the concept of allowing pilots to carry firearms.

Since we tend to travel more than most, are you for or against pilots carrying firearms?

I'll start with a for vote. I view the pilots as being ultimately responsible for the safety of the pax & I don't feel jeapordized by the concept of weapons in the cockpit.

Other thoughts?

------------------
Ah Ah, I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?

Clint Eastwood, 1971

[This message has been edited by kcvt750 (edited 04-19-2003).]

It really depends on the pilot. Basically Im in agreement with this.

As a LAST use weapon if the cockpit is penetrated "MAYBE"

However to keep the main cabin, safe, "NO"... I don't believe the cockpit door should EVER be opened during a cabin incident - no matter what the situation, the fastest possible divert... DON'T EVER compromise the cockpit doot to fix a situation in the cabin. Once you open the door for a crewmember to go out with the weapon - the game could be up ....

[This message has been edited by NickP 1K (edited 04-19-2003).]

I originally read that the pilots would be limited in weapon type (no larger than 45cal. and ammo use, ie. sub-sonic and Glazer type slugs. Is this a fact?

I agree .... if they consider it's use to protect the passengers, then I disagree wholeheartedly. In order to do that, they have to open the cockpit door and that's a potential repeat of 9/11. If it's a last resort to stop access/abuse of the cockpit then I agree.

I haven't checked the specifics, but I'm hoping the gun has to be a locked case and without ammo within the airport itself.

Personally, I liked the idea of the monitors being placed in the plane so the pilots can see what was happening in the cabin without opening the door. That seems a more effective solution as they'd be aware of what was happening and be able to prepare for an attempt to access the cockpit (remove the surprise factor) as well as have the possibility of an emergency landing attempt and/or an SOS call.

I vote against.

We are fighting the last battle with this one.

I don't feel comfortable with a firearm on the plane, especially in the cockpit. Why not have tazers, and bullet proof cockpits and doors, and give them a big hammer in the cockpit. That'll stop most any attack.

A gun is not going to be of much help, especially if a terrorist has a grenade, or has a gun and threatens to execute a passenger every minute unless the pilots give up.

There 'aint nothin' much bigger than .45 cal. They certainly won't have .50 cal Desert Eagles! .45 is a huge slug--and most .45 pistols would be inappropriate for use by minimally trained pilots. Also, "sub-sonic" does not automatically include or exclude Glaser-type ammo-- the type of slug (pre-fragmented, like glazer, etc.) usually operate at sub-sonic speeds-- but don't have to. I'm sure the ammo will be specifically picked for minimum penetration-- so probably sub-sonic, probably .40 calibre.

I definitley think it is a bad idea. The air marshalls are the people who should be providing security not the pilots. Pilots are trained to fly planes not fight with terrorists.

Also to have badly trained people with guns on planes will put the chances of an accident up. Plus the chances of the guns falling into the terrorists hands go up.

NO!

YES YES YES!

It sounds like the pilots now allowed guns are very well trained. I think it's only to the plane's safety to allow this new defense. No method will be 100% - but this could come in handy on some occasion which I hope never comes to pass. I feel the new doors, however, count for a lot more.

Against. Who assumes liability if pilot misses and shoots a regular pax, or makes a mistake and mid-identifies a pax as a hijacker? Will they also train air marshals to fly the plane in case pilot/co-pilot gets killed in a shoot out? If the pilot can get a gun permit for the plane, why can't a qualified pax get the same? Pilot's job is to fly the plane - not to act as a Texas Ranger.

JonNYC,
The .45cal ammo is subsonic as originally loaded.The .40cal is not.
I carried a .45 for several years, so am aware of its pro and conns. I am also aware that the FBI and Air Marshall's Programs worked with both the .45 and 9mm (not sub-sonic)to develope a suitable subsonic/lo penetration cartridge for the Marshall's program.

I was simply addressing the issue of "nothing larger than .45"-- let's hope not! As I'm sure you know, 9mm is frequently loaded subsonic with very heavy slugs. The L.E.O. ("law enforcement only") ammo that was very much in vogue in Fed. circles for a while was sub-sonic, 147 grain WInchester silver-tip-- it was "the standard" for years-- although it was never really proven one way or the other. The pilots certainly would never be issued .45 cal. pistols-- as you allude to, that 'aint no beginners gun-- even in a double-action-only type firearm (as opposed to our beloved 1911 variants.)

In any case, the pilots are carrying .40 cal. guns-- I would assume Sig or Glock, I would assume double-action-only and I would assume with a subsonic .40 hollow-point or pre-fragmented slug.

IMHO, the sky marshal vs. pilot arguement only holds true if there's a sky marshal on every flight, which isn't the case.
At least I know there's a pilot on every flight (at least I think so....).