Commercial Airline pilots should be armed in the cockpit

Love the smiley/frowny face. It's very...Mark. I'd go affirmative, but it's not like we have a say. It's a coin toss after all, and we need assertions and explanations. So people better state their reasoning!!

Some pilots should be armed, as they are now. Those pilots who do carry guns go through rigorous training. Pilots who do not want to carry guns or are not going to be able to use them effectively if needed should not.

If you are being hijacked, the last thing you'd worry about is a bullet though your avionics, and so what if it punctures the fuselage? Yes, the cabin is pressurized, but it's not like it's a space ship.

Airport security cannot be made tight enough to keep all dangerous items off planes unless every passenger flies naked and empty handed. That ain't gonna happen, so if pilots want some extra protection, they should have it.

I sem to recall that there have been less instances of airplace hijacking in the US as there have been instances of BLIND-DRUNK PILOTS FLYING them. ARMED blind-drunk pilots?? Put me down for TWO frowny faces!

and welcome to A2K sugar-grrrrl!

Thats a Very good point! And i might be using some of your information for an upcoming debate.

1. You are already trusting the pilot with your life. If he feels he needs a weapon to guard that trust then I would defer to his judgement.

2. An airline pilot is a member of the most carefully selected sizeable group in our society today. By and large they are trustworthy.

3. The government cannot prevent each and every instance of malfeasance. "A government that can give us all we want can also take it all away."

4. Weapons are most often used to prevent hostile actions. Their occasional criminal use should not blind us to the fact that anything can be abused. Heck, that's why there are speed limits.

5. The penalties exacted by physics will always be less that the penalties exacted by religious fanatics. Even if a gunshot made an aircraft fall out of the sky randomly it would be worse if the aircraft was deliberately driven into a building.

6. I have much more faith in the general public acting responsibly than I have in the government (The TSA) acting responsibly.

7. Since it is impossible to prevent access to weapons by our violent (criminal) underclass it seems only reasonable to allow responsible persons access to weapons in order to minimize violence. I suspect that airline pilots are responsible persons.

8. Probably the only way to deal with a dangerously suicidal person is to incapacitate him before he incapacitates you. It is notoriously difficult to re-educate a successful suicidal maniac. It is even more difficult if he has succeeded in making you a participant in his quest for glory.

9. Hypothetical Question--- What do you think would have happened on Sep. 11, 01 if every passenger on the aircraft had been in possesion of a weapon?
a) Would the resulting damage have been as great if the aircraft just fell out of the sky?
b) Would the hijackers have survived long enough to pilot the aircraft?
c) Would the crime even have been attempted?

10.The debate about arming citizens has been going on for many years now. When the US was started the framers of the Constitution made it plain that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In modern times it has been infringed most seriously by the governments of the various states. The misadventure of our Government in Iraq is but one result of that infringement.
a) Do you think that the President of the US would have been able to send troops to Iraq if Sep 11,01 was just another day?

Most people who carry guns for protection don't need to use them though. A lot of crooks, once, they realize that the attackee actually has a weapon, give up and run away. I don't know how much of an effect it will have on someone attacking a pilot, being that there's no where to run, but not everyone who might conceivably want to hijack would be a suicider. Who knows. Anyway, if the plane is hijacked than most likely everyone will die anyway. Arguing against giving pilots guns because people might get killed in that situation is stupid.

Also, the war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and only a small percentage of the population thinks it did. So if 9/11 had not happened, I don't think it would have effected the war in Iraq at all.

How are those "break inn resistant" (sry, english is not my first language) cocpits coming along?

Must not be too good, Einherjar. The last time I flew commercial, lines were not permitted at the forward restrooms.

Your english is quite up to standard, by the way.

I will repeat some information I collected from Mike Moore, not endorsing it - just passing it on.

In Stupid White Men he mentions that some pilots earn so little that they are entitled to food stamps. So are some military families.

In Dude, Where's My Country? he says that when he was with Nader's Raiders a proposition to make cockpit doors attack-proof was rejected by the airlines.

Sorry Rufio,
I suspect that without the specter of 9/11 looming on the horizon George Bush would never have been able to marshall enough support to send troops to Iraq, which at the time had merely, in the words of John Kerry, merely been a bit of a nuisance.

Government, in the face of any undisireable happenstance must appear to be doing something. Presidents have traditionally chosen war. It's good for business, reduces unemployment, and often insures re-election.

Worked for Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan. Can you blame Geo. Bush for attempting something that worked three out of four times. But IMO he couldn't have done it without the unwitting co-operation of of a group of religious fanatics.

Mr Stillwater,
I should check my facts if I were you. Of the two commercial pilots that I have known personally neither was in any danger of appearing on the list of food stamp recipients.

Michael Moore is known for his showmanship, not his veracity.

I don't trust a damn thing Michael Moore says.

Anyway, the issue in Iraq had been going on for a long time. You don't think that GWB spontaneously decided to go to war just because of 9/11 do you? Not even he's that dumb. The only "war" that happened as a result of 9/11 was the invasion of Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden - an attempt to find one fanatic hidden under a rock somewhere that wasn't even successful, not a war to overthrow a dictator who had been a pain in everyone's arse for quite a while.

rufio,

My point is that without the episode of 9/11 I doubt that George Bush could have gained sufficient support, in Congress primarly, to bring about either the war in Iraq or "The Patriots Act" for whatever reasons. Both of those happenings are rather contrary to how Americans like to view themselves.

The second point is to the thread. "IF" there were several people on the aircraft with sidearms the more likely outcome would be that four aircraft crashed out in the woods somewhere. Even more likely would have been that they would have been flown on autopilot till they ran out of fuel over the oceans or great lakes. The most likely happenstance would have been that some one (who is still alive) would have decided that the chances of pulling off a hijacking were so slim as to be not worth the trouble.

Even a suicide nut with a larger goal in mind than his demise would not be apt to pursue a course of action that would have no effect other than his immediate transportation to heaven.

Sorry m-smith, just Googled "food stamps" + airline + pilots, plenty of info there....

HowStuffWorks.com

Workingworld.com

Michael Moore, take it up with him

I agree about the Patriot Act - I'm suprised that he even got Congress's support - he certainly didn't have America's. But Iraq is a horse of another color.

Now we're even misquoting Michael Moore, which is a damn shame. Moore said that he knew one pilot who was on foodstamps, because he had four kids, not that every pilot, or most pilots, or even a significant fraction of pilots were. I have no idea how much pilots get paid, and I'm not sure how relevant it is to the discussion, exactly.

rufio,
You're right, none of this is relevant.

What is relevant is that a person whom you have entrusted with your life (merely by boarding the aircraft) is not trustworthy enough (in the TSA's opinion) to have a sidearm in his-her posession if he-she deems it appropriate

The logic escapes me, however it often does in situations that have become so politicized Politicians are less widely known for their competence than pilots are.

Mr Stillwater, I am going to check Dept of Commerce figures. I'll get back on that.

Mr Stillwater,

As I read the "Fair Labor Standards Act" a professional need not be paid a salary if they are paid not less than $27.63 per hour.

And "The Bureau of Labor Statistics", www.bls.gov

In the category of Airline Pilots, Co-Pilots, and Flight Engineers the mean annual income for workers working less than 2080 hours per year is $129,000

In the category of Commercial Pilots the mean annual income is $57,950.

Click on it, It's a rather interesting page.