Arming pilots: Why stun guns just won't do the trick...

Derg

New Arizona, Il Duce/Warlord
Staff member
Re: Arming pilots: Why stun guns just won\'t do the trick...

All you need are a couple of sweaters and the stun gun is just a squeeze toy.
 

EricH

New Member
Re: Arming pilots: Why stun guns just won\'t do the trick...

That was a good video. Very convincing indeed. I think it also shows that a shootout in the flight deck area is much safer than one in the cabin (i.e from an air marshal) where passengers are.
 

davetheflyer

New Member
Re: Arming pilots: Why stun guns just won\'t do the trick...

I'll buy that.

The next problem is the onerous restrictions that are placed on FFDOs. I've flown with a couple and quizzed them on the program. I'm not going to go into details of the program, but I will say that it's a huge hassle, especially for commuters.
 

MQAAord

Scheherazade
Staff member
Re: Arming pilots: Why stun guns just won\'t do the trick...

[ QUOTE ]
I'll buy that.

The next problem is the onerous restrictions that are placed on FFDOs. I've flown with a couple and quizzed them on the program. I'm not going to go into details of the program, but I will say that it's a huge hassle, especially for commuters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.
 

rici

New Member
Re: Arming pilots: Why stun guns just won\'t do the trick...

Ok,
My views on this.

The video did not contain a reinforced cokpit door, still the best defence. If the attacker cannot gain access to the flight deck, then he does not have control of that aircraft.

The video showed a cusion being used as a shield. In this case then a stun gun is ineffective. What if the attacker were using a passenger or flight attendent as a human shield. In this case, lethal weapons would also be ineffective in regards to their use. Also, the issue of a window/fuselage failure due to a 'well placed' bullet is an issue.

My theory is that the first line of defence is to stop weapons from getting on to the aircraft.

The second line of defence should be that the cockpit should not be 'breachable'.

The third and final line of defence should be weaponary of some kind, I do agree at this. But what?
Speaking from someone who knows next to nothing about guns, i'll say this.

Why can we not have a specialised weapon designed for air transport that contains
a) Lethal projectiles (bullets)
b) non lethal projectiles (tasors)

This way, if an attacker is using a human shield or a no shield then a non lethal method of force can be deployed. This will save a colleague's life or prevent undue force (in the case say, of a drunk passenger mouthing off). ie, if a passenger was to get completely drunk, and try to attack the cockpit, then instead of killing him, incapaciate him. No need to kill him, really is there? (I know the tempation may exist
)

IF the attacker is using a shield or presents a very real and imminent danger, THEN use lethal force. IF the attacker is using a flight attendant or passenger as a human shield, then drop him/her with the tasor, then the attacker with the lethal projectile, all with the same weapon.

This way the pilot will have the choice.

A) There is a risk of blowing a hole in the fuselage, or killing a colleage or passenger: I will use non lethal force.

And, with the passenger/colleage out of the way, and no risk of damage to the aircraft exists, then B)

B) Attacker is not just a trouble maker, he means business, I have no option, I will use lethal force.

All this with the same gun.
Hopefully, if the airport security and door do their jobs, the above will never come into play.
I agree with force, I just think that we should use it in moderation, and not go at his 'bull headed'.
Richard.
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
Re: Arming pilots: Why stun guns just won\'t do the trick...

I'm sorry, but we're in a different day and age today...

to think that the problem should be solved by preventing weapons to get on board via TSA is impossible. Any one knows that you can sharpen a credit card from its edges, and behold, it can be used as a knife!! Too many other examples like this one.

No, the true defense has to lie in the cockpit. In this day and age, even if a pilot holds a F/A hostage and demands that the cockpit door be opened, I don't think any pilot will open the door. They'll probably land at the closest airport (preferabally equipped with a SWAT team like CVG. Yup, Cincinatti's airport police has their own SRT special response team)

If a terrorist knows that both pilots are armed, they'll for sure think twice before trying to make any moves. It'll serve as a deterrent

Reinforced (bullet-proof like Jetblue!) are also an excellent measure for safety.
 

jtrain609

Anarcho-Bidenist
Re: Arming pilots: Why stun guns just won\'t do the trick...

Is that kind of how the death penalty is a deterent from people killing others? Or maybe it's like the war on drugs?

These guys don't care if they are shot on the process of trying to bring down a plane. They're going to die anyways so I imagine taking a bullet for their cause is not that big of a deal to them.

Cheers


John Herreshoff
 

BobDDuck

Island Bus Driver
Re: Arming pilots: Why stun guns just won\'t do the trick...

Rici, about the structure failure due to bullet inpact on the aircraft hull... There was a great show on Discovery earlier this month that pretty much put that theory to rest. The started off by pricking a hole in the skin of a pressurized airplane nothing happend. They worked all the way up to blowing out a window and the result was the same: no hollywood like explosion with people and seats going out the window. However, I do agree with you that the best defense right now, is a better door system. Anybody read/see Dune? The Navigators were in their own little pod and were attached to the ship. Maybe that's what we need to start doing.

Ethan
 

Sprint100

Well-Known Member
Re: Arming pilots: Why stun guns just won\'t do the trick...

[ QUOTE ]
These guys don't care if they are shot on the process of trying to bring down a plane. They're going to die anyways so I imagine taking a bullet for their cause is not that big of a deal to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly!!!!! Who cares what is in the cockpit, because the hijackers won't. Police have guns, people still run, shoot back, and spit on them. Plus, there are too many variables for guns or other "non-lethal" devices to be going off in an airplane. Besides, prices would sky-rocket if airlines had to train pilots & FO's in not only periodic checkrides, but also weapons training. We'd also have to pay for lawsuits if someone gets accidentally shot/unlawfully shot. Oh my god, then if a plane were to go down because of one of these guns......the lawyers would eat it up. Mannnn, the list could go on.
True, we can't count on the TSA to catch everything, so more effort needs to be concentrated into the cabin doors. Get 'em thinking that it's gonna be a b*!ch to hijack this baby.
 

shooter13

New Member
Re: Arming pilots: Why stun guns just won\'t do the trick...

What do you guys think about background checks of pilots? Anyone know ALPAs position on it? I mean what happens if you get a terrorist hired by an airline inside an unbreachable cockpit? Or what if you give him the gun in the first place? Do FFDO's have to get security clearances?
 

PurduePilot

New Member
Re: Arming pilots: Why stun guns just won\'t do the trick...

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, there are too many variables for guns or other "non-lethal" devices to be going off in an airplane. Besides, prices would sky-rocket if airlines had to train pilots & FO's in not only periodic checkrides, but also weapons training. We'd also have to pay for lawsuits if someone gets accidentally shot/unlawfully shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a dead issue. The TSA is already training pilots in the use of fire arms in the cockpit, at no cost to the airline. Those that are selected and pass the program become FFDOs (Federal Flight Deck Officers) and have jurisdiction solely to the cockpit.

If any civilian or employee is shot the course of neutralizing a threat, the FFDO and the employer (ie: airline) are immune from prosecution and civil lawsuits.
 

PilotGuy37

New Member
Re: Arming pilots: Why stun guns just won\'t do the trick...

Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'if an attacker is using a human shield or a no shield then a non lethal method of force can be deployed. This will save a colleague's life or prevent undue force (in the case say, of a drunk passenger mouthing off). ie, if a passenger was to get completely drunk, and try to attack the cockpit, then instead of killing him, incapaciate him. No need to kill him, really is there? (I know the tempation may exist
)

IF the attacker is using a shield or presents a very real and imminent danger, THEN use lethal force. IF the attacker is using a flight attendant or passenger as a human shield, then drop him/her with the tasor, then the attacker with the lethal projectile, all with the same weapon.
This way the pilot will have the choice.

I understand completely with what you are saying here, but, and there is always a but, being law enforcement trained myself as well as federal law enforcement trained, I must say that in the above cases, as in the video presented in the other post, there would be no time to think "Ok, this guy just kicked his way into the cockpit, wonder what he wants? No human shield, maybe he's just drunk and wants more peanuts so I'll just shock him. But maybe he isn't drunk and wants to stab Capt. Bob in the neck with a sharpened belt buckle and crash the plane, maybe I better shoot him." I know that this sorta sounds a little condescending but the truth of the matter is that in a close combat situation, like that in a very small cockpit, there is no time to think that such a person has any other intention other then the worst. As far as using a human shield, what is gonna happen to that "shield", as well as you and the other 50-400 people on that plane, if he or she gets control of the aircraft? You have to do what you gotta do. A stronger cockpit door would be great. They dont get in, land the plane, let SWAT, CERT, SRT, or whoever the local squad is, take over. But, if and when they do get in, ya gotta do what ya gotta do.



Ok, I'll step down off of my soap box now.
 

Sprint100

Well-Known Member
Re: Arming pilots: Why stun guns just won\'t do the trick...

[ QUOTE ]
The TSA is already training pilots in the use of fire arms in the cockpit, at no cost to the airline. Those that are selected and pass the program become FFDOs (Federal Flight Deck Officers) and have jurisdiction solely to the cockpit.

If any civilian or employee is shot the course of neutralizing a threat, the FFDO and the employer (ie: airline) are immune from prosecution and civil lawsuits.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of what they say sounds fine and dandy. I refuse to be "hoodwinked" into the promises (like the I won't raise taxes promises LOL). Who do you know that is either trained or gives training for free? This is merely the test run of it all, the first time is always free (whoa kinda like crack cocaine LOL). Especially if your giving the training and want to win the government contract. Believe me, somebody is going to pay for this extra training. If it won't be through airline ticket prices then most likely it'll be taxes or some new fee on the ticket itself(or your phone bill LOL).

OK, let's go with the fact that the airlines and all the employees are immune from prosecution (of any sort)in the course of neutralizing a threat(sounds safe already LOL). Once something happens that involves taking an innocent life, do you really think the American public will continue to fly? People will be too afraid to go to the airports, etc.(Anybody caught with a airport security badge will be publicly ridiculed and harassed LOL)

I'm sorry but being a pilot is totally different than being an air marshall, police officer, or anyone else armed. Not to mention the fact that piloting can be enough of a load, now pilots gotta totally switch roles to immobilize this threat. All it's gonna take is a pilot in fear of his life, then he'll start shooting everyone that rushes him(and remember, he is untouchable since he is immune LOL).
 

Sprint100

Well-Known Member
Re: Arming pilots: Why stun guns just won\'t do the trick...

Oh yeah I forgot to point out from an earlier posting that the TSA is doing the training (man I feel safe already). If I had the TSA with all those security mishaps on one hand and a solid door on the other, I'd go with the solid door LOL.
 

PurduePilot

New Member
Re: Arming pilots: Why stun guns just won\'t do the trick...

[ QUOTE ]
Once something happens that involves taking an innocent life, do you really think the American public will continue to fly? People will be too afraid to go to the airports, etc.(Anybody caught with a airport security badge will be publicly ridiculed and harassed LOL)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. The American public will continue to fly no matter what.

In the days following 9/11, when the NAS was reopened, planes were flying and people were flying in them. Granted the loads weren't that great, but it was in the middle of September when the loads aren't that great to begin with.

I don't think anyone "caught with a airport security badge will be publically ridiculed and harassed." In fact, if a pilot was forced to use his firearm or take deadly action against an intruder, I'm more than sure that he/she will commended for his/her actions... even if an innocent life was taken. Poll after poll bares what I have stated out.

Also, the FFDO is not a pilot program (first time program). It is federal law and has been for almost 2 years now. The federal budget (which went into effect, or was supposed to, in July) should provide funding for this program. No taxes were raised and no new taxes were levied to fund this program.

Most of the taxes that are collected have strings attached to them indicating where they are to go when collected and how they should be distributed and used. So, chances are that Federal Line Tax (or whatever it's called) on your phone bill is not going to fund the FFDO program. What could be used to fund this program could be some of the "9/11 Security Fee" which has been in existance ever since the inception of the TSA, save for the 6 month suspension of this tax.

[ QUOTE ]
All it's gonna take is a pilot in fear of his life, then he'll start shooting everyone that rushes him(and remember, he is untouchable since he is immune LOL).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't quite think you understand the nature of a pilot's role. An essential part of the line of work is the ability to be calm under pressure. If he/she can't handle the type of situation defined above, then what's to say that he/she can't handle an in-flight emergency without freezing up?

Also, the training that FFDOs go through is extremely arduous and demanding. The selection process is extremely through and should weed out any of the questionable candidates, if any.
 

PurduePilot

New Member
Re: Arming pilots: Why stun guns just won\'t do the trick...

Little factoid here:

Federal Air Marshalls are not employed by the TSA any more. They have been transferred to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Here's the link to ICE website: ICE Home Page
 

PilotGuy37

New Member
Re: Arming pilots: Why stun guns just won\'t do the trick...

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah I forgot to point out from an earlier posting that the TSA is doing the training (man I feel safe already). If I had the TSA with all those security mishaps on one hand and a solid door on the other, I'd go with the solid door LOL.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right in that the TSA is paying for the training, but, FFDO's are being trained at the Federal Law Enforcement Academy in either Glynco, GA or New Mexico. I have attended the F.L.E.A. and can tell you, if you can't cut it, screw up, or can't shoot at the Marksman level, you are done. TSA is overseeing the training but the actual training is being done by the real feds. "no offense TSA"
There is no extra pay in being a FFDO, it's all voluntary, PLUS there is a background check, not like the ones you get for working at Wal-Mart. I have had a few of the federal background checks done, and I can tell you that they will know how many times a day you, as well as all your neighbors, take a leak.. It's serious business.
 

FL270

New Member
Re: Arming pilots: Why stun guns just won\'t do the trick...

A close friend of mine went in to law enforcement a couple years ago, and I was listed as a reference. I was called as part of his background check, and interviewed by a police officer. This interview lasted nearly an hour, and the questions went FAR deeper than "he ain't no terrorist, is he?" Trust me, these types of background checks are, as PilotGuy37 said, extremely thorough.

FL270
 
Top