Pilots with guns

[BoeingBobby]

https://onemileatatime.com/news/delta-pilot-pulls-gun-captain/?fbclid=IwAR3pNhNYcYh5GimCXdwxgLwnBk4Hyy5ulxZ-WAq89GjjhkFJAvWPSUG45kA

I am very surprised there has been no discussion about this yet.

[BoeingBobby]

We had the FFDO program at Atlas. Not only was it absurd because you can't take the firearm out of the United States. So many times the rest of the crew were inconvenienced and the flight delayed because the gun slinging pilot now had to go to an approved TSA office and check their weapon because they got tagged for an international flight. Besides the fact that in my opinion, 99% of the FFDO pilots should not be allowed to own a gun. There has been a discussion on one of my other pilots sites and a good friend of mine sent me this link this morning. I heard nothing about this and it was last year. An Atlas FO! A F*****g FFDO!

https://policetribune.com/alleged-federal-agent-shot-by-deputies-wasnt-actually-a-law-enforcement-officer/?fbclid=IwAR16V-EakAlcYsHncb2MRo0hdO6HUgqgmov8S96k_boWQp2Js-UlM4627Lw

[Evan]

https://onemileatatime.com/news/delt...kFJAvWPSUG45kA

I am very surprised there has been no discussion about this yet.

Well, that's just a pilot exercising his Second Amendment right. Just ask Antonin Scalia. The Founders foresaw this sort of cockpit gradient scenario. And they were wiser than us.

Probably flying for American now. Real American...

[3WE]

I guess the counter argument is that guns might have been of some value during the 9/11 hijacking…along with working crystal balls.

[Evan]

I guess the counter argument is that guns might have been of some value during the 9/11 hijacking…along with working crystal balls.

Along with... um... oh, right... locks on the cockpit doors.

[3WE]

Along with... um... oh, right... locks on the cockpit doors.

I don’t believe a lack of locks was a big factor that day…maybe it was following procedures?

[Evan]

I don’t believe a lack of locks was a big factor that day…maybe it was following procedures?

Seriously or blue font? The 70's and 80's were the heyday of hijackings. By 1980, every airliner should have had a locked and armored cockpit door. It they had, a bunch of zealous idiots would not have hatched a plan to hijack one with little knives. Soft targets. That's what they go for. That's why they don't go there anymore.

[Gabriel]

Well, that's just a pilot exercising his Second Amendment right.

Second amendment not involved here. He was a Federal Flight Deck Officer deputized and armed by the federal government, just like an FBI officer.

[Gabriel]

It would be interesting to know more details about the incident:

- Was there any remotely valid reason to do that? Did the FO just want to get home (not valid) or was the captain intending to divert to an airport that was below minimums? (potentially valid, remember we have/had in this forum a very senior captain who, when he was a junior FO, threatened a captain (who was intentionally and illegally flying too low and would not want to climb) by placing the hands on the fuel shutoff levers and saying "we either go up, or we go down". Fuel shutoff levers are a deadly weapon too (just like engine fire handles)
- Did the FO "just" verbally threatened the captain or actually brandished the gun?
- Did the captain comply?
- Did the FO remain in the cockpit for the remainder of the flight, or was he forcefully pulled out and secured with zip ties?
- Was law enforcement waiting at the gate to arrest the FO?

[Evan]

Second amendment not involved here. He was a Federal Flight Deck Officer deputized and armed by the federal government, just like an FBI officer.

You could also argue that he was bearing a firearm as a member of a well-organized militia. The Founders would have seen the potential for cockpit tyranny and the need for cockpit militias.

Unless the firearm was accompanied by any violation of the sterile cockpit rule…

[3WE]

1. ***The 70's and 80's were the heyday of hijackings***

2. ***By 1980, every airliner should have had a locked and armored cockpit door.***

1. Indeed.

2. [Not_Blue Font]Umm, that was not_the procedure. I guess [not_italics]we should be sad that you were not around in the ‘70s to establish the correct procedures instead of the incorrect ones developed by the industry.

[Evan]

2. [Not_Blue Font]Umm, that was not_the procedure. I guess [not_italics]we should be sad that you were not around in the ‘70s to establish the correct procedures instead of the incorrect ones developed by the industry.

I think we could also say that it was a no-brainer, a self-evident security weakness, and that cockpit incursions had become the standard procedure for hijackings long before 9/11. The fact is, the PBS television program NOVA predicted the 9/11 scenario in the late 90's, and they got that prediction from government officials. What was done to prevent it? Nada.

Arming pilots with firearms is as stupid as arming teachers, actually more so, since classrooms don't decompress when someone shoots out a window. Armored locking doors and functioning security screening were all that was ever needed.

Nunchucks, maybe...

[Gabriel]

You could also argue that he was bearing a firearm as a member of a well-organized militia. The Founders would have seen the potential for cockpit tyranny and the need for cockpit militias.

Unless the firearm was accompanied by any violation of the sterile cockpit rule…

Except he wasn't. He was a member of a federal law enforcement agency. Even in countries where there is no constitutional right to bear arms (which is, most knowns countries in the universe), federal law enforcement officers do bear gevernment-provided arms.

[Gabriel]

I think we could also say that it was a no-brainer, a self-evident security weakness, and that cockpit incursions had become the standard procedure for hijackings long before 9/11. The fact is, the PBS television program NOVA predicted the 9/11 scenario in the late 90's, and they got that prediction from government officials. What was done to prevent it? Nada.

Arming pilots with firearms is as stupid as arming teachers, actually more so, since classrooms don't decompress when someone shoots out a window. Armored locking doors and functioning security screening were all that was ever needed.

Nunchucks, maybe...

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Up to 9/11, plane hijacking had always been for the purpose of ransom, liberation of prisoners, or fleeing. Hijackers were not suicidal and hijacked planes were not used as a weapon of mass destruction. Procedure was compliance and deal with it once on the ground. Even if you had armored locked cockpit doors, if the hijackers threatened to kill passengers or flight attendants if the pilots would not open the door, the pilots would have opened the door because, again, procedure was compliance, and it was working reasonably well.

Arming pilots and teachers doesn't make any sense in any place, except perhaps in the US where there are more firearms possessed by civilians than there are civilians.
I know several persons from other places that don't own guns and firmly oppose the concept of "the right to bear arms" by civilians. But they say that if they liven in the US they would probably have a gun.

I agree. I am not a guns guy, I come from a country that doesn't have a "2nd amendment", now I live in the US and I still do not like arms (well, I like them as marvels of engineering, but not as tools for civilians) and the only reason why I don't have guns is because if there is one thing than not having a gun in the US is having one and not be quick and good at using it, and I don't want to commit the time and money that is required to obtain and maintain that skill and proficiency.

So until the 2nd amendment is revoked (which is likely to be never) or there are reasonable limits to the right to bear arms (which will require a democrat president, senate, house, and supreme court, which is maybe not never but not in the horizon either), arming good guys (yes, with the risk of some of these good guys actually being or becoming bad or crazy) may be the only defense against bad guys having arms. That is why there are leftists like myself that would like that the 2nd amendment would not exist, but who however given that it is exists and it is quite boundless, would support a "federal school officer" program similar to the FFDO.

Welcome to the country where you are legal to buy an AK47 at Walmart 3 years before you are legal to buy a beer at the same place.

[Evan]

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Up to 9/11, plane hijacking had always been for the purpose of ransom, liberation of prisoners, or fleeing. Hijackers were not suicidal and hijacked planes were not used as a weapon of mass destruction. Procedure was compliance and deal with it once on the ground. Even if you had armored locked cockpit doors, if the hijackers threatened to kill passengers or flight attendants if the pilots would not open the door, the pilots would have opened the door because, again, procedure was compliance, and it was working reasonably well.

Arming pilots and teachers doesn't make any sense in any place, except perhaps in the US where there are more firearms possessed by civilians than there are civilians.
I know several persons from other places that don't own guns and firmly oppose the concept of "the right to bear arms" by civilians. But they say that if they liven in the US they would probably have a gun.

I agree. I am not a guns guy, I come from a country that doesn't have a "2nd amendment", now I live in the US and I still do not like arms (well, I like them as marvels of engineering, but not as tools for civilians) and the only reason why I don't have guns is because if there is one thing than not having a gun in the US is having one and not be quick and good at using it, and I don't want to commit the time and money that is required to obtain and maintain that skill and proficiency.

So until the 2nd amendment is revoked (which is likely to be never) or there are reasonable limits to the right to bear arms (which will require a democrat president, senate, house, and supreme court, which is maybe not never but not in the horizon either), arming good guys (yes, with the risk of some of these good guys actually being or becoming bad or crazy) may be the only defense against bad guys having arms. That is why there are leftists like myself that would like that the 2nd amendment would not exist, but who however given that it is exists and it is quite boundless, would support a "federal school officer" program similar to the FFDO.

Welcome to the country where you are legal to buy an AK47 at Walmart 3 years before you are legal to buy a beer at the same place.

Yup. We be gun cray-cray in 'merica. I suppose it all comes down to screening MUCH more carefully the psychological state of whoever gets into the cockpit. And a prayer. And a wing, two wings actually. The F/O could have also just brained him with the FCOM. Gun not necessary to win the cockpit gradient battle. Just a bit of crazy will do nicely.

Still, I think guns in the cockpit is a reckless idea, and the risk they present is no longer justified since the cockpit became fortified. If a terrorist is going to take down a plane these days, he's going to blow up his sneakers or his undies, or something.

But, regarding hindsight, the PBS special predicted that terrorists might hijack airlines and fly them into buildings. So did the intelligence report that, I guess, fell off Bush's oval office desk in the months before the attack. Or maybe he couldn't read it because it required... intelligence. Anyway, that, sir, is foresight that was, in hindsight, nearly 20/20.