Pilots with guns

[Gabriel]

I suppose it all comes down to screening MUCH more carefully the psychological state of whoever gets into the cockpit.

For the specific case of the FFDO program, that is already the case.
They are not just pilots who are let carry a gun.
They go a thorough background check, they have to obtain a certain level of security clearance, they receive initial training that includes defending a confined space and specifically a cockpit (not just with the use of guns), have to pass tests and attend recurrent training every year. Their screening and training is similar to that of the other persons allowed to carry a loaded gun in a flight: air marshals.

That's how after 20 years of the program there were very few incidents (this one, plus one accidental discharge).

And don't worry about the plane being pressurized. Bullets are not a threat to that. Hitting some systems, however, can cause more problems.

[BoeingBobby]

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.

Remember, there is a crash ax in every cockpit. Much more effective than the FCOM!

[Evan]

Remember, there is a crash ax in every cockpit. Much more effective than the FCOM!

Paper covers scissors.

Seriously though, this sort of proves my point. The ax, which certainly beats a box cutter, did not help the 9/11 pilots. A locked and impenetrable door would have. So why do we need guns in the cockpit?

[3WE]

I recall that the great typist Less Moustature liked to carry when he flew his big jet.

[Gabriel]

Paper covers scissors.

Seriously though, this sort of proves my point. The ax, which certainly beats a box cutter, did not help the 9/11 pilots. A locked and impenetrable door would have. So why do we need guns in the cockpit?

I will not discuss them here, but there are scenarios where a gun would be helpful even with a locked bulletproof door.
Suffice to say that the FAA is going to require a secondary door (not as secure) to create a buffer between the the cockpit door and that new door.

Regarding the ax not helping in 9/11, again, different mindset. The mindset back then was compliance, not fight. By the time you try to comply and the terrorists cut your throat it's too late to update the mindset.

[Evan]

I will not discuss them here, but there are scenarios where a gun would be helpful even with a locked bulletproof door.
Suffice to say that the FAA is going to require a secondary door (not as secure) to create a buffer between the the cockpit door and that new door.

Regarding the ax not helping in 9/11, again, different mindset. The mindset back then was compliance, not fight. By the time you try to comply and the terrorists cut your throat it's too late to update the mindset.

I’m guessing that compliance had something to do with the lack of a fortified cockpit. And these guys did not have guns or explosives, so why comply? Imagine United 93 with cockpit locks. They passengers would have overwhelmed them and stuffed them in the min-lav.

Just please run us by the scenario where a terrorist with some weapon capable of passing through security faces off against an armed pilot behind an armored door. And there’s no opening that door. We’ve learned that much.

This is just the same false security the gun industry has been serving up since the Bush era.

[Gabriel]

I’m guessing that compliance had something to do with the lack of a fortified cockpit.

Yes, but in the opposite sense that I think I perceive from you.
A fortified cockpit doesn't make sense if you intend to comply if the hijackers start cutting throats or threaten to blow the plane.

And these guys did not have guns or explosives, so why comply?

Again, hindsight is always 20/20.

Just please run us by the scenario where a terrorist with some weapon capable of passing through security faces off against an armed pilot behind an armored door. And there’s no opening that door. We’ve learned that much.

I won't. but there is more than one scenario.

This is just the same false security the gun industry has been serving up since the Bush era.

I don't love the idea of armed pilots either, mainly because a rogue armed pilot is really scary and the chances of accessing the cockpit by unauthorized personnel are greatly reduced now (and it will be further reduced with the double door). That I refuted wrong concepts that you presented doesn't mean that I agree with the oposite proposition.
For example if you say "Putin is evil because he kills puppies" and I refute with "Putin doesn't kill puppies, in fact he loves puppies", that doesn't mean that i think that Putin is a good person.
While there are scenarios where the gun can help, there are aslo others where the gun can be a real problem, and I am not convinced that the benefits outweigh the risks.

You may have noted (or not) that I did express explicit support for a program similar to the FFDO but for schools, but I didn't express such support for the FFDO program.

[3WE]

***Paper covers***

Do we think handguns are appropriate to address passengers refusing to wear face diapers?

[Evan]

Do we think handguns are appropriate to address passengers refusing to wear face diapers?

Don't be ridiculous. Zip ties and a lifetime ban are all that's called for.

(Remember: it's an airplane, not a democracy. Always follow the cabin crew or you can take the bus to Ibiza.)

[Not_Karl]

Always follow the cabin crew...

ESPECIALLY if they have a gun.