Congressional shootout over guns in the cockpit : CON (Astounding idocy alert!)

The (Portland) Oregonian ^ | 07/17/02 | JOHN J. WINKLER, a writer and television network news producer based in Chicago

[Atlas Sneezed]

Congressional shootout over guns in the cockpit : CON 07/17/02JOHN J. WINKLER The cowboys in Congress are riding again. In their lust to be seen as doing something about terrorism, they may force the Bush administration to accept guns in airplane cockpits. And thousands of pilots want the right to carry guns. Are they right, and is this a fight worth fighting or are we ignoring more important issues and opting instead for the illusion of security? There seem to be two prime justifications for arming crews: (1) Terrorists might think twice if there are guns on board, and (2) if pilots are armed maybe it will do some good. So why not? Terrorists are unlikely to be frightened off by the presence of guns. And apart from making some passengers feel better knowing there are firearms present, it's not easy to see what a pilot would actually do with a gun. The House bill approved last week specifies that weapons could be used only in the cockpit. Would a pilot in the heat of the moment pay attention to such a rule if hijackers were in the main cabin? Possibly not. And if he opened the cockpit door to go fight it out, he would expose the cockpit and risk losing the whole plane. But what if the hijackers got into the cockpit? Wouldn't the crew be in a better position with guns to fight them off? Unfortunately, if hijackers get that far, it's already too late. United Airlines wants to put stun guns on planes and says they will be stored in easily accessible lock boxes. Undoubtedly, firearms would be stored the same way. Now picture the scene. The hijackers are probably armed with composite or plastic knives that can get through metal detectors. They explode into the cockpit. The crew members are strapped in, facing forward. What are the chances they'll be able to instantly assess the situation, unbelt, turn, perform whatever procedure they have to to get their guns, then turn back in this tiny, confined space and fire before being killed? Slim to none. The likelier probability is that the crew would now be dead and the hijackers armed with their weapons. So cockpit doors should be reinforced to keep out the bad guys and give the pilots time to arm themselves. Right? Wrong. Never again will passengers allow themselves to be hijacked without a fight, because they will know that failure to resist will result in certain death. That means that in certain easily imaginable circumstances, the single strong door might be the best defense hijackers could have against a group of aroused passengers. Does this mean the strong door is a bad idea? Not necessarily. It might be effective if every aircraft were required to have one flight attendant trained in self-defense. If that person were posted outside the cockpit facing the cabin every time the cockpit door was about to be opened, the element of surprise would not be entirely on the side of the terrorists. Now they would have to go through this trained person, possibly giving the crew time to close and relock the door. The best solution is the one used by El Al. All of the Israeli airline's 33 planes are equipped with not one, but two armored doors to the cockpit. They form a sort of protective vestibule. Anyone entering the cockpit has to go through the first door and lock it before the cockpit can be opened. That makes it nearly impossible for hijackers to get in. In addition, a flight attendant can't just knock but must phone the pilot and request permission to enter. Of course all this is expensive. And it's much easier for a terrorist to adjust to the defensive posture of a large, relatively inflexible bureaucracy than the other way around. So it's not enough to arm pilots and build a big strong door and think the job is done. To fight the kind of enemies we now face, we have to learn to think like they do. John J. Winkler is a writer and television network news producer based in Chicago. Copyright 2002 Oregon Live. All Rights Reserved.

[Atlas Sneezed]

This arrogant TV news producer evidently knows nothing about firearms or air security. He might know about the amenities of first class travel, but is a fool to think that pilots won't carry their pistols the way cops do, and the way pilot used to: in holsters. He is also a fool to presume that there will be zero warning before the terrorists "explode through" the robust door he advocates. Doesn't he realize that the key component of the El Al plan he so admires is armed pilots?

If this is the best they can do, it shows the bankruptcy of their position.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Bang

[Hunble]

Of course all this is expensive. And it's much easier for a terrorist to adjust to the defensive posture of a large, relatively inflexible bureaucracy than the other way around. So it's not enough to arm pilots and build a big strong door and think the job is done.

Closing the barn door after the horses got out.

Only an idiot terrorist would ever us aircraft to attack America again.

However, I refuse to fly on American airlines until they get their stuff together.

This hits me personally, since my wife and I love to scuba dive. But until American airlines quit making flying with them a form of torture, I absolutly refuse to fly with them.

Oh well, there are always the Mexican or Canadian airline options available to us.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Closing the barn door after the horses got out.

But not all the horses got out. By conservative estimates there are still over 50,000 Al-Queda sympathizers still in the U.S.

To me, that is 50,000 reasons to arm pilots.

[Hunble]

That sir, is why I worry about water supplies and other areas that can be attacked in the USA.

Basic rule of military operations: Hit the enemy where they least expect it.

Today, Airlines would be the LAST place that a terrorist would attack.

[Kermit]

"John J. Winkler is a writer and television network news producer based in Chicago."

Do you need to know any more?

He prefers to have a pilot armed with an F-16 blow the entire plane out of the air, than have a pilot armed with a 9 mm. Can you say stupid? I can.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Today, Airlines would be the LAST place that a terrorist would attack.

Logically, I would agree with you. But think of this; What is a terrorist's goal? Murder and mayhem and the resulting news coverage, of course. But what if your goal was to destroy the illusion of safety in the U.S.? What better way than to do EXACTLY what you did before?

Any person with one eye and a grain of sense knows that REAL airport security is non-existant. A second attack will destroy the illusion and shake the confidence of the public so badly that MANY businesses will fail and our economy will go into an early 80's like recession. If they decided to hit 10 targets simultaneously for 10 seperate airports, what are the REAL chances that they ALL will be caught? As you know, not good. At that point we will have to rely on the flying skills of the crew and the bravery of the passengers (and an armed F-16) to prevent another disaster.

[Hunble]

With Y2K, if Clinton dared to invoke martial law to keep himself in power, I absoutly knew my duty as an American.

Simple tactic - cut off the food, electricity and water to the major cities. A few snipers would totally shut down the major highways leading into the cities.

If we, as American patiots, knew how to fight a possible civil war on American soil, why would the terrorists not be that smart?

On the contrary, since many of us Freepers understood how we could fight (IF FORCED), we can also understand where the USA is most vulnerable.

Believe me, another 9-11 style aircraft attack will be their last choice.

[Flashman_at_the_charge]

Well considering he states this ....

“But what if the hijackers got into the cockpit? Wouldn't the crew be in a better position with guns to fight them off? Unfortunately, if hijackers get that far, it's already too late.”

.... then where is the harm of arming the pilots? Once control of the cockpit is lost it’s a safe assumption that all on board will perish. Either being shot down by US fighters or being deliberately piloted into some target.

[tahiti]

The author states:

"Now picture the scene. The hijackers are probably armed with composite or plastic knives that can get through metal detectors. They explode into the cockpit. The crew members are strapped in, facing forward. What are the chances they'll be able to instantly assess the situation, unbelt, turn, perform whatever procedure they have to to get their guns, then turn back in this tiny, confined space and fire before being killed? Slim to none. The likelier probability is that the crew would now be dead and the hijackers armed with their weapons."

This author has just made the case for why the passengers should be armed. Any terrorist who would storm the cockpit would have to deal with the many armed passengers in the cabin, obviously greatly outnumbering the terrorist and thus reducing their probability of success dramatically.

It is beyond me how the FAA or for that matter any federal government agency can prohibit, by regulation, an enumerated right:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear (bear means to wear on oneself) shall not be infringed.

If the airline wishes to prohibit the bearing of arms on their private property that is their business. Let the market place determine if that is the best policy for countering hijackings.

[Hunble]

I absolutly agree! I have a 6 inch Indian flint knife that would pass through any airport security checks. Flint knife - no metal!

After 9-11, I would show everyone that came to my home exactly how easy it would be to attack an airline, while passing though security.

Special forces train how to attack an enemy, no matter how good their defences are. If the enemy wants to attack you, they will do so.

[Gumlegs]

A few observations about the points raised in the article:

Terrorists are unlikely to be frightened off by the presence of guns.

That's okay. We don't care much whether or not they're scared. We want them dead.

The House bill approved last week specifies that weapons could be used only in the cockpit. Would a pilot in the heat of the moment pay attention to such a rule if hijackers were in the main cabin? Possibly not. And if he opened the cockpit door to go fight it out, he would expose the cockpit and risk losing the whole plane.

Oh, dear. The bill doesn't make the whole world perfect What shall we do? What shall we do? Actually, an armed man behind a locked door is in a pretty good position to defend himself. Why does the author simply assume the cockpit crew won't stay there? Probably because if he didn't, his argument wouldn't make much sense. If the choice is between losing the whole plane and losing the whole plane, which is worse? Or ... maybe I missed something ... did one of the September 11^th attacks destroy only part of a plane?

But what if the hijackers got into the cockpit? Wouldn't the crew be in a better position with guns to fight them off? Unfortunately, if hijackers get that far, it's already too late.

It is? If an intruder breaks into my house -- in much the same fashion that an intruder would enter a cockpit -- is it already too late to shoot him?

Now picture the scene. The hijackers are probably armed with composite or plastic knives that can get through metal detectors. They explode into the cockpit.

Using their micro-positron hyperdimentional locked door disintegrator ray? And, of course, those plastic knives stop bullets. They might even have those special bullet deflecting bracelets that Wonder Woman wears ... the fiends!!!

The crew members are strapped in, facing forward.

Studiously ignoring the all the banging at the locked door behind them ...

What are the chances they'll be able to instantly assess the situation,

Instantly? Are the doors reinforced with marshmallows? I guess, though, that if they've successfully ignored the door being broken down, we shouldn't expect much from them after that point.

... unbelt, turn, perform whatever procedure they have to to get their guns, then turn back in this tiny, confined space and fire before being killed? Slim to none.

Oh, I cut the part where the writer decided that the guns must be stored someplace where the crew can't get at them. I guess the concept of the "holster" is unknown where he is. I do make an assumption myself, though. At least one member of the cockpit crew is conscious during the flight. (Until recently, pilots of commercial aircraft were require to carry handguns. We all knew that, right?)

The likelier probability is that the crew would now be dead and the hijackers armed with their weapons.

Oh, no! The terrorists could then shoot passengers before crashing the plane into the nearest building. Or worse! They could use the guns to shoot down the military fighters who have been forced by the terrorists to shoot down an airliner. (Terrorists armed with small caliber handguns and severe body odor have been known to knock down American jet fighters before the pilots could even spot them on their radars).

So cockpit doors should be reinforced to keep out the bad guys and give the pilots time to arm themselves. Right? Wrong. Never again will passengers allow themselves to be hijacked without a fight, because they will know that failure to resist will result in certain death.

So the writer admits his argument that the terrorists will completely surprise the crew is rubbish. Will the crew remember to unbuckle before getting up? Will they bother to aim? Will they burst out of the cokcpit, guns ablaze? Tune in next time!

[mhking]

it's not easy to see what a pilot would actually do with a gun.

Duh....how about shooting it at the perp!!!???

[Gumlegs]

But if you do that, the perp might not like you!

[hattend]

United Airlines wants to put stun guns on planes and says they will be stored in easily accessible lock boxes. Undoubtedly, firearms would be stored the same way.

Once he's in the cockpit with the door shut, what prevents the PILOT IN COMMAND from removing the gun from the lockbox and holstering it?

Now picture the scene. The hijackers are probably armed with composite or plastic knives that can get through metal detectors. They explode into the cockpit. The crew members are strapped in, facing forward. What are the chances they'll be able to instantly assess the situation, unbelt, turn, perform whatever procedure they have to to get their guns, then turn back in this tiny, confined space and fire before being killed? Slim to none.

How do you know, Hollywood? How many cockpit attacks have you participated in?

The likelier probability is that the crew would now be dead and the hijackers armed with their weapons.

Since it would take a few minutes to into the cockpit, the pilot has already set a transponder ident that has alerted the ground to a hijack taking place. Look out your window, Hollywood. See that F15/F16 sitting off the port wing? Say your prayers, MoFo.

Pilots are in charge of their plane...they should do what ever they want to ensure safety. If that means carrying a gun, so be it.

Your cousin Fonzie probably would agree, Mr Winkler.

[Righty1]

If passengers are such an important part of the equation why did they take our knives away? Arm the pilots with M4s for all I care, the hijackers will probably take the plane down anyway but at least they won't bag a high priority target.

[dixierat22]

I think you are correct, but don't count on terrorists being rational. The pilots should be armed and until they are, I will not fly commercial airlines again.