Pistol packing pilots? P-tew-ee

[Kennedy 0]

Or you grow up around a range your extended family owns where you expel more gross tonnage of lead and copper than most squads of cops will in their entire career, with the bonus advantage of instructors that Jeff Cooper personally speaks kindly of.

Yes, it's expensive, but no, that doesn't mean I can't get it.

[begin edit]
oh yeah, and they only qualify a few times a year. I know people who spend more time at ranges than 98% of people here spend at DZs.

Plus, why not allow cops from any given state to carry on flights that don't leave that state?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Deuce 1]

(I just reread this and I apologize in advance,this is a dark post)

I never got a chance to go to Thunder Ranch for the carbine class.

The training is cheaper than learning to skydive. Staying current is cheaper too.

Now that I'm not needing that skill set everyday, though, I'm selling most of my stuff. I got a Dillon progressive if anybody wants to make an offer.

While marksmanship is important, it's the decision making that is paramount. Towards the end of my career we had this cool simulator that let you shoot at movies of scenarios. That training was really cheap, tested your sight picture, but didn't do a good job of recapturing sight picture after recoil.

Anyhow, I think most folks who could handle a chainsaw could handle a pistol. It's not everybody, but it's most people.

And BillV, you're right as usual, there are pistol safes that are faster than holsters, I just don't know if the space is available in a cockpit ,as currently configured, to put one. It could certainly be retrofitted. And Diverdriver, you'd be much more comfortable on a non-stop not having to wear it. Come to think of it, the shotgun release was hidden in plain site in the squadcar, nobody could find it on an aircraft panel! That's a hoot! Put an 870 on the panel! Har.

Introducing a loaded weapon into situations didn't always go as planned. We'd pull the shotgun out, rack a round in (that's why we called it the crowd-pleaser) CHA-CLACK! And then people would do anything from charging you to shitting their pants to running away. Brandishing is a uniformly bad idea. Pointing a gun at somebody and ordering them to do something is no guarantee at all that they will obey you. On occasion they will smile and say DO IT! and so you'd better be justified in doing it, and not creating a lethal force situation where one didn't exist befoe you bootstrapped it.

So when they kill first stewardess, blow the cockpit door with plastique, and enter the cockpit with a stewardess whose left eye they have cut out and it's hanging down her face, she's screaming for you to help her,and the thug is saying drop the pistol or she dies, you say "fuck you!" he slashes her throat to the spine and you put one right into his right eyesocket. The other terrorist is now slashing his way through business class while the passengers are trying to subdue him. A bleeding passenger charges you demanding you help him, cause he's bleeding, but you have to shoot him because you don't know if he's a terrorist, and he won't respond to commands, and he won't stop closing on the unsecure cockpit. You MUST protect the flight controls.

The slasher in the cabin is eventually overcome and murdered by the passengers and you divert to the nearest field. The plan was to crash your widebody into a stadium. You saved tens of thousands of lives, but you had to watch a friend die, and lawfully, but wrongfully kill an innocent passenger.

People buy weapons and tell themselves "this is what I'm gonna do when "X" happens.

It never works that way. "X" capriciously decides what its going to do to you, and you can only do your best.

I had a lady throw her newborn baby at me from a distance of about 15 feet during a traffic stop because she had a warrant out for her arrest, and didn't want to spend the weekend in jail. Man that's even wierder than expressing breastmilk,now that I remember it.

Anyhow, the pistol is just a tool, and it makes holes in things. It's useful to have when you need to put a hole in something. Otherwise, I trust, in general, the judgement of commercial pilots that I want them to have that tool, and the commitment to do and endure murder to protect the control of the aircraft.

Never let me post from home. When I'm not interrupted, I just ramble on forever.. Who's in the pub?

[diverdriver 6]

Quote

I would wager that, with a well designed lockbox, it would take less time to get the gun out than it would to get it out of a holster that was on your belt but is now wedged between the seat and the map box.

A flip cover over the FireEx Switchlight is a bit different than a "lock box" for a firearm. If I'm carrying, I will have it in a holster underneath my left arm. Having it in a lock box I feel implies that it can be accessed by any crew member. Remember, only "approved" pilots will be carrying firearms. Not all pilots. So if I happen to be the "approved" crewmember to have a firearm it is going to be on my person at all times.

When our current law enforcement officers start putting their side arms in a lock box while on patrol I will too. I don't believe any of them would do that though. Not while on duty in their squad car.

I also believe that we will take direction from how pilots used to handle their fire arms while flying as to how we'll carry them again.

Chris Schindler

[diverdriver 6]

Deuce, very nice post. Yes, there is going to be a lot of soul searching about this before pilots will be allowed to carry. Not all will be allowed to. That is ok. People say "the pilots should worry about flying the aircraft." And that is exactly what we want to do with this proposal. It's a last resort. I understand what you are saying about "brandishing" and "grand standing". The intent of this is to only use the weapon if the door is being broken down. We are not to get suckered into opening the door so the flight attendant won't get cut. We know that doesn't work anymore.

On 9/11 four heavy airliners were successfully hijacked in a 1 hour period. FOUR. We must never let this happen again. Guns in the cockpit is NOT a knee jurk reaction. Many, many people have been working on this and thinking about how it can be done correctly. The last thing pilots want is to make things worse. It's not in our collective nature. If we see a problem develop with the program of arming pilots we will correct it. It's not what I thought would be in my job description when I chose to become an airline pilot. But I will adapt to the new environment. I don't have a choice. Suicide hijackings are our new reality.

Chris Schindler

[steve1 5]

I'm all for pilots being allowed to defend themselves and their aircraft with a weapon in the cockpit, but I wonder if firearms are the best choice. In a very close quarters situation where bullets are being fired back in the direction of passengers and where bullets might penetrate walls, windows etc., I wonder if some type other type of weapon might be safer and just as effective. You probably wouldn't be shooting more than ten feet. I'm no expert on this, but I'll bet there are some other choices out there. I own a whole closet full of guns, but they may not be the best choice for this scenario. Steve1

[quade 4]

Again, you're thinking really old school hijacks.

If a pilots have to fire into a hijacker, no matter how many people may be injured on board the aircraft due to stray bullets it will be an acceptable loss compared to the potential -thousands- that the pilot may be saving.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Yes you can. Go to something like Thunder Ranch or The Texas Pistol Academy

There are lots of very good courses out there for tactical pistol. The only thing you can't get as a civilian from "reputible" places is full auto instruction and a lot of the "sniper" courses. Most of those are LE only. Plenty of pistol training out there. Thunder Ranch is a good one. Blackwater Lodge in North Carolina is another. It's gonna cost you out the ass for a course of fire with 10,000 rounds though.

[diverdriver 6]

Quote

I'm all for pilots being allowed to defend themselves and their aircraft with a weapon in the cockpit, but I wonder if firearms are the best choice. In a very close quarters situation where bullets are being fired back in the direction of passengers and where bullets might penetrate walls, windows etc., I wonder if some type other type of weapon might be safer and just as effective. You probably wouldn't be shooting more than ten feet. I'm no expert on this, but I'll bet there are some other choices out there. I own a whole closet full of guns, but they may not be the best choice for this scenario. Steve1

From the cockpit seat you do not directly fire at passengers. There is an angle. The distance from the seat to the door is usually between 3-6 feet. I also don't like the idea of a defensive tool that I have to aim. I originally wanted stun guns (which are different from Tazers, they don't shoot darts) but they too can easily be defeated. The ammo we can use for inflight use does not penetrate the hull. And remember, the windshields are designed to take an impact from a goose at high rates of speed. If the bullet isn't going to penetrate the hull then most likely it will not penetrate the glass.

Also remember, these people don't care about their own lives. They don't fight "fair". They are going to fight with all the ferocity of a rabid pitbull. We must be able to defend against that. And after looking at the options available to us at this time for making a last stand in the cockpit a firearm is the best choice. It's not something I want to do. But killing someone to defend the aircraft is a reality now. The passengers of United 93 won the first battle of this new war. Always learn from those who have gone before us. If someone is breaking down the door to the cockpit then you can rest assured that they are trying to get control of the aircraft. If they just wanted to kill everyone on board then they could have used a bomb. No need to break into the cockpit to accomplish blowing up the plane.

So think about it again. A group of pumped up, well trained fighters are breaking into the cockpit of the flight you are on. Do you want me to hit them with a pillow or do you want them dead? They are trying to kill you. My firm belief is that they will not try to do this type of attack again soon. But, if we "leave the door open" so to speak, you can be sure they'll revisit it down the road. Look how many people they have blowing themselves up in Israel. Do you think there's a shortage of people willing to kill themselves? They're being born every day over there.

2 civilians just went on attack of Marines during manuevers in Kuwait. A suicide mission. They killed one marine. Wounded another. And they knew the Marines had guns! Didn't stop them. These folks know there still aren't many guns (FAMs) on our domestic flights. We are still an easy target. We have a force ready, willing, and pre-screened for this need. Guns in the cockpit should definitely happen.

Chris Schindler

[steve1 5]

You're obviously more familiar with the inside of an aircraft than I am. Maybe a pistol would be the best weapon. Steve1

[steve1 5]

Chris,
By all means I wouldn't mind seeing an armed hi-jacker dead. I was just thinking that all the passengers might be directly behind the terrorist a pilot was shooting at. I know most police are trained to keep firing until the guy is down. My concern was how many passengers would also be taken out if a pilot fired a full magazine in their direction. But if the cockpit was at an angle, all would be well and good. Steve1

[Deuce 1]

Quote

I know most police are trained to keep firing until the guy is down.

Good knowledge.

This is why suspects get shot so many times, when they get shot. "Shoot the target down". With a semi-automatic this means 10 to 15 rounds per shooter.

"Police fire 40 rounds at suspect" 4 officers X 2 seconds of fire each = duh.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

My concern was how many passengers would also be taken out if a pilot fired a full magazine in their direction.

Certainly less than if the entire plane was flown into a building or crashed into a field.

[steve1 5]

Clay,
Of course. My thinking was maybe there is another weapon that would be just as effective as a pistol but wouldn't be a danger to everyone behind the terrorist. It sounds like nothing is available yet, but maybe something will be in the future. Steve1

[diverdriver 6]

Quote

Clay,
Of course. My thinking was maybe there is another weapon that would be just as effective as a pistol but wouldn't be a danger to everyone behind the terrorist. It sounds like nothing is available yet, but maybe something will be in the future. Steve1

Steve,

I whole heartedly hold your view about seeking something better than handguns to defend the cockpit. But as we debate it here....our cockpits still remain easy targets. We need to act.

Chris

[steve1 5]

Chris,
I agree. I'd say go with pistols until something better comes along. Steve1

[kevin922 0]

Quote

Pilots carrying aboard aircraft was widespread in the late 70s. Did anything bad happen then? Did lots of potty break melees break out? Naaah.

And ummm, with what, 30,000 domestic flights each day, do you think that every flight has a marshall?

Lastly, if I can be standing behind you in the grocery checkout with a Kimber .45 tucked neatly into my Kramer IWB holster, why can't I carry onboard an aircraft? Trust me, you will be protected, and if 10-20% of the cabin are armed, there will be no outbreaks.

An armed society is a polite society...

THen you have some hotshot putting a .45 through the side of the airplane trying to shoot a terrorist...

what does that gain you?

[diverdriver 6]

Quote

THen you have some hotshot putting a .45 through the side of the airplane trying to shoot a terrorist...

what does that gain you?

Kevin,

I guess you missed the discussion about the munitions that will be used will not penetrate the hull. Only humans and other fluffy things. And this view that pilots are "hotshots" does not describe the average airline pilot. I've said it before and I'll say it again. We are not going to be John Wayne with this. We are not coming back in the cabin to quell the riot or the passenger who hates the coffee. We are going to defend the flight controls. That's it.

Chris

[billvon 3,085]

>THen you have some hotshot putting a .45 through the side of the
> airplane trying to shoot a terrorist...

>what does that gain you?

Control of the aircraft. (As long as you manage to hit the terrorist as well, of course.)

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Control of the aircraft

Come on Bill....don't you know. It's just like the movies. If you put a .45 hole in the side of the aircraft you get rapid depressurization and all the people get sucked out. It also causes the plane to spin and paper to fly everywhere!!!!

[Deuce 1]

Quote

Control of the aircraft.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

[billvon 3,085]

>It also causes the plane to spin and paper to fly everywhere!!!!

And also causes it to enter a dive, a dive that the pilot will not be strong enough to pull out of. (Think how many people would be saved if we just had pilots with more upper body strength!)

[diverdriver 6]

Yah, good thing they don't have those minimum physical requirements anymore. No way I can lift more than 12 OZ anymore.

[Deuce 1]

Quote

And also causes it to enter a dive, a dive that the pilot will not be strong enough to pull out of. (Think how many people would be saved if we just had pilots with more upper body strength!)

Yeah. That's just wrong of the guys who program the feedback on those fly-by-wire planes! Making it that hard to pull-up is just mean!

[billvon 3,085]

>That's just wrong of the guys who program the feedback on those fly
>-by-wire planes!

If I were designing those aircraft, I would give the pilot full control surface authority even if he was doing something stupid, but have a programmed voice rag on him. "It's not a carrier landing, Maverick." "What, did you forget that airplanes can actually stall?" "I sure hope the passengers have parachutes if you really want that bank angle." "Landing gear would be nice _before_ we land."

Not only would that not interfere with the pilot controlling the plane, but if the plane does crash, the pilot will know that the CVR will get replayed - along with all the abuse - for all to hear. The fear of that alone will prevent him from falling asleep, drinking before flying or doing any of the other myriad foolish pilot tricks.

[freeflir29 0]

That reminds me Bill. I always wanted to build my own audible alti with a digital recorder. That way you could just leave yourself messages. Something like "Break off Stupid" for break off..."Pull Dumbass" for pull time and something along the lines of "You're gonna die clown!!!" for flatline.