Yes, by all means...let's arm them pilots.

[opinterph]

"If that bullet had compromised the shell of the airplane, i.e., gone through a window, the airplane could have gone down," he said.

I think it is reasonable to assume that the pilots’ weapons are loaded with specially designed rounds, such as the Glaser Safety Slug or the Velex/Velet Exploding Bullet. They are specifically designed to prevent a compromise of the airplane’s shell.

 

[chance1]

I think it is reasonable to assume that the pilots’ weapons are loaded with specially designed rounds, such as the Glaser Safety Slug or the Velex/Velet Exploding Bullet. They are specifically designed to prevent a compromise of the airplane’s shell.

u just killed his thread

 

[Kulindahr]

I think it is reasonable to assume that the pilots’ weapons are loaded with specially designed rounds, such as the Glaser Safety Slug or the Velex/Velet Exploding Bullet. They are specifically designed to prevent a compromise of the airplane’s shell.

Probably true.
Besides that, back at the start of the program, plenty of experts who actually deal with planes and weapons testified that you could cut loose in the cockpit with a fully automatic weapon and not bring the plane down, so that this:

"If that bullet had compromised the shell of the airplane, i.e., gone through a window, the airplane could have gone down," he said.

is the same Hollywood fantasy it was then.

I'd still like to know what boneheaded booboo made a shot go off.

 

[Kulindahr]

u just killed his thread

Common sense can do that.

 

[jtilden21]

There's no way they can say with 100% certainty that nobody could have been hurt. A gun going off on accident could easily have hurt or killed an innocent person on the plane.

Likewise, there is no way for them to say with 100% certainty that the plane won't crash in-flight or fall victim to terrorists or be trapped on the runway for 10 hours with no food or water in bad weather.

Seems to me: the benefits outweigh the risks here.

 

[seven_sins]

According to this news report, the bullet did penetrate the cockpit wall. The occupants of the plane were damn lucky that it didn't happen at a higher altitude.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032500442.html

The pistol _ a .40-caliber semiautomatic H&K USP _ discharged Saturday aboard Flight 1536 from Denver to Charlotte, as the plane was approaching to land. Photos obtained by The Associated Press show a small entry hole in the lower side of the cockpit wall and a small exit hole on the exterior below the cockpit window.

 

[jtilden21]

Which is the reason there are safety precautions...maintenance on the plane, pre-flight checks, passenger screening...

Not to be argumentative, but, in the same light -- are you saying, in essence, that if a police officer's gun discharges accidentally that we should disarm the police?

I understand that pilots are not police officers.

But, this particular pilot had just been recently certified on aircraft gun-safety. This was simply an anomaly.

 

[Kulindahr]

There's no way they can say with 100% certainty that nobody could have been hurt. A gun going off on accident could easily have hurt or killed an innocent person on the plane.

Highly, highly unlikely, if you mean a passenger. Those doors they got installed are proof against even light fully automatic weapons; a frangible bullet isn't going to go through.
Injuring someone else in the cockpit -- yeah, possible. But the vast majority of accidental discharges are downward; indoors, the next largest number is upward. So again, odds are low.
Higher on the odds chart, I suspect, would be a bullet hitting the controls... and that could get interesting.

 

[Kulindahr]

Which is the reason there are safety precautions...maintenance on the plane, pre-flight checks, passenger screening...

Having the pilots armed is one of those safety precautions. Yes, it's one with its own risks, but so are others -- just as an example, if there's a fire in the cabin while the airplane is experiencing decompression, and the oxygen masks automatically pop down, you've got a problem. So there are fire extinguishers....

In this case, the safety system against the risk of the other safety system is the intensive training, and safe bullets.

 

[smelter]

..... or be trapped on the runway for 10 hours with no food or water in bad weather.

If the passengers were packing, the pilot would make damn sure this never happens.

 

[jackoroe]

There's no way they can say with 100% certainty that nobody could have been hurt. A gun going off on accident could easily have hurt or killed an innocent person on the plane.

Could have, would have should have. The fact is it didn't harm anybody and that's a good thing. Now if this pilot needs more training to remember to keep his finger off the trigger, let's give it to him! Otherwise it's a good idea to arm pilots.

 

[jackoroe]

I think pilots should fire their guns more often. Like when 100 people are trying to simply find their seat and some woman insists on digging for the macrame kit in one of the two bags she brought on. Then after spending a hideous amount of time doing so turns and asks the guy behind her to help lift her hefty bag up into the overhead bin as everyone is backed up out the plane door and up the walk way. Shoot her! Let us sit down! DO IT!

I take it you've been flying recently? Relax, unclench, it's going to be OK!

 

[ComNavFdgPk]

Wasn't there an episode of Mythbusters recently (or some other show like that) that debunked the "explosive decompression" scenario we've all seen in the Hollywood movies?

 

[LaloGS]

There are so many more sane and safer solutions to maintaining the sanctity of the cockpit from terrorists that guns don't begin to provide, that our government is just being STUPID by allowing guns in a pilot's hands. Guns are NOT the solution to everything. Regardless of what all you gun toting redbloods think.

 

[jackoroe]

There are so many more sane and safer solutions to maintaining the sanctity of the cockpit from terrorists that guns don't begin to provide, that our government is just being STUPID by allowing guns in a pilot's hands. Guns are NOT the solution to everything. Regardless of what all you gun toting redbloods think.

Nobody said they were the solution to everything. They are a tool that has the ability to protect life and property when used judiciously. More often than not, the mere production of a firearm renders the desired result.

 

[jtilden21]

A cop needs his gun for his job, a pilot does not....that is what air marshals are for.

I hear you and understand where you are coming from, but...

(CNN - March 25, 2008 ) -- Of the 28,000 commercial airline flights that take to the skies on an average day in the United States, fewer than 1 percent are protected by on-board, armed federal air marshals, a nationwide CNN investigation has found.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wasn't there an episode of Mythbusters recently (or some other show like that) that debunked the "explosive decompression" scenario we've all seen in the Hollywood movies?

No.

They tried something similar IIRC, but concluded :

Originally Posted by Mythbusters
...however, they didn’t address one thing: the drop in air pressure caused by the velocity of the air outside the plane. You see, the entire concept of flight is based on the fact that air pressure goes down as the speed of the air goes up.

So when a hole gets blown in the side of the plane, even after all the air rushes out and the pressue of the plane is equal to the ambient air pressure at that altitude, you now have 600 m.p.h. air rushing past the hole, which would have a much lower air pressure than the stationary air inside the plane - result a MASSIVE drop in pressure which will prove fatal in seconds. Giving hardly enough time to get an oxygen mask on.

Yes.

Joe, that is not from Mythbusters; it's from an article about the episode. It is also answered quite thoroughly in later comments. It's also been added to.
Furthermore, they revisited that myth because of the number of complaints that it had not been busted, and found that the additional pressure difference due to rushing air is insufficient to make any discernible difference.

Basically, if the airframe is intact, and the hull has been properly maintained so there aren't microfissures already making it dangerously weak, what you're going to get from bullet holes is holes. They aren't big enough to give explosive decompression; in fact, it would take a good number before the cabin pressurization system would be overloaded.

The Lockerbee comparison is off base: it isn't the hole, it's the power of the explosion -- a difference that the Mythbusters episodes made very clear. The explosion adds shock to the skin material and effectively renders it more frangible, and once pieces tear, more will go. A bullet impact does not deliver energy even in the same league with an explosion, so the metal isn't affected in the same way at all.

The bigger danger of a bullet hole or two is slow decompression, which can overtake people before they notice the difference -- kind of like the frog in a pot of water slowly heated to boiling.

 

[Kulindahr]

There are so many more sane and safer solutions to maintaining the sanctity of the cockpit from terrorists that guns don't begin to provide, that our government is just being STUPID by allowing guns in a pilot's hands. Guns are NOT the solution to everything. Regardless of what all you gun toting redbloods think.

SO you in fact DO want to:

get rid of air marshals
disarm all police

?

Besides:

Nobody said they were the solution to everything. They are a tool that has the ability to protect life and property when used judiciously. More often than not, the mere production of a firearm renders the desired result.

Against ordinary criminals, merely knowing there is a firearm present in the hands of someone willing to use it for defense is sufficient to drive a decision to go 'do business' somewhere else. While terrorists bent on self-destruction are a different deal, the fact that one flight on 9/11 nearly escaped their hands with far le4ss potent tools than firearms is instructive: give a determined defender a gun, and the odds for the bad guys plunge.

And it's important to remember that firearms are just that: tools. They're not a cure-all, but they are the most effective item for one person needing to stop a personal threat that exists.

And for the record, please note: until the government declared airplanes a no-firearms zone, there weren;t any hijackings. It's only when the bad guys know they have a 'clear' zone that you have to worry.

 

[Kulindahr]

Ok, so look at the number of hijacjings, per number of flights per year...

I bet it is FAR fewer than 1%......

Anyone wanna do the math?????

What math?

You mean the probability of the intersection of the sets of "flights with sky marshals" and "flights with hijackers"?

Yeah, it's tiny -- which is why pilots should be armed... along with policemen and military officers and non-coms if they're flying.

 

[Jonnism]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/10/18/airport.screeners/index.html


Yeah, arm the pilots. The amount of dangerous equipment and weapons smuggled through airports in the US is incredible. Security is really just a placebo and it is very hard to catch everything. It's better to be prepared than sorry. I heard a saying from an old friend once; "those who are trained to carry weapons, are prepared for what is to come if should they have to use those weapons, and carry those weapons for the purpose of good, will rarely have to use them."

:/