Note to self: Don't fuck with a pilot

[Guest bob_barron]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate overwhelmingly supported a measure on Thursday that would arm commercial airline pilots on a voluntary basis in a dramatic security step aimed at preventing hijackings.

 

 

 

The chamber approved the plan as an amendment to a bill creating the Homeland Security Department -- legislation that may not come up for a final vote for several weeks.

 

The House of Representatives has already passed separate legislation to arm the nation's commercial pilots, also on a voluntary basis.

 

But the Senate's plan is slightly different. For instance, it also would provide self-defense training for flight attendants. Differences in the two measures would have to be worked out during House and Senate negotiations on the Homeland Security bill.

 

The Bush administration is considering a plan to arm a limited number of commercial pilots but had not yet worked out a formal proposal, a senior Bush administration source said.

 

I think it sounds like a good idea and could prevent more aeroplane related terrorist attacks

[Guest DeputyHawk]

Hmmm. Could do, but could also make it decidedly easier for hijackers to, you know, get access to a gun while they're in an aeroplane.

[Guest Youth N Asia]

I like the idea of air martials better...but this'll do I guess

[Guest J*ingus]

There have been many incidents of cops getting killed with their own guns. Now we're giving guns to untrained pilots?

 

I second the idea for more air marshalls as well.

[Guest big Dante Cruz]

I thought there were already air marshalls mandated on planes...

[Guest The Metal Maniac]

Ok, I dunno, maybe TV has lied to me, but isn't firing a gun in an airplane dangerous? What with the pressure and the possibility of puncturing the plane and all...

 

But I dunno...maybe you really can't, and TV is all a lie.

[Guest Some Guy]

Air Marshalls cost more money than training and arming a pilot. It's not like the pilot will be sitting in the cock pit spinnign the gun like the Three Amigos, it'll be in a locked box and only comeout if he has to shoot a terrorist, which is a last resort on an airplane. Firing a gum can break a whole in the plane and possibly cause a crash. I think stun guns or traquilizers would be better but arming pilots seems ok to me.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I'm in favour of stun guns, but not bullets. Being a pilot requires extensive training as it is. It's stupid to pretend that they can become expert marksmen as well - and doubly stupid to pretend that they wouldn't need to be, firing a gun into a narrow cabin full of scared, frightened people, especially children, and insufficient at best medical facilities to take care of any accidental casualties. Besides, hijackers will NEVER be able to take over a plane again even if THEY have guns. Every passenger in the cabin would charge them rather than sit by and watch another 9/11 take place. And if the hijackers have a bomb, guns won't make a difference.

This is just another dumb, ineffective, and potentially downright dangerous feel-good policy. The White House has been absolutely correct to oppose it, and I hope the President will veto the bill.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

Agreed with Marney, and I don't have much to add. There's just too much that can go wrong if you give a gun to a relatively untrained pilot in a pressurized cabin with scared people all around. Really bad idea that just makes things more dangerous.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

I have mixed feelings on this issue. On one hand planes shouldn't be totally defensless and guns would definitely prevent someone from thinking about doing ANYTHING while on board. However, it's very difficult to get weapons onto a plane these days, especialy if you fit the current terrorist profile. Putting guns on the plane already makes a would be terroist's job easier, getting the gun once on the plane is easier than smuggling it in. Plus it's far more effective than a box cutter. I also believe that a 9/11 style airplane hijacking is highly unlikely in the near future. Our enemy is probably moving onto bigger and less obvious things like contaminating water or something far worse.

 

The best thing to do is to have an on-board security guard with a gun and profile people as they go through security.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I say Sky Marshals and gives pilots the option to pack heat. Also, I have a feeling the next time a bunch of terrorists hijack an American plane the firearms won't be needed since the baddies will probably get overrun by the passengers...

[Zorin Industries 0]

I also back the plan for Air Marshalls, but has been said above, if it comes to firing a gun in an aeroplane, then your'e more than likly screwed anyway.

 

As far as I know, even special forces expect casualties, when retaking a plane from terrorists on the ground.

 

Add to this the fact that it will only be a couple of well trained (but not to special forces level) officers and the chance of having a major disaster on your'e hands is multiplyed.

 

But saying that, something needs to be done, and this is the only option that I can see working, no matter how dangerous.

[Guest EricMM]

And I reiterate...

 

Kung-Fu.

 

I mean, if every steward/ess and pilot/ess(?) were all trained in self defense, they would be able to subdue terrorists without risking harming passangers nearly as much as discharging rounds in a cabin.

 

I know it will take training. Would it be prohibitively expensive? I dunno. I just think it's safer and very effective in closed areas.

 

Or how about every child in America who's physically fit took karate along with his/her arithmatic? I think that would be great, since everyone could defend themselves. Plus it's a good exercise and it would improve the quality of school yard fights (j/k, about the whole thing really, but wouldn't it be interesting )

[Guest DeputyHawk]

Kung-Fu.

yes. it's what's needed.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I don't like the idea of a weapon being available on an airplane. Yes, of course I know, it won't be available in that sense, but how hard would it be for a terrorist who's bent on taking the plane to get into the lock box? I mean, beat the shit out of the pilot, grab the key, and he's armed. A stun gun is a MUCH better idea. I don't care how radically insane you are, ain't no way you're taking 20,000 volts and continuing to attack someone, unless you're on PCP, in which case, fuhgeddaboutit, they could take a brick to the dome and keep going.

 

Get a lock box with a tazer, a club, and a couple sets of cuffs. That, plus a sturdy locked door to the cockpit.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Kung-Fu.

Sigh. It wouldn't be a new day without another useless suggestion from our Eric. Right along the same lines as "Golly, why don't we force military service on everyone? Isn't that an interesting idea?" Yeah, I guess, in the same sort of way a severe case of Down's syndrome could be called "interesting."

 

"Very effective in closed [sic] areas?" Let me guess, you've never taken lessons in anything of the sort, have you? 60 against 1, between the seats or in the aisles, it doesn't matter if anyone knows "Kung-Fu" or not. "Safer?" Well yes; pretty much anything's safer than a fucking GUN.

The problem is that all these silly proposals being offered by the ignorant, the reactionary, and the just plain dumb require TRAINING. Not just once for six days, not just once for six weeks, but continuously. You stop shooting, your aim will deteriorate. You don't practice your self-defence, you will get slower, clumsier, and weaker. Any sort of mandatory training will require additional tests and certifications regularly if it's to mean anything, and pilots and flight crews have to take more than enough tests as it is. Airline pilots as a profession have one of the highest suicide rates extant already; I don't think adding stress to their jobs is a terribly good idea.

 

AoO's on the right track. Pilots and crews should be given access to weapons/devices which can disable a small number of people, temporarily but effectively, and which require an absolute minimum of training to use. These people have enough to think about. There are several fatal crashes which have nothing to do with hijackers every bloody year. If I'm in an aeroplane, by God I want the pilot, the co-pilot, and the whole damn crew to concentrate on FLYING it.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

Get a lock box with a tazer, a club, and a couple sets of cuffs. That, plus a sturdy locked door to the cockpit.

agreed with 100%, though i'd slot an additional tazer just underneath the pilot & co-pilot's seats.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

A tazer and some cuffs could debilitate someone, then stuff 'em in the bathroom with the drink cart in front of the door. Should give plenty of time to land and get the fuck out and let the authorities club the dude.

[Guest J*ingus]

Kung fu? Meh. Any REAL expert would tell you to use Jiu-Jitsu.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Anyone with any training at all would tell you that the sheer weight of numbers and the confined quarters would make any possible technique completely irrelevant.

 

Hey, that's what I said. What a coincidence.

[Guest DrTom]

Anyone with any training at all would tell you that the sheer weight of numbers and the confined quarters would make any possible technique completely irrelevant.

Hell, I have very little training, and I could tell you that.

 

Besides, considering how long it takes to become really proficient in a martial art, it's not feasible for people in a full-time, transitory profession to try and master something like that. How can you take regular kung fu lessons if you live in Chicago, and then you're in Detroit the next day, Miami the day after that, then off to LA, then Seattle, then Nashville, then DC, then you're back home?

 

I'm sure a jumping side kick off the beverage cart would look really cool in a Jet Li movie (scratch that, I think it would look fucking ridiculous outside of a cheesy video game), but it's completely impractical, and all it gets the "trained expert" is a few bullets in the chest.

[Guest EricMM]

Yeah I pretty much realized the training would be unpractical when I suggested this, but I basically felt it would be better than nothing and safer than guns.

 

I really like the tranq/tazer things. They're less likely to kill an innocent with one, but they're supposed to be extremely effective.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

Yeah I pretty much realized the training would be unpractical when I suggested this, but I basically felt it would be better than nothing and safer than guns.

damn, i thought that whole kung-fu thing was a joke!