Amen. If the pilots are going to have them, and I have no problem with and want pilots to have firearms, the level of training needs to be stepped up.



Absolutely. The idea that a plane cannot be highjacked when on the ground or even at a gate is ridiculous.

I'm curious what this additional training is supposed to be? From what I've read, pilots in the FFDO program get the equivalent firearms training of your typical Federal LE agent. According to Stretch's post earlier, all the Federal LE agents are given training for hijacking situations. What's beyond this level? Air Marshal?

So many things can happen in flight--hijacking, unruly passenger, fire, medical emergency. According to this logic, sounds like every commercial pilot should not only be qualified to fly a massive jet plane, but also be a qualified Air Marshal and expert shot, black belt in jiu jitsu, a fire fighter, and paramedic. OK, I'm being sarcastic, but the point is expecting too much from ordinary people.

Let's not forget the hijacking paradigm that is currently trying to be addressedd--hijackers taking over control of a plane and using the plane as a weapon. The old paradigm was the threat of harm to passengers. If you're trying to avoid the latter scenario, then OK, either the pilots come out shooting or you acquisce to hijackers' demands and try and negotiate your way out or else the police/military storm the plane on the ground. However, if you're worried about the 9/11 scenario, I really don't think it makes sense to send pilots out into the cabin. You want that plane down on the ground ASAP and you want both pilots at the controls, especially in such a stressful, hectic situation. You might be sacrificing the lives of every passenger to hijackers, but the alternative worst case outcome is that the plane is flown into a nuclear power plant or liquid natural gas terminal or whatever which will kill all the passengers anyway plus hundreds or thousands more on the ground.

I don't know if this is publicly acknowledged, officially, but the way I see it, the lives of the pilots are paramount in the current hijacking paradigm because they're the only ones that can get the plane on the ground (well, in one piece, at least). As I see it, their sidearms defend the pilots and the cockpit, not the passengers. Of course, the pilots are extremely concerned about the welfare of the passengers, but we all know what can happen if hijackers get control of a plane. And even if an incident doesn't seem like a hijacking at first, it could be a ruse to get the cockpit door unlocked or a pilot into the cabin, so again, it doesn't make sense for the pilot to come out in response to incidents in the cabin. It's unfortunate that it has come to this state of affairs because I'm sure that many pilots feel more like armored car drivers in their mindset now than pilots just trying to get ordinary folks from point A to point B through "the friendly skies".

Oh, so I guess we agree on your alternative solution--that what makes sense is making the cockpit an impregnable fortress. Again, in relation to the hijacking threat, that's what makes the most practical sense. I have no idea how vulnerable the current Kevlar-reinforced cockpits are, but you just need to keep it secure long enough to get on the ground.

I dunno, it sounded like they are basically given a gun safety course/eval and handed a firearm. If they are really being trained in LE tactics, then that is better, but still restricting them to exclusive use only in the cockpit is I think unwarranted. Let the flight crew decide for themselves what response is most appropos. I don't think they would take the same cavalier approach to doing their job as some do riding and wrecking motorcycles, especially if the expectation is explained to them adequately. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense and all that. If one set of actions to produce a desirable outcome is completely disallowed rather than being advisedly discretionary, then I think that will end up invariably tying their hands behind their back, figuratively.

But in reference to removing the possibility of a breach physically by eliminating access/egress, Bingo!

Again, just from what I've read, all pilots who want to participate in the FFDO program get their firearms training at some Federal facility in New Mexico. TSA pays for the actual training and for their issue weapon (.40 caliber HK USP...Compact model, I think) but the pilots pay their own transportation, lodging, meals, etc. out of pocket. I haven't seen any news articles that say that the airlines reimburse them for this out-of-pocket expense. I see the amount $3,000 typically quoted in these articles, so that's not an insignificant amount of money these pilots dish out to participate. I have no idea where they have to do their twice yearly weapons quals, though. Maybe they have to go back to New Mexico for that, too.

Plus there is a psych evaluation, too, that pilots have to pass before entering the program but I haven't read any specifics about that part. So, it's definitely a lot more involved than just your typical CCW kind of situation.

Pilots train in Artesia, NM. I trained there as a firearms instructor in 1993 and have been there many times since. The TSA training for armed pilots is more than adequate.

Accidental discharges occur to even the most experienced shooters. Not to ALL shooters, but I say there isn;t a distinguishable limit between training and experience and accidental discharges, other than to say that with more training and experience, there is a lesser chance of an AD.

I think most everyone could imagine a more perfect scenario for defeating a highjacking or a more perfect role for airline pilots, but reality is what it is. Try to remember when flying, the pre-screening process (that pisses off so much of the public, and with good reason) pretty much rules out a firearm going on-board. There are exceptions to every rule, but I'd say it's safe to say, for the purpose of discussion, that the only firearms on-board will be carried legally.

Now, that should change the mindset when thinking about what the pilot's responsibilities are or should be, both fore and aft of the cockpit. Then there's this: if you've flown on an airplane in the last twenty years, and especially in the last ten, then you've flown with armed officers, unbeknownst to you in most cases.

Another thing is the air marshalls. They're aboard almost every flight, and even when they're not, nobody knows it, not even the airline crew until the last minute. Seats are reserved for those guys, which is why you'll see empty seats on a booked flight. And when you don;t see empty seats?...well, you won;t see the air marshalls either, but they're there. Sometimes, they'll cancel flying a flight because at the last minute three armed LEO's booked that flight because they missed theirs, or whatever. They move on to other flights where they're needed. And those empty seats on a booked flight? You might be tempted to think there's nobody armed on that flight. I wouldn't.

Look, the idea here is that anyone who intends to highjack a flight has no idea whether there're armed personnel on the flight or not, and has to correctly guess that there are.

All this and not one mention of everyday people, probably several women included, who (as evidence has shown) will undoubtedly step up to the plate and twist the head off of a troublemaker, let alone a highjacker.

The idea is to let the pilots fly the plane. It's their profession and it's what they do. He who can make it there and breaches the cockpit will die, God willing. Ergo, armed pilots. Ergo, occasional ADs.

"...step up to the plate and twist the head off of a troublemaker, let alone a highjacker..."

That has always been my idea when flying. I personally, even tho old and pretty much worn out, have no intention of letting some guy(s) take over any flight I might be on with a box cutter and drive it into anything. I will go down fighting...

Could they be related?

http://www.kctv5.com/news/15698864/detail.html

Amazing. If MO has a felony murder rule, he might be in deep doo doo...