<br />posted September 17, 2001 11:27 AM <br />So we are putting armed "Air Marshalls" aboard each and every flight from here on out, forever? Or just for a limited time? I think Israel has armed pilots for their flights, why don't we do that. Issue a "standard" weapon to all of our pilots, and implement a weapon training class into the whole shebang? Any thoughts or ideas on this? <br /> <hr></blockquote>
In general, the Air Marshal program should be expanded, even if an Air Marshal is not on every flight forever. In the short term, Air Marshals (or civilian law enforcement) should be used on as many domestic flights as possible, reaching 100%. This is a good way to help restore public confidence and keep a healthy air industry.
As far as weapons and pilots go, I'll comment on that, as I'm a pilot who is both trained and authorized to carry weapons in flight, though I only fly Military aircraft while armed.
Arming civilian pilots is pretty much a waste, in practical terms, in the current civilian aircraft/cockpit. A pilot is very vulnerable while flying, and in general not able to mount an credible retaliation, let alone ensure control of the weapon... the weapon itself can easily be comandeered and used by criminals in flight. In general, a pilot is not in the best postion to assess the entire situation and decide on the use of deadly force, either during a ground or an airborne incident. Further, it is a practical limitation that both 9mm and revolvers (I've carried both while flying) present and impediment and danger to seated crewmembers. To my personal knowledge, even El Al does not arm their pilots.
On military aircraft, we have ways of dealing with these limitations that are simply not going to be practical to translate into civilian terms. The best solution for the civilian situation is to simply have trained, armed personnel whose function is secutity (Air Marshals, for example). Of course, they should be randomly seated and blend in (remain anonymous to the passengers). And Air Marshals must be prepared to even kill passengers without hesitation, if necessary to ensure the safety of the aircraft.
All that said... I'll add this: if civilian cockpits are re-designed to make it impossible for people to force entry from the passenger cabin in flight, it might become more practical to consider arming a flight deck crewmember. El-Al aircraft have not one, not two, but usually 3 or 4 doors that must be accessed to reach the pilots. It is time we begin to implement such a solution for our civilian passenger aircraft.
<br />Anyway, El-Al (or other Israeli companies, like Arkia and Israir) is not arming pilots. <br /> <hr></blockquote>
That jives with my random practical experiences, as I've never met an El-Al pilot that has been armed, even in ops, Wx, or the flight planning rooms.
<br /><br />....<br />The air marshalls carry fire arms using samll rounds, so even if the plane is hit during a gun battle, the pilot will have time to go to lower altitude<br />...<br /> <hr></blockquote>
As far as I'm personally concerned, calibre is not an issue (unless we get to huge extremes, like .50 cal, or cannon).
Hollywood has probably convinced most people that a bullet hole will destroy an aircraft. Not true. It would be next to impossible for even anyone to destroy a modern aircraft in flight with a hand-held firearm, even if they knew exactly "what" to shoot at, LOL...
In one relatively recent (but extreme) example of modern jets, remember the Hawaiian Air 737 on the way to Honolulu when the structural failure caused the top of the aircraft to blow off the rest of the airframe? The pilots kept control, the passegers lived, and the plane landed (without its "top"). One stewardess died when she was blown out of the aircraft. But even the seated, un-seatbelted, passengers were not "sucked out".
In many military transport aircraft, there is often not several layers of fine plastic finishing between the passenger and the aluminum aircraft skin. In many places on older aircraft, there are even various holes/cracks. These are not structural, and do not endanger the aircraft. The only real effect is to make the cabin pressurization add a little more air to the aircraft to keep a comfortable 6 or 8,000 feet cabin altitude. LOL, The "suction" does not pull you out, and the plan does not crash. <img src="icon12.gif" border="0">
So bullet holes in a passenger cabin will not result in the catastrophes depicted by Hollywood films. By far, the biggest danger is the usual one... hitting people when the bullets start to fly.
<br />Bullet holes won't destroy a plane, but it's always good to reduce the size of the hole.<br /> <hr></blockquote>
Quite right. BTW, my commentary about the bullets and calibres was not meant to encourage bigger weapons or more gunplay, but to let folks know that it's not the big concern that Hollywood makes it out to be. Air Marshals are a good thing, and a comparatively easy security measure to take immediately. Air Marshals can also be added or subtracted from flights as the threat dictates... e.g., two Air Marshals on certain aircraft and routes of greater risk.
Although I do heartily endorse armed Air Marshals as a security enhancement, I emphasize the plural. I have a gut reaction against only one gun on an aircraft... In general, I think we should have two Air Marshals, at least for now.
In the Military, I normally arm two (sometimes more) of my 6 to 13 crewmembers. We don't have Air Marshals in the military, but then... one way or the other... we also know that no US Air Force plane has ever been comandeered, and none ever will... at least intact. <img src="graemlins/snipersmilie.gif" border="0" alt="[Sniper]" />
