• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Obama’s Plan To Kill Armed Pilot Program

yz9890

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
47
Location
Louisville, KY
While I see a value in security on flights, I would prefer the pilot be flying the plane, a heavy duty metal door will suffice to keep the pilot flying the plane.

I fly those planes and have yet to see a "heavy duty metal door" in any of them. Yes, they lock and are bullet resistant. That in no way means a determined person or people can't gain entry in a short time.

There are other design and procedural shortcomings in that environment that aren't appropriate to talk about publicly that can be at least addressed by an armed person on the flight deck.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I fly those planes and have yet to see a "heavy duty metal door" in any of them. Yes, they lock and are bullet resistant. That in no way means a determined person or people can't gain entry in a short time.

There are other design and procedural shortcomings in that environment that aren't appropriate to talk about publicly that can be at least addressed by an armed person on the flight deck.

Planes are cramped areas, and discharging a firearm at close range has a host of issues, one is over-penetration. I am not sure about anyone else but I don't want some pilot carrying a firearm firing it--not to mention a pilot who may not be trained to retain the firearm, and loses it to some terrorist or nut-job during a fight for control. It cramped areas like that, hand to hand combat is the best option. The pilot wants to carry something, a knife that he is trained to use proficiently; not that a knife fight doesn't have it's downsides.
 

yz9890

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
47
Location
Louisville, KY
Planes are cramped areas, and discharging a firearm at close range has a host of issues, one is over-penetration. I am not sure about anyone else but I don't want some pilot carrying a firearm firing it--not to mention a pilot who may not be trained to retain the firearm, and loses it to some terrorist or nut-job during a fight for control. It cramped areas like that, hand to hand combat is the best option. The pilot wants to carry something, a knife that he is trained to use proficiently; not that a knife fight doesn't have it's downsides.

yep they are cramped areas. but you can put a 10mm hole just about anywhere in that plane and it'll be just fine. including every system and subsystem and the skin/windows. FFDO's are trained and retrained about the tactical limitations and dangers of shooting in a close environment exclusively because that is 100% of their agency. they are also given some hand to hand training. I don't think it's enough training either but I think since the scope of an FFDO's agency is so limited and therefor the training is focused on that small environment, the benefits are greater than the risks.
 

Steeler-gal

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2011
Messages
560
Location
Fairfax County, VA
Planes are cramped areas, and discharging a firearm at close range has a host of issues, one is over-penetration. I am not sure about anyone else but I don't want some pilot carrying a firearm firing it--not to mention a pilot who may not be trained to retain the firearm, and loses it to some terrorist or nut-job during a fight for control.

Isn't the assumption that the owner/user of the gun is untrained the same argument that the anti-gun groups use? If the pilot can't have one on a plane because it is assumed he's untrained, then you can't have or carry one either.


Sent using Tapatalk
 

HighFlyingA380

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
301
Location
West St. Louis County (Ellisville)
While I see a value in security on flights, I would prefer the pilot be flying the plane, a heavy duty metal door will suffice to keep the pilot flying the plane.
It doesn't matter how 'heavy duty' the door is; Since they don't re-enforce the walls on either side of the door, what good is it? With most transport category aircraft with lavatories right behind the cockpit, you can kick your foot through the wall and circuit panel. A bullet won't even notice it's there.

Planes are cramped areas, and discharging a firearm at close range has a host of issues, one is over-penetration. I am not sure about anyone else but I don't want some pilot carrying a firearm firing it--not to mention a pilot who may not be trained to retain the firearm, and loses it to some terrorist or nut-job during a fight for control. It cramped areas like that, hand to hand combat is the best option. The pilot wants to carry something, a knife that he is trained to use proficiently; not that a knife fight doesn't have it's downsides.
That's why air marshals (not sure about FFDOs, but I'd assume it's the same) carry frangible ammo. It won't penetrate the plastic seats or metal skin.

yep they are cramped areas. but you can put a 10mm hole just about anywhere in that plane and it'll be just fine. including every system and subsystem and the skin/windows. FFDO's are trained and retrained about the tactical limitations and dangers of shooting in a close environment exclusively because that is 100% of their agency. they are also given some hand to hand training. I don't think it's enough training either but I think since the scope of an FFDO's agency is so limited and therefor the training is focused on that small environment, the benefits are greater than the risks.
10mm hole? What about the 6ft. hole Southwest recently had? What about Aloha Airlines flight 243 that lost half the cabin and still flew fine? 10mm hole is nothing. Hell, there is a 1.5-2ft. diameter hole in the tail of all the big guys; A little something called the outflow valve. There is a plethora of tests and research out there proving that catastrophic explosive decompression just doesn't happen, only in extremely rare and unusual cases.
 

yz9890

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
47
Location
Louisville, KY
other than the probable human damage, I'd bet dozens of people could do complete mag dumps in the same plane without doing any catastrophic damage.

no frangible ammo though. both FAM's and FFDO's carry generic white box Remington hollow points (no longer Speer Gold dots). FAM's in 357 Sig. FFDO in 40 S&W. sometimes frangible is used at certain ranges during re-qualification due to limitations of the range. not sure why they're so hesitant to switch to frangible ammo in the plane. seems like a pretty good idea.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
yep they are cramped areas. but you can put a 10mm hole just about anywhere in that plane and it'll be just fine. including every system and subsystem and the skin/windows. FFDO's are trained and retrained about the tactical limitations and dangers of shooting in a close environment exclusively because that is 100% of their agency. they are also given some hand to hand training. I don't think it's enough training either but I think since the scope of an FFDO's agency is so limited and therefor the training is focused on that small environment, the benefits are greater than the risks.

I'm not concerned about the plane itself being compromised from shots fired; I am concerned about people sitting around during the scuffle. We aren't talking about a carry situation on the ground, we are talking about thousands of feet in the air where the pilot ought to be flying, not fighting.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Isn't the assumption that the owner/user of the gun is untrained the same argument that the anti-gun groups use? If the pilot can't have one on a plane because it is assumed he's untrained, then you can't have or carry one either.


Sent using Tapatalk

You might not be aware of this but we can't carry onto a plane.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
[snip]

That's why air marshals (not sure about FFDOs, but I'd assume it's the same) carry frangible ammo. It won't penetrate the plastic seats or metal skin.
[snip]

I am not concerned about the skin of the plane being compromised. Frangibles come with downsides. All I am stating is that the pilot ought to be flying, not fighting, and shooting.
 

yz9890

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
47
Location
Louisville, KY
I am not concerned about the skin of the plane being compromised. Frangibles come with downsides. All I am stating is that the pilot ought to be flying, not fighting, and shooting.

I agree with that 100%. i imagine it's hard to fly a plane when you're bleeding to death though.

FFDO is certainly not a perfect solution though.
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Planes are cramped areas, and discharging a firearm at close range has a host of issues, one is over-penetration. I am not sure about anyone else but I don't want some pilot carrying a firearm firing it--not to mention a pilot who may not be trained to retain the firearm, and loses it to some terrorist or nut-job during a fight for control
The pilot firing at somebody implies the cockpit door has been breached. The choice between "fighting and flying" is moot. That's a far more worrisome situation than the fact that a firearm is being used.
 
Last edited:
Top