JetBlue Captain 'Loses It'

[Ryan]

Of course the other pint I was making is that a firearm on board is a firearm on board, specially when we are talking about how it might be used when someone holding it goes crazy.

That's where I disagree. A firearm onboard with an air marshall is a firearm onboard with a purpose. It's a risk, but it's a risk that one can argue is worth taking. A firearm onboard with a pilot is a firearm onboard with no discernible purpose. That lack of a purpose differentiates it from the air marshall's firearm and makes it an unacceptable risk in my opinion (unless someone is able to articulate a good reason that a pilot behind a locked door needs a firearm).

Of course, you're absolutely right in pointing out that a pilot doesn't need a firearm to do drastic and permanent harm to everyone onboard.

 

[jis]

Of course the other pint I was making is that a firearm on board is a firearm on board, specially when we are talking about how it might be used when someone holding it goes crazy.

That's where I disagree. A firearm onboard with an air marshall is a firearm onboard with a purpose. It's a risk, but it's a risk that one can argue is worth taking. A firearm onboard with a pilot is a firearm onboard with no discernible purpose. That lack of a purpose differentiates it from the air marshall's firearm and makes it an unacceptable risk in my opinion (unless someone is able to articulate a good reason that a pilot behind a locked door needs a firearm).

Actually, in general I don't disagree with you on that. My comment was restricted to the situation where someone gets to use a firearm after going crazy. IMHO firearm in cockpit mostly serves a feel good purpose and not much else. Whether that is worth it or not I leave to others to figure out. And now I am pulling on my thrice charmed chain mail (reference to the well known Rogue game on old time computers) and ducking as fast as I can

 

[saxman]

I'm not sure I agree. The purpose of an air marshall is to deal with an unruly passenger. Saxman's statement above was that the armed pilot was "to protect the flight deck, nothing more". If we already have a secured door to do that, there doesn't seem to be much of a need for that firearm. Having an armed pilot seems to be a risk with no commensurate reward (unless I'm missing something).

Air marshalls don't really deal with unruly passengers. They are there to protect the flight deck as well. Pilot's are armed, also to protect the flight deck. Yes, they are behind a locked door, but sometimes the door has to open in flight. Pilots have to eat and use the lavatory as well, and if, godforbid, someone got past that, then it'd be nice to have a armed pilot.

What exactly does having an armed pilot behind a locked security door defend against?

And as I said before, even if the JetBlue pilot was armed, he wouldn't have been able to cause harm. Trust me I would tell you why in person, but it's not for a public forum.

 

[George Harris]

Ryan, I think you main obsession here is with guns, period. Therefore, there is no point in trying to apply reason to this issue. My issue is not with the gun. I grew up with guns in the house and learned early a healthy respect for them and what they could do, and also understanding of what they cannot do. They are not unreasoning rabid animals that go off randomly.

We had an incident here in SF recently where a policeman took a shot at someone and hit TWO individual that were completely uninvolved but somewhere beyond his target. That is violation of one of the major clearly understood rules of shooting. Know what is BEHIND your target before pulling the trigger.

To bring it back on track: During the days of the Railway Post Office, the clerks in the RPO's were armed. A revolver on the hip at all times. Did they have any training in their use? I do not know. At that time there was a general expectation that a grown man would understand what he was doing with gun in hand. It did not occur to anyone I know that they should fear that some RPO clerk would go nuts and start shooting.

 

[RRrich]

I understand that if the pilot is armed and he has to leave the cockpit, he is supposed to put the pistol in an in cockpit lockbox. My question is if the pilot is no longer playing with a full deck can he be counted on to lock up his weapon?

 

[Ryan]

Ryan, I think you main obsession here is with guns, period. Therefore, there is no point in trying to apply reason to this issue. My issue is not with the gun. I grew up with guns in the house and learned early a healthy respect for them and what they could do, and also understanding of what they cannot do. They are not unreasoning rabid animals that go off randomly.

Sorry, but no. I'm a gun owner, a hunter, and have been shooting since I was 10 years old. I believe as fiercely in the Second Amendment as I do the rest of the Bill of Rights.

My stepson just turned 9, and I'll be taking him out to the farm in the next few months to start teaching him how to shoot.

So take your "no point in trying to apply reason" ad hom and peddle it somewhere else.

Chris, thanks for your input. I've still got some questions, but like you said, it probably isn't a public forum kind of conversation to get into that level of detail.

 

[George Harris]

Ryan, I think you main obsession here is with guns, period. Therefore, there is no point in trying to apply reason to this issue. My issue is not with the gun. I grew up with guns in the house and learned early a healthy respect for them and what they could do, and also understanding of what they cannot do. They are not unreasoning rabid animals that go off randomly.

Sorry, but no. I'm a gun owner, a hunter, and have been shooting since I was 10 years old. I believe as fiercely in the Second Amendment as I do the rest of the Bill of Rights.

My stepson just turned 9, and I'll be taking him out to the farm in the next few months to start teaching him how to shoot.

So take your "no point in trying to apply reason" ad hom and peddle it somewhere else.

Chris, thanks for your input. I've still got some questions, but like you said, it probably isn't a public forum kind of conversation to get into that level of detail.

Duly noted. My apologies, misunderstood your message.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

One of the replies to that thread on Airliners.net was that "if the pilots of the doomed flights on 9-11 had guns, the final result would have been much different"

.... yeah well... if the cockpit doors had been secure and locked... the final results would have been different too.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

I'm not sure I agree. The purpose of an air marshall is to deal with an unruly passenger. Saxman's statement above was that the armed pilot was "to protect the flight deck, nothing more". If we already have a secured door to do that, there doesn't seem to be much of a need for that firearm. Having an armed pilot seems to be a risk with no commensurate reward (unless I'm missing something).

Air marshalls don't really deal with unruly passengers. They are there to protect the flight deck as well. Pilot's are armed, also to protect the flight deck. Yes, they are behind a locked door, but sometimes the door has to open in flight. Pilots have to eat and use the lavatory as well, and if, godforbid, someone got past that, then it'd be nice to have a armed pilot.

What exactly does having an armed pilot behind a locked security door defend against?

And as I said before, even if the JetBlue pilot was armed, he wouldn't have been able to cause harm. Trust me I would tell you why in person, but it's not for a public forum.

Oh really if he is not in his right mind whats to stop him for using his gun on other pax or the armed air marshals thinking they're terrorists out to down the plain. This guy was not in his right mind. he could have gotten a few shots before being taken out by air marshals if it came to that. Also in the movie Executive Decision the bad guy uses a machine gun shoots a bunch of holes in the side of the airplane causing a huge chunk to rip off the side sucking people out. You only deal with small beach craft type planes and some Lear jet type plains. Have you ever flown a jumbo jet? Im not being a ass but it has happened.Not with guns but take a look at this story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Flight_705

 

[George Harris]

Also in the movie Executive Decision the bad guy uses a machine gun shoots a bunch of holes in the side of the airplane causing a huge chunk to rip off the side sucking people out.

This might or might not happen in real life. Maybe you have multiple small holes and relatively slow depressurization or mayby a chunk of fuselage or a window will pop out. I do not know. Remember, this is a movie, so it proves nothing.

. . it has happened.Not with guns but take a look at this story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Flight_705

That one I well remember, as this is my "home" airport, and FedEx is the major player there. Both the crew and the plane managed to go way beyond their physical limits to bring this thing to a conclusion with at minimum 4 deaths and the destruction of the plane. Given the urban/suburban nature of the area surrounding the airport and a fuel load for a 2000 mile flight, the death and destruction would all but certainly have been far greater. However, I do not see how the presence or absence of guns are relevant, nor sudden mental malfunction. The act here was premeditated and the attempt to use an insanity defense did not work, so sudden emotional or mental breakdown was not the cause.

It is absolutely amazing, in fact could be called miraculous, that the men were able to pilot the plane at all wounded as they were, and also that the plane did not literally come apart in the air due to the stresses from the maneuvers they put it through, nor the landing gear collapse when landing as it was way over its allowed landing weight.

 

[Ryan]

Also in the movie Executive Decision the bad guy uses a machine gun shoots a bunch of holes in the side of the airplane causing a huge chunk to rip off the side sucking people out.

This might or might not happen in real life. Maybe you have multiple small holes and relatively slow depressurization or mayby a chunk of fuselage or a window will pop out. I do not know. Remember, this is a movie, so it proves nothing.

Agreed. I happened to be reading about KAL 007 (shot down by the Soviets in 1983), and came across these comments (yes, wikipedia, but the article is well cited):

Fuselage: Tiny shrapnel from the proximity fuzed air-to-air missile that detonated 50 metres (160 ft) behind the aircraft, punctured the fuselage and caused rapid decompression of the pressurised cabin. The interval of 11 seconds between the sound of missile detonation picked up by the cockpit voice recorder and the sound of the alarm sounding in the cockpit enabled ICAO analysts to determine that the total size of the tiny ruptures to the pressurized fuselage was 1.75 square feet (0.163 m2).

Two expert witnesses testified at a Court of Appeals trial on the issue of pre-death pain and suffering. Captain James McIntyre, an experienced Boeing 747 pilot and aircraft accident investigator, testified that shrapnel from the missile caused rapid decompression of the cabin, but left the passengers sufficient time to don oxygen masks: "McIntyre testified that, based upon his estimate of the extent of damage the aircraft sustained, all passengers survived the initial impact of the shrapnel from the missile explosion. In McIntyre's expert opinion, at least 12 minutes elapsed between the impact of the shrapnel and the crash of the plane, and the passengers remained conscious throughout."

Since the area of a 9mm circle is about 1/2 in2, it would take quite a lot of holes in the side to have that kind of explosive decompression. A lot would depend on where the holes were relative to one another, too.

 

[George Harris]

Also in the movie Executive Decision the bad guy uses a machine gun shoots a bunch of holes in the side of the airplane causing a huge chunk to rip off the side sucking people out.

This might or might not happen in real life. Maybe you have multiple small holes and relatively slow depressurization or mayby a chunk of fuselage or a window will pop out. I do not know. Remember, this is a movie, so it proves nothing.

Agreed. I happened to be reading about KAL 007 (shot down by the Soviets in 1983), and came across these comments (yes, wikipedia, but the article is well cited):

Fuselage: Tiny shrapnel from the proximity fuzed air-to-air missile that detonated 50 metres (160 ft) behind the aircraft, punctured the fuselage and caused rapid decompression of the pressurised cabin. The interval of 11 seconds between the sound of missile detonation picked up by the cockpit voice recorder and the sound of the alarm sounding in the cockpit enabled ICAO analysts to determine that the total size of the tiny ruptures to the pressurized fuselage was 1.75 square feet (0.163 m2).

Well remember that one at the time. The Soviet response, something to the effect that the pilot and others did not recognize that the KAL flight was a 747 had to be one of the most bogus excuses imaginable. The 747 shape is absolutely uniques among planes. If that was not recognizable then the pilot should not be flying anything, much less a military plane.

The discussion on the size of the hole and its effect does provide some worthwhile info for the subject at hand.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

Well then try this on for size http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771

heres a air rage one where passengers subdued and killed a passenger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1763

 

[DS]

These pilots aren't allowed to carry guns on international flights are they? That'd be the extent to which I'd have any interaction with US airlines -- when I visit the States. I'd certainly never use them to go overseas -- why bother going through another country only to get god-awful service and be subjected to the TSA and gun-toting mental nutters? I sure hope pilots are not allowed to do this when coming to Canada.

 

[saxman]

These pilots aren't allowed to carry guns on international flights are they? That'd be the extent to which I'd have any interaction with US airlines -- when I visit the States. I'd certainly never use them to go overseas -- why bother going through another country only to get god-awful service and be subjected to the TSA and gun-toting mental nutters? I sure hope pilots are not allowed to do this when coming to Canada.

Wow, you've really taken this thread out of context here. First, we're discussing the extreme off chance that this pilot was armed. Then there is the even more extreme off chance that said pilot would go shooting everyone. You seriously have more of a chance of getting struck by lightning, then being attacked by a "gun-toting mental nutter." The training for armed pilots is extremely rigorous, and many tests are gone through to qualify. Then as I keep mentioning, there is almost miniscule chance that said pilot, if even armed, would have been allowed to leave the flight deck armed. The first officer was smart enough to get the captain to leave. I'm sure as heck he would have been smart enough to make sure he locked up his fire arm.

So you're not going to fly a US airline because you're afraid some "gun-toting mental nut pilot" is going to go crazy? I understand frustrations with the TSA. Crew members are just as frustrated with them as the travelling public. And I understand frustrations with service and rude employees. But it really isn't THAT bad.

We've been speculating on such a remotely, highly unlikely to happen subject, that we seem to have lost touch with reality. What's to stop a police officer from going crazy? Or an armed soldier overseas? (Or here at home...)

Also armed police do ride on flights from time to time. No, it's not the federal air marshalls. They are usually travelling for business or pleasure. You'll just never know who they are. What if they go crazy?