If law permitted CCW on Airlines with a 8 hour training course would you do it?
- Thread starter BGutzman
- Start date
35% of gun people dont mind INFRINGEMENTS!!!!
No wonder it costs several hundred$$$, 6 month waits, all kinds of
CEZs and rules that many lawyers dont understand. Read the rules 3 times and get 3 interpetations in the 49 states that have some kind of carry.
Thank you 35%
With a jumbo, you could have easily 8 armed terrorists. Could they get through to the cockpit - maybe? You gonna beat with by yourself as the odds of you being alone and armed are high. Copiedfrom #17
Who said youd be alone. Id hope there would be 10 or more others carrying.
As far a a hole downing a plane-many experts say it wont happen.
No wonder it costs several hundred$$$, 6 month waits, all kinds of
CEZs and rules that many lawyers dont understand. Read the rules 3 times and get 3 interpetations in the 49 states that have some kind of carry.
Thank you 35%
With a jumbo, you could have easily 8 armed terrorists. Could they get through to the cockpit - maybe? You gonna beat with by yourself as the odds of you being alone and armed are high. Copiedfrom #17
Who said youd be alone. Id hope there would be 10 or more others carrying.
As far a a hole downing a plane-many experts say it wont happen.
I also voted no.
In an enviroment such as an airplane, with no where to escape or seek cover, could you imagine the total confusion and panic there would be in the case of a hijacking if there were multiple hijackers sitting throughout the plane.
With quarters being as close as they are, I could visualize mass casualties of innocent passengers very quickly.
Would seem to me , in that enviroment, air marshals and undercover professionals are the way to go.
In an enviroment such as an airplane, with no where to escape or seek cover, could you imagine the total confusion and panic there would be in the case of a hijacking if there were multiple hijackers sitting throughout the plane.
With quarters being as close as they are, I could visualize mass casualties of innocent passengers very quickly.
Would seem to me , in that enviroment, air marshals and undercover professionals are the way to go.
Jim Watson
New member
I see what Glen is saying. Since the TSA cannot "profile" passengers, they would have small chance of catching a party of fine upstanding mohammedans using the system against us.
As Jerry Pournelle says, just issue every passenger his own framing hammer.
Even when the wrong sort of person gets his hammer, it would not be much use against an armed pilot and not much use against a whole planeload of hammer carriers.
As Jerry Pournelle says, just issue every passenger his own framing hammer.
Even when the wrong sort of person gets his hammer, it would not be much use against an armed pilot and not much use against a whole planeload of hammer carriers.
Jake Balam... as a professional pilot for the last 21 years, I can assure you that if a bullet takes an airplane out of the sky, it won't be due to depressurization. Ian Fleming notwithstanding, it just won't happen.
There are already more leaks (by surface area) in any given pressurized hull than a bullet hole would create. Air gets out around door seals; air gets out around valves. This is why bleed air (or engine-driven compressor air, on older aircraft) is constantly pumped into the cabin. Shut off the supply of pressurized air, and the aircraft will have to descend, as it will gradually lose pressure.
Even a large bullet hole is significantly smaller than a dump valve; a dump valve will depressurize an aircraft quickly, but not catastrophically. It's typically used to clear smoke after an electrical fire.
Other valves routinely open, slightly, for pressure regulation. Over-pressurization can be every bit as bad as a loss of pressurization. Add a bullet sized hole to the fuselage, and those valves will open less frequently, to compensate.
No, the threat is not from explosive decompression.
The threat (to the aircraft as a whole) would be from fuel lines, hydraulic lines, and/or control cables. Or, possibly, from putting bullets into the pilot(s).
That said, I agree with Glenn E. Meyer on this one. It's easier for passengers, crew, and FAMs to handle improvised-weapon armed hijackers, than it would be for them to handle hijackers who have firearms and forged documents.
And ever since 9/11, people who have tried to storm the flight station have been stopped by the passengers.
There are already more leaks (by surface area) in any given pressurized hull than a bullet hole would create. Air gets out around door seals; air gets out around valves. This is why bleed air (or engine-driven compressor air, on older aircraft) is constantly pumped into the cabin. Shut off the supply of pressurized air, and the aircraft will have to descend, as it will gradually lose pressure.
Even a large bullet hole is significantly smaller than a dump valve; a dump valve will depressurize an aircraft quickly, but not catastrophically. It's typically used to clear smoke after an electrical fire.
Other valves routinely open, slightly, for pressure regulation. Over-pressurization can be every bit as bad as a loss of pressurization. Add a bullet sized hole to the fuselage, and those valves will open less frequently, to compensate.
No, the threat is not from explosive decompression.
The threat (to the aircraft as a whole) would be from fuel lines, hydraulic lines, and/or control cables. Or, possibly, from putting bullets into the pilot(s).
That said, I agree with Glenn E. Meyer on this one. It's easier for passengers, crew, and FAMs to handle improvised-weapon armed hijackers, than it would be for them to handle hijackers who have firearms and forged documents.
And ever since 9/11, people who have tried to storm the flight station have been stopped by the passengers.
GoOfY-FoOt
New member
MLeake, in your obviously, professional opinion, have the reinforced cockpit doors, been made strong enough to withstand a prolonged attack by multiple BGs? Have all commercial planes been retrofitted?
I would think that this one feature would be sufficient to thwart an attack long enough to land the plane and/or avert the hijacking by the air marshall(s) and the willing passengers.
Also, is there a system in place, to notify passengers of a similar situation to 9/11, to assist them in making a decision to intervene? Obviously the commuters on the first three planes in 9/11 were caught unaware. It was only the phone calls from the 4th that alerted them to the intentions of the hijackers, resulting in the intervention...
I would think that this one feature would be sufficient to thwart an attack long enough to land the plane and/or avert the hijacking by the air marshall(s) and the willing passengers.
Also, is there a system in place, to notify passengers of a similar situation to 9/11, to assist them in making a decision to intervene? Obviously the commuters on the first three planes in 9/11 were caught unaware. It was only the phone calls from the 4th that alerted them to the intentions of the hijackers, resulting in the intervention...
I really should not (for ethical and legal reasons) go into much detail about security measures. However, I can say the doors have been reinforced against break-ins, and that airlines employ procedures about how and when the door may be opened in flight. It would take multiple errors for any unauthorized person to gain access.
Besides which, passengers have shown a very pro-active attitude. At least one mentally disturbed person has been killed when passengers detained him. Large, strong guy; people sat on him to contain him, and he apparently asphyxiated from their combined weight on his chest.
Note to families of mentally disturbed people: Accompany them, please, and be ready to control them. It amazes me that people allow their loved ones to travel on their own, when they know these loved ones tend to have episodes when under the stresses of air travel; it amazes me even further when they then blame airline and law enforcement personnel for injuries sustained by their loved ones, when they go off the deep end....
Note also that there has not been a successful breach of a US airliner's flight station since 9/11.
Last, when I was flying for an airline, I was quite prepared to use a crash axe on any head that might have managed to force its way in.
Besides which, passengers have shown a very pro-active attitude. At least one mentally disturbed person has been killed when passengers detained him. Large, strong guy; people sat on him to contain him, and he apparently asphyxiated from their combined weight on his chest.
Note to families of mentally disturbed people: Accompany them, please, and be ready to control them. It amazes me that people allow their loved ones to travel on their own, when they know these loved ones tend to have episodes when under the stresses of air travel; it amazes me even further when they then blame airline and law enforcement personnel for injuries sustained by their loved ones, when they go off the deep end....
Note also that there has not been a successful breach of a US airliner's flight station since 9/11.
Last, when I was flying for an airline, I was quite prepared to use a crash axe on any head that might have managed to force its way in.
TSA-FAA; FFDO programs; FAMs, FAA Sky Marshals....
I voted "maybe" for the topic poll but for a real "armed citizen" program to work the training standards or marksmanship requirements would need way more than just 8hrs.
In the time before 9/11/2001, the FAA had a "red team", a special highly trained counter-terrorist unit. They also had limited duty Sky Marshals, sworn federal LE officers who wore regular clothes & packed snub S&W .44spl revolvers. Author & gun press writer Leroy Thompson wrote about how Sky Marshals had to draw & hit targets the size of a human thumb in order to qualify for the FAA program.
Federal Flight Deck Officers are a smart idea too but I've heard the SOPs & rules are a bit far fetched & rigid. This to me is stupid when you consider how most US pilots or crews are military veterans with YEARS of skill training or flying time(with weapons/ammunition).
One real point I could honestly see is to allow or train retired/former sworn LEOs who are already using the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act to carry loaded concealed firearms nationwide. If these men & women meet those standards then they could also be part-time sworn FAMs or use the same FFDO requirements. Free or reduced airfare or other benefits can be given too.
A major problem with any "citizen" type program could be weapons & ammunition. Would all these reserve FAMs use SIG P229R .357sig pistols? Could they carry BUGs(second guns)? What about white-lights or laser aimers?
All of these are valid questions when you want to go beyond bar talk or idle chat about flying armed/FAMs.
I voted "maybe" for the topic poll but for a real "armed citizen" program to work the training standards or marksmanship requirements would need way more than just 8hrs.
In the time before 9/11/2001, the FAA had a "red team", a special highly trained counter-terrorist unit. They also had limited duty Sky Marshals, sworn federal LE officers who wore regular clothes & packed snub S&W .44spl revolvers. Author & gun press writer Leroy Thompson wrote about how Sky Marshals had to draw & hit targets the size of a human thumb in order to qualify for the FAA program.
Federal Flight Deck Officers are a smart idea too but I've heard the SOPs & rules are a bit far fetched & rigid. This to me is stupid when you consider how most US pilots or crews are military veterans with YEARS of skill training or flying time(with weapons/ammunition).
One real point I could honestly see is to allow or train retired/former sworn LEOs who are already using the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act to carry loaded concealed firearms nationwide. If these men & women meet those standards then they could also be part-time sworn FAMs or use the same FFDO requirements. Free or reduced airfare or other benefits can be given too.
A major problem with any "citizen" type program could be weapons & ammunition. Would all these reserve FAMs use SIG P229R .357sig pistols? Could they carry BUGs(second guns)? What about white-lights or laser aimers?
All of these are valid questions when you want to go beyond bar talk or idle chat about flying armed/FAMs.
American Eagle
New member
Bad idea to have passengers armed to the teeth inside a plane. People are already in a bad enough mood when they get into a plane after going through TSA, and then having to sit in a crowded plane, crammed like cattle, with no leg room or personal space. Arming them would be a recipe for disaster.
How long before some idiot shot someone, and a firefight erupts? Would you really want 10-15 people in a firefight inside a narrow space crammed with 200+ passengers? I think not!
How long before some idiot shot someone, and a firefight erupts? Would you really want 10-15 people in a firefight inside a narrow space crammed with 200+ passengers? I think not!
A bullet hole in the fuselage will not cause any sort of explosive decompression. The plane won't drop out of the sky. No one's ears are gonna start bleeding right before they are sucked through a hole the size of a baseball.
The fictionally dramatic consequences of a bullet hole through a plane window is something that has been drilled into our culture so much that even many people that should know better (people that work in the industry, for example), believe it too.
It's not a good idea, but it isn't that big of a deal. At least compared to what many people think would happen. You should be more worried about the fact that any target will likely have at least 3 people behind it. Also, critical mechanics and oil and fuel lines are all over the place. That being said, I would choose the right ammunition (probably something light and fast. Maybe an extremely fast 150 grain lead hp .45 acp) and wouldn't hesitate to shoot if a hijacking situation arose. The stakes are very high in that particular situation, so the risks are justifiable. In my mind the biggest risk is hitting someone that is behind the target, though, and definately not opening a big hole in the fuselage.
You of course have state reciprocity issues. Not to mention this would make it possible for a BG with a (heretofore) clean, fake or stolen identity and CCW permit to "legally" get onto a plane with a firearm (something that is arguably very difficult to do today "illegally").
All things considered, I feel pretty safe on a plane knowing that the cockpit door is secure, that there is a 30% chance that at least one of the flight crew is armed and the idea that any domestic flight is going to have enough like-minded folks on board who are not willing to let another 9/11 occur.
All things considered, I feel pretty safe on a plane knowing that the cockpit door is secure, that there is a 30% chance that at least one of the flight crew is armed and the idea that any domestic flight is going to have enough like-minded folks on board who are not willing to let another 9/11 occur.
"...you risk opening a very large hole in the aircraft..." Nonsense. Aloha Airlines flight 243 continued on and landed safely with the big chunk of fuselage missing.
The assorted airlines would very likely disallow CCW anyway. Wouldn't be any different than any other place of business with their signs.
The assorted airlines would very likely disallow CCW anyway. Wouldn't be any different than any other place of business with their signs.
The difference in pressure inside the plane and outside is *maybe* 10 psi. Probably less than that (it's 10 if the cabin is fully pressured as if at sea level and the airplane is flying at about 30000 ft) Ten psi drop across and opening the size of a bullet is not significant. You could plug it with a sheet of paper.
They use "special rounds" to reduce the risk to other passengers by overpenetration.
The "blood in the streets" argument? Is that the best you've got?
I would probably not wear a gun on an airplane. But it might be nice to be able to take one in my carry-on bag so I don't have to check it. (and if the class met the training requirement for renewing my license and it didn't cost too much, sure why not)
I voted no...after much thought.
A part of me feels that we as citizens should be allowed to exercise our rights to carry on domestic flights. But then I realized that planes are generally super crowded and have little to no cover. I'm not sure I trust myself to hit only a BG in a high stress highjack type situation, let alone somebody I have never met. There is nearly no training I can think of that a "normal" citizen has the time and energy for that could insure 99.9999% accuracy under stress in a crowded environment like that. Just my opinion.
A part of me feels that we as citizens should be allowed to exercise our rights to carry on domestic flights. But then I realized that planes are generally super crowded and have little to no cover. I'm not sure I trust myself to hit only a BG in a high stress highjack type situation, let alone somebody I have never met. There is nearly no training I can think of that a "normal" citizen has the time and energy for that could insure 99.9999% accuracy under stress in a crowded environment like that. Just my opinion.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Right.shortwave said:
How about telling us what percentage of domestic flights within the U.S. actually have air marshals on board.
Hint: It ain't 100 percent. In fact, it ain't even close.
Commercial aircraft aren't pressurized to sea level equivalent. I believe they are pressurized to the equivalent of either 12,000 feet or 15,000 feet.zxcvbob said:
Last edited:
Carry On.
Hello all,
I voted for the last option with the 3-5 year training requirement. I believe that an 8 hour class would cover the VERY MINIMAL BASICS of aircraft safety, and more people would be willing to participate if the training requirement was timed to match their CPL/CCW renewal. Note that I am not advocating minimal training as being good enough, but I don't think many people in America are willing to do the more than minimum anymore and unfortunately if we didn't have enough people involved, the program would disappear anyway.
That being said, I think most people would be happy with the option to simply carry an unloaded firearm and ammo (seperate container) in their carry-on. Furthermore, I think it would have a lot less to do with in-flight security and much more to do with convenience.
I hate flying commercial. I hate it. I hate the security, I hate the lack of profiling (sorry, it is what it is), and I hate going through the TSA-rape just to pay more and more money every time. When I do fly, I prefer to take as little as possible, to lessen the pain associated with the Jack-Booted TSA Nazism that is airline security. I would love the convenience of flying with my gun and still carrying only one bag. Especially since airlines are charging more every day for checked baggage.
Best Regards,
Johnnie T.
Hello all,
I voted for the last option with the 3-5 year training requirement. I believe that an 8 hour class would cover the VERY MINIMAL BASICS of aircraft safety, and more people would be willing to participate if the training requirement was timed to match their CPL/CCW renewal. Note that I am not advocating minimal training as being good enough, but I don't think many people in America are willing to do the more than minimum anymore and unfortunately if we didn't have enough people involved, the program would disappear anyway.
That being said, I think most people would be happy with the option to simply carry an unloaded firearm and ammo (seperate container) in their carry-on. Furthermore, I think it would have a lot less to do with in-flight security and much more to do with convenience.
I hate flying commercial. I hate it. I hate the security, I hate the lack of profiling (sorry, it is what it is), and I hate going through the TSA-rape just to pay more and more money every time. When I do fly, I prefer to take as little as possible, to lessen the pain associated with the Jack-Booted TSA Nazism that is airline security. I would love the convenience of flying with my gun and still carrying only one bag. Especially since airlines are charging more every day for checked baggage.
Best Regards,
Johnnie T.
I had to vote YES also. All the arguments of why not can and are used by antis all the time for every where else.....
the whole airline security nightmare is a big joke to try and keep a massive industry that is losing money in the black......
I realized the silly hypocrisy a couple years back while flying over Canada to Amsterdam... when they gave me a nice sharp metal steak knife along with my meal. Of course the really ironic part was that I already had a nice sharp non metal knife on me. The silly part about not letting passengers on a plane with sharp instruments is that if you think about it there is almost an infinite amount of items on the plane that can be made into a weapon.
the whole airline security nightmare is a big joke to try and keep a massive industry that is losing money in the black......
I realized the silly hypocrisy a couple years back while flying over Canada to Amsterdam... when they gave me a nice sharp metal steak knife along with my meal. Of course the really ironic part was that I already had a nice sharp non metal knife on me. The silly part about not letting passengers on a plane with sharp instruments is that if you think about it there is almost an infinite amount of items on the plane that can be made into a weapon.
JustThisGuy
New member
Absolutely no way, never!
Weapons usage within the confines of a fuselage at 39,000 feet would be an unmitigated disaster for all but those specifically trained in that environment, and who are absolutely bang-on perfect marksmen.
The variables are too many, the possible disruptions to a defense of self/others are profound from terrified or well-meaning passengers who may think that you are also a threat, the chance of your weapon being taken, etc., and the possibility (nay probability) of an innocent passenger(s) being harmed in the effort, the possibility of mass exodus from one side/end of the plane to the other, causing it to become uncontrollable ... all these reasons make it a colossally bad idea.
The idea that anyone could learn the necessary skills in any 8-hour course is completely laughable, were the results not likely to be so tragic.
Any possible reasons for SD on a plane are obviated by the presence of Air Marshalls, who are present on far more planes than you may think.
This is an idea that should go nowhere and now.
Weapons usage within the confines of a fuselage at 39,000 feet would be an unmitigated disaster for all but those specifically trained in that environment, and who are absolutely bang-on perfect marksmen.
The variables are too many, the possible disruptions to a defense of self/others are profound from terrified or well-meaning passengers who may think that you are also a threat, the chance of your weapon being taken, etc., and the possibility (nay probability) of an innocent passenger(s) being harmed in the effort, the possibility of mass exodus from one side/end of the plane to the other, causing it to become uncontrollable ... all these reasons make it a colossally bad idea.
The idea that anyone could learn the necessary skills in any 8-hour course is completely laughable, were the results not likely to be so tragic.
Any possible reasons for SD on a plane are obviated by the presence of Air Marshalls, who are present on far more planes than you may think.
This is an idea that should go nowhere and now.