A discussion Peripheral to RoboLander      

GUNS GUNS GUNS

L
Duane Woerth's ALPA statement to Congress on gun-carrying (and deputising and stun-guns) is attached.

I personally think that "guns for pilots" would be a major deterrent to passengers. They would be imagining the pilot's guns (or stun-guns) getting in the hands of the fanatical hijacker squads and that being "all she wrote". The pilots would always be at a major disadvantage in any surprise attack. Unfortunately it will always be the hijackers who can pretend to be air-ragers or ill and will always have the initiative.

Passenger confidence will remain at a sub-zero level whilst they:
a. personally retain those horrific memories of the images of the WTC strikes
b. perceive these knee-jerk reaction measures as being exactly that (and must continue to assume that unarmed fanatically suicidal hijackers may still be able to at least cause the loss of an aircraft with all on board). Passengers will be seeing everyone as a potential hijacker - and the same goes for pilots (will they be trigger-happy?). Will the Sky Marshals be trigger-happy? How many Sky Marshals will be mistaken by passengers to be hijackers and lead to pitched battles on board? How many SkyMarshals will be shot by pilots assuming the worst?
c. the bums on seats that will now disappear are the ones that previously made the airline industry profitable. Whilst the war against terrorism is waged over the next five years or so people will simply see the sky as a battleground and avoid voluntary air-travel like the plague. The terrorists have already identified having at least one or two more attempted hijackings as being necessary to retain that state of terror - so you can be assured that despite all precautions, just as you think things have died down, there will be another brace of incidents. Why should they do that in the face of almost certain failure? Because that's what terrorists do.

We are now in a whole new era and eventually the industry will start to see some logic behind the RoboLander Concept. Unfortunately they presently see it as flight-control being wrested from the pilot and unable to be returned (if it were, for example, to turn out to be an air-rage incident (or paranoid schizophrenic) and the situation being then brought under control by sheer muscle). So in reality, at that point the captain could assure ATC that this was the case, passenger was in restraints and then regain autonomous control by inserting his personal ROBO squawk code. The Ground station would then simply "release" the aircraft. However by the same token if it was a suicidal hijacking attempt, then he would not (because the only other option would be the Flight 93 solution - a smoking hole somewhere).

If you read this Professional Pilot's Closed Forum email below, you will see the sort of fear and ignorance that now abounds about RoboLander - simply because they haven't thought it through and/or because there is a fear of relinquishing control (even out of sheer necessity).

Subject: [xxxxxxxx] Re: Delegation of Separation Assurance The idea of a transition from ground based air traffic control to  cockpit-centric air traffic management is the basis on which a  distributed transportation system serving smaller, more rural  airports, at least in the U.S. is predicated. The idea that  automation on the aircraft, enabled by ADS-B, data link, and GPS can  permit sharing of positional and intent information, and then support  onboard identification and mitigation of conflict is high on the  list of candidate research to expand NAS capacity and efficiency. In light of recent suggestions (that some ground based intervention  is possible to prevent successful hijacking by locking out flight  deck controls and, in such situations, relying on autoflight or  remote piloting) the idea that aircraft centric air traffic  management is impossible or unlikely, pales. The real risk, for  those of us from whose dead hands the future will have to wrestle the  yoke (and round dials) is the realization that in the automated  flight deck (possible today) of the future there will be little or no  need for human intervention (read that as "no pilot" and/or no  "controller" either!) as we understand it today. Clearly as pilots we will all want to rally against such foolish  incantations about, and against a transportation system so enabled!!!

Good views however you can be sure of a couple of uncertainties related to their next attempt (and there surely will be one - as previously given an explanation for)

a. It will be a fresh approach (possibly involving martial arts types). It may well be that they will sacrifice a real terrorist that will never be able to be tied into any terrorist group - simply to provoke shock/horror that an innocent member of the public was killed by a gun-happy Sky Marshal)

b. It may be a gassing (in a simple and innocent looking aerosol can carried as a can of foaming shaving cream)

c. It may be a fire lit in a toilet that lures the pilot aft

d. They may take out a window and use an explosive decompression in order to create panic and take control. They may then be simply content to kill all the passengers - even if they cannot get into the cockpit. Five unarmed terrorists with martial arts skills can create a lot of mayhem when their only opposition is maybe one SkyMarshal and a herd of easily cowed passengers.

Don't want to be too maudlin about this but you have to think in terms of the fact that suicide terrorists present a whole new ball-game.

1.   They will need at least one follow-on attack so as to "maintain the terror" (even if it's only an aircraft that is downed). I would suspect that it will be an international long-haul aircraft inbound to the US with a significant number of villains on board.
2.   You cannot be assured of identifying them in airport security checks. Even if arms aren't secreted on board, martial arts exponents don't really need any. Armed pilots cannot be assured of coping with any number greater than two - even if they were to open the cockpit doors. Once they do, and the pilots are armed,  then you really do need RoboLander.

I personally see Duane Woerth's endorsement of arms qualification and deputising of pilots as an indication of how suddenly desperate things have become - and how short of ideas they all are..
It's demonstrably the cost of not taking care of business - and of living in a fool's paradise. Fanatics are more than just whirling dervishes. They are highly motivated men with an assured place in paradise. There is no survival instinct involved.

IASA Safety

Debate
Subject: Armed Pilots?/A
Question: Should pilots be armed?

· Pilots would not need to carry weapons if they were satisfied with the security of our airports. Accordingly it is my view that the recent call for pilots to be armed is symptomatic of a consensus that the security measures in place are inadequate as demonstrated by the ease with which the terrorists were able to commandeer four aircrafts on September 11. 
· In essence, there is a two-tier security system in operation - one applies to international travel and the other to national travel. Why are the security measures in place for international travel far higher than those that apply to international travel? We need to look at the entirety of the problem in order to prevent another September 11 tragedy - not just arming the pilots. 
· First, we need to disarm the terrorist before we arm the pilot through the use of effective, thorough and consistent security procedures. This goes beyond checks to search passengers and should include all airport and aircraft personnel. As the GAO have shown, security at America's airports is anything but effective. 
· Second, we need to protect the cock-pit crew and passengers from a terrorist onslaught through the use of counter-measures such as proposed by John including reinforcement of the cock-pit area. Sadly, as was demonstrated in the September 11 tragedy - members of the cabin crew were used as a device to lure the pilots from the cockpit and that surely is always a factor in favour of the terrorist regardless of any reinforcements to the cockpit. 
· Whilst I can appreciate the pilots call for carrying arms (and in principle I see no reason against) I believe that the underlying problem is one of airport security. I am not familiar with the particular on-board ramifications of a pilot carrying a firearm (such as compromising the hull) although someone asked me recently "Why can't they carry tranquilliser guns?". To me this would only serve to address an isolated part of the whole equation and should be a last resort measure once all other possibilities have been exhausted. 
· Effective security should, as I said above, disarm the terrorist. I watched a TV programme here the other night when an American traveller was arrested at Heathrow for carrying firearms into the UK. He was just a tourist, however, how was he allowed on to the plane in the first place?
Hope it is clear!

A

Pros:

Pilots want it.

Provides extra protection.

Cons:

They must be trained for fire arms usage and this training will probably need to include periodical testing.

It can possibly be used against them.

If the cockpit door is secured, WHEN, would it be utilized?

Could cause damage to the fuselage ( I know there are ways around that)

Debate
Subject: Guns and Pilots

From what I am reading, in essence what you are saying is (and I take into account your response to my input):

 

• Airport Security is a factor, however, no security measure could identify a terrorist armed with martial arts skills - I think we all accept that.
• In terms of the aircraft we all agree that some modifications need to be made to reinforce the cockpit and protect the pilot.
• Other mechanisms under discussion include RoboLander and "gas".

On guns where are we though?

 

For me, having read your collective views, desperate times require desperate measures and as loathe as I am to admit it - in the absence of some real improvements in airport and aircraft security - I say regrettably "YES, pilots should be armed". However, I would want to see safeguards in place such as a strict training regime. In an ideal world, I would like to see our resources directed to airports, aircraft and Sky Marshals. None of these measures will mean that there will not be another hijacking but the odds would be reduced.

 

Come all ye faithful now and cry "YES" or "NO" - your vote counts....

 

 

Your position is stun guns? Need to get a vote here.

 

I HATE guns, and everything they represent, but that's because I have personal issues with them. I'm relying on you guys to deliver some objective type comments, because I know I can't be all that objective on this one.

 

I'd opt for ANY other solution, but at the end of the day I'd want the pilots to be armed with some REAL means of subduing anyone that decides he/she'd like to take an a/c for any kinda ride. I'd also suggest some form of disabling/paralysing agent/"medication" that could be easily administered (hypo?, spray? tranquilizer gun?). First order of business, to me, would be to reinforce the cockpit door as realistically as possible. When the pilot realizes what might be happening? He would (at the very least) have some necessary time to 'arm' himself with whatever viable means.

 

That's my wish list... because like I said? I HATE GUNS! (but if all else were to fail? I'd say "go for it")..

Subject: Re: Armed Pilots?/A

I think we have to accept that no measures are terrorist-proof, however, what we can do is try to swing the odds more in our favour? You make an excellent point that no security measures will stop a suicidal Martial Arts freak from overpowering an aircraft and it is for that reason that our starting is: "We know another aeroplane will be hijacked, however, what can we do to make that possibility more remote?".

 

I am for ALL and ANY measures that make that possibility more remote. As you said in an earlier message a "layered" approach is called for here. One point I think I have forgotten is that the terrorists were armed by all accounts with four inch blades although Federal investigators found box-cutter knives on at least two other aircraft searched on September 11 (I assume they were left there by other would-be terrorists, innocently or by an insider?).

 

Now this causes me a dilemma. Was the method by which the planes were hijacked one that would have avoided even the most stringent of airport security? As you point out the fanatical suicide terrorist can employ the most simple of means because evasion is not an option about which they are concerned. So unless they have a known association (namely they are a "suspect") we need to employ means to hinder his mission while he is aboard an aircraft, right?

 

So - options on the table so far are:

 

• RoboLander
• Cockpit reinforcement
• Sky Marshals
• Arming of Pilot
• "Gas"

Can you clarify/support the "gas" proposal for me? I do believe I have directed my focus too much on the airport security issue...

A

Gassing could include a Sarin gassing of all aboard (including the terrorist individual). That would be an effective terror event -in fact a very effective one that would only require a simple aerosol bomb (shaving cream can- but as small as a cigarette lighter). There's a wide choice of neuro-toxins that could incapacitate the pilots and cause an accident - simply due to the recirculation of cabin and cockpit air. Some of these simply come as a liquid, turn to an aerosol once exposed to the air and could be carried internally in a non-metallic small glass frangible ampoule. The possibilities are endless. The range of neuro-toxins beyond simple anthrax is kind-boggling. The Soviets developed a wide range of cocktails and the Iraqi's (for instance) are well versed in their use.

 

Sorry, but you did ask the question. The suicide aspect opens up a whole vista of possibilities for terrorists enroute to Valhalla.

 

IASA Safety

Debate
Subject: 

Thanks for clarifying.

 

After I sent my below message I was musing over this situation again... Shouldn't the airlines too provide on-board professional security in addition/complimentary/instead of a single Sky Marshal?

 

 

A

Stun guns (only) for pilots (self defence and last resort only). Guns in the hands of pilots would not be as effective as guns wielded by trained sharp-shooter marshals. But what happens to the first SkyMarshal who mistakenly shoots a victim having an apoplectic fit? The guy who nearly brought down a BA 747 last year was found innocent of air-rage because he was simply having a fit.

Weapons of choice for Sky Marshals. But shotguns are out.

Because pilots may not know who the sky marshals are on board, gun-carrying for pilots is too fraught. You cannot have pilots responsible for both flying and security. But this brings up another point. Pilots should be shown a photo of the Sky Marshal (in ops) before they board  IMHO. They do need to know who the good guy is (if any).

 

Since you mentioned gas, I will say that that can be a two edged sword. Fanatics could use it (lethally) but there would be a hue and cry about cabins being armed with a fast-acting anaesthesia (as a pilot's weapon of last resort). It would be my preference. It's a very similar approach to simply taking the power off the wire when you get that dark brown smell.

 

But no, no guns for pilots. There'd be as many pax reassured by it as would be deterred by it. There are better solutions. This is a shoot from the hip solution that might just backfire.

 

IASA Safety

This technique is the PATNT (Pilot Anti-terrorist Neutralization Technique.)

Here's what a senior B777 pilot with lots of experience suggested: use not negative G but positive G. Yank back on the yoke and force 'em down on the floor, then roll the airplane and, if necessary, put 'em on the ceiling.
His argument is that at typical cruise speeds, there aren't many knots IAS separating cruise speed from max maneuvering speed (Mmo if I recall). He said if you push the nose down, the B777 will go from .84 to .87 Mach "quicker than snot." Especially if the engine power is not throttled back. Push over, don't reduce thrust, and how many seconds does it take to get an overspeed warning, he asks. How quick do you hit Mmo or max dive speed (Md)?
He has a nice expression for negative G I think will appeal to your colorful gif"t of gab: "Your asshole and your eyes want to swap places."
Anyway, pushing into a negative G dive gets a real fast speed buildup and you could eat up 10,000-15.000 ft. of altitude in recovering. Further, he adds, negative G's could push a terrorist forward, towards the cockpit door, or if he's in the cockpit already, forward into the center console and instrument panel. Snapping some positive G will tend to push the intruder back, not forward.
His suggestion: pull up, put 'em on the floor, then roll the airplane. I asked, what about stall? Yep, you might get some buffet, he said.
So we have two opposite concepts: unload, or add load (g).

Arming pilots with pistols raises a policy issue right off the bat: will they have a round in the chamber or not? Absent sturdy doors, pilots may have to be able to react quickly. Without a round in the chamber, they could be caught fumbling to pull back and release the slide. If a pistol, they'd have to draw and pull back the hammer to rotate the cylinder to one with a bullet in it.
I think the idea of pilots with pistols is a fundamentally horrible idea. As a minimum, we'll have more accidental discharges in the cockpit than foiled hijackings. <<< I agree. It displays a siege mentality. For the expenditure of a squad of mainly untrained men the terrorists have achieved more than any other other General in history has; by any other lengthy or costly campaign that I can think of. The very nature of a terror campaign is that it is meant to foster greater terror by seeding uncertainty and demonstrating how powerless governments are in defeating their ability to strike where and when they will. But if the Administration isn't waiting for the other shoe to drop, then they should be. History tells us that any effective terror campaign will always have that clincher follow-through that is intended to embed terror that much more deeply within the present generations. By doing so the terrorists will convince nations all over the world that even an outraged government on the defensive (or ostensibly their offensive) cannot protect people from their predations. I would expect that the next one will have a real twist in the tale - and perhaps be even more self-sacrificial. (sarin or nerve gas attack for instance). Thus far we have seen a meltdown in global markets, a virtual dissolution of the airline industry. Aircraft manufacturers (and their subsidiaries) are facing a downturn beyond their wildest nightmares. The bunker mentality has hit even here, with companies taking a worst case outlook on everything, laying off their workforces in great numbers (particularly the tourism industry). The whole military industrial complex will now have to re-orientate to a war or siege footing and fight for government contracts.

I am seeing some very emotive antithetical reactions to the RoboLander concept inasmuch as the failings of security have been overall blamed upon an over-reliance upon technology for intelligence, surveillance and inspection. The NSA is now pointing out how much their tech edge has been eroded by technology and the staunch defenders of civil liberties at any cost. I doubt that there will be much real opposition to any extension of the FBI's Carnivore capabilities. The very human reaction is now to make up for perceived helplessness by going for physical intervention based upon the very reasonable assumption that no security system can screen a non-weapon carrying "sleeper" who has "no priors" with Justice, the INS or FBI. So it's now to be Guns, Sky Marshalls and sturdier doors. These are all gut reactions but predictable. I had one of the sub-editors of the Chicago Tribune onto me very early this morning wanting to know why the Sky Marshal Program was originally run down. I had read a little on its origins - but its fate was necessarily much more obscure. So I told him that, like with all security measures, the demise of the program to a token presence was all "in camera" stuff - but that he couldn't really go wrong if he went with:

"Sky Marshalls were abandoned as a cost-cutting measure and justified because of an abatement of the perceived threat. So it's all about perceptions and the competitive cost-cutting that accompanied deregulation of US airlines 22 years ago. Deregulation simply means that "Whatever you feel you need to do and can justify as being sound business practise, you may do it, but tread cautiously - because the penalties for getting it wrong are severe."

The inference is of course that as long as airlines remain responsible for their own security it is another area where they could cut costs, and always will when the threat is no longer evident - as long as the ATA endorses and the regulator abides (or turns a blind eye). And I would guess that the FBi weren't even consulted. But I think that after the first shots are fired airborne, accidental or intentional, whatever the outcome, those "bums on seats" that constitute the difference between profit and loss will fade ever further into that "fear of flying" background. All the up-beat talk about "airline safety never being better" has gone into the trash-bin of history. Aviation safety and security are now indivisibly inseparable. >>>

Need to ask Airbus about stun guns (TASERS) and their potential impact ON their FBW aircraft.

I've asked (but not yet gotten an answer from) an electrical engineer who first raised with me the question of the dubious practise (for weight-saving) of using the fuselage as an earth return medium in airliner electrics. In my view it's likely a given that the low-amp high-voltage TASER stun gun would be quite disruptive to sensitive electronics if they were to come in contact with the fuselage skin or any other (which means all) bonded component. Given that 100% bonding is always required in airframe metallic structures, it's hard to predict any definite effect on a particular system - but I would guess that a post-TASER FBW Airbus would be a markedly different proposition to a pre-TASERed one - and the variations wouldn't be along the lines that any of the Airbus systems designers had in mind. Prof Elaine Scarry could have a field day postulating with the EMI and EMP of that proposition.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that you would trip flight-control computers and fry CPU's. LED's (light emitting diodes), LCD's (Liquid Crystal Displays) would be lost permanently so that the actual status of systems would be indeterminate. Pilot's VDU's would probably be lost and basically the "glass" of a glass cockpit would become a dark and empty vessel. Solenoids and relays, being not as sensitive to voltage, would likely continue to do their duty. So you might well end up with a perfectly running vehicle, status unknown due to screen and indicator outages - but with no flight control anyway. That's just my best guess and you'd certainly need that opinion verified by someone who knew what they were talking about.

Some lightning strikes can affect the innards of the pressure vessel despite the bonding and Faraday cage - particularly if channelised by poorly bonded antennas (as per recent incidents where Omega antennae were removed, but their wiring then not properly terminated).

But cooking off with a TASER may have even more deleterious effects than punching holes with lead bullets (or frangible ones for that matter).

Update: 04 Oct 01: Airbus Europe and USA have been asked about stun gun usage by a number of individuals and were initially coy. They then became latterly very defensive - culminating in claims that it was a "security" issue. So you can take it that stun guns (TASERS) are not an option in FBW aircraft at the very least. It may prove to be a more general concern however.

Gas Masks

-Advertisement-

News Home | Today's News | Yesterday's News

(CNSNews.com) - A 20 year old Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) allowing flight crews to be armed for self-defense may offer little protection because some pilots aren't aware of their rights, and most, if not all, airlines prohibit the practice.

FAR 108.11 currently allows flight crews to be armed, "if the person having the weapon is...authorized to have the weapon by the (airline) and the Administrator (of the FAA) and has successfully completed a course of training in the use of firearms acceptable to the Administrator."

However, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is currently on track to repeal the regulation in less than two months.

New rules set to take effect November 14 state that "crew members will no longer be allowed to carry arms," according to an internal memo cited by FAA spokesman Paul Takemoto.

Takemoto stressed, "everything is under review" as a result of the September 11 hijackings of four aircraft, three of which were used to attack New York and Washington, D.C.

Capt. John Cox, executive air safety chairman for the Air Line Pilots Association, which represents 66,000 pilots at 47 airlines in the U.S. and Canada, said he's never heard of the regulation allowing pilots to arm themselves.

"I have been an airline pilot for 22 years, and I have been flying airplanes for 32 years," Cox said, "This is the first time I have been made aware of FAR 108.11."

Cox said he knows of no commercial airline that has utilized the regulation.

"I have not seen anybody carrying firearms. I've certainly never been through any training at the airline that I work for," Cox said. "It may have been one of those little known federal regulations. It has not been one practically in use."

Legislation introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) last Friday would prevent the federal government from prohibiting aircrews from arming themselves, effectively eliminating the FAA's role in the issue and pre-empting the planned November repeal of the regulation.

House Resolution 2896 would ensure that, "no department or agency of the Federal Government shall prohibit any pilot, copilot, or navigator of an aircraft, or any law enforcement personnel specifically detailed for the protection of that aircraft, from carrying a firearm," according to the legislation.

If that legislation passes, the decision on whether flight crews could be armed would be left solely to the airlines.

"We have never allowed pilots to carry firearms on board," said Jenna Ludgate, spokeswoman for United Airlines. "Pilots are first and foremost pilots and in any emergency situation, they need to by flying the plane."

But United co-pilot Aaron Benedetti, who has received specialized firearms training for pilots from the Front Sight Firearms Training Institute in Las Vegas, Nevada disagrees with his employer's policy.

"I fully support arming pilots and co-pilots," he said, adding that, if the airline allowed its pilots to carry side arms, "United could once again claim they fly the friendly skies." Benedetti had hoped his employer would be the first airline to arm its cockpit crews following the terrorist attacks.

Asked whether United's policy might change if Paul's legislation passes, Ludgate said "We wouldn't allow it because our pilots need to be flying the plane."

Like Benedetti, Dr. Ignatius Piazza, founder of Front Sight, sees it differently.

"If there is a situation where someone is trying to defeat the cockpit door, you have a pilot who is focused on flying the plane, and landing it as soon as possible," he said. "And you have a co-pilot whose responsibility is to protect that door. And he has a gun to do it."

Neither American nor Delta Airlines would comment on their policies regarding armed crews.

A spokesman for Delta explained that it is the company's policy not to discuss security issues, and the American Airlines spokesman said, "I'm not gonna even go down that road."

But Capt. Paul Nelson, an American Airlines pilot and a reserve duty police officer, thinks his employer is missing an opportunity "to turn this tragedy into triumph and make our domestic skies the safest in the world."

Southwest Airlines pilot, Capt. Mark Donovan, hopes his employer won't follow United's lead.

"What could be better service than to insure our passengers' safety with an armed and trained pilot?" said Donovan.

Capt. Dennis Vied, who retired after 28 years with TWA, said he is "disgusted" with both the FAA and the airlines for not allowing pilots to defend themselves or their passengers.

"I believe it's prudent for pilots to be armed for the safety of themselves and their passengers," Vied said. "Hijackers must know they will face armed opposition."

Cox cautiously accepted the idea of armed cockpit crews, but with a caveat. "It would depend on the training course. If the level of training we put forward for pilots is the same exact standard as is in place today for federal law enforcement officers, I'm not gonna feel particularly bad about it," he said. "Anything short of that, I would be much more skeptical about.

While Paul's legislation would stop the FAA from disarming flight crews, a spokesman said the Texas congressman "would not be comfortable" introducing legislation requiring airlines to let their aviators carry firearms.

Vied hopes public opinion will cause members of Congress to support Paul's bill, and compel airlines to rethink their policies.

"Let your representatives know that pilots need this capability," said Vied. "Make them aware that we will no longer willingly be victims."

Return to the Security Menu

Stories from CNSNews.com are Copyright © 2000 by the Cybercast News Service.