http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2002Jul10.htmlbt

One queston:What would be the effect of a bullet piercing the skin of an airliner at, say, 35,000 feet?Wouldn't a non-lethal solution be better, like a taser or something? Seems the effect of depressurization in the cockpit would be just as bad as an intruder.Just wondering.Justin

From what I heard a while back they would use special bullets that will be strong enough to pierce a person's body but not the fuselage of the plane. That's what I heard. I guess pilots will also get some special training so that they can avoid shooting something else, only shoot when the hijacker is at close disance or something else to prevent stray bullets.Take careMike

Hi Braun,Too bad we have cowards in the Senate.And the reason guns would work in the cockpit is deterrence, an already proven theory with nuclear weapons, and would work in this case as well, IMHO.Regards,Joe :-wave.Oshkosh Pictures From 2001 (Part 1) 78 Pics in Frames with 1mb in ThumbnailsHigh speed connection Recommended:http://home.attbi.com/~flypics1/FrameSet.htm.Oshkosh Pictures From 2001 (Part 2) 106 Pics in Frames with 1.5mb in ThumbnailsHigh speed connection recommended:http://home.attbi.com/~flypics2/FrameSet.htm.Picture Gallery of My Flight in a 1945 SNJ-6 on June 1st, 2002Joliet, Illinoishttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/FrameSet.htm.http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Yes Joe...I'm not going to mince words here. Folks keep talking about, "...what if a...a mistake could...but, you know..."These are ATP Pilots. Most are ex-military, and regardless they have the demonstrable discipline to master something as simple as putting a bullet in the 10 ring.As I've said before. I don't own guns. I won't own guns. I understand guns exist. Pilots can "handle it" Pilots are handling "weapons of mass destruction" from the point of rotation, until the landing roll. Anyone who says otherwise, in my "opinion", don't have a clue.Cheers,bt

Hi Braun ;) :-beerchug Goodnight Braun :-wave 'nuff said,Regards, ;)

Thanks Greg. Let me restate. I don't mind your (your...the collective everyone) opinion, just if your opinion is a pilot, an ATP pilot, cant handle using a 357 or something to put a bullet in someone to prevent sure catastrophe, well again, in my opinion, that person just don't have a clue.I have a 15 year Air Force background. All AF pilots pack. There were reasons. I know of no military pilot blowing away anyone, anywhere in flight by accident. No one. Someone may correct me if I'm wrong. So...Seems to me that pilots should pack as the "last line of defense" Stow it in cockpit. Guards place it in plane first of day, guard it on ground when aircraft is parked/loading. End of day, they take custody of weapon. Period. Simple.Guns in cockpits, 9/11. Guns in cockpits, 9/11. Hindsight is 20/20. History repeats itself too.Best,bt

Great. Just what we need, a bunch of drunk pilots with guns. Secure doors prevent access to the cockpit. If there's an incident, the pilots need to concentrate on landing, not shooting.As for the "cowards" in the Senate comment...well, I have other opinions.

Braun,That was a bit harsh...Regards,

I think this is getting just a tad out of hand. I understand that pilots feel the need for safety, but there are ways around it. Somehow I never have felt unsafe on an airliner, never will, and if anything shakse my confidence in the system, its this new allowance of firearms in the cockpit. Scott

What ??? They have nuclear weapons in the cockpit ??? :-newburn The nuclear weapons theory is rather flawed - otherwise why is the world slightly worried about India v Pakistan (and I am not talking about the cricket) also why is anyone worried about Iraq getting nukes ???Deterents are only going to work with people who care - the loonies do not pay any attention.

"if your opinion is a pilot, an ATP pilot, cant handle using a 357 or something to put a bullet in someone to prevent sure catastrophe, well again, in my opinion, that person just don't have a clue."That was what I said Greg, not just the "snippit" you quoted. Fair is fair. If a person is oppossed to guns in cockpits, speak out with real opposition. Give factual evidence as to why they should not carry. Just don't say they are not capable, untrained, etc. In my view, that simply don't wash.Cheers,bt

HI Braun,I don't think it's a matter of an ATP not being capable of handling a firearm. I'm sure they would be properly trained, etc.But IMO a cockpit intrusion scenario has "struggle" built into it. Two people struggling over a firearm, an errant bullet is nearly inevitable. The potential for catastrophic decompression is high. A punctured windshield at 600 kts is not going to increase any safety margins.There is no doubt some means of crew defense is a good thing. I'm just not sure a handgun in the cockpit is the best means. A taser to paralyze an intruder and good strong rope and handcuffs would seem to me to be a much better solution. Or something along those lines.Justin

Valid concerns Justin, but my understanding is the bullets are "special", designed just for A/C. It is obvious that this is a topic that is not "black and white", and that most folks have strong feelings.Greg (soarpics) sorry I made my comments attached to your post. It implies that I disagreed in someway with you. Nothing could be further from the truth, as we were just sharing a virtual beer!Best to all,bt

Lets look at this concept:You have improved security to prevent guns getting onto planes. Good!You have improved security by making the cockpit doors stronger. Good!Now, you throw it all out by putting a gun back on the plane coupled with the pilot having to open the strong door to use it. Huh???People see this as a logical thing???