If law permitted CCW on Airlines with a 8 hour training course would you do it?

[GoOfY-FoOt]

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...

[MLeake]

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.

[ClydeFrog]

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.

[MLeake]

FFDOs have H&K USP compact .40 LEM pistols, not SIGs.

[American Eagle]

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!

[Taptap]

I voted yes but only if training happens often. Think about it, you are in a pressurized environment. If you draw a gun and shoot at Mr. Terrorist and miss, you risk opening a very large hole in the aircraft, or hitting another passenger.

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.

[mrvco]

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.

[T. O'Heir]

"...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.

[zxcvbob]

The last thing I want to happen on a flight is for the cabin to depressurize and the plane crash into the ground. If I'm gonna die on a plane because of terrorists I want to die fighting, not screaming as my plane hurtles to the ground.

There's a reason marshals use special rounds

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.

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!

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)

[mj246]

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by shortwave

Would seem to me , in that enviroment, air marshals and undercover professionals are the way to go.

Right.

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.

Originally Posted by zxcvbob

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.

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.

[38splfan]

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.

[blume357]

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.

[JustThisGuy]

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.

[Macantic]

Heck Yeah!! Being a very responsible CCW holder,i would in a minute,and as far as being groped by the TSA,at my age i could use a little groping.

[BGutzman]

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!

No offense but I think you might be watching a little too much drama tv... Firefights breaking out just because you have several lawfully armed people in an area and having a bad day.... lol So what keeps the police from all going John Wayne at the police station when they have a bad day?

I cant speak for anyone else but when I get really bad customer service I speak to a manager and take my business elsewhere the next time. If I felt the TSA was going to put me in some sort of crazy murderous mood I would seek professional help along with not flying on airlines anymore.....

I carry a CCW weapon every day and have been chased at by over aggressive bankers and sales people of every kind from mildly offensive to you wonder why they haven’t been arrested for disturbing the peace. In fact I have a neighbor who felt sitting on a couch with wheels in the driveway and drinking beer in the driveway while insulting neighbors and revving motorcycle engines at 2 AM for the sole purpose of being rude was the way to go.... All this and yet I never presented my weapon nor found the need to resort to some form of violence or threat of violence.

Having arms on your person doesnt make your location some fantasy wild west, which in reality wasnt nearly as wild as most people would think.

[zxcvbob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by zxcvbob
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.

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.

I know they aren't fully pressurized (just didn't know what they were pressurized to), sea level is just a worst case. If it's 12000 to 15000, the pressure difference drop to about 5 psi.

[l98ster]

I kind of take a different view to carrying on a plane. I dont look at it as a self defense issue. I would look at it as a convienience issue.

If I was able to carry on the plane, going to a destination where I caould also carry, it would make life easier.

You would not have to check the gun and waste time with a bunch of TSA agents who dont know the procedures (its happened to me twice) and would not have to worry about it along the way.

Now, they just have to make the seats a little bigger....

-George

[BGutzman]

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.

This is offered as an intellectual exercise in consideration of the Right to Bear Arms and nothing more, at all times we must obey the law.

The basic layout of all commercial transportation aircraft is much the same. You have aisles and seats with the seats generally in movement constricting rows.

In order for any crazy terrorist to take over the craft they would almost certainly have to move to an aisle where generally there is little traffic outside of flight attendants once a flight has begun. In many ways it resembles the same kind of physical layout you get at a shooting range.

So in a general sense the argument that too many people would be in the way doesn’t hold water with me because the first thing all terrorist do is try to control the passengers and certainly they would seek to stop movement of passengers and crew and force people to sit down. It would be at this point a lawful citizen in CCW mode would have the advantage of surprise as every seat cannot be watched in great detail and you basically have a firing lane with the upper chest and head of the BG above the level of the seated passengers and you have a generally limited range that will probably help all except the poorest of marksman hit the BG. The movements of the BG him or herself limited by the floor layout of the craft confining the space itself.

As far as passengers running from one side of the aircraft to the others in the limited time of a brief encounter... doubtful in my opinion as most aircraft I have been on nowadays are insistent that you stay seat belted in except when moving to or from the restroom. Even if all the passengers were unbelted in it seems very unlikely that they could all run from one side to the other as the very nature of the seating and the presence of passengers balancing the aircraft sitting on the other side would act as a bock to any sort of rapid mass passenger movement as we have all seen when we go to de-board a plane.

I have seen legal opinions that say that banning of a right in one place and saying that it is constitutionally acceptable because you can go somewhere else and exercise your right outside of that area is actually not acceptable and has been ruled against. (Chicago cases) could not the confines of an aircraft be considered the same?

[bikerbill]

I'm not sure I'd get anything in exchange for my 8 hrs and costs, since I hate flying and get on a plane maybe once a year, if I'm unlucky ... However ... I think it's a great idea, as long as those carrying are sufficiently vetted to be sure they won't cause problems .. hijacking is always a concern, but such incidents have declined dramatically over the years and I'd hate to see some drunk get plugged by an overzealous carrying passenger just because he was being obnoxious ...

[Aiko]

I just flew back from vacation last night which included a 6 hour delay @ our connection point. Between traveler frustration, potential alcohol use and stress....not sure adding guns would be a great idea. More the other folks I would be worried about.

[C0untZer0]

Yes I am afraid I would have to, because I know that there would be nut-jobs on the plane carrying also - like the jackass who carried OC and hung out in front of an Atlanta 7-Eleven, holding the door open for people and then picking fights with them when they didn't say thank-you, and the jackass on YouTube who walked up on an officer's traffic stop carrying a gun and a video camera cuz he felt he was charged with "keeping everything honest".

Before I did that though I think I would make myself a mock airplane seat and see exactly how it's even possible to get comfortable in one of those things while also carrying a pistol. I have enough trouble with my wallet causing me discomfort during a flight let alone a firearm.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

About the hope that there would be large numbers of folks carrying to have a shootout at the JetBlue corral.

That doesn't seem to be the case with what we know about carrying in general and the number of folks with concealed carry licenses.

I'd rather have a H2H that a large gun fight.

Now, let's say one of the BGs also announces that he has an underwear bomb with a deadman's switch. Gonna shoot him? Puts the gun to a kid's head. 8 hours enough to make that shot from down the aisle with folks screaming, standing, etc.

I'm no warrior but I've been 'shot' a few times in FOF melees when I was just an innocent. Had my hands straight up in the air and an officer shot me. This was a trained guy.

Planes are a special circumstance as I said before so that is not a pure RKBA issue.

It's like arguing you can carry your 1911 in the MRI because you believe in the 2nd Amend. Even though the magnetic field can drag you in and cause the gun to shoot you on it's own.

[MLeake]

Ok, more on pressurization, since we are having some, er, interesting numbers bandied about.

Per FARs, any flight above 12,500' must have supplemental oxygen, because that's the nominal pressure altitude where the partial pressure of oxygen is low enough to start causing hypoxia in the average person. So, no, passenger aircraft are NOT pressurized to 12,000 - 15,000'. If they were, infants and little old ladies would start turning blue (literally, it's called cyanosis, and is usually first noticed in the lips and the fingernail beds).

Airliners usually have a cabin altitude caution light and horn that will come on in the flight station, if cabin altitude reaches 10,000' plus or minus 500'. (So, if the cabin altitude reaches 9,500 in most cases, we get an alert, because this is not normal.)

If cabin altitude does go above 10,000', and cannot be brought back down; and if that condition is going to last for a while (EG, can't descend due to mountainous terrain, or due to being way out over the ocean and there won't be enough fuel if we descend too soon) then supplemental oxygen masks get dropped.

We normally pressurize aircraft depending on several factors. Initially, we set an altitude at least 500' above takeoff field elevation, because we don't want the aircraft pressurized on deck. (Weight on wheels switches provide backup, but we like redundancy.) Reason for this: If we need to do an emergency evacuation, and the aircraft is pressurized, we can't get out. One plane I used to fly had a warning: at just 1" PSI differential, there was 1500lbs of force holding the main cabin door closed.

In the climb, we will set cabin altitude based on two factors: 1) An altitude that will keep PSI differential within limits (on the plane I currently fly, that's 6.6PSID), or 500' above destination elevation, whichever is higher.

With my current aircraft, at 25,000', we can maintain 5,000 cabin altitude while staying within 6.6 PSID. But if I were flying into an airport in the Rockies, at 8,000' elevation, I'd program 8,500' cabin altitude.

[BGutzman]

Now, let's say one of the BGs also announces that he has an underwear bomb with a deadman's switch. Gonna shoot him? Puts the gun to a kid's head. 8 hours enough to make that shot from down the aisle with folks screaming, standing, etc.

Good point, who would ever have though that such things would ever be real?