Airline Piliots - inside scoop - good news!

[G.C.Montgomery]

...The FAM (Federal Air Marshall's)and I assume the pilots carry some kind of "special" load in their weapons...

This is a myth! I won't reveal the exact load but let just say it is a commercially available jacketed hollowpoint load that any of us could buy. The guns used by the FAM's are Sig 229's in .357Sig. The FDO guys were carrying Glock 23's at one point but the last I heard, they'd been moved to .40cal, HK USP's for a while but I think that has changed again since the last time I talked to an FDO program participant.

There is no major concern about piercing the aircraft's skin. The worst that will happen is a loss of cabin pressure via a 9mm or .40 cal hole. The loss of cabin pressure, by itself, has no affect on the ability of the pilots to control the aircraft. Oxygen masks are deployed the moment there is a sudden drop in pressue. Even then, one the aircraft is below 10,000ft, hypoxia is far less of a problem. It certainly is possible for a bullet to cut a control line, hose or puncture a fuel tank but even then, there are two, three and four redundant systems for everything on the average airliner today. So it's unlikely a single stray 9mm bullet will bring down the aircraft.

Having said all that, I'm not ready to say that CHL alone should qualify anyone a person to carry on board an aircraft. Even as a CHL instructor and supporter of the program, I don't believe that having a CHL automatically qualifies you to carry a gun. To me, getting the card is just the beginning. Any idiot can pull a trigger. It takes a professional gunman to exercise to effectively fight with a gun in close quarters without excessively endangering non-combatants.

In this regard, few people in law enforcment qualify. Even fewer civilians qualify. Disagree all you like. It's my firm opinion. Were it left up to me, I'd require a great deal more training for CHL and the accuracy standards would be WAY higher than they are now. I'd like to see higher standards for LE too.

What convinced me that the CHL proficiency was too easy was watching a blind man score 235 on the current shooting proficiency test. Not legally blind...I'm talking Ray Charles/Stevie Wonder blind. All the man had to do was establish a natural point of aim, level his arms and press the trigger. Makes you wonder why we pay an extra $100 for those funny little pieces of metal on top of the gun.

[stevie_d_64]

Bottom-line, the idea of allowing the public to fly armed is absurd. Not to mention the laws one would break after flying from say DFW to Chicago, or DC, or any other anti-gun region of the country that does not support right to carry. Logistically this is absurd and logically it's absurd. But has with most of my opinions I'm subject to change my mind, tell me why I'm wrong.

I believe you are wrong based upon the presumption of flying at all with firearms is bad, no matter how it is done...Although I agree, in general, that we shouldn't fly with one on our hip...Hang on...I believe in general we could be trusted not to do anything stupid while in the cabin at that time...But that is another debate...

Your argument that we could somehow find ourselves traveling to some place like Chicago, or D.C. is absurd, yes, based upon the temperature now in regards to restrictions in those areas...

And there are numerous instances where someone perfectly legal to carry at their intended destination got into real trouble for something that was beyond their control, and they ended up in places like that...

Is that a reason or risk in my opinion to NOT carry or travel with a firearm??? If you have to think about that answer, let me know...

I've traveled by air many times with a checked firearm...Some places yes, certain people (not me) have had an issue with it, but can't do anything about it other than brand themselve a fool...Other places, I almost have to spill coffee in someones lap because they want to talk shop, because lat call for boarding is coming ovver the PA...

I would say that what you do in the case you are traveling by air, and your flight is diverted (for whatever reason) to somewhere where you think you're going to get in trouble for having a checked firearm in your luggage...Thats another big discussion, and its going to take a longshot legistlative fix to remove that fear some have in regards to this problem...

So if your main rub is the risk of coming down someplace thats not gun-friendly...My knee-jerk reaction is to say to drive where your going...That way you are more in control of your situation, I absolutely encourage that option...

There are more than enough reference material, testimonials, and data to help you logistically and logically navigate this countries highways to study, print out for reference, and procedures to sucessfully, and without a high degree of risk to your person to travel in this manner...I've done a lot of that as well...And it ain't no big deal...

next...

[jimlongley]

. . . I more or less trust the sterility of the airports...I go through security everyday on the way to work. Plus, you would have to be out of your mind to try and take a plane now - remember the guy trying to blow up his shoes? There will be more of that to come, regardless of what the hijacker(s) arm themselves with. Good ol' beatdown.

-nick

Having been a TSA screener for three years (and thankfully now I have a real job) I more or less DON"T trust the sterility of the airports.

I think CHLs, with maybe a little more background checks, but I am not sure of that, should be allowed, for exactly the same reasons we are allowed elsewhere.

[casselthief]

except courts, schools, voting stations.....

[cxm]

According to an United Pilot who lives near me about half of the pilots have qualified to carry nationally... if that number is right it is good news.

The ammo carried is nothing special... If I recall correctly it is a Speer Gold dot of some sort...

FWIW

Chuck

[TheRising]

I think they should let CHL holders like ourselves wear our handguns on the plane.

I actually think that's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

+1 ...
CHL means you can carry, not that you can shoot. I don't want some of the CHL's that I have seen playing cowboy action shooting at some potential terrorists with a few hundred "innocents" around.

I hope you both realize that your arguments against carrying on planes, are exactly the same arguments made against legal concealed carry in public places.

Kevin

When on an airplane, you are effectively a captive "private" audience. It is absolutely not the same argument for carrying in public. There is no where to go whilst on a plane. So if you choose to fly, you have to choose to rely on the security in place.

Trust me, If I had it my way, I would be allowed to carry everywhere I walked. However, in the spirit of democracy and freedom, I'm not the only one who would/should be allowed to do that. Unfortunately, I have less faith in my fellow Americans than I do myself, so I do not trust any number of them to be safe with a gun, unless I personally know them and their skill.

I have to fly coming up very soon, on monday. As a matter of fact, I'm flying into Houston. However, I'll be flying with a DHS Airport Security Inspector (my father), so I'll feel a bit more safe.

[AV8R]

texas297 wrote:
...The FAM (Federal Air Marshall's)and I assume the pilots carry some kind of "special" load in their weapons...

Their choice, based on lots of R&D to develop a load that meets their specific needs, is the .357 Sig Speer Gold Dot round, and they carry Sigs, often two at a time. They chose a round with very deep penetration because they may have to shoot through the passenger in the seat in front of them to stop an attack. This is serious business.

[longtooth]

Armed passengers would be a nightmare for a FAM, and in the tight space and critical time restraints on an aircraft at 30,000 feet any passenger producing a gun would most likely become deceased.

I totally agree. I experienced exactly this several weeks ago at a funeral.
When my Dad & Mom first married 59 yr ago, they lived w/ a great Uncle & Aunt of Mom's for a time. She took care of my cousin after he was born. He is 5 yr older than I am. They all became very close. Cousin grew up & joined LE & wound up in undercover work. No one knows all but WAY MORE than corner drug stings.
When Aunt died several weeks ago we went to the funeral. Soon as I got inside floresent orange went off. 4 uniformed guards at the 2 doors entering the FH. Long ride & we both go to RR as soon as we get there. Another one in business area watching offices, seating, & RRs.
In sancturary one at each end of the casket watching seating area.
Mom & I both armed as usual. This dont take Perry Mason. When we sit down I ask Mom, "do you think this is a little more than an honor guard for _______." Yes I noticed that.
Me. OK, do you remember what our Church plan is if shots are fired.
Mom. Yes. (She & all unarmed are to get in the floor under the pews. Dont run. She, wife, & one other lady are to draw their weapon & IDENTIFY a shooter that is going down the Isles before returning fire. Self & three of our men & any other willing will respond. Telephone crew has their exit & knows what to do.)
Me. Ok, do that if ANY trouble starts here. I am going to the floor w/ you. No way am I standing up w/ my hardware in here. They have to take care of it by themselves. Soon as anything is over I will be hollering my ID let them know we are armed. dont show it, Dont Show It, DONT SHOW IT.
No doubt in my mind there were more in the congregation in plain clothes.
BTW, the two guards at the casket did not bow their heads at any of the prayer times. Removed their hats.
After the formal funeral message there was a short time set aside for only family. While outside, Mom was talking to her sister & some other distant family. I easily picked out 4 more plain clothes that were stationed to watch parking area & the large grass lot next to the FH.

There are a few places that when trouble starts it is time to make like a BADGER & dig a DEEP hole. I have experienced it once now.
I dont fly, Have been on a plane for a total of 2hr 15 min, split over 3 flights. Last time was over 25 yr ago.
No one is more pro carry than I. Read my signature.
After readin all, especially txi & GC, I too believe, "No armed passangers" is the best policy on planes.
If I were a FAM & had to draw my weapon, I too would consider any other gun a BG.
My 2cents & some consider it worth about half that.
LT

[Liberty]

While I understand the concerns of those who don't think we need CHLs flying on a planes. Some folks seem to believe that the Air Marshals are on every flight. They actually are on less very few. There just aren't very many of them. They are pretty easy to spot and the terrorist know how to spot them. The rules under which the air marshals work, are just like putting a "Shoot Me First" on their backs.

No disrespect to the Air Marshals, but as well trained as they are, with the rules they work under and the small numbers they have, they are no detterent. As long as a terroist is able to identify the FAM as he boards. The terorist knows who he has to kill first.

[txinvestigator]

While I understand the concerns of those who don't think we need CHLs flying on a planes. Some folks seem to believe that the Air Marshals are on every flight. They actually are on less very few. There just aren't very many of them. They are pretty easy to spot and the terrorist know how to spot them. The rules under which the air marshals work, are just like putting a "Shoot Me First" on their backs.

No disrespect to the Air Marshals, but as well trained as they are, with the rules they work under and the small numbers they have, they are no detterent. As long as a terroist is able to identify the FAM as he boards. The terorist knows who he has to kill first.

I disagree with all of that. The FAMs have relaxed the dress code and 'the terrorists" will have a tough job spotting them. I know a FAM, and I have spoken to several others. You would be surprised at the numbers.

Your hypothesis is just not supported by facts.

[kauboy]

No offense, but you gave no facts either.

I found this little article that says there aren't nearly as many marshals as many would hope. It was written about a year ago and I doubt much has changed since.

Flight marshal numbers disputed

By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES 03/03/2005

Flight reports by the Federal Air Marshal Service show that federal agents were on less than 10 percent of the nation's flights in December, a number several air marshals say was inflated to make it appear to Congress that commercial air travel is better protected than it is.
"The numbers reported to headquarters come back higher than originally reported and are sometimes upwards of double the number of what is actually flown," an air marshal said. "Everyone knows they are padding the numbers."
FAMS flight reports for December, obtained by The Washington Times, show air marshals were on about 9.4 percent of the nearly 30,800 daily domestic and international flights.
But the marshals say that figure is impossible, because more flights are reported as having armed agents aboard than the service's 21 field offices can deploy.
The marshals say the numbers are manipulated upward to make it appear as if the agency has met staffing levels that Congress mandated.
Congress members and officials at the Government Accountability Office are the only people outside the Homeland Security Department privy to the number of air marshals and information about the flights they protect.
FAMS spokesman Dave Adams initially refused to comment on the methods used to count missions unless a page of the monthly reports containing the data was faxed to him for verification.
"When CBS had accusations about President Bush's reserve-duty time, CBS gave them the courtesy to review the document before commenting on it, and I would like the same courtesy," Mr. Adams said.
After reviewing the document, he only said: "For obvious security and operational reasons, we never comment on the specific locations or numbers of federal air marshals employed around the country on any given day."
"At the same time, we can neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of the information provided to reporters purporting to detail the locations and deployment of air marshals," he said.
FAMS has never divulged the number of armed agents protecting planes, except to say that it is in the thousands.
The December reports include the number of flights from all major airports on which air marshals depart, which The Times did not reveal as requested by the Homeland Security Department because of national security reasons.
The Times received some of the flight reports on Monday, the day U.S. intelligence and security officials said new information indicates that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has asked Iraq-based terrorists to focus future attacks on targets inside the United States.
The officials said al Qaeda wants to rival its September 11 attacks, in which almost 3,000 people were killed in terrorist plane hijackings.
According to the flight reports, the number of missions air marshals flew on any given day ranged from a low of slightly more than 2,000 to as many as 3,400.
"The actual flight numbers are artificially high to give a perception that the aviation transportation system is actually better protected by air marshals than what it is. But we're suffering from shortfalls in manpower because of mass exodus of marshals in the last two years," the first marshal said.
The marshals also say the number is inflated because agents who leave the service but remain employed by the federal government and can be used by FAMS are still counted as marshals, as are Border Patrol agents used during peak travel periods.
At one time, FAMS employed the 4,000 agents mandated by Congress, but the number has been halved, marshals say. Based on the number of guns issued, there are about 2,200 marshals stationed nationwide to fly seven days a week.
During Senate hearings on the September 11 commission report in the fall, Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, questioned whether there has been a decrease in the number of air marshals protecting aircraft and demanded that FAMS provide her office with data.
Mrs. Boxer's office did not return calls last night.
Marshals always travel in teams -- a minimum of two agents and sometimes as many as four per plane. This means a minimum of 1,100 teams protect domestic and international flights. With sick days, regular days off, vacation and medical leave, it is statistically impossible to cover even the minimum number of flights listed by the report on any given day, the marshals say.
"The numbers don't add up; it's way too much," a marshal said. "Several field offices have complained about it and were told to shut up. This is a scam."
More than 2,600 flights were listed as covered on Christmas Eve, 2,039 on Christmas Day and 2,893 on New Year's Eve.
"The numbers are impossible," said another air marshal.

With 30,000 flights and only 4,000 marshals mandated by Congress, I don't feel any safer flying now than any other time.
Either licensed citizens start being allowed to carry, or they need to start offering a heck of a lot more to Air Marshals.
If anyone wants the actual article(which may be easier to read) it can be found here.

[casselthief]

^^^ good luck getting that done.

[txinvestigator]

No offense, but you gave no facts either.

I found this little article that says there aren't nearly as many marshals as many would hope. It was written about a year ago and I doubt much has changed since.

Flight marshal numbers disputed

By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES 03/03/2005

Flight reports by the Federal Air Marshal Service show that federal agents were on less than 10 percent of the nation's flights in December, a number several air marshals say was inflated to make it appear to Congress that commercial air travel is better protected than it is.
"The numbers reported to headquarters come back higher than originally reported and are sometimes upwards of double the number of what is actually flown," an air marshal said. "Everyone knows they are padding the numbers."
FAMS flight reports for December, obtained by The Washington Times, show air marshals were on about 9.4 percent of the nearly 30,800 daily domestic and international flights.
But the marshals say that figure is impossible, because more flights are reported as having armed agents aboard than the service's 21 field offices can deploy.
The marshals say the numbers are manipulated upward to make it appear as if the agency has met staffing levels that Congress mandated.
Congress members and officials at the Government Accountability Office are the only people outside the Homeland Security Department privy to the number of air marshals and information about the flights they protect.
FAMS spokesman Dave Adams initially refused to comment on the methods used to count missions unless a page of the monthly reports containing the data was faxed to him for verification.
"When CBS had accusations about President Bush's reserve-duty time, CBS gave them the courtesy to review the document before commenting on it, and I would like the same courtesy," Mr. Adams said.
After reviewing the document, he only said: "For obvious security and operational reasons, we never comment on the specific locations or numbers of federal air marshals employed around the country on any given day."
"At the same time, we can neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of the information provided to reporters purporting to detail the locations and deployment of air marshals," he said.
FAMS has never divulged the number of armed agents protecting planes, except to say that it is in the thousands.
The December reports include the number of flights from all major airports on which air marshals depart, which The Times did not reveal as requested by the Homeland Security Department because of national security reasons.
The Times received some of the flight reports on Monday, the day U.S. intelligence and security officials said new information indicates that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has asked Iraq-based terrorists to focus future attacks on targets inside the United States.
The officials said al Qaeda wants to rival its September 11 attacks, in which almost 3,000 people were killed in terrorist plane hijackings.
According to the flight reports, the number of missions air marshals flew on any given day ranged from a low of slightly more than 2,000 to as many as 3,400.
"The actual flight numbers are artificially high to give a perception that the aviation transportation system is actually better protected by air marshals than what it is. But we're suffering from shortfalls in manpower because of mass exodus of marshals in the last two years," the first marshal said.
The marshals also say the number is inflated because agents who leave the service but remain employed by the federal government and can be used by FAMS are still counted as marshals, as are Border Patrol agents used during peak travel periods.
At one time, FAMS employed the 4,000 agents mandated by Congress, but the number has been halved, marshals say. Based on the number of guns issued, there are about 2,200 marshals stationed nationwide to fly seven days a week.
During Senate hearings on the September 11 commission report in the fall, Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, questioned whether there has been a decrease in the number of air marshals protecting aircraft and demanded that FAMS provide her office with data.
Mrs. Boxer's office did not return calls last night.
Marshals always travel in teams -- a minimum of two agents and sometimes as many as four per plane. This means a minimum of 1,100 teams protect domestic and international flights. With sick days, regular days off, vacation and medical leave, it is statistically impossible to cover even the minimum number of flights listed by the report on any given day, the marshals say.
"The numbers don't add up; it's way too much," a marshal said. "Several field offices have complained about it and were told to shut up. This is a scam."
More than 2,600 flights were listed as covered on Christmas Eve, 2,039 on Christmas Day and 2,893 on New Year's Eve.
"The numbers are impossible," said another air marshal.

With 30,000 flights and only 4,000 marshals mandated by Congress, I don't feel any safer flying now than any other time.
Either licensed citizens start being allowed to carry, or they need to start offering a heck of a lot more to Air Marshals.
If anyone wants the actual article(which may be easier to read) it can be found here.

I was addressing your points on dress and terrorist being able to recognize air marshals.

Regardless of how many air marshals there are I would prefer civilians not be blasting people on airplanes

[kauboy]

No kidding there cassel, and thats what grieves me the most. Nothing will ever be done that could actually protect us. We are only fooling ourselves.

TXI, I think your missing my subtle point. If "terrorists" know that there could be even 10 gun toting citizens on any given plane, that would greatly deter their efforts, no? Its the same argument for concealed carry. When the criminal element doesn't know who is armed and who isn't, they are more apprehensive to attack. Just look at the number of citizens in America that can carry firearms concealed. It far outnumbers the FAM total, but its still a tiny percentage of the population. The shear numbers would show that you wouldn't have perforated planes flying around all the time.

Its the same logic I use for recommending that our military in Iraq use ammunition that's been dipped in pig fat. You follow me? Even if we don't actually do it, but we announce that we are, their entire reason for fighting has just been vanquished. Its not a poison by any definition, so it doesn't violate any treaties or agreements.

[Liberty]

While I understand the concerns of those who don't think we need CHLs flying on a planes. Some folks seem to believe that the Air Marshals are on every flight. They actually are on less very few. There just aren't very many of them. They are pretty easy to spot and the terrorist know how to spot them. The rules under which the air marshals work, are just like putting a "Shoot Me First" on their backs.

No disrespect to the Air Marshals, but as well trained as they are, with the rules they work under and the small numbers they have, they are no detterent. As long as a terroist is able to identify the FAM as he boards. The terorist knows who he has to kill first.

I disagree with all of that. The FAMs have relaxed the dress code and 'the terrorists" will have a tough job spotting them. I know a FAM, and I have spoken to several others. You would be surprised at the numbers.

Your hypothesis is just not supported by facts.

Kauboy did a pretty good job of covering how many flights there are and how few Air Marshals there really are.

Although the air Marshal Service has relaxed the dress code they did so reluctantly. They refused to relax the the code after several of the working air marshals complained. Changes were also made only after a national outcry and lots of publicity on this very stupid policy. It doesn't inspire much confidence.

I'm a little reluctant to discuss how an air marshal can be profiled and spotted, it could tip off the very stupid independent terrorist the Al Qaida surely understand. Observng the boarding process can be the tip off. The Air Marshals themselves have complained about it, but the management per SOP for them remain as stubborn as always.