# JetBlue Captain 'Loses It'



## The Davy Crockett (Mar 27, 2012)

OBS on Amtrak may be frustrating at times, but here is another reason to take the train:



> (CBS/AP) A police officer and an off-duty airline pilot subdued a JetBlue captain Tuesday morning aboard a Las Vegas-bound flight when the captain started pounding on the cockpit door after the flight's co-pilot asked him to leave and subsequently locked him out, a federal official told CBS News.
> 
> The captain became incoherent during JetBlue Flight 191 from New York's John F. Kennedy International, prompting the co-pilot to get him to leave the cockpit, the official said. JetBlue said in a statement to CBS News that the flight was diverted to Amarillo, Texas, "for a medical situation involving the captain."


Link to story.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 27, 2012)

> "They're going to take us down. They're taking us down. They're going to take us down. Say the Lord's prayer. Say the Lord's prayer," the captain screamed, according to Antolino. Josh Redick, a passenger sitting near the middle of the plane, said the captain seemed "irate" and was "spouting off about Afghanistan and souls and al Qaeda."


Yikes! What a stressful flight for the passengers and staff. Glad the co-pilot *first officer* was able to get him out of the cockpit and safely land the plane. It's no good to have a nutcase on the flight deck. Sounds like the captain had a panic attack caused by an overdose of AM radio. hboy:


----------



## trainfan969 (Mar 27, 2012)

Who knows, maybe the pilot was stressed out or having a mental breakdown. Still that's probably an harrowing experience for the passengers.


----------



## railiner (Mar 28, 2012)

Good thing that quickthinking F/O was able to get the deranged Captain to leave the cockpit. The story could have had a very bad ending, otherwise.

This type of situation is extremely rare in this day and age of very highly qualified and examined flight deck crews, who undertake some of the most extensive scrutiny of any profession. But the fact that this did indeed happen, will cause the FAA and the airlines to go back and try to figure out what if any tell-tales could have given a hint of something like this happening, and changes made in policies and procedures to insure the unlikelyhood of it occuring again.

It is also a good thing that the airlines now have reinforced cockpit doors to secure the flight deck.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 28, 2012)

Keep in mind that some pilots are allowed to bring loaded firearms aboard planes as part of the Transportation Security Administration's Federal Flight Deck Officer program. Now, don't you feel safer already? Just imagine if this guy was armed and loaded when he flew off the deep end. I wonder which part(s) of the system failed in order to allow this man onto flight deck in the first place, or if we'll ever find out before the story fades into oblivion.


----------



## jis (Mar 28, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Keep in mind that some pilots are allowed to bring loaded firearms aboard planes as part of the Transportation Security Administration's Federal Flight Deck Officer program. Now, don't you feel safer already? Just imagine if this guy was armed and loaded when he flew off the deep end. I wonder which part(s) of the system failed in order to allow this man onto flight deck in the first place, or if we'll ever find out before the story fades into oblivion.


To quote someone here "FOIA is your friend"


----------



## Trogdor (Mar 28, 2012)

This would be even scarier than the AA flight attendant that had a similar incident a couple weeks ago. At least that plane was still on the ground when it happened.

In other news, I hear JetBlue has a job opening for one pilot.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 28, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Keep in mind that some pilots are allowed to bring loaded firearms aboard planes as part of the Transportation Security Administration's Federal Flight Deck Officer program. Now, don't you feel safer already? Just imagine if this guy was armed and loaded when he flew off the deep end. I wonder which part(s) of the system failed in order to allow this man onto flight deck in the first place, or if we'll ever find out before the story fades into oblivion.


Actually, I would feel safer knowing that pilots are armed. This has to be taken as what: an abberation. You can't protect yourself from everything all the time or anticipate everything that might happen, and anyone who thinks it can be done need to be smacked upside the head with reality. Already dealing with safety issues, you are looking at the 0.001% possibilities. Safety requirements have gotten to the point of being equivalent to having a dentist on standby in case one of the teeth in your chicken gets a cavity.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 28, 2012)

What exactly does having an armed pilot behind a locked security door defend against?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 28, 2012)

George Harris said:


> This has to be taken as what: an abberation.


From what I understand we have about as many examples of pilots experiencing mental breakdowns as we have of terrorists bringing loaded guns aboard US commercial aircraft. The key factor in my view is that a loaded firearm can turn a mere "aberration" into a true _disaster_ without much effort. Consider another JetBlue pilot who lost his government-issued handgun after a family with kids mistakenly picked up the pilot's backpack with a loaded firearm along with their own luggage on Thursday, January 13, 2011 at Kennedy airport in New York. If I discovered my family was inadvertently in possession of a misplaced firearm or saw an armed pilot screaming about bombs and prayers while trying to force his way onto the flight deck I would not feel very safe at all. But maybe that's just me?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 29, 2012)

*Update:* Looks like the JetBlue Airways captain is Clayton Osbon and while he has not yet been fired he has been charged with a crime ("interfering with a flight crew," oddly enough) and is still being held for psychiatric review.



> Federal prosecutors have charged Osbon following his bizarre unraveling aboard Flight 191 to Las Vegas, describing in court records a midair breakdown they say began with cockpit ramblings about religion and ended with passengers wrestling him to the cabin floor. "The (first officer) became really worried when Osbon said `we need to take a leap of faith,'" according to the sworn affidavit given by an FBI agent John Whitworth. "Osbon started trying to correlate completely unrelated numbers like different radio frequencies, and he talked about sins in Las Vegas." Investigators said they were told that Osbon scolded air traffic controllers to quiet down, then turned off the radios altogether, and dimmed the monitors in the cockpit. He allegedly said aloud that "things just don't matter" and encouraged his co-pilot that they take a leap of faith. "We're not going to Vegas," Osbon told his co-pilot in midflight, according to the affidavit.


Yikes. That sounds eerily similar to some truly horrific events of the past. Thank goodness this man wasn't able to get back into the cockpit and potentially cause an all-out disaster.

*Link to full story...*


----------



## jis (Mar 29, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Yikes. That sounds eerily similar to some truly horrific events of the past. Thank goodness this man wasn't able to get back into the cockpit and potentially cause an all-out disaster.
> 
> *Link to full story...*


Remember the Egypt Air crash just out of New York sometime back, in which case AFAIR the American investigation found that the pilot unraveled and crashed the plane while the Egyptians insisted otherwise?

Then again there was an Amtrak Engineer who insisted on driving a Metroliner at 100+ through the Elizabeth curve almost derailing the train in the middle of town, resulting in the approach medium that everyone now faces to force them down to 45mph, 10mph lower than what the speed limit used to be. People sometimes do really bizarre things.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Mar 29, 2012)

I never have ridden on a Plane with him,(but have on Several Trains!) but one of our members is an Airline Pilot, his perspective on this would be interesting! 

If the NRA and the Gun Nuts had their way, wonder if we would have had a "Shootout at the OK Corral"! Good reminder that "Civilians" packing heat in Public Places is a Crazy Idea!!! :wacko:


----------



## leemell (Mar 29, 2012)

jimhudson said:


> I never have ridden on a Plane with him,(but have on Several Trains!) but one of our members is an Airline Pilot, his perspective on this would be interesting!
> 
> If the NRA and the Gun Nuts had their way, wonder if we would have had a "Shootout at the OK Corral"! Good reminder that "Civilians" packing heat in Public Places is a Crazy Idea!!! :wacko:


Sorry, these pilots are now federal officers and have trained at the Federal Air Marshall Service and are sworn.. They must retrain at required intervals. All of this is done on their on time (training is one full week at their academy) and at their own expense.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 29, 2012)

leemell said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > I never have ridden on a Plane with him,(but have on Several Trains!) but one of our members is an Airline Pilot, his perspective on this would be interesting! If the NRA and the Gun Nuts had their way, wonder if we would have had a "Shootout at the OK Corral"! Good reminder that "Civilians" packing heat in Public Places is a Crazy Idea!!! :wacko:
> ...


What exactly does this entail? For instance, does this process include a routine psychological evaluation? What sort of warning signs does it look for and how are they handled?


----------



## leemell (Mar 29, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > jimhudson said:
> ...


From the Federal Air Marshall site:

To be selected for *Federal Flight Deck Officer* (FFDO) training by TSA you must:


Successfully complete all selection assessments including any specified psychological, medical or physical ability requirements.
Be determined to meet all established standards by the Federal Air Marshal Service.
Be available to attend the FFDO training program in its entirety on your own time and at your own expense within one year from your acceptance in the program (the cost of the training and equipment are covered by TSA and the Federal Air Marshal Service; *volunteers are responsible for their own travel, lodging, and daily expenses*).
Recurrent training is conducted bi-annually. No more information is given.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Mar 29, 2012)

Im aware of the Training Requirements/Rules etc., but all the training in the World doesnt prevent stuff like this from happening!!  My concern is what happens when the Pilots sharing the Cockpit, like in this instance,are both armed, will there be a Shootout in the Cockpit or if the instance happens in the Cabin will Sky Marshalls (if aboard)draw down on one of these "trained" Pilots when it happens again??? 

Of course the ultimate Fantasy of some Gun Nuts is to be packing and when something crzay like this goes down, they can play John Wayne and be recognized as a Hero!! :wacko: Thank Goodness Passengers arent allowed to carry guns on Planes and Trains, it's bad enough out on the Roads!!(Where I live about 50% of all Drivers are thought to have Firearms in their Vehicles, hence the saying "It's a Jungle out there!" :help: !!)


----------



## Jean (Mar 30, 2012)

Well, he was right about one thing, they didn't go to Vegas! He was subdued effectively without weapons. Seriously, speaking as an Australian, where firearms in public hands are uncommon, I agree so much with Jim Hudson. As for flying in the US, I always fly there/back with Qantas, then try to avoid local airlines if at all possible. Sometimes we can fly with the airline of another country, or take the train. I am a nervous flyer at the best of times, but if I knew pilots were carrying guns, it would make it so much worse. In Britain, even police do not carry guns in normal circumstances and yet we don't hear of the tragic events that are so common in the US.

Jean


----------



## jis (Mar 30, 2012)

Just as a reference you can see an extended discussion of this subject on airliners.net.


----------



## saxman (Mar 30, 2012)

Armed pilots are to protect the flight deck only, and nothing more. If he was armed, would he be crazy enough to use the weapon on the flight deck? Who knows? The first officer did the right thing by having him go to the back then locking him out. I can't even imagine what would the warning signs for me to ask him to do that. The worst I've had is a captain get mad at me for stomping on the brakes while taxiing or missing a radio call.

Plus even if the captain was armed, and out of the cockpit, he wouldn't have been able to do much of anything either.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 31, 2012)

Thanks for your perspective. If the pilot is behind a locked door, what is the weapon supposed to protect against?

If the Captain was armed and locked out of the flight deck, he could start shooting passengers.

What would a half dozen 9mm holes in the fuselage do?


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Mar 31, 2012)

Ryan said:


> Thanks for your perspective. If the pilot is behind a locked door, what is the weapon supposed to protect against?
> 
> If the Captain was armed and locked out of the flight deck, he could start shooting passengers.
> 
> What would a half dozen 9mm holes in the fuselage do?



At the very least, if he was armed, subduing him would have been just a tad more 'interesting.'


----------



## jis (Mar 31, 2012)

The Davy Crockett said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for your perspective. If the pilot is behind a locked door, what is the weapon supposed to protect against?
> ...


Same thing that half a dozen 9mm holes from an air marshal's firearm would do.



> At the very least, if he was armed, subduing him would have been just a tad more 'interesting.'


Indeed! But this discussion is a bit of worrying about the horse after it has bolted twice.

We all know that some proportion of flights carry armed air marshals. Ostensibly the evaluation and training that they go through is similar to what pilots go through as far as mental evaluation and handling of firearms is concerned. So why is it a bigger worry if one additional person is carrying firearm on the plane? If carrying firearm by anyone on the plane is a problem, we are already way past that point for quite a while.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 31, 2012)

jis said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > What would a half dozen 9mm holes in the fuselage do?
> ...


100% correct, but I was genuinely curious what impact they would have. I would assume that the cabin would depressurize, but slowly enough for folks to don their masks. I'd be interested in having that assumption validated or corrected.



> > At the very least, if he was armed, subduing him would have been just a tad more 'interesting.'
> 
> 
> Indeed! But this discussion is a bit of worrying about the horse after it has bolted twice.
> ...


I'm not sure I agree. The purpose of an air marshall is to deal with an unruly passenger. Saxman's statement above was that the armed pilot was "to protect the flight deck, nothing more". If we already have a secured door to do that, there doesn't seem to be much of a need for that firearm. Having an armed pilot seems to be a risk with no commensurate reward (unless I'm missing something).

It goes back to the (yet unanswered) question that I posed to George back in post #9:



Ryan said:


> What exactly does having an armed pilot behind a locked security door defend against?


----------



## jis (Mar 31, 2012)

I was not questioning or answering your original question. I was just commenting on the effect of an armed pilot or an armed marshal shooting passengers in the cabin after they have gone over the edge. The effect is about the same. That was my point.

Of course the other pint I was making is that a firearm on board is a firearm on board, specially when we are talking about how it might be used when someone holding it goes crazy.

Of course in the cockpit an armed pilot who has gone berserk has the additional opportunity of getting rid of the others in the cockpit first too. But then again, I am sure they can achieve that without a firearm too, though with a bit of greater difficulty. Again, not taking any position regarding firearm in cockpit, just pointing out the obvious possibilities.

The biggest observed danger from pilots so far has been suicide missions after going over the top. There are two such incidents that are strongly suspected to be voluntary controlled flight into terrain of a commercial flight that are documented so far in the last decade or so.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 31, 2012)

jis said:


> Of course the other pint I was making is that a firearm on board is a firearm on board, specially when we are talking about how it might be used when someone holding it goes crazy.


That's where I disagree. A firearm onboard with an air marshall is a firearm onboard with a purpose. It's a risk, but it's a risk that one can argue is worth taking. A firearm onboard with a pilot is a firearm onboard with no discernible purpose. That lack of a purpose differentiates it from the air marshall's firearm and makes it an unacceptable risk in my opinion (unless someone is able to articulate a good reason that a pilot behind a locked door needs a firearm).

Of course, you're absolutely right in pointing out that a pilot doesn't need a firearm to do drastic and permanent harm to everyone onboard.


----------



## jis (Mar 31, 2012)

Ryan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Of course the other pint I was making is that a firearm on board is a firearm on board, specially when we are talking about how it might be used when someone holding it goes crazy.
> ...


Actually, in general I don't disagree with you on that. My comment was restricted to the situation where someone gets to use a firearm after going crazy. IMHO firearm in cockpit mostly serves a feel good purpose and not much else. Whether that is worth it or not I leave to others to figure out. And now I am pulling on my thrice charmed chain mail (reference to the well known Rogue game on old time computers) and ducking as fast as I can


----------



## saxman (Mar 31, 2012)

Ryan said:


> I'm not sure I agree. The purpose of an air marshall is to deal with an unruly passenger. Saxman's statement above was that the armed pilot was "to protect the flight deck, nothing more". If we already have a secured door to do that, there doesn't seem to be much of a need for that firearm. Having an armed pilot seems to be a risk with no commensurate reward (unless I'm missing something).


Air marshalls don't really deal with unruly passengers. They are there to protect the flight deck as well. Pilot's are armed, also to protect the flight deck. Yes, they are behind a locked door, but sometimes the door has to open in flight. Pilots have to eat and use the lavatory as well, and if, godforbid, someone got past that, then it'd be nice to have a armed pilot.



Ryan said:


> What exactly does having an armed pilot behind a locked security door defend against?


And as I said before, even if the JetBlue pilot was armed, he wouldn't have been able to cause harm. Trust me  I would tell you why in person, but it's not for a public forum.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 31, 2012)

Ryan, I think you main obsession here is with guns, period. Therefore, there is no point in trying to apply reason to this issue. My issue is not with the gun. I grew up with guns in the house and learned early a healthy respect for them and what they could do, and also understanding of what they cannot do. They are not unreasoning rabid animals that go off randomly.

We had an incident here in SF recently where a policeman took a shot at someone and hit TWO individual that were completely uninvolved but somewhere beyond his target. That is violation of one of the major clearly understood rules of shooting. Know what is BEHIND your target before pulling the trigger.

To bring it back on track: During the days of the Railway Post Office, the clerks in the RPO's were armed. A revolver on the hip at all times. Did they have any training in their use? I do not know. At that time there was a general expectation that a grown man would understand what he was doing with gun in hand. It did not occur to anyone I know that they should fear that some RPO clerk would go nuts and start shooting.


----------



## RRrich (Mar 31, 2012)

I understand that if the pilot is armed and he has to leave the cockpit, he is supposed to put the pistol in an in cockpit lockbox. My question is if the pilot is no longer playing with a full deck can he be counted on to lock up his weapon?


----------



## Ryan (Mar 31, 2012)

George Harris said:


> Ryan, I think you main obsession here is with guns, period. Therefore, there is no point in trying to apply reason to this issue. My issue is not with the gun. I grew up with guns in the house and learned early a healthy respect for them and what they could do, and also understanding of what they cannot do. They are not unreasoning rabid animals that go off randomly.


Sorry, but no. I'm a gun owner, a hunter, and have been shooting since I was 10 years old. I believe as fiercely in the Second Amendment as I do the rest of the Bill of Rights.

My stepson just turned 9, and I'll be taking him out to the farm in the next few months to start teaching him how to shoot.

So take your "no point in trying to apply reason" ad hom and peddle it somewhere else.

Chris, thanks for your input. I've still got some questions, but like you said, it probably isn't a public forum kind of conversation to get into that level of detail.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 31, 2012)

Ryan said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan, I think you main obsession here is with guns, period. Therefore, there is no point in trying to apply reason to this issue. My issue is not with the gun. I grew up with guns in the house and learned early a healthy respect for them and what they could do, and also understanding of what they cannot do. They are not unreasoning rabid animals that go off randomly.
> ...


Duly noted. My apologies, misunderstood your message.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Mar 31, 2012)

One of the replies to that thread on Airliners.net was that "if the pilots of the doomed flights on 9-11 had guns, the final result would have been much different"

.... yeah well... if the cockpit doors had been secure and locked... the final results would have been different too.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Mar 31, 2012)

saxman said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure I agree. The purpose of an air marshall is to deal with an unruly passenger. Saxman's statement above was that the armed pilot was "to protect the flight deck, nothing more". If we already have a secured door to do that, there doesn't seem to be much of a need for that firearm. Having an armed pilot seems to be a risk with no commensurate reward (unless I'm missing something).
> ...


Oh really if he is not in his right mind whats to stop him for using his gun on other pax or the armed air marshals thinking they're terrorists out to down the plain. This guy was not in his right mind. he could have gotten a few shots before being taken out by air marshals if it came to that. Also in the movie Executive Decision the bad guy uses a machine gun shoots a bunch of holes in the side of the airplane causing a huge chunk to rip off the side sucking people out. You only deal with small beach craft type planes and some Lear jet type plains. Have you ever flown a jumbo jet? Im not being a ass but it has happened.Not with guns but take a look at this story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Flight_705


----------



## George Harris (Apr 1, 2012)

amtrakwolverine said:


> Also in the movie Executive Decision the bad guy uses a machine gun shoots a bunch of holes in the side of the airplane causing a huge chunk to rip off the side sucking people out.


This might or might not happen in real life. Maybe you have multiple small holes and relatively slow depressurization or mayby a chunk of fuselage or a window will pop out. I do not know. Remember, this is a movie, so it proves nothing.



> . . it has happened.Not with guns but take a look at this story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Flight_705


That one I well remember, as this is my "home" airport, and FedEx is the major player there. Both the crew and the plane managed to go way beyond their physical limits to bring this thing to a conclusion with at minimum 4 deaths and the destruction of the plane. Given the urban/suburban nature of the area surrounding the airport and a fuel load for a 2000 mile flight, the death and destruction would all but certainly have been far greater. However, I do not see how the presence or absence of guns are relevant, nor sudden mental malfunction. The act here was premeditated and the attempt to use an insanity defense did not work, so sudden emotional or mental breakdown was not the cause.

It is absolutely amazing, in fact could be called miraculous, that the men were able to pilot the plane at all wounded as they were, and also that the plane did not literally come apart in the air due to the stresses from the maneuvers they put it through, nor the landing gear collapse when landing as it was way over its allowed landing weight.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 1, 2012)

George Harris said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > Also in the movie Executive Decision the bad guy uses a machine gun shoots a bunch of holes in the side of the airplane causing a huge chunk to rip off the side sucking people out.
> ...


Agreed. I happened to be reading about KAL 007 (shot down by the Soviets in 1983), and came across these comments (yes, wikipedia, but the article is well cited):



> Fuselage: Tiny shrapnel from the proximity fuzed air-to-air missile that detonated 50 metres (160 ft) behind the aircraft, punctured the fuselage and caused rapid decompression of the pressurised cabin. The interval of 11 seconds between the sound of missile detonation picked up by the cockpit voice recorder and the sound of the alarm sounding in the cockpit enabled ICAO analysts to determine that the total size of the tiny ruptures to the pressurized fuselage was 1.75 square feet (0.163 m2).





> Two expert witnesses testified at a Court of Appeals trial on the issue of pre-death pain and suffering. Captain James McIntyre, an experienced Boeing 747 pilot and aircraft accident investigator, testified that shrapnel from the missile caused rapid decompression of the cabin, but left the passengers sufficient time to don oxygen masks: "McIntyre testified that, based upon his estimate of the extent of damage the aircraft sustained, all passengers survived the initial impact of the shrapnel from the missile explosion. In McIntyre's expert opinion, at least 12 minutes elapsed between the impact of the shrapnel and the crash of the plane, and the passengers remained conscious throughout."


Since the area of a 9mm circle is about 1/2 in2, it would take quite a lot of holes in the side to have that kind of explosive decompression. A lot would depend on where the holes were relative to one another, too.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 1, 2012)

Ryan said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > amtrakwolverine said:
> ...


Well remember that one at the time. The Soviet response, something to the effect that the pilot and others did not recognize that the KAL flight was a 747 had to be one of the most bogus excuses imaginable. The 747 shape is absolutely uniques among planes. If that was not recognizable then the pilot should not be flying anything, much less a military plane.

The discussion on the size of the hole and its effect does provide some worthwhile info for the subject at hand.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Apr 1, 2012)

Well then try this on for size http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771

heres a air rage one where passengers subdued and killed a passenger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1763


----------



## DS (Apr 2, 2012)

These pilots aren't allowed to carry guns on international flights are they? That'd be the extent to which I'd have any interaction with US airlines -- when I visit the States. I'd certainly never use them to go overseas -- why bother going through another country only to get god-awful service and be subjected to the TSA and gun-toting mental nutters? I sure hope pilots are not allowed to do this when coming to Canada.


----------



## saxman (Apr 2, 2012)

DS said:


> These pilots aren't allowed to carry guns on international flights are they? That'd be the extent to which I'd have any interaction with US airlines -- when I visit the States. I'd certainly never use them to go overseas -- why bother going through another country only to get god-awful service and be subjected to the TSA and gun-toting mental nutters? I sure hope pilots are not allowed to do this when coming to Canada.


Wow, you've really taken this thread out of context here. First, we're discussing the extreme off chance that this pilot was armed. Then there is the even more extreme off chance that said pilot would go shooting everyone. You seriously have more of a chance of getting struck by lightning, then being attacked by a "gun-toting mental nutter." The training for armed pilots is extremely rigorous, and many tests are gone through to qualify. Then as I keep mentioning, there is almost miniscule chance that said pilot, if even armed, would have been allowed to leave the flight deck armed. The first officer was smart enough to get the captain to leave. I'm sure as heck he would have been smart enough to make sure he locked up his fire arm.

So you're not going to fly a US airline because you're afraid some "gun-toting mental nut pilot" is going to go crazy? I understand frustrations with the TSA. Crew members are just as frustrated with them as the travelling public. And I understand frustrations with service and rude employees. But it really isn't THAT bad.

We've been speculating on such a remotely, highly unlikely to happen subject, that we seem to have lost touch with reality. What's to stop a police officer from going crazy? Or an armed soldier overseas? (Or here at home...)

Also armed police do ride on flights from time to time. No, it's not the federal air marshalls. They are usually travelling for business or pleasure. You'll just never know who they are. What if they go crazy?


----------

