[JBP]

http://www.sunspot.net/business/bal-bz.pilots27aug27,0,4724582,print.story?coll=bal-business-headlines

Angry pilots protest slowness of U.S. in letting them carry guns
They call for faster way to process applicants

Sponsored by



By Meredith Cohn
Sun Staff

August 27, 2003

WASHINGTON - In a series of protests yesterday at several airports around the country, including Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, pilots complained that federal officials are moving too slowly in allowing them to carry guns in the cockpit - a hotly debated change that Congress approved after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks nearly two years ago.

The Airline Pilots' Security Alliance, a group formed since the attacks to advocate air travel safety measures, said that less than 200 of 40,000 passenger and cargo pilots who want the voluntary training have completed the required course.

The 40,000 figure is about a third of the nation's 120,000 commercial pilots, although that includes about 35,000 cargo pilots who do not qualify for the program.

The pilots say they have strong backing from members of Congress, including Sens. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, a Republican, and Democrat Barbara Boxer of California, and GOP Reps. John L. Mica of Florida and Don Young of Alaska.

"I haven't gone through the program, and I don't want to under these circumstances," said David Mackett, a Baltimore-based pilot and executive vice president of the alliance. "The [Transportation Security Agency] has made the process too onerous."

The federal Transportation Security Agency, however, said it has proceeded responsibly with a program that puts lethal weapons aboard airplanes.

Chris Rhatigan, a spokeswoman for the agency, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, said she believes that the public largely supports arming pilots but said the process should not be hurried.

Pilots are being trained as federal flight deck officers, which gives them the right to carry lethal weapons, she said, and it was "common sense" for the agency to do its own extensive testing and training.

The pilots' group, however, called on the agency to modify its procedures to speed the training.

Mackett said pilots must pay their own way and take their own time for a one-week training course in Georgia and are subjected to extensive psychological and background testing. The evaluation, he said, appeared to be repeat testing that the pilots have already passed to become commercial pilots.

He said he has a list of 20 pilots who were rejected for the program to be deputized as federal flight deck officers and many more have refused to apply.

The federal agency held the first training class in April and declined, for security reasons, to reveal how many have completed the program.

Rhatigan said the program began in February with $25 million, and the agency has spent $8 million on training so far. Congress allocated another $25 million for training pilots in 2004, she said.

She said the training would soon move to a new facility in southeast New Mexico where more pilots can be trained in realistic situations.

"Every week since mid-July we've graduated a new class," she said. "This is a voluntary program, and first off, not everyone graduates.

"This is not a cookie-cutter solution. It's a well-thought-out program. They go through extensive background and psychological testing before training and it's very rigorous training physically and mentally. We need to put them in an environment where they feel comfortable with a firearm."

John R. Lott, who has studied gun control as a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, questioned the necessity of the agency's approach during the pilots' press conference at Reagan airport. About 70 percent of commercial pilots are former members of the military and already trained to use weapons, Lott said.

Bob Lambert, president of the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance, added that the terrorist threats remain and that only a small fraction of the 35,000 daily U.S. flights are accompanied by armed federal air marshals.

"It's been almost two years since the attacks of Sept. 11, and we only have less than 150 pilots approved to carry a firearm," he said.

"While the Department of Homeland Security warns that al-Qaeda has threatened to use commercial aviation here in the United States and abroad to further their cause, their colleagues at [the transportation agency] are preventing the fastest and most effective deterrent, which is to arm pilots in the cockpit as a last line of defense against an attack," Lambert said.


Copyright © 2003, The Baltimore Sun

[ysr_racer]

Don't pilots already have a job? Fly the plane?

[El Tejon]

Angry passenger tells flyboys: stop crying, I can't carry either even if I have a 100 times more hours than you!

[CaDave]

Angry passenger tells flyboys: stop crying, I can't carry either even if I have a 100 times more hours than you!

100 times more hours of what?

Dave

[C.R.Sam]

Lot easier to get the plane where it sposed to go if it can be protected.

Used to be that quite a few flight crews were armed and nobody noticed. And darn few successful hijackings.

Sam

Senor Tejon......you have a million hours in the air ???

[El Tejon]

CaDave, training time. I presumed the pilots had already taken their class.

Sam I Am, I wish (I was speaking of gun training time)! Does flying a desk count?:D

BTW, I hope the pilots prevail and do get the government to cooperate (no, stop laughing, guys). I would hope that they would realize there are good guys who can watch the back and flanks.:)

[Standing Wolf]

...less than 200 of 40,000 passenger and cargo pilots who want the voluntary training have completed the required course...

Fire Mineta!

[citizen]

The Saddest Statement in America; or why Veterans are rolling in their graves:

............."Get the government to co-operate." (Death of a Nation:fire: )

[gunsmith]

Don't pilots already have a job? Fly the plane?

There are not nearly enough air marshalls to go around 99%
of flights DO NOT HAVE AIR MARSHALLS!
100 % of all flights have pilots (do the math)
A blind guy can defend a cockpit with a handgun!
If your'e against arming pilots I suggest you remove your cranium
from your rectal orifice.
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:VFSFDEgtFVIC:bozman.net/gif/NY_9_11_01.jpg
two .38 revolvers could have prevented this

[Mal H]

"Angry pilots protest slowness of U.S. in letting them carry guns"

They should have a little patience. After all, it's only been two :cuss: years!

[telomerase]

...all pro-gun organizations should be using this as an attack issue. Let the President stand there and explain to Ms. Republican soccer mom why it's so important to keep the pilots disarmed.

[brookstexas]

Mineta works for the Prez, one phone call is all it takes.
BT

[cool45auto]

Saw a little bit about this on the news last night. It showed pilots at a shooting range. Some of them were getting pretty good groups!

[JDSlack]

IMHO it comes down to the fact that the Federal Government is opposed to giving citizens any assistance in self defense. They prefer sheep who bleat for the shepard when a wolf comes around. This is not unique to our government, all of them fear independent, self reliant citizens, able to resist.

[Bobarino]

someone asked "don't pilots already have a job? fly the plane?"

the answer is yes. but the pilots job is more than just flying the plane. the definition of PILOT IN COMMAND from the 2003 FAR/AIM is:

Pilot in Command means the person who:

(1) has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;

(2)has been designated as pilot in command before and durring the flight; and;

(3) holds the appropriate category, class and type ratings, if appropriate for the conduct of the flight.

notice the first part of the definition. when i fly, i am responsible for EVERY aspect of the safety of the flight. that means i am responsible for the safety of all of the passengers, crew, the plane itself, the people on the ground under me and for the safe outcome of each and every flight. i am also the FINAL AUTHORITY for all decisions made and the consequences of those decisions. this is something that piltos take very seriously. by adding air marshals, and taking away the pilots guns, the PIC has his/her responsibility taken away from them. pilots don't like having to rely on others to protect their flight. its the PILOT'S flight, not the air marshal's.
the feds give the previous definition themselves, then turn around and say they can't have a gun to defend their plane, their passengers, their crew, or people on the ground. its condratictory and the responsibility for the safe outcome of the flight needs to put put firmly back in the hands of the PILOT IN COMMAND!

Bobby

[ysr_racer]

gunsmith

two .38 revolvers could have prevented this


So would have a secured cockpit door, and the pilot flying the plane.

[C.R.Sam]

Bobby....
GREAT post.

Sam...ATR Ret.

[Sunray]

Are these pidgeons getting the training at the tax payer's expense, their company or on their own nickel? It would seem to me they're whining about being allowed to carry when very few are qualified. I wonder how many of them have CCW's off the job. I would think that'd be enough training.

[avery53]

So far they have spent $8 million to arm less than 150 pilots!!!
Sounds like a lot of pockets are getting lined at our expense and safety.
What else should we expect from a govt. out of control?
:cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: Avery53

[Nightfall]

avery53, you're telling me it has taken over $53,000 to arm and train one pilot? Are they making sure these guys can double as back up Navy SEAL shooters or something?! Jeeezzz... $53,000...

[mainmech48]

FWIW, there hasn't been a successfull attempt to highjack an El Al flight since the Isrealis made it a policy to have armed security personnel in civilian dress aboard every flight.

While it isn't possible at this point for us to do this, as there are many, many times more flights every day on our domestic routes than the entire volume of the Isreali carrier has in a month, there IS a pilot and flight crew on every one. I know that this has already been pointed out, but it bears repeating.

While the top level bureaucrats may have been appointed by the current administration, the vast majority of the staff(s) and "career" paper shufflers were "inherited". The Darwinian process under which they were "selected" was determined by the attitudes and political "correctness" of eight bleeding years Klintonism.

Most positions within the Federal bureaucracy are virtual sinecures. It's nearly impossible to coerce compliance to changes in people who don't WANT to implement them, are sophisticated in maneuvering within a system of Byzantine complexity and abstruseness, and require an Act of God to get rid of.

These people will continue to obstruct the process using every means at their disposal, and they are legion. They will try to make it as expensive, onerous, difficult and time consuming as possible for any eligible person to complete the obstacle course that they erect. The object here is to make the whole thing such a complete hassle that most folks will either give up in disgust or decline to even wade into the swamp.

Robert A. Heinlein, using the example of military paymasters, described the essence of bureaucracy in words to this effect (I'm working from memory here, so the words may not be exact. ):

"There are only two kinds of paymasters: those who go through the book to show you where it says that you can't have what you need, and those who'll go through it to find a way to get it for you whether you rate it or not."

As long as the system favors the former over the latter, things are just going to get worse.

[CWL]

Whilst waiting for my connection flight, saw an American Airlines pilot walk past, he had an 8" decal on his carry-on roller that said "NRA". He was gone before I could go shake his hand. :(

I hope he's one of the 'qualified'.

[jsalcedo]

Its as simple as this.

If you can legally carry CCW then you should be able to take it anywhere.
Including planes.

Even if one bad guy gets through it will not be worth his time to take on
other potentially armed passengers.

Be it bus, boat, plane, courtroom, daycare why should citizens be disarmed and defenseless ever?

Pilots who want to be armed should be without some government agency
holding a chair and a whip forcing them to jump through flaming hoops.

Didn't they prove themselves already by making it through , military, flightschool
backround checks, psych interviews and tests?


Does anyone know when firearms were first banned from being carried by civilians on airplanes?

Were there that many incidents before weapons were forbidden?

[CWL]

jsalcedo,

I believe that metal detectors and banning of weapons started after the spate of hijackings to Cuba in the early 1970's.

As for pilot training, there also is quite a bit of HTH combatives/disarming training. I also believe that they shoot ALOT of ammo during this course in order for pilots to minimize stray rounds into passenger compartments.

[C.R.Sam]

I think there were far LESS incidents before all the banning and screening started.

I can remember a few flights, redeyes, from Vegas to LAX with assorted leos, bagmen and ordinary citizens on board with no problems.

Since I nearly always carried, had a pretty good eye for spottin passengers with heat.

How I met John Bianchi. Was deadheading home, in uniform and in the cabin. John sat next to me and made me as packin. We got to talkin bout assorted carry methods. I learned a whole lot from that man.

Sam

[JohnKSa]

So would have a secured cockpit door, and the pilot flying the plane.
Sooo...

Sitting in the cockpit and listening to the passengers getting tortured to death one at a time is better than having a gun?

[Mr Grinch]

A secured cockpit door. Well Gee, let's just think about that shall we?

Hmmm, if that is all it takes, and we know that airliners now have a "reinforced" door, then why pray tell, do we still have Federal Air Marshals flying as we speak? Why are fighters sitting alert while we speak, and why are SAM's in battery around airports of interest as we speak?

While we are speaking- could it be that all of the above points to the fact that there is no such thing as a impenetrable door? Could it be that there won't be one for the foreseeable future? Could it be that the people who study these things just might have taken all of the engineering into account and determined that arming pilots and FAMs is warranted to ensure that a pilot survives to FLY THE PLANE?

Methinks some people haveth their collective heads in the sand...

[C.R.Sam]

Security of the flight deck door should have no bearing on the arm or not arm the pilots arguement.

To crash an airliner into a selected target requires access to the flight deck and the controls.

To crash an airliner into a random spot does NOT require access to the flight deck.

Either way the effort of terrorism is successful. "To strike terror into the hearts of the enemy."

Sam

[stevelyn]

Angry pilots protest slowness of U.S. in letting them carry guns......

I'm a bit taken by the title of the story. It's BS. :banghead: :fire:
They apparently aren't angry enough or protesting loud enough, otherwise they would and could have brought the whole stinking mess of an airline industry to a money losing, economy stopping halt long ago.:cuss: :fire: :banghead:

[ysr_racer]

JohnKSa

Sooo...

Sitting in the cockpit and listening to the passengers getting tortured to death one at a time is better than having a gun?


Yes, it's better than having the pilot OPEN the cockpit door and give easier access to any potential threats.

Trust me, you will NEVER again see a US airliner crash into a building. In fact, the last hijacked plane didn't.

[C.R.Sam]

How bout sitting in the cockpit...
Unarmed
Flight deck door secured

While some critter removes your ability to control the craft ?

There is, now, likelyhood that the unarmed passengers will attempt to thwart the critter's attempts. No guarentee.

How lucky do you feel ?

Sam

[Mr Grinch]

Racer, trust me, you WILL see another attempt to crash a commercial jet into a high value target on US soil. It is a given over the course of our lifetimes. You have not thought through the threat as it exists now versus the deterrent measures in place today, nor have you thought through the benefits of having armed pilots on commercial aircraft.

Why are you against arming pilots? They are there to protect the cockpit in order to survive and get the aircraft on the ground. They will not open the door while an attack is in progress, but they will have to fight whether they are armed or not should the door be breached. Just flying the airplane is not an option.

Do you also think that FAM's are superfluous? By your logic, passengers will save the day (you haven't thought through the issues on that either), assuming from your perspective that having the aircraft lost will all souls is a "success" somehow.

While you can't know the intracacies of the problem, it is obvious that there is much that is just being pushed aside without even basic familiarity. It seems that you are projecting the circumstances of the last attack versus the current remedies, not looking ahead to different tactics available to the bad guys...

Grinch

[Cameron]

Mineta works for the Prez, one phone call is all it takes.


TSA is part of the Dept. of Homeland Security. Maybe we should fire Tom Ridge.