Think it Might Be Time to Arm the Pilots???


PDA






PeteyPete
September 4, 2003, 10:38 PM
The TSA should get the show on the road and stop dragging their feet....We all know that 9/11 never would've happened if each pilot carried a handgun...i wish the gun-aphobic TSA would do what is necessary to keep America safe (lord knows my heart and portfolio can't take another terrorist attack).


http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/09/04/homeland.advisory/index.html

Advisory: Al Qaeda planning new U.S. attacks
Laundry list of possible attack scenarios

From Jeanne Meserve and Kelli Arena
CNN Washington Bureau


WASHINGTON (CNN) --A Department of Homeland Security advisory issued Thursday warns that al Qaeda is working on plans to hijack airliners flying between international points that pass near or over the continental United States.

A Department of Homeland Security official said most of the flights fitting this description originate in Canada, and that U.S. officials have been working with Canada over the past month to ensure it is improving screening and other security measures.

One government official noted, however, the United States has no authority to require security measures of non-U.S. carriers whose flights originate outside the United States.

The advisory was issued because of concerns about the coming second anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a recent uptick in intelligence information, and threats to aviation that continued through the summer.

Issued to state and local authorities and the private sector, the advisory said terrorist operatives have been studying countries to determine which have the least stringent requirements for entry. That could be a factor in their consideration of which flights would be easiest to board and take control of.

The advisory includes a laundry list of possible attack scenarios, and says al Qaeda may be researching how to disseminate diseases and toxins by contaminating water and food, or aerosolizing an agent in an enclosed space.

But the advisory says there is no specific information on individual targets or dates that would warrant raising the nation's threat alert level from the current yellow (elevated) to orange (high).

Some tactical information and six pages of suggested protective measures were redacted from the version of the advisory provided to the press.
Risk of multiple attacks

The advisory says that arrests of key al Qaeda members over the past several months "may have delayed or even disrupted some plans," but a Homeland Security official would not provide any details. The official did say that interrogations of those detainees produced some of the information contained in the advisory. Intercepted communications and materials seized in raids of al Qaeda safe houses were other sources of the intelligence, the official said.

The advisory cites the risk of multiple attacks against the United States and U.S. interests overseas. It notes recent mass-casualty attacks in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Iraq, "suggesting that 'soft' targets with minimum physical security measures could be viewed as attractive options in the U.S."

Among the sorts of soft targets mentioned in operational plans are apartment complexes, gas stations and restaurants.

The advisory also says critical infrastructure could be hit because of the "potentially significant economic and psychological impacts." Examples of critical infrastructure listed as possible targets are nuclear power plants and other energy facilities, petroleum and chemical facilities, the transportation sector, water systems, and the food supply.

The advisory notes that al Qaeda has successfully used suicide bombers and warns that terrorists "will employ novel methods to artfully conceal suicide devices."

Earlier in the day, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge held a conference call with state officials to tell them there are no plans at present to raise the threat level in advance of the September 11 anniversary. According to one participant in the call, Ridge said there had been an uptick in threat information, but not in the quantity or quality that would warrant moving from yellow to orange.

If you enjoyed reading about "Think it Might Be Time to Arm the Pilots???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Standing Wolf
September 5, 2003, 12:44 AM
Fire Mineta!

AZTOY
September 5, 2003, 01:36 AM
I will be on a plane Sept 10.................:uhoh:

foghornl
September 5, 2003, 09:50 AM
Think it Might Be Time to Arm the Pilots???

More than 2+ years overdue, I say.

Skibane
September 6, 2003, 01:23 AM
So, to summarize, we have:

Hundreds of 870,000 pound missiles crossing our continent every day...
Each one moving at 560 MPH...
Loaded with 60,000 gallons of highly flammible fuel...
Carrying almost 500 of our mothers, fathers, sons and daughters...
The fate of which rest solely in the hands of highly-trained flight crews...
Who can't be trusted with a couple of handguns behind a locked cockpit door...

Could somebody please explain the logic here?

alan
September 6, 2003, 01:36 AM
With a view to history, REARM would be more like it, for by virtue of government requirements, air mail transport contract requirements, airline pilots used to be armed.

Anyone ever notice how few hijackings there were back when pilots were armed?

telomerase
September 6, 2003, 06:54 PM
>With a view to history, REARM would be more like it, for by virtue of government requirements, air mail transport contract requirements, airline pilots used to be armed.

My understanding is that is was still technically legal for some pilots to be armed until the Bush Transportation Dept. policy changed three months before 9-11. We don't hear much about this, of course...

>Anyone ever notice how few hijackings there were back when pilots were armed?

We don't hear much about that either. Several hijackings were foiled in the '60s and '70s by armed pilots.

alan
September 6, 2003, 07:12 PM
Telomerase wrote:

"My understanding is that is was still technically legal for some pilots to be armed until the Bush Transportation Dept. policy changed three months before 9-11. We don't hear much about this, of course..."

If true, another of the "Bushies" sterling accomplishments. Once again, I'm given to speculate on how that particular day might have ended, had the pilots of those particular airliners been armed, as used to be the case. Of course, we shall never really know, will we?

It is also my understanding, perhaps incorrect, that respecting the few pilots that have been "trained" and are now authorized, as FFDO's (Federal Flight Deck Officers), to carry arms, that their weapons are required to be secured in "lock boxes". One cannot help but wonder, at the risk of being perhaps overly suspicious, if these are the same "lockboxes" that were to be used for Social Security Funds, talked of by members of an earlier administration?

Duncan Idaho
September 6, 2003, 09:53 PM
What alan said, "rearm". Pilots carried for years to protect the U.S. mail that they often carried. Of the three commercial pilots that I know, none have been allowed to carry since they began their careers 24, 18, and 15 years ago respectively.My understanding is that is was still technically legal for some pilots to be armed until the Bush Transportation Dept. policy changed three months before 9-11. We don't hear much about this, of course...Then why not share with us the source of your "understanding"? :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes:

AZLibertarian
September 6, 2003, 11:00 PM
It is also my understanding, perhaps incorrect, that respecting the few pilots that have been "trained" and are now authorized, as FFDO's (Federal Flight Deck Officers), to carry arms, that their weapons are required to be secured in "lock boxes". One cannot help but wonder, at the risk of being perhaps overly suspicious, if these are the same "lockboxes" that were to be used for Social Security Funds, talked of by members of an earlier administration?

I realize your comment about the Social Insecurity Lockbox was just TIC.

Unfortunately, your comments about FFDO procedures are mostly accurate. IMO, the TSA has intentionally set procedures that don't make sense, and will eventually lead to a stolen/lost FFDO weapon or a ND in the worst place possible...the cockpit. The psychological and background screening is unnecessarily intrusive. FFDO training and duty is unpaid. At my airline, pilots schedules are very flexible, and I can usually arrange to have a week off most months--but I need some lead time to arrange it. If the FFDO training date isn't given to me until 3-4 days prior to start, and my airline won't let me drop a conflicting trip, then a FFDO candidate may have to decline training due to scheduling...a poor reason, IMO.

I've mentioned the Airline Pilots Security Alliance before. They've got the most accurate information on the problems of the FFDO process and the TSA. Their website is at http://www.secure-skies.org/

I also like the words of The Boyd Group at http://www.aviationplanning.com/. Mike Boyd is an aviation consultant, and his criticisms of aviation security are quite accurate, IMO.

telomerase
September 6, 2003, 11:01 PM
>Then why not share with us the source of your "understanding"?

Because I'm supposed to be working, not looking up links to FAA regs... here's a second-hand source:

>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647

Hopefully someone else has a better link handy.

Duncan Idaho
September 6, 2003, 11:13 PM
The aviation agency said, however, that throughout the life of the rule not a single U.S. air carrier took advantage of it, effectively rendering it "moot," according to one agency official. Just as I thought. The FAA made a regulation that turned out to be such a hopeless nightmare of bureaucracy, that in 40 years no one took advantage of it. So: "We don't hear much about this, of course..." because hearing about it would be completely meaningless. Tempest, meet teapot. :rolleyes: :barf:

telomerase
September 7, 2003, 02:21 AM
>The FAA made a regulation that turned out to be such a hopeless nightmare of bureaucracy, that in 40 years no one took advantage of it.

So why did they bother to repeal it? And we know that some pilots were carrying in the 1970s, because they stopped some hijackings.

I guess what we need is someone familiar with airline history to dig up the info on when carry stopped being routine. Surely there's one pilot on THR?

C.R.Sam
September 7, 2003, 02:43 AM
I have no knowledge of packin on the flight deck being "routine" but I do know that a fair number of flight crews did carry when I was driving for a major airline in the late 60s, early 70. And...have no idea what the ALPA or company stance was on such.

We just did it.

And had no SUCCESSFUL hijack or "crash it from the cabin" attempts.

Sam. ATP

Duncan Idaho
September 7, 2003, 04:49 AM
So why did they bother to repeal it? And we know that some pilots were carrying in the 1970s, because they stopped some hijackings. I'm going by the information that you provided. The aviation agency said, however, that throughout the life of the rule not a single U.S. air carrier took advantage of it, effectively rendering it "moot," according to one agency official.emphasis addedWhy did they bother to repeal it? Could be any number of reasons, like for instance that NO U.S. CARRIER ever once availed themselves of it. Or maybe some flunky at FAA was pulling down $120,000 dollars a year for being in charge of a program in which NOT ONE U.S. CARRIER was ever involved, and they wanted to be able to eliminate his job.

Then there is the Mikey Moore version that will likely try to persuade us that the Bush administration had to repeal an obscure regulation in which NOT ONE U.S. CARRIER was ever involved, in order to make certain that they (the U.S. carriers) didn't thwart Dubya's plans for world hegemony by sneaking their pilots into a program that hadn't been used once in 40 years. Thereby assuring that his terrorist allies (OBL et al.) would recieve no meaningful resistance from the pilots. :rolleyes:

In any case, history is repeating itself since it is obvious that the same obstructionist morons are in charge of the current plan to arm pilots, and the proof of that is that the pilots aren't armed yet!

Long story short, the solution here would be to abide by the :cuss: 2nd Amendment, and let every law-abiding person carry their :cuss: gun if they want to!

I need to go barf now. :barf:

telomerase
September 7, 2003, 12:10 PM
>Long story short, the solution here would be to abide by the 2nd Amendment

Yeah, you're right. I wish some of the thousands of Ph.Ds in think tanks would run some of these facts down so that history would be more widely known... but we don't really need to know every detail to figure out the general principle.

Which is good because otherwise we'd have no time for our jobs :p

If you enjoyed reading about "Think it Might Be Time to Arm the Pilots???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!