Feds may reduce funding for armed pilots?

[paramedic70002]

Time for Congress to pass legislation:

Any pilot with a concealed firearm permit issued by any state, can carry any concealed handgun he wants, in any holster he wants, with complete reciprocity anywhere in the United States, it protectorates, possessions and territories. Foreign flights, the firearm will be securely locked in the cabin while on foreign soil. Present FFDOs will be awarded their HK for service rendered.

 

[Loosedhorse]

That does not change the fact that federal law enforcement and the FAA are very, VERY leery about allowing loaded firearms on airliners by non-LEOs

Again, I understand that. My question is not are they leery, but isn't it ridiculous that they are?

A program similar to paramedic70002's would be very low cost, and would only arm the folks who could already destroy the plane anyway, even if unarmed. I don't see the security advantage to keeping them unarmed--does anyone?

 

[bigfatdave]

Time for Congress to pass legislation:

Any [strike]pilot[/strike]citizen with a concealed firearm permit issued by any state, can carry any concealed handgun he wants, in any holster he wants, with complete reciprocity anywhere in the United States, it protectorates, possessions and territories. Foreign flights, the firearm will be securely locked in the cabin while on foreign soil. Present FFDOs will be awarded their HK for service rendered.

you mis-spelled "citizen"

 

[bigfatdave]

A program similar to paramedic70002's would be very low cost, and would only arm the folks who could already destroy the plane anyway, even if unarmed. I don't see the security advantage to keeping [strike]them[/strike]citizens unarmed--does anyone?

You did too

 

[Loosedhorse]

Well, that makes sense: no middle-ground. Either phase out the FFDO program because its high screening and training costs are absolutely necessary before a pilot may be allowed to carry; or relax it enough so that every citizen can OC on US commercial flights.

 

[bigfatdave]

Now you're getting confortable in that wookie suit!

 

[TenDriver]

Well, that makes sense: no middle-ground. Either phase out the FFDO program because its high screening and training costs are absolutely necessary before a pilot may be allowed to carry; or relax it enough so that every citizen can OC on US commercial flights.

No thanks. Too much room for error in an enclosed space surrounded by flammable liquids.

 

[alienbogey]

FAM's (Federal Air Marshal's) are full-time employees of the government, with full-time pay and benefits to go along with multi-month training programs.

FFDO's (Federal Flight Deck Officers) are airline pilots who volunteer to take an unpaid week from their jobs to get trained, and then requalify twice a year, again unpaid and on their own time.

FFDO's cost a minute fraction of what FAM's do in terms of cost per flight protected, so which program do you think they're considering eliminating? :banghead:

The bottom line: 9/11 never would have happened with an FFDO in the cockpit, and it won't happen again on any flight fortunate enough to have one (or more) flying the airplane in case the terrorists try it again.

 

[BBDartCA]

I was just on a 5 hour flight out of San Francisco. During the flight, the pilots opened the armored, locked door at least twice. Once was to go to the bathroom, and once was to get coffee.

But was the 125-lb 23 year old stewardess standing in front of the door while the pilot went pee?

 

[JustinJ]

A program similar to paramedic70002's would be very low cost, and would only arm the folks who could already destroy the plane anyway, even if unarmed. I don't see the security advantage to keeping them unarmed--does anyone?

Because a person with nefarious intent who managed to take the weapon may then have total control of the plane without having to sneak anything on board.

Its distrubing to hear that the cockpit doors are opened regularly on flights. I hope there is at least a procedure in place to ensure no passenger is within a certain distance before doing so. A second door with interlock system would obviously be a better option.

 

[BoilerUP]

Because a person with nefarious intent who managed to take the weapon may then have total control of the plane without having to sneak anything on board.

Control of the cabin perhaps...airplane, no.

That door isn't opening unless its opened from the cockpit, and you can damn sure bet if there's somebody back there who is armed trying to make entry one of the pilots is waiting with the crashaxe.

Its distrubing to hear that the cockpit doors are opened regularly on flights.

Pilots have physiological needs just like anybody else, and its nice to get a drink or a meal sometimes, especially on longer flights.

I hope there is at least a procedure in place to ensure no passenger is within a certain distance before doing so.

There is.

 

[Dueling1911s]

Do the booger-eating-morons in the TSA still mandate a padlock through the trigger guard for onboard storage? (no, I'm not joking)

looks like a HK USP compact or tactical to me

they got rid of the goofy trigger lock with pancake holster a while back. now they use a paddle holster and store the weapon in a "lock box" they have to carry with them thats even bulkier.

they switched them to federal hst's cuz speer couldnt keep up with their demand. and they are only issued a box of 50 when they leave training

 

[k-frame]

*sigh*

It's almost as if this guy knew we were discussing pilots and their ability to cause harm if mentally unstable:

JetBlue captain: 'They're going to take us down!'

By OSKAR GARCIA

The Associated Press

LAS VEGAS — Screaming "They're going to take us down!" a JetBlue pilot stormed through his plane rambling about a bomb and threats from Iraq Tuesday until passengers on the Las Vegas-bound flight tackled him to the ground just outside the cockpit, passengers said.

Passengers said the pilot screamed that Iraq or Afghanistan had planted a bomb on the flight, was locked out of the cockpit, and then tackled and restrained by passengers.

The captain of JetBlue Airways Flight 191 from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport was taken to a hospital after suffering a "medical situation" on board that forced the co-pilot to take over the plane and land it in Amarillo, Texas, the airline said.

The unidentified pilot seemed disoriented, jittery and constantly sipped water when he first marched through the cabin, then began to rant about threats linked to Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan after crew members tried to calm him down in the back, passengers said.

 

[Loosedhorse]

It's almost as if this guy knew

Sorry, I still don't get it. Is it, "Wow, if that guy had had control of a gun, this could have been a disaster--good thing he only had control of a jetliner!"

 

[Neverwinter]

The bottom line: 9/11 never would have happened with an FFDO in the cockpit, and it won't happen again on any flight fortunate enough to have one (or more) flying the airplane in case the terrorists try it again.

The bottom line is that 9/11 won't happen again on any flight because the paradigm of the passengers has changed, regardless of whether there is a FFDO/FAM on board.

 

[k-frame]

s it, "Wow, if that guy had had control of a gun, this could have been a disaster--good thing he only had control of a jetliner!"

Ha! Take your pick. The good news was that he was in the passenger cabin and not at the controls when he had the breakdown. Or so it seems.

As for another 9-11, I wield a mean laptop so don't even think of taking over that plane. Heck the removable battery alone would make for a small club (and now with my luck the TSA just dreamed up a new rule...)

 

[Agsalaska]

I would venture to guess the pilot today at some type of serious medical condition. Encefalitis was my first thought. My mother had it once. She literally went from completey normal to cookoo in a matter of minutes. Viral Meningitis, West Nile, or even a serious fever could also cause an otherwise normal person to act in such a manner. If that is the case I feel for him and hope he recovers. Fortunately everyone around him acted in a sane manner.

 

[Loosedhorse]

The good news was that he was in the passenger cabin

Actually, he was on the flight deck, but forced out and locked out. The passengers then subdued him.

I would venture to guess the pilot today at some type of serious medical condition

Well, they said he was very thirsty, so at least we know it wasn't hydrophobia!

May he recover quickly.

As for another 9-11, I wield a mean laptop

As UA Flight 93 showed, the problem with 9/11 was software, not hardware. The pilots on all planes, and the passengers on all planes except 93, complied because they were "programmed" to believe the plane would land, a negotiation would start, etc. They were playing from the old "co-operation is best" handbook, not realizing that the game had changed.

When the passengers on 93 realized that, they changed, too. May they rest.

My stupid ol' kid brother was the first one who said to me, around noon on 9/11: "You know what they need to do to prevent the next one? Nothing. Now that we all know what the game is, it can't happen again.

"Or if they do anything, how 'bout: 'Good morning, Mr. Loosedhorse, thanks for flying with us today. Here is your knife.'"

Like I said, we are the security system.

 

[TenDriver]

Things have changed, but to say it can't happen again is short sighted. Hence the reason we need more FFDOs, not fewer.

 

[alienbogey]

<<The bottom line is that 9/11 won't happen again on any flight because the paradigm of the passengers has changed, regardless of whether there is a FFDO/FAM on board.>>

With all due respect, that is incorrect.

The bad guys know about the new passenger 'paradigm', and they will plan for it.

All I can add is that I've been there, done the training, and seen the scenarios tested out.

FFDO's and/or FAM's stop the threat, barehanded passengers don't.

 

[Loosedhorse]

The bad guys know about the new passenger 'paradigm', and they will plan for it.

How?

As long as we outnumber them, they're going to have a tough time. Real tough. There is a simple reason that since 9/11 the only credible threats to US planes have involved bombs: because now that the passenger paradigm has shifted, the terrorists realize that destroying a plane remains possible, but commandeering one does not.

seen the scenarios tested out.

Training scenarios demonstrate whatever they are set up to demonstrate. They are training, not reality.

We have reality, and it says passengers stop terrorists.

 

[alienbogey]

How?

As long as we outnumber them, they're going to have a tough time. Real tough. There is a simple reason that since 9/11 the only credible threats to US planes have involved bombs: because now that the passenger paradigm has shifted, the terrorists realize that destroying a plane remains possible, but commandeering one does not.Training scenarios demonstrate whatever they are set up to demonstrate. They are training, not reality.

We have reality, and it says passengers stop terrorists.

Saying it in bold face doesn't make it so, and what is more, you're 100% wrong.

It doesn't take much imagination to figure out how to defeat the pax.

 

[Neverwinter]

Saying it in bold face doesn't make it so, and what is more, you're 100% wrong.

It doesn't take much imagination to figure out how to defeat the pax.

The position has the historical evidence of Flight 93. The position against has at best, the say so of undisclosed scenarios by undisclosed entities. The posters on this forum don't accept the ABC News scenarios that show CCW on campus doesn't work, why should we accept that the aforementioned scenarios show that passenger action doesn't work?

 

[Loosedhorse]

you're 100% wrong.

Sigh. You really do make it too easy, you know?

JetBlue Flight 191 3/27/12
American Airlines Flight 1561 5/9/11
Turkish Airlines Flight Oslo-Istanbul 1/6/11
Northwest Airlines Flight 253 12/25/09—”Christmas bomber” “Underwear bomber”
American Airlines Flight 63 12/23/01—”Shoe bomber”
American Airlines Flight 1238 10/8/01

If I know of 6 cases where that was true, now you have to come up with 594 cases where someone besides the passengers subdued a person in-flight threatening the safety of the plane since 9/11. And even then, I'd only be 99% wrong, not 100%. But maybe math isn't your strong suit?

I know it's going to take you a while to come up with the 594 cases...so I'll wait. And I'll read this:

TSA Considers Passengers One of 20 ‘Layers of Security’ to Stop Terrorist Attacks

It doesn't take much imagination to figure out how to defeat the pax.

I'll assume "pax" is a (dismissive) I'm-cool jargon for passengers. If your statement is true, well, then considering that we obviously are the security system on-board a flight...I guess TSA better give us back our weapons, huh? Before our being unarmed really causes a problem!

 

[wishn4more]

I do agree with NeverWinter about passenger intervention; I for one, have always felt I was my own best protection on a plane (bus, train, parking lot...). I always wear tall athletic socks, keep my laptop/backpack at my seat, and a few other innocuous things. Unopened canned drinks are useful. Just sayin...