How many 9-11-01 incidents are you willing to take?

[gunsmith]

How many 9-11-01 incidents are you willing to take?
Bureaucrats
Are standing in the way of armed pilots
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthre...1420#post771420
a national protest is being planned, your input is needed!

from packing.org last year! nothing has changed
Pilots are already subject to many potential career ending examinations. Twice each year we go full a full qualification in the simulator, we get line checked at least once each year, we get a medical exam twice each year, and the FAA rides along periodically. A minor mistake can result in our license being revoked (and the TSA can even revoke it), and such a blemish makes us unemployable forever. Imagine a CPA making a minor math mistake on a tax return which has no bearing on the bottom line. A pilot making such a mistake could easily be violated by the FAA, resulting in never being hired by another carrier. (OK if you're securely employed by a major which stays in business until you retire). We have to reveal every health or psychological issue to the government, as well as provide details on every health professional we see. Many "normal" situations, conditions, and medications are disqualifiers.
Why in the world would I volunteer for another psych test, in this case administered by the government itself? I am employed "at will", so why would I participate in a program which my employer disapproves of?
Furthermore, the program in it's current form provides little or no additional security to the public. The biggest effect from an armed pilot program is deterrence, and to create deterrence there must be a very large number or armed pilots. The program is designed to deter pilots from participating and then puts strict limitations that make the weapon generally unavailable to those who actually complete the program. Marksmanship is not needed in the confines of a cockpit. Psych testing to weed out those who might not be able to actually kill a hijacker is voodoo at best, and a less generous characterization would be that it is a deliberate sabotage of the program.
As an airline Captain, I find this program offensive to the Constitution (2A, property rights), harmful to the security of my passengers, and damaging to my industry .*****To make this clear,gunsmith (me) is not a pilot I got this off packing org last year !!! nothing has changed and we need it to change or else the terrorist will prevail again.how many 9/11's are ok with you?

 

[WonderNine]

I guess it's ok for you alcoholic pilots to have guns, but not us regular alcoholics!


Just kidding.

This is how bureaucracy works, see....nothing ever gets done....

 

[gunsmith]

I am not an alcoholic pilot

just a regular ol alky .....(hiccup!)

.*****To make this clear,gunsmith (me) is not a pilot I got this off packing org last year !!! nothing has changed and we need it to change or else the terrorist will prevail again.how many 9/11's are ok with you?

 

[foghornl]

Start with changing the person in the chair now occupied by Norm Mineta.

 

[Steve in PA]

Yeah, I want my pilot to come off the flight deck and stop a hijacking!!!

Keep your butt in the pilot seat and land the freakin plane.

 

[dischord]

Yeah, I want my pilot to come off the flight deck and stop a hijacking!!!

Keep your butt in the pilot seat and land the freakin plane.

How many times do the pilots have to explain that the purpose is not to come out of the cabin, but to be armed in case the cabin is breached?

 

[Tierhog]

Never mind the pilots being armed, they need to fly the plane. Let the passengers carry.

 

[twoblink]

I say let the passengers carry..

Let me see... the laws to protect me actually hurt me...

I can carry on the ground, where I'm safer, but I can't carry in the air, where there is more of a threat..

This is good logic.. how?

 

[bountyhunter]

False Logic

The problem here is that it is being assumed that giving pilots guns is the solution, and that is completely false. It is the cheapest way to go, but that's the real problem.

The truth is, airlines need to upgrade on board security both using physical barriers (more secure front ends) as well as plainclothes air guards who are armed. The Israelis use them and they work for a very simple reason: would be hijackers do not know how many marshals are ona given flight and they don't know who they are. If you hand a Glock to the pilot and co -pilot, hijackers know exactly who has the guns and where to find them. The other problem is: the pilot already has a job:

FLYING THE PLANE!

Security should be handled by people who are trained to do exactly that and can spend 100% of their time looking over the aircraft and gauging possible threats. Handing the guns to pilots is worse than nothing because it will give the Tombstone Agency (FAA) a way out to where they don't have to force the airlines to take the proper measures for security.

 

[bountyhunter]

How many times do the pilots have to explain that the purpose is not to come out of the cabin, but to be armed in case the cabin is breached?

It would be very cheap to increase the strength of the pilots compartment so that the door could not be breached during flight. Watch the next generations of airbus designs: they will have this built in. For now, a thich door and an electronic lock could do the same.

 

[moa]

It is easy for Israeli air lines to man up their airliners with armed sky marshals. They only average 20,000 flights a years. IIRC, we average 4,000 flights a day, maybe more.

IIRC, when 09/11/2001 went down, the FAA grounded something like 4,000 flights in the air that day, and I do not think that included general aviation.

 

[Mizzoutiger]

Cover the cockpit doors with bacon... that'll stop em

 

[Ktulu]

The problem here is that it is being assumed that giving pilots guns is the solution, and that is completely false. It is the cheapest way to go, but that's the real problem.

Arming the pilot is the most effective way for the pilot to defend himself or the aircraft in the event that the cockpit is breached.

If you want to come up with ways to limit the possibility of a breach, fantastic. I still want my pilots armed just in case. Better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it.

Qualified citizens make great plain clothes air marshals. Just as concealed permits decrease crime on the ground because criminals don't know who is armed, armed citizens in the air would protect the friendly skies. However, I won't be holding my breath.

 

[dischord]

It would be very cheap to increase the strength of the pilots compartment so that the door could not be breached during flight. Watch the next generations of airbus designs: they will have this built in. For now, a thich door and an electronic lock could do the same.

What Ktulu said. No security door can be 100% failsafe.

Security should be handled by people who are trained to do exactly that and can spend 100% of their time looking over the aircraft and gauging possible threats.

Strawman argument: The pilots are not suggesting they take on such duties. All they are asking is to be armed in case there is a breach of the doors (even the super-duper doors you say are on the way).

The truth is, airlines need to upgrade on board security both using physical barriers (more secure front ends) as well as plainclothes air guards who are armed.

False dichotomy: Letting pilots be armed and improving security in other ways are not mutually exclusive.

 

[bountyhunter]

False dichotomy: Letting pilots be armed and improving security in other ways are not mutually exclusive.

Except the reality is that there has been no changes to improve security aboard the aircraft since 9/11 because the Airlines have sucessfully lobbied to get it stopped and the Tombstone Agency has never gotten off it's arse until the body count gets so high people are picketing outside the capitol Building. Handing pilots guns should be the last line of defense, and it should be the last thing implemented after all the other steps which are PROVEN to work because they have been used by El Al for decades. When was the last time you heard of an El Al (Israeli) flight being hijacked? The point is, there is no new technology needed to make air travel safe. just a government agency that has to grow some cajones and do what it's supposed to... which means it will never happen.

 

[bountyhunter]

What Ktulu said. No security door can be 100% failsafe.

Are you seriously saying that you think they could not install a steel door of sufficient thickness to make it ompervious to any caliber that could be smuggled onto an aircraft? You have a plane that weighs a few hundred thousand tons... you could put a bank vault door there and not appreciably increase total weight. This kind of drivel is what the FAA is using to whine their way out of doing anything..... it wouldn't be perfect so let's not do anything.

 

[Mr Grinch]

Bountyhunter.

Come back to the home planet, US airliners have had armored doors made out of the best stuff available installed for well over a year. Lots of talented engineers started working on that on 11 Sep 2001.

El Al flies a handful of flights each year, they have something like 38 airplanes. US carriers fly over 30,000 flights PER DAY. What works for El Al would not work here, the three hour interview process would result in making about half of the flights economically unworkable. It would be quicker drive a car.

Two to three BILLION dollars to put armed officers on each flight. Not going to happen.

You need a layered defense that makes it both painful and unlikely that a hijacker will succeed again. That is what they are working on.

Forget letting CHL's carry. The public's attitude towards guns will never let that happen. I'd be all for it, just as soon as the CHL's complete the Federal Air Marshal Academy.

Grinch

 

[dischord]

it wouldn't be perfect so let's not do anything.

Once again, support of armed pilots does not mean "do nothing else." How many times do we have to say that?

Are you seriously saying that you think they could not install a steel door of sufficient thickness to make it ompervious to any caliber that could be smuggled onto an aircraft?

That's not what I said (2nd strawman argument). In any event, the security of a cockpit door is not limited to its ability to stop bullets. Any door can be breached, no matter how super-duper. The pilots simply want guns in case that happens.

Handing pilots guns should be the last line of defense, and it should be the last thing implemented after all the other steps which are PROVEN to work because they have been used by El Al for decades.

Why does arming pilots need to wait until those other things are implemented? Once again, no one here is suggesting that armed pilots are a substitute for those other procedures.

Except the reality is that there has been no changes to improve security aboard the aircraft since 9/11 because the Airlines have sucessfully lobbied to get it stopped

The pilots' request for guns is not the cause of the airlines' inaction/slowness. You've simply set up a 3rd strawman argument in defense of your false dichotomy.

 

[Waitone]

Handing pilots guns should be the last line of defense, and it should be the last thing implemented after all the other steps which are PROVEN to work because they have been used by El Al for decades.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. The fact is the final line of defense is an F-16 bristling with Sidewinder missiles which will fire and down any aircraft that has been hijacked. At the point of firing, everyone in the chain of command knows people will die. The only question is how many.

I would just as soon have one more step between breeching the cockpit door and smoking an aircraft.

The reluctance of the TSA to carry out the expressed will of congress is a direct function of the liability concerns (re: tort lawyers) of the airlines and the ruling class. Fear of tort lawyers is self-explanatory. The most secure place in America right now is supposed to be the cabin of an aircraft. An armed pilot tells America, "If we can't guarantee you safety in a passenger cabin, don't expect us to guarantee your safety anywhere else." Meaning, all gun control argumentation just failed.

Stakes for gun control are entirely too high to willingly implement the intent of congress. Then again, a president with hair on is rear end could end the discussion fairly quickly.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Start with changing the person in the chair now occupied by Norm Mineta.

Amen! Mineta is a representative of the Democratic (sic) party.

 

[gunsmith]

if you are against arming pilots

you are for shooting down airplanes.

There is not now nor will there ever be armed sky marshals on every
American flight.

Every flight has a dang pilot! you don't need to be Annie Oakley
to defend a cockpit with a gun

I guess you guys /gals who are for bureacracy and against armed pilots
will only be satisfied with killing hundreds of passengers when the next 9/11 happens

I am sure that the passengers crashing into some vital point in the
nations infrastructure will be happy knowing that
there should have been armed security on the plane.
They will die happy knowing that those untrustworthy pilots didn't have those horrible guns that are known to "go off" and kill little children

how many 9/11/01 incidents are ok with you?
looks like plenty to me!

 

[TallPine]

It would be very cheap to increase the strength of the pilots compartment so that the door could not be breached during flight.

You have no idea of the immense amount of paperwork required to implement even the most minor modification to aircraft hardware or software. That costs a LOT of money.



What pisses me off is that a bank will hire an armed guard to protect the few thousands of dollars in tellers' drawers, but an airline will not hire an armed guard to protect several hundred lives and a multi-million dollar aircraft.

And they want me to pay THEM money to cram myself into one of their death traps ...?

 

[gunsmith]

Tallpine!

What pisses me off is that a bank will hire an armed guard to protect the few thousands of dollars in tellers' drawers, but an airline will not hire an armed guard to protect several hundred lives and a multi-million dollar aircraft.

You're right again!

 

[pax]

If you hand a Glock to the pilot and co -pilot, hijackers know exactly who has the guns and where to find them.

Whereas, if the pilots don't have a gun, the hijackers will just leave them alone, of course, and never enter the cockpit at all. Hey, maybe the hijackers don't have any weapons, and they'll just steal the pilots' guns with their bare hands. Yeah, that's the ticket. Those hijackers are so dangerous they'll be able to simply take a firearm away from armed and alert men, but until they've done that, they're not a bit dangerous. I got it. </sarcasm>

Y'know, the basic solution to a thug trying to steal one's gun is simply to pull the felon propulsion lever. Problem solved.

The other problem is: the pilot already has a job:

FLYING THE PLANE!

Yeah, exactly. So when the hijackers break into the cockpit and start knifing people, or threatening them with bombs, the pilot should just calmly keep flying the plane. He should do that (and nothing else) right up until the point where a knife is pulled across his jugular, his body shoved out of the way, and the hijacker sits down in his seat to plot a kamikaze course for the White House.

Sounds like a plan to me.

pax

Timendi causa est nescire. -- Seneca
Ignorance is the cause of fear. -- Seneca

 

[gunsmith]

an amen for pax

Y'know, the basic solution to a thug trying to steal one's gun is simply to pull the felon propulsion lever. Problem solved.