How the Feds keep pilots disarmed

Status
Not open for further replies.

2dogs

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
1,865
Location
the city
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Jun-22-Sun-2003/opinion/21521841.html

COLUMN: Vin Suprynowicz

'You're an officer of the federal government'







Pete the Pilot, who I interviewed on Sept. 12, 2001, for the "Sept. 11" chapter of my latest book, had a layover in Vegas a short time back, so I asked him how things were going with arming America's commercial airline pilots.

"You see, the airline executives were against it, and the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) was against it -- the pilots were the only ones who wanted it." So, although Congress overwhelmingly mandated the program, "they've already run into some problems with it. The original TSA guy didn't want the pilots to be armed, so he set out to keep this from happening by making it very distasteful and inconvenient to be armed. So they've already redesigned the program."

How does it work?

"You do it on the Net. You answer some questions, then you get sent to another (online) site to take a test, and then you have to go take a six-day class. You have to go there at your own expense, on your own time. The airline does not pay to get you there, and if you miss a flight rotation that's money out of your pocket."

To get around admitting that it could ever, ever be a good thing to allow mere "civilians" to go armed, the authorities have mandated that pilots who complete the training will now be officially deputized. "You get a badge and everything; you're a `federal flight deck officer.' "

Where's the six-day course held?

"They're moving the location of the course facility again; it's somewhere out West that's not very convenient."

TSA southwest regional spokesgal Suzanne Luber says the first "prototype" class started with 48 pilots and ended up deputizing 44 "flight deck officers" at the federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga., in April. After a second small class graduates this summer, the training program will move next fall to Artesia, N.M.

"We have a budget of $8 million through the end of the fiscal year, which is September, and the cost of the course per pilot is $2,100," not including overhead and start-up costs. "It's 48 hours, so the course is six days." The pilots don't have to pay for that, but they do attend on their own time, she confirmed.

To get to bustling Artesia, "You fly to either Albuquerque or El Paso, and then you take a small plane to Roswell, and then you drive," Ms. Luber says, cheerily.

"And you have to get re-certified twice a year," Pete continues. Re-certification can be at any federal law enforcement shooting range; the pilots won't have to go back to Georgia or New Mexico twice a year, Ms. Luber says.

There are about 60,000 commercial airline pilots in America. How many are now being trained to fly armed?

"They took like 45 people," Pete says. Then there's going to be a second class, but that's already full, too."

And out of the more than 3,000 pilots that fly Pete's airline? How many are now being trained to go armed?

"Six guys."

So a hijacker's chances of running into an armed pilot would be ... two-tenths of 1 percent?

Pete shrugs.

"The bureaucrats who fought the arming of airline pilots are now placing outrageous roadblocks in the implementation of the law authorizing pilots to carry guns during flights," is the way Phil Brennan reported the story on NewsMax.com back on Feb. 19, in a story headlined "Federal Bureaucrats Obstruct Armed-Pilots Law."

"The requirements proposed by the Transportation Security Administration, including exhaustive psychological evaluations, are `intrusive' and `obscene,' charges the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance (APSA)."

Tracy W. Price, a spokesman for the pilots group, complains the TSA wants each pilot seeking to carry a gun to submit to a wide-ranging background investigation, including interviews with neighbors, relatives, friends and co-workers, an interview with a TSA psychiatrist, a second government psychological exam and a medical evaluation.

Many of those requirements are redundant because the Federal Aviation Administration already conducts physical and psychological exams of pilots every six months, Price told Newsmax.com.

Is Pete going to apply?

"I'm not going to do it."

Why?

"I'm not going to go into the psychological testing and being told whether I'm psychologically fit to carry a weapon. I already carry a gun, and I've already been judged fit to fly a plane, where I have responsibility for the lives of 200 passengers. So I'm not going to do that. And I also don't want to be a federal deputy. They actually deputize you and give you a badge and everything -- you're an officer of the federal government, and I just don't feel I can do that."

Let's just say Pete is not exactly a fan of our increasingly intrusive central government.

Didn't most pilots go armed up through the early 1960s, without all this federal folderol, I asked him -- in fact, wasn't it required to carry a sidearm if you were flying the U.S. mails; didn't Lucky Lindbergh always wear a sidearm when he carried the mail?

"1960s? Heck, most of the pilots were armed right up into the '70s. All this screening stuff is the fault of our own Airline Pilots Association, if you can believe it. Back when we started to have all those hijackings to Cuba, the pilots association demanded they do something, so we gave up our guns and in return we got the start of this wonderful screening system we've got now."
 
In no particular order:

The move from Brunswick, GA to Artesia, NM has to do with the fact that FLETC is running over capacity as it is. LEO training comes first, after all, at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

The Artesia site is a satellite facility of FLETC. It is deemed good enough for training our LEOs. It is certainly good enough for our pilots.

"Bustling" Artesia, NM is not too much more difficult to get to than "bustling" Brunswick, GA.

Nobody should feel sorry that relatively well to do pilots have to shell out pennies on the dollar to fly somewhere. Sheesh! If only we could all move about for a couple of bucks.

Typical pilot: How dare someone test and evaluate me?! I'm a pilot, for God's sake! (Reminds me of the joke: What's the difference between God and a pilot? God does not think he is a pilot.)

All that said, I would like to see a ramp up in pilot firearm certification. If that entails hiring more trainers, so be it.
 
"I'm not going to go into the psychological testing and being told whether I'm psychologically fit to carry a weapon. I already carry a gun, and I've already been judged fit to fly a plane, where I have responsibility for the lives of 200 passengers. So I'm not going to do that. And I also don't want to be a federal deputy. They actually deputize you and give you a badge and everything -- you're an officer of the federal government, and I just don't feel I can do that."


hmmm...

1) If said pilot fails the gun test, can the airline *morally* still allow him to fly planes?

2) If said pilot flies commercial airplanes, can the Feds *morally* require a test to carry a gun?

3) Does the pilot have to first take the civil service exam before they can be deputized?

4) Does the pilot receive pay for being an employee of the Fed?

This is booooo-guss.
 
This is typical of a "may issue" situation that requires training. Just make the training class really small...

Personally, I don't think that an armed hijacker is a danger. Not like before 9/11. Today, some bozo gets on the plane, and announces that everyone's gonna have a meeting with Allah, and whips out a box cutter, they're gonna be taking him off the airplane in pieces. I think that the only reason the shoe bomber made it off was the whole "hey, he was lighting his shoe" thing was just so weird.

A hijacker will never make it to the cockpit.
 
A hijacker will never make it to the cockpit.

I doubt I'd go quite that far, but believe the odds on hijacking aircraft have gone down considerably since September 11, 2001.

That saidâ„¢, there's no excuse for Mineta still being employed by the federal government.
 
Just had another thought... If a hijacker _is_ able to make it to the cockpit, the pilot better have something better than a 9mm... Cuz that hijacker would have to be one baaaad individual...

Either that, or one of the mutant undead...

Thread hijack anyone?
 
The TSA is a joke- costing millions of $$$- when all that had to be done was tell the pilots "yeah, you can carry your gun".

A further debacle:

Security checks ground air marshals
By Brock N. Meeks, MSNBC


More than 100 federal air marshals have been fired or stripped of their flight status in recent weeks for problems stemming from their security clearance background investigations, MSNBC.com has learned. In addition, some air marshals are flying without having received their final security clearances, Transportation Security Administration sources said. The revelations fuel critics' charges that a key element of post-9/11 airline security is being poorly managed.

THE TRANSPORTATION Security Administration, the agency that oversees federal air marshals, admits that some marshals have been fired while others have been stripped of their flight status and placed on administrative duty while appealing the action.
TSA Spokesman Brian Turmail disputed that marshals were flying without clearances, saying "all background investigations for federal air marshals have been completed."

However, several sources within the marshal program, including administrators, current and former air marshals and internal e-mail from a top agent contradict Turmail's statement.

In a June 20 e-mail obtained by MSNBC.com, David Hand, the assistant special agent in charge of the air marshal's Washington field office, addresses what TSA sources say is a growing concern among the air marshal corps about the status of security clearances.

Hand's e-mail warns marshals against calling headquarters directly in an attempt to register complaints across a range of issues. "Fielding these calls regarding leave, clearances, etc., only slows the process down and diverts attention from pressing issues," Hand writes. "The issues of non-completed backgrounds or clearances is [sic] not precluding anyone from performing their current assignment, so this is not an issue."

Turmail said Hand's e-mail was in response to air marshals questioning "how some of their colleagues are still going through the adjudication phase of the clearance process."

GROUNDED MARSHALS
Federal air marshals are the elite, armed undercover agents who ride shotgun on America's airlines and are authorized to use deadly force to thwart a terrorist incident. Prior to Sept. 11, 2001, there were only 33 air marshals and they flew mainly on international flights. But after Sept. 11, Congress authorized a huge increase in air marshals. From a pool of 250,000 applicants, a few thousand -- the exact number is classified -- were hired and given special advanced anti-terrorist training.

That quick ramp-up in numbers wasn't without its problems. Training shortcuts were taken in order to get the maximum number of air marshals flying in the shortest possible time, leading other air marshals to question the safety of such measures. The agency responded by implementing a more rigorous training regime that all marshals must pass.

Earlier this year, an investigation into the "policies, procedures, and controls for operating an effective and efficient" marshal program was completed by the Department of Transportation's inspector general. That investigation found that although TSA "made commendable progress in expanding the program," there were still four critical areas "needing immediate attention." What those four areas include aren't known because the report was withheld from the public as TSA said it contained "sensitive security information."

It has only been within recent weeks that troubles with background investigations have begun to winnow the ranks of the marshals.

20 TO 30 FIRED
TSA has fired between 20 and 30 federal air marshals, or FAMs, for issues stemming from their background investigations, several TSA sources told MSNBC.com. And more than 80 FAMs have been grounded and are currently on administrative leave because of questions arising from their security investigations, TSA sources said. And once again, the program is drawing questions and concern from within its own ranks.

"Now the whole process is questionable," said an air marshal who requested anonymity. "I've been flying with these guys for a year or more and [TSA] just now discovers some of them to be unfit for duty? That's not a great confidence builder in my book."

Although TSA's Turmail admits there have been some problems with clearances, he insists that it's not an area of concern.

Although "we won't disclose the exact number, a very small number of air marshals are on administrative leave pending the adjudication process," Turmail acknowledged.

During the adjudication process, a marshal has 10 days to clear up any questions arising from a background investigation, Turmail said. "At the end of [the adjudication process] they would either be placed back on active duty if they successfully adjudicated their case or would have been terminated for suitability issues."

Several sources within the program, including working air marshals, confirmed that they knew of air marshals flying either without completed background checks or without having received their final clearances. One TSA administrative source said that as many as 60 percent of all air marshals hadn't yet received their final top secret security clearances. Top secret is the highest of three basic security classifications used by the U.S. followed by "secret" and "confidential." A top secret clearance requires an extensive background search, including door-to-door interviews of people who know the subject.

PILOTS WEIGH IN
The glitch in security clearances hasn't gone unnoticed by airline pilots. "It only fortifies our position the TSA should not be the agency to run the [federal air marshal], the federal flight deck officer (armed pilot) program or any other type of law enforcement program," said Capt. Bob Lambert, a major airline pilot and president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance.

The background check trouble within the marshal program comes on the heels of TSA being publicly embarrassed over the disclosure of problems in performing background investigations during the rapid hiring of some 55,000 airport passenger and baggage screeners.

Within recent weeks, several airport screeners have been fired after background checks revealed they had some sort of criminal past.

As of May of this year, nearly 30,000 screeners still hadn't had complete background investigations, according to congressional testimony provided during a June 3 hearing.

During that hearing, a congressional panel grilled TSA Administrator James Loy as to why the agency hadn't yet completed the background investigations. Loy replied that the number was now down to 18,000 and that 98 percent of all current airport screeners had completed criminal background checks that included scans of FBI fingerprint and known-criminal databases.

Meanwhile, a total of 1,208 airport screeners have been fired for "suitability issues," such as providing false information on their applications, or for revelations of prior drug use, felony convictions or other criminal behavior, Loy told Congress.

"One mistake or one unsavory character and you have one huge, potentially fatal circumstance on your hands," said Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., chairman of the House Appropriations homeland security subcommittee that held the hearing on TSA airport screeners.

ACTUAL INFRACTIONS NOT DISCLOSED
The actual infractions stemming from background investigation problems leading to the firing or grounding of over 100 air marshals aren't known and could range from an undisclosed criminal background to lying about past drug use.

TSA's Turmail wouldn't go into specifics about what had forced any particular air marshal to be fired or placed on administrative leave. However, he gave examples of relatively minor issues that may have surfaced in marshals' job applications and background checks, such as questions over previous addresses, and under-age drinking, "which is committing a crime." In such cases, Turmail said, marshal applicants would be made to provide explanations before being allowed to remain in the program.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/928924.asp?0cv=CB10
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top