Senator Tells TSA: Arm Pilots or Lose Funding

Status
Not open for further replies.

labgrade

Member In Memoriam
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
1,289
Location
west of Loveland, CO
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200404\NAT20040402a.html

Senator Tells TSA: Arm Pilots or Lose Funding
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
April 02, 2004

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Frustrated by the Transportation Security Administration's delay in arming airline pilots with guns, four members of Congress said Thursday they want the agency to quit dragging its feet.

"We're not interested in any excuses from here on out. This is too important to our national security," said Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), who introduced legislation that would require TSA to speed up the process of arming pilots.

Bunning was joined by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) and Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who is sponsoring a companion bill in the House. But it was the Kentucky senator who had the harshest words for TSA.

"They'll get the message or they'll lose their money for the program," Bunning said. "We'll put it somewhere where it will get the job done."

Congress passed the federal flight deck officer program in November 2002 in hopes of making airline pilots the last line of defense against hijackings. A year later lawmakers added cargo pilots to the program.

But, as a CNSNews.com investigation found, TSA has made the program cumbersome and discouraging for pilots. According to Wilson, less than 1 percent of the 40,000 pilots who signed up to participate have been trained.

Pilots have complained about the way federal flight deck officers must transport their firearms - in lockboxes, except inside the cockpit; TSA-administered background investigations, psychological exams and the release of personal information; and the remote location of the program's single training facility in Artesia, N.M.

"To have an agency that is unelected, that is sitting on legislation like this and not doing it is absolutely wrong," Boxer said. "In essence, TSA is turning its back on a law that is the law of the land."

Added Bunning, "It's not up to them to like the legislation. It's up to them to implement the legislation that the Congress passed."

When asked to respond Thursday, a TSA spokeswoman requested that CNSNews.com submit written questions. The agency had not responded to the inquiry as of Thursday evening.

The lawmakers at Thursday's gathering on Capitol Hill stressed that TSA already has the authority to properly implement the law. But they said that clearly isn't happening, given the complaints from pilots and the small number who have successfully completed the training.

"This could be done administratively by TSA," Wilson said. "All we're trying to do is really push what should already occur."

The bill, called the "Cockpit Security Technical Corrections and Improvement Act," makes a number of changes that would speed up the process of arming pilots and tear down the barriers that turn off pilots from ever applying.

Not only would pilots have to be trained within 90 days, but it would also allow pilots with a military or law enforcement background to be armed immediately.

The TSA would have to open more training facilities and use private training facilities for recurrent training, according to the bill. The agency would be responsible for picking up the tab for the pilots' travel expenses.

The legislation would also end the use of lockboxes, allow pilots to carry a gun outside the cockpit and let them pass through security like other law enforcement officers. Pilots could sue the TSA if the agency violates the law.

"As airline pilots, our fundamental mission remains the same: get our passengers, our crew, our cargo safely to its destination," said David Mackett, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance. "It is unfortunate, but nevertheless true, that fulfilling that mission now requires new tools, including an armed cockpit."

Representatives from the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations, Astar Air Cargo and the Law Enforcement Alliance for America were also on hand to offer their support.

Bunning, citing an urgent need for the legislation, promised to take the matter up with the Senate Commerce Committee immediately.

"It is a gaping hole in our national security, particularly for those who fly on a daily basis or a weekly basis," Bunning said. "And we're all, the people here in this Congress, on that schedule. So it isn't just for us, but it's for all the daily commuters and fliers that we plug this big hole."

And for someone like Boxer, who flies frequently to her home state of California, the issue transcends her typical alignment with gun-control proponents. Both the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Gun Owners of America are strong proponents of the legislation.

"We're not just going to sit quietly by," Boxer said. "This whole program was meant to make sure that what happened on 9/11 never happens again. This is a plan that is a very important part of that never happening again. And they're not executing it. And we've pretty much had it."

See Earlier Story:
(Jan. 15, 2004)

http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/Archi...housands of Pilots Won't Fly Armed, Blame TSA
 
Bunning was joined by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) :what:and Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) and Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who is sponsoring a companion bill in the House. But it was the Kentucky senator who had the harshest words for TSA

"We're not just going to sit quietly by," Boxer said. "This whole program was meant to make sure that what happened on 9/11 never happens again. This is a plan that is a very important part of that never happening again. And they're not executing it. And we've pretty much had it.

hell hath truly frozen over:scrutiny:
 
Rather amazed to see Boxer on the side of truth and logic ...

Good for these Rep's ... very disappointed Bush has allowed this to go on. He may be a marginal RKBA "friend", but he looks more marginal all the time. Shame.

Hope to see this legislation quickly pass. Radical Islamists aren't very respectful of our slow-motion system of legislation.

Regards from TX
 
"And for someone like Boxer, who flies frequently to her home state of California, the issue transcends her typical alignment with gun-control proponents.".....

Per our Kali Senator Boxer:

"We're not just going to sit quietly by," Boxer said. "This whole program was meant to make sure that what happened on 9/11 never happens again. This is a plan that is a very important part of that never happening again. And they're not executing it. And we've pretty much had it."

"In essence, TSA is turning its back on a law that is the law of the land."


I guess body guards and senatorial privilege don't insulate her from danger when she flies commercial. Now she worries about gov't agencies respecting the law of the land. If she could just "feel our pain" we could start straightening out Kali's unconstitutional laws.:rolleyes:
 
Lemme see if I got it right.

Congress passes legislation saying the executive branch WILL arm pilots in the cockpit.

Responsible parties in the executive branch respond by dropping the bureaucratic hammer on any pilot who dares claims his or her privilege according to law. Further investigation reveals not only foot dragging but also outright refusal to implement law.

Congress responds by passing another law telling those same obstructionist executive branch employees they had better implement previously passed law or they will lose funding.

"They'll get the message or they'll lose their money for the program," Bunning said. "We'll put it somewhere where it will get the job done."
I got an idea. Why not just pick up the phone and call the head executive (President) and tell him to gain control over his branch of government by firing the obstructionist bureaucrat or he (the President) will personally pay the price.

This is a problem allowed to continue because Bush allows it to continue. Playing games with new laws and funding is just that, games. Squeeze Bush and force him to control his organization.
 
Pilots have complained about the way federal flight deck officers must transport their firearms - in lockboxes, except inside the cockpit; TSA-administered background investigations, psychological exams and the release of personal information; and the remote location of the program's single training facility in Artesia, N.M.

All this, yet they control a craft in which hundreds, if not thousands of lives depend. I just don't get it! :confused:
 
What's good for the pilots is good for the passengers.

And BOXER is pushing for more armed Americans, albeit a select few? Sure you weren't supposed to post this yesterday? :neener:
 
As I've said here before, I am a captain at a major national airline.

For those who haven't read between the lines of this issue, here's how I see it breaks down. There are three entities that have been less than happy about Federal Flight Deck Officers...a.k.a.--armed pilots.

The Government FFDOs are the law enforcement equivalent of volunteer firemen. They are trained to standards the government sets, but are not employed by the government. This means that the government doesn't have a hammer in a FFDOs life. Put up too many restrictions, and they'll just quit. A former FFDO doesn't have to worry about paying his mortgage because he earns it as an airline pilot. Imagine yourself as a beaucrat: You can support a FFDO program (which costs the government almost nothing), or you can drag your feet on it and hope that some day you'll get a bigger budget for the real pro's in the aviation protection business--the Air Marshalls. Remember--a beaucrat defines success not by succeeding, but by getting a bigger budget next year.

Also the government is responding to the mayors and state officials from around the country who aren't exactly 2A-friendly. They don't want their own citizens walking around armed, and having pilots on layovers displaying that--Yes, it is possible to have a peaceable environment when people are armed--bothers their gun-controlling sensibilities.

The Industry The airline industry has, in recent years, been in desperate economic conditions. There are a number of reasons for this: Airlines have very little price control anymore; Fuel prices are up; There is an overcapacity in our service; and 9/11 hit us hard. Where an FFDO program fits in here is that both the initial and recurring training required to run an FFDO program means that pilots aren't as productive (to their companies, that is) as they once were--they're away at FFDO training. This adds extra costs to the companies when they perceive they can least afford them.

The Union Here I'm primarily talking about ALPA. ALPA is an umbrella union that represents most of the pilots in the industry--the major exceptions being pilots from American and Southwest. ALPA is part of the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO is, IMO, a de-facto wing of the Democratic Party. And, most of us believe that Democrats will oppose anything that resembles gun freedom. Hence, ALPA--while they have been part of the process from the start--has been, again IMO, less than enthusiastic about a viable FFDO program.

And Waitone nails one part of the problem. President Bush could have made a viable FFDO program from the get-go, but for his own reasons, has chosen not to. Maybe he's playing politics with the issue, like he's doing with the AWB, or maybe he's really not all that wild about it...I don't know.

Sen. Boxer, actually, has been out in front of this from the start. Maybe she's trying to drop some of her liberal tarnish, maybe she sees this as a way to embarrass Bush. Whatever. Instead of being a sponsor of the legislation, she could just as easily vote for it quietly and let it go. Her help with the issue, while surprising, is welcome none-the-less.

A summary of these changes is here. The Airline Pilots Security Alliance, who have done much of the work on this, is here.
 
Boy ... read those comments on secure-skies.org ... will really chap your a$$. We're not only mismanaging this program, we're also insulting some of our best and brightest.

Bush should be embarrassed.

Regards from TX
 
Boxer is thinking about Bill Jones, her GOP opponent for the Senate.

Mineta is the problem here. And he is there, STILL, because of Bush's misbegotten notions of compassion and "inclusion." Mineta should have been ousted, like several others, long ago. The Man has a thing for left-overs, what can I say?
 
I doubt very many here are enthusiastic about Bush having another four years. But with Bush there's at least some hope of boring from within and influencing his policies. With Kerry we are looking at difficult times that could well pull this nation apart violently.
 
Wouldn't it be nice if these senators would take the same attitude toward the batfeh or what ever it is calling itself these days. Those guys have writing their own "legislation" and deciding what it means and how to act on it for years...:banghead: :cuss: :fire:
 
I have heard the horror stories about the FFDO program. I think it is beyond ridiculous that we trust a pilot to fly a very expensive aircraft with hundreds of lives on board based on the normal battery of medical and psychological evaluations, but we can somehow not trust them with a handgun in the cockpit without a separate and expensive (not to mention inconvenient) battery of tests administered by a group attempting to fail the program.

Another nail in the coffin of common sense.

Mineta must go (and all of his minions).

Are you listening President Bush? This is your opportunity for giving him the boot.
 
Waitone, thank you. Yes "you got that right."

& AZ, thanks too, 'cause you put the personal face on it.

OK, so we're all very upset about this, right?

We boycotted K-mart & fired Rosie, yada, etc. but haven't yet brought to bear our wrath yet on This Administration to cause a law! we all support from coming to fruition because a few holders-on haven't had their feet to the fire.

The feet belong to The Shrub & this election year is no better time.

Do it now!

I've already written the RNC about the machinations of the S1805 nonsense.

Where's our hard-core displeasure on this issue?

New thread coming.

Where to write, who to write = everyone of them.

Vote early & often!

bastads!
 
So maybe I won't need to have that airport protest after all -- not that I could get more than seven THRers to go anyway. Maybe I could get Bunning or Boxer to go with me. Probably stand a better chance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top