Thousands of Pilots Won't Fly Armed, Blame TSA

Status
Not open for further replies.

gunsmith

member
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
5,906
Location
Reno, Nevada
jim peel,labgrade and I are organizing an airport protest to this tomfoolery,coming to an airport near you! your help is needed! please contact us to assist. Lets help protect America,bureaucrats would rather you die then arm a pilot
http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/archive/200401/NAT20040115c.html
Thousands of Pilots Won't Fly Armed, Blame TSA
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
January 15, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - The federal agency charged with providing security for U.S. airlines, and the airlines themselves are intentionally sabotaging the congressionally-mandated program to train and certify pilots who volunteer to carry guns in the cockpit, according to supporters of the program who claim tens of thousands of pilots have opted out as a result.

Pilots with knowledge of the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO), or "armed pilots" program tell CNSNews.com that the manner in which the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) requires FFDOs to carry their weapons not only discourages participation, but also renders them defenseless against potential terrorist attacks when they are most vulnerable. The pilots also complain that TSA has issued a "thinly veiled threat" to disclose personal information discovered during background investigations and subjective results of psychological evaluations in an attempt to further discourage pilots from volunteering for the program.

The U.S. House passed the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act by a vote of 310 to 113 in July of 2002. The proposal became law Nov. 22, 2002, as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002

An FFDO, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told CNSNews.com in an exclusive interview that the TSA is "not pursuing [the armed pilots program] with any sense of urgency."

"The TSA has designed the program to deter participation and they're being successful," the FFDO said. "The program should be a large program so that it can be an effective deterrent and, because it is not as large as it should be, it is not the deterrent that it should be."

Capt. Dave Mackett, a commercial airline pilot and vice president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance (APSA), said actual enrollment in the program speaks volumes about TSA's performance, or lack thereof. He said nearly 40,000 certified pilots initially signed up with his organization, indicating their interest in serving as Federal Flight Deck Officers. But now, Mackett says, there are "only a few thousand volunteers" registered with TSA.

"As a result of the program's attributes -- the way the TSA designed the program -- roughly 88 to 90 percent of the original pilots who expressed an interest changed their minds," Mackett explained.

Chris Rhatigan, a spokeswoman for TSA, initially offered to comment on the allegations reported in the CNSNews.com investigation of the FFDO program, with some restrictions.

"I'm not going to respond to those types of statements," Rhatigan said when asked about specific allegations that are reported in the article. "I can respond to your specific questions about the program, how it's operated, what it's doing. But, as far as going back and forth like that, I'm not going to be able to participate"

Rhatigan was asked how many of the 40,000 pilots, who had originally registered with APSA, had formally volunteered for the FFDO program, but declined to answer.

Method of carrying weapon blamed for most pilots' decision to withdraw

One FFDO, who agreed to comment on the "carry protocol" for armed pilots' handguns only if CNSNews.com did not disclose the person's identity, said the regulation is "designed to deter participation."

"A lot of my coworkers have watched what I go through and they say, 'You know what? I'm not signing up,'" the FFDO explained.

The FFDO also believes such comments are the result TSA desires. "I've had so many pilots tell me, 'I'm not signing up for this. I'm not putting myself through this kind of agony to go through what you go through.'

"That is the thing that's really deterring participation," the FFDO added.

As CNSNews.com previously reported, the TSA requires FFDOs to be essentially disarmed anytime they are outside the cockpit of their aircraft.

"The jurisdiction of use of the weapon is in the cockpit and the cockpit only. They are called 'Federal Flight Deck Officers,'" explained Heather Rosenker, a spokeswoman for TSA in a February 2003 interview. "If somebody tries to intervene [sic] into the cockpit of that aircraft, [FFDOs] have the right to use their weapon."

Asked if there were no other circumstances under which a pilot would be justified in using the weapon, Rosenker replied, "That's correct."

Unless the pilot is behind the locked cockpit door, TSA requires that the weapon be holstered, locked inside a hard-sided gun case and stored inside "a bag that is non-descript."

The policy leaves pilots defenseless during the time when law enforcement and security experts agree that the cockpit is most vulnerable.

"The weapon needs to be re-secured in the locked box if the cockpit door is open," Rosenker explained, acknowledging that the regulation would include times during flights when one of the pilots leaves the cockpit to use the restroom or get food.

Dean Roberts, a former federal law enforcement officer and pilot, now flies for a commercial passenger airline. He told CNSNews.com that even some pilots with federal law enforcement experience would not apply for the FFDO program because of the lock box requirement.

"I know of, there are five in my crew base alone that are all graduates of FLETC (the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center) or graduates of the FBI Academy who have no intention of putting in paperwork to go to this," Roberts said.

"When I carried a gun as a federal law enforcement officer on an airplane, it was a hassle carrying a gun [on board]," Roberts explained. "The FFDO program has got about 20 more unnecessary steps in the process that make it more hassle than it is worth."

TSA's policy allegedly causing guns to be lost, could facilitate robberies

One pilot, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the risk of a handgun carried inside a lock box, inside another piece of luggage, being stolen from an FFDO or taken by force should be obvious.

"Criminals know that [some] pilots carry guns in lock boxes and those guns are not available to the pilots," said the aviator who also has a background in federal law enforcement. "TSA has set up every FFDO to be the victim of an armed robbery to get their gun."

Commercial airline captains and first officers, the pilot noted, are required to travel between terminals and distant employee parking lots at all hours of the day and night, often with little or no security. Because an FFDO's handgun is sealed inside the lock box, which is carried inside another piece of luggage, the CNSNews.com source said it would be impossible for the "armed" pilot to use it to defend against one or more attackers.

The FFDO policies and procedures also forbid pilots from carrying their lock boxes inside the passenger compartment of a plane unless they are the assigned captain or first officer for that particular flight. As a result, pilots who are "deadheading," or flying as passengers to or from an assignment, must place their firearm lock boxes into the cargo hold of the aircraft.

Roberts, who previously worked as a special agent and pilot for both the U.S. Customs Service and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), is a graduate of both the FBI Academy and FLETC. He said that while baggage handlers are not supposed to touch the lock boxes belonging to deadheading FFDOs, the lock boxes frequently get mixed with the luggage of other passengers.

"[FFDOs] go down to pick up the gun from a trip and it's already whisked off to baggage claim," Roberts explained. "It happens several times a day, more than once.

"Pilots go down to get the gun and the baggage handlers have already been in the belly [and] unloaded it and the gun is on its way to baggage claim," Roberts elaborated. "The FFDOs then have to get back up into the airplane, go down out of the terminal, down to baggage claim and hopefully find their gun on the carousel."

TSA's Rhatigan was asked how many times deadheading FFDOs had reported such incidents to TSA.

"I don't have access to that information to share with you at this time and I'm going to conclude this interview," Rhatigan responded. "I'm going to refer this up to Mark Hatfield the director of communications here and see if he has somebody he'd like to have you talk to."

Despite having refused such an offer during the initial interview, Rhatigan later called back to request that CNSNews.com submit a list of questions for TSA to consider. That list was submitted Tuesday evening. Wednesday morning, TSA was reminded of and acknowledged the reporter's Wednesday afternoon deadline. More than 24-hours after initially being contacted, however, TSA had provided no further response.

An FFDO who agreed to talk to CNSNews.com confirmed Roberts' claim on background but did not wish to be quoted on the issue, fearing reprisals for violating TSA's prohibition on FFDOs disclosing any flaws with the program to anyone other than TSA management.

Despite Roberts' extensive firearms training background and federal law enforcement experience, he was expelled from FFDO training on the last day of classes. He believes challenging the lock box and other TSA policies that are contrary to standard law enforcement procedures led to his dismissal.

"If you got pushy and demanded some answers and called them on their double-speak," Roberts speculated, "[TSA managers] said, 'Well, you've got to go. You're a troublemaker.'"

TSA accused of discouraging participation before program's official launch

APSA says TSA tried to discourage pilots from volunteering for the FFDO program even before the program officially began ... Read Part Two


E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.
 
Norm Menetta needs a through ??? kicking.

Train them, issue paper, arm them, and give them a quality holster.

I'm just amazed at how much TSA has invested in NOT making flying safer.

Even if you were against the idea in theory, when Congress made it law you'd expect that the bureacrats would have just said "oh,well" and gotten it done.

The way this has gone down if another plane gets taken over and it turns out that the pilot had applied for the program but pulled his app. when he found out what a PITA it was going to be, there is some serrious exposure for the guys at TSA that were screwing it up.
 
9 -11- 01,made possible by

bureacrats who would rather you die then fight back.
we are told over and over again,cooperate with the
mugger
thief
terrorist
kidnapper
etc
and you will be allright,it's corporate policy in many 711's
wendy's,denny's etc.
We have got to change our collective mindset or die.
 
Apparently, Norm Mineta would prefer that a jetliner be shot down by an F16 (or whatever Air Force jet is in use) than have a pilot have a firearm and defend the cockpit. And a lot of people would agree with him. I can't believe the number of people I've had conversations with who don't think pilots should have guns. "The terrorist might take it away from him". Oh. Of course, the terrorist might take the airplane away from the pilot, too. Is that a better alternative to the pilot carrying one of those nasty guns? "Somebody might get shot". Oh. And if the terrorist takes the entire plane away from the pilot, everybody on the plane is going to die anyway when it flies into the next big building, or is shot down by a fighter jet. I guess that's better than the risk of someone being accidently shot in the case of the pilot defending the cockpit. Of course. Makes perfect sense.

:rolleyes:
 
I am a captain at a major national airline, and thus far, I am not a FFDO. This article explains much of my opposition to the program. There may be changes afoot, but we'll see.

...I'm just amazed at how much TSA has invested in NOT making flying safer....
As is usually the case, it is not quite as simple as just TSA opposition to arming pilots.

As I see it, there are three groups opposed to arming pilots...

The Industry They desperately want the public to get back to flying, and more importantly, make a profit while doing so. To have a great number of armed pilots only highlights the idea that flying is not safe, and many people will stay home. Part of the quest for profitablity is to make the pilots as productive as possible. Having a pilot come off his flying schedule so that he can go to initial or recurring firearms training makes the airline that much less productive. Also, the companies have no say in whether or when a pilot can pursue FFDO training. Its all up to the individual, and they don't like that.

The Government Republican or Democrat, most politicians want to retain as much power as possible. They do this over the great numbers of government employees through their status as bureaucrats...meaning-"Behave as we tell you, or we'll fire you" (No difference than the private sector here). But FFDOs are the law enforcement equivalent of a volunteer fireman. He's not getting paid by the government. In fact, many FFDOs have to drop a flying trip (and lose pay for that month) to be able to go to FFDO training. The worst thing they can do is to revoke his FFDO status, in essence, fire him from a job that doesn't pay him anything.

The Union The largest pilots union, ALPA, is part of the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO is a de facto wing of the Democratic Party. And Democrats, generally, are loath to support something that looks like gun-freedoms. ALPA support for the FFDO program has been tepid, at best. They do support it, but they appear to be quite happy with the restrictions the TSA has put upon the program. In fairness, the smaller pilot unions for airlines not belonging to ALPA, have been much more supportive of a realistic FFDO program, but don't have the clout to make effective noise about the problems in today's program.
 
We'll see what comes of this - jimpeel's excellent & we'll follow his lead.

Finally got to talk today to a pilot bud & from all accounts, they are disgusted, but waves made usually wash back & they do have jobs - good ones at that. Repercussions are not unusual. Not counting on much pilot support for this, other than what can be drummed up annonimously (darn! that doesn't even look like a word! ;) )

There is a huge groundswell of support here, but it needs to be done with care, foresight, & a no-nonsense basis to pull it off just so. Likely, there's other folks doing similar things that need to be coalesced.

Just after 9/11, at least one private firearms training facility offered free classes to pilots, & I'd just betcha that within our community, we could pony up enough cash to allow these trainers to ensure a group-hug :D & get every single one who'd care to to get on-board, so to speak.

From all the BS from the TSA, one would almost think that they'd rather we have another hi-jacking. :rolleyes:

Come to think of it, that just ties in with not closing the borders .....

Wait one! I just saw a black helicopter .....
 
30 like mined folks could make a difference

The pilots want to be armed,but can't tangle with the AFL/CIO.
We can! 5 thr guys/gals each at 6 major airports on the same day
would get press and apply pressure contact jimpeel and I now to help!
 
The gubmint wants a dead Badger

This is because you`re a lawyer, hence a de facto politician. This is how they eliminate another snout at the public trough. Besides, as a poster here you`re marked as a disruptive influence. It`s not personal. Really. :neener: :D
 
From all the BS from the TSA, one would almost think that they'd rather we have another hi-jacking.
Well, now - just think of all the new restrictions on our liberty that the feral govt could impose if we DID have another hi-jacking ...

"See, what we have been doing isn't enough ... now please bend over."
 
am a captain at a major national airline, and thus far, I am not a FFDO. This article explains much of my opposition to the program.

You are a pilot who is eligible but declining to attend the training. I understand that this is a personal decision, and that managing lethal force is an anathema to many pilots, but what are you going to say if there is another hijacking attempt, and we yet again lose more Americans to a group of murderous maniacs? Is stopping this not worth some level of personal risk on the part of commercial pilots?

There is a program available to pilots to get effective training and tools to stop the threat. Thousands, from all airlines, rich and poor, have signed up to get ability to protect their airplanes. Others choose to sit on the sidelines and whine.

Which group is actually doing something to protect their nation? The guys and gals who are training and carrying guns now, or the one's complaining about not being able to carry a badge? At what point does it become your duty as a Captain and an American to obtain the skills, no matter what the cost, to defend your passengers and your nation?

It seems to me that pilots who refuse to attend are not serious, and/or don't think the threat is worthy of their time and effort.


Grinch
 
Grinch,

I "share your pain," but don't even try to lay this on any pilot who won't jump through TSA's stupid hoops.

Angry? Me too!

Express it towards the TSA, rather than at the pilots.

If given a condition that they have, to carry a gun, I would give it a pass too.
 
You are a pilot who is eligible but declining to attend the training. I understand that this is a personal decision, and that managing lethal force is an anathema to many pilots, but what are you going to say if there is another hijacking attempt, and we yet again lose more Americans to a group of murderous maniacs? Is stopping this not worth some level of personal risk on the part of commercial pilots?

There is a program available to pilots to get effective training and tools to stop the threat. Thousands, from all airlines, rich and poor, have signed up to get ability to protect their airplanes. Others choose to sit on the sidelines and whine.

Which group is actually doing something to protect their nation? The guys and gals who are training and carrying guns now, or the one's complaining about not being able to carry a badge? At what point does it become your duty as a Captain and an American to obtain the skills, no matter what the cost, to defend your passengers and your nation?

It seems to me that pilots who refuse to attend are not serious, and/or don't think the threat is worthy of their time and effort.
Please forgive the full quote, but Grinch seems to be calling me out on this issue.

You imply that some pilots don't want to "manage lethal force", and while that may be true for some, I'll assure you that this is not the case with me. Every copilot I fly with is briefed that I expect them to do their best to kill a cockpit intruder. I've carried CCW for nine years here in AZ, and haven't the slightest reluctance in killing someone that presents a threat to me or mine. I have quite valid reasons for my present reluctance to get into this program.

You ask if "stopping [another hijacking is] not worth some level of personal risk on the part of commercial pilots?" How much personal risk might you suggest? If I'm not convinced that the program is safe under everyday, no-hijacking circumstances, should I still get involved? Let me turn this question back to you: If I gave you a gun that you had serious questions regarding its safety, would you carry it?

FWIW, the "badge" issue is a non player with me. It does, however, carry meaning with other LEO groups. And, yes, a FFDO is considered a LEO.

You ask:"At what point does it become your duty as a Captain and an American to obtain the skills, no matter what the cost, to defend your passengers and your nation? [emphasis added]" Well, at a certain point the cost is too high. The actors I spoke of above have each, for their own reasons, created a program that is unworkable, in the hopes that it will die a slow death. I have been quite active in getting a workable program up to speed, and it may happen soon, but the TSA is not currently interested in putting one out.

Good day, sir.
 
Grinch, I too am an airline pilot. I work for a cargo airline, and we arguably need to be armed even worse than the passenger guys, since we NEVER have airmarshals on board, and the airplanes are generally parked in remote unsecured areas on the airport. Normally I don't respond to posts that are so totally clueless. For you I make an exception.

I'm not about to be in a position of placing my weapon in the cargo hold of an airplane. That's where deadheading bags go, especially for pilots working for other companies than the one they're travelling on. I don't trust checking my laptop. Do you think a firearm would be safer?

When the unacceptable compromises are eliminated, I'll apply. Til then, no.
 
AzLib,

If you read the message carefully, you will see my post was general in nature, not aimed at you. You chose to take it personally.

I have no doubt that you can handle lethal force and all that implies, but it is an objective fact that a large percentage of airline pilots want nothing to do with carrying a gun, or using lethal force, even if no training was involved, and the rules were changed to meet every demand of all pilots.

You are serious about using what you have at hand to defend your cockpit and that is great. Would you say you are typical of the average pilot at your airline or do many not even think about what they would do? Would a pilot be more effective if he/she participated in the training in order to obtain some better tools in the defensive repertoire? Right now an unarmed pilot doesn't have access to the hardware or hands on training they need to be completely effective. There is but one way to acquire those tools and skills, and the TSA is running the show. Egads!

I ask these things because you well know that the program may not change. If not, then what?

Pilots are obviously getting through the program and carrying out their additional duties. Are they being reckless or stupid for doing so? What is the difference between them and the pilots who eschew the program?

Could it be that they think that if changes are made, it will be FFDO's themselves that effect them from the inside?

If pilots don't participate, then assuming TSA wants the program to die as you say, aren't they just playing right into TSA's hands?

I have faith that dedicated pilots, the one's that want to be there, can safely and effectively carry out any program that the TSA throws at them. The energy they are spending trying to get the perfect program might be better spent participating in the current one, and pressing on from there.

BTW, it seems that you would be perfect for the program. Do you think you are making your decision based on a clear picture of the program? Have you ever flown with an FFDO?

Grinch
 
Normally I don't respond to posts that are so totally clueless. For you I make an exception.

Why thank you for the honor org, I appreciate that very much.

However, I am anything but clueless on the matter.

Cargo pilots need to be armed indeed.

When you say you don't want to put your firearm into a baggage hold while deadheading, I understand. My first question would be, "who is responsible if the pilot did everything right, and the gun goes missing?"

Tough choice isn't it? To adequately do the job, you have to assume more risk. The quandry to be solved is whether or not it is worth it to you individually. It comes down to whether or not avoiding the hassle is worth leaving a cockpit undefended. The program is not likely to change dramatically in the foreseeable future, so you are left wondering if you should go or not. Must be an agonizing decision.

I do know this, having made it to the cockpit of a commercial jet you are probably quite comfortable with managing risk. I have no doubt that you could handle the mean old TSA's nasty program.

Grinch
 
Despite the hype on that website, don't get your hopes up that they are going to start handing guns out to pilots based on the provisions in that proposal.

I really liked the "independent investigation" link- to a website article consisting of a couple interviews.

Grinch
 
TSA

Is making it as difficult as possible to obtain a "permission slip"
to protect the lives onboard our airlines.
Pilots may lose their job if a typical snafu arises
like a mumbo jumbo poor psyche test determines the pilot
can't be trusted with a gun that could kill two folks but is trustworthy
enough to fly a 747 that could kill all the passengers on board and thousands on the ground....this will explain better then me,a pilot posted this on packing.org last year. this whole situation is FUBAR!
they ought to just let pilots carry CCW period! anywhere! if you can't trust a pilot with a gun you can't trust him/her with a plane!!!:mad:
please read this!
http://www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/8866/
The article actually explains why this program will not arm
Added by Regional Airline Ca on Friday, April 18, 2003 at 11:34 AM
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?
 
If you read the message carefully, you will see my post was general in nature, not aimed at you. You chose to take it personally.
I did read it carefully, and I re-read it. You characterized pilots who are complaining about quite valid problems in the FFDO program as "whiners" and "not serious".
...it is an objective fact that a large percentage of airline pilots want nothing to do with carrying a gun, or using lethal force, even if no training was involved, and the rules were changed to meet every demand of all pilots.
I don't know how you know this to be an "objective fact", but there are roughly 40,000 pilots who have expressed an interest in this, yet have chosen not to get in. Our objections do not amount to "I'm staying out until the TSA mandates Boots, Stetsons, and matching pearl-handled .45s". We have fundamental gun handling problems with the program that the TSA has chosen. A program, by the way, that goes against the advice of the FBI and nearly every other LEO agency.
I ask these things because you well know that the program may not change. If not, then what? Pilots are obviously getting through the program and carrying out their additional duties. Are they being reckless or stupid for doing so? What is the difference between them and the pilots who eschew the program?
You're right--the program may not change. And I've wrestled with your "What then" question for quite some time. The FFDOs I've flown with are not reckless...the program is. IMO they are playing by some very stupid rules--rules that may end with lost/stolen FFDO weapons, or a ND in the cockpit, and I won't participate in them.
Do you think you are making your decision based on a clear picture of the program? Have you ever flown with an FFDO?
As I've said, I have flown with FFDOs, and spoken with quite a number of others. I am quite familiar with the details of the program. Are you?
 
Don't give up on cockpit defense

I am here in Artesia, NM while my significant other is in his second day of FFDO training. Being a TX CHL owner and his being a TX CHI, we support whatever it takes to be able to carry in the cockpit. So far there is game playing, right? So what? Is it better for pilots to NOT be armed? To those who have withdrawn their applications for training because they don't like the rules I say "get over that" and take the training. It's positive and a first step to changes... NOT taking it leads no where.
 
Being a TX CHL owner and his being a TX CHI, we support whatever it takes to be able to carry in the cockpit. So far there is game playing, right? So what? Is it better for pilots to NOT be armed? To those who have withdrawn their applications for training because they don't like the rules I say "get over that" and take the training. It's positive and a first step to changes... NOT taking it leads no where.

Amen sister,

I have the greatest respect for pilots who chose to participate in the program. Please pass along my best wishes to your husband, and tell him that the bruises will heal in a week or so. Hope you are proud of him, he is part of the solution. Well done.

Also think that it is pretty cool that you also chose to accompany your mate to beautiful Artesia. I know that you won't be able to decide which of the opulent attractions to visit, I mean there is so much to do in the sprawling New Mexico metropolis- what with all of the shopping malls, resorts, ski slopes, and performance halls, but hey, life always involves difficult choices.


Best,

Grinch
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top