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".
You put yourself into the category, not me. I just figured you were struggling with some of the issues.
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.
That list was a no jeopardy general interest petition off of the APSA website, not an official application document. For APSA to characterize it as anything else is disengenous. It is irrelavent, all TSA has to do is point to the program and say- "lots of pilots are signing up for the real one".
APSA also brings up the screening issue. How do you convince Congress by claiming that pilots don't need to be screened because of their impeccable credentials, then argue that screening is a threat? By definition, they should have nothing to fear.
Is it not disengenous for pilots to claim that pilots recieve ongoing psych evaluations? That simply isn't true. Isn't it a fact that pilots do commit suicide? A few years ago, I read a front page story in the WSJ about an airline pilot who stuck a fork into his wife. I am sure that the airlines would gladly provide reams of data about their pilots that would justify some modicum of screening. To think that a bill would pass without that requirement is not credible.
Do you think that every airline pilot should by virtue of his airline job (recall that airlines have a wide spectrum of psych screening and testing during their individual application processes) should qualify to carry a gun or would their be a small number who should be rejected?
Do you know what the actual rejection rate is? Do you know how many pilots have been discipline in any way for being rejected?
I ask, because these questions serve to determine whether the current screening is reasonable, especially in the view of the Congress.
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.
Then by your own admission shouldn't you as Pilot in Command, be vehemently opposing FFDO's carrying firearms on your jet? By your definition, it is a DANGEROUS program that may result in a discharge in the cockpit!
The reality is that the procedures and training are designed to exactly avoid inadvertant discharges, both on and off of the aircraft. Some of those very procedures are what upsets some of the pilots. They are also designed to get the firearm into action in a hearbeat should the need arise.
Haven't 110 pound girls made it through? What do you say when she shows up at the hearings on the new bill and testifies as to the "difficulty" of the program?
Some people look at things and see all of the obstacles and reasons not to try- others just see it as a challenge and attack.
I guess it comes down to this, you have to see this as larger than yourself in order to participate. None of this is for our convenience, but if you want the tools and skills, you just deal with it to get them. You don't beat murderous thugs sitting on the sidelines.
Grinch
