TSA arming pilots

Status
Not open for further replies.
RealGun

RealGun

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
9,057
Location
Upstate SC
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02822r.pdf

Read page 1-4

The law to arm pilots was not complied with simply because the debate between proponents and anti-gunners was allowed to continue after it had already been debated and passed into law. How does that work?

Note the remaining questions to be answered, which constitute a microcosm of gun control among pilots.

Amusing that one of the concerns cited was that it would introduce more guns into society,and whatever would the pilot do with his weapon when not on the aircraft.

Anyway, I was wondering if this program has budged an inch in 4 years. I have no intention of flying until it is settled or there is at least a marshal on every flight. I will do some more research on line but wonder if anyone might know something useful.
 
I've been watching the armed pilot debate from day one. From observing the back and forth it was evident to me institutional opposition was centered in the dep of transportation mainly in the form of Manetta. I was also intrigued by the response of the president to the bureaucratic BS. Nothing. Congress authorized the arming of pilots in response to 911 and expected the executive branch to implement statutory provisions. Manetta evidently opposed the law and dragged his feet in every way possible including putting training facilities in inaccessable locations and implementing draconian psychological evaluations. Through it all the president just watched it happen.

Since Manetta departed I'm getting the impression things have loosened a might. In any case the program is not nearly as robust as need be simply because (I think) bureaucrats are more interested in turf and personal agenda than they are in working to ensure the safety of the public.
 
I kind of think the problem is that the public has been conditioned not to demand its implementation. Maybe it wouldn't hurt to turn up the heat a little.
 
I kind of think the problem is that the public has been conditioned not to demand its implementation. Maybe it wouldn't hurt to turn up the heat a little.
Click to expand...

I think it is most likely that the public thinks it already happened! I _thought_ we had this big debate and then some votes and that was it. The pilots who wanted to carry (and did some extra training) would be allowed to do so. I _thought_ maybe 1 in 10 pilots was carrying right now. I would expect the general public is probably the same way.

So the best course of action is to get the word out to the public that the law has not been complied with and pilots still are not armed.

Gregg
 
???

I have a friend who is a commercial pilot with a major airline and who worked within the pilots' union to move the program forward. I don't remember the exact time frame, about two years ago I think, but he got his training and has been armed while flying. Is that what you wanted to know?

Edited to add: And no, he wasn't BS'ing me. I've seen his credentials as a FFDO. He went out west for the training, I think it was NM. To the *best* of my recollection, the sidearm is a .40 Glock. He was later able to use his FFDO status to satisfy Ohio's training requirement for CCW.

K
 
sure give them guns and still make them take off their shoes each time :barf:

"hey guys i am flying that plane for 8 hours right, but you strip search me to ensure i dont have a box cutter in case i want to hijack myself"

nothing about the TSA makes any sense but that's another subject.
 
My reading of the Second Amendment indicates that not only the pilots, but the passengers should be able to fly while armed, no problema.
 
My reading of the Second Amendment indicates that not only the pilots, but the passengers should be able to fly while armed, no problema.
Click to expand...

Flame away 2A purists, but that's bullpoop. It's bad enough to maybe be stuck in a 7-Eleven during a shootout, but I don't want to be stuck in a narrow aluminum tube traveling 500 mph at 35K feet during one.

K
 
Kentak,

If everyone else was armed, the likelihood of someone trying to commandeer the plane would be redulced to nil (or very close to it.) Therefore, no "shootout."
 
If everyone else was armed, the likelihood of someone trying to commandeer the plane would be redulced to nil (or very close to it.) Therefore, no "shootout."
Click to expand...

Nice theory. Let's test it for a few years by having some "armed" and "non-armed" flights. You and your loved ones can choose the armed flights. I'll choose the status quo flights.

Let's remember, not all bad guys want to commandeer planes. Some want to bring them down, and risking being shot is the least of their concerns.

Utahminirevolver's reading of the 2A probably indicates that passengers should be able to be armed with a sawed-off Barrett. I mean, why not? Maybe because one shot through the cockpit door would bring the plane down? I dunno, call me crazy for not wanting to fly with that guy.

Any right can be taken to ridiculous extremes. I mean, I have a right to sit next to your daughter at the bus stop reading my Hustler and mumbling about how "purdy" she is and what I'd like to do to her. Right? I mean, that's what MY reading of the First A indicates to me.

K
 
You have to remember that, originally, the whole point of air marshals and TSA security was to prevent aircraft hijackings and the subsequent use of the aircraft as a missile (which meant it could be used against politicians in WA DC).

There has never been, AND THERE STILL IS NOT, a way to prevent an aircraft being destroyed in flight purely to kill all of the passengers.

It is significant that the armed pilot is not permitted to go back beyond the cockpit door TO SAVE THE AIRCRAFT OR PASSENGERS. The armed pilot is only permitted to use a firearm to prevent the aircraft being hijacked and turned into a weapon.

The whole airline security scam is a way of protecting the select few who make the rules while doing absolutely nothing to protect the average passenger.
 
You are also reopening the debate whether pilots should be armed. The subject is that it is already law that pilots should be armed. There was news that the program had been sidetracked, but I am not aware of any news that it started moving forward again. So stories such as knowledge of a pilot that became armed and how are relevant to the thread. The rest is noise.
 
The TSA would rather take the time to examine my shoes and/or confiscate my toiletries than do anything serious. They stand there at the security lines and scanners trying real hard to look mean, but come across like junior G-men. Meanwhile no one is checking the cargo for explosives! It's a disaster waiting to happen, and i am surprised it hasn't in the past five years to be honest. What was it that TSA stands for again, oh yeah, that's right; Thousands Standing Around. After the next disaster it'll be more like They Shoulda' Acted...
They can arm every pilot in the world, but his .40 or whatever he uses is going to be useless against a bomb in the cargo hold.
 
A considerable number of pilots are armed. It is now a routine matter. Whether there has been a noticeable slow down in the process recently I do not know.

The manner in which pilots are allowed to use their weapons is a relevant topic for discussion (within the limits of required secrecy). Initially it seemed to me that, the law having been passed to arm pilots, several measures were introduced to cause maximum inconvenience in the actual implementation of the process, the idea being to make actual arming of pilots impractical.

I see no reason why armed pilots should not given the same operational freedoms at airports as other LEOs but then you are dealing with the DHS and TSA. As an example of the stupidity of these organizations, pilots are not allowed to take knives onto aircraft. However, there are very dangerous items of aircraft equipment, that are required to be in the cockpit by federal law, that are stored in "quick release" fittings and that are easily accessible to any pilot.
 
Actually the title of this thread is a misnomer. It should RE-arming pilots. Since up until somtime in the 60's pilots flying a plane carrying the US mail were required to have a firearm.

In fact there is a recorded instance of a pilot on a passenger flight that also carried US mail using his gun to stop a hijacking. Imagine that, effective defense of a civil aviation aircraft by an armed civillian. I bet the gummint would like that little embrassing incident erased.

Read about it in Chris Bird's book; The Concealed Handgun Manual.
 
What's stupid about debating about armed pilots is that it's so easy to get other forms of permits to carry on a plane. Agents of the Department of Agriculture can carry on planes. Postal investigators can carry on planes. AFAIK, basically any sheriff's dept anywhere can issue a letter (somehow) that authorizes carry on planes. So there are armed people (other than federal air marshals) on a whole lot of flights anyway, and these may be people authorized by sheriffs, and who may have gone through little or no special screening, etc.

Front Sight's founder was also given notarized letters, written on Nye County letterhead and signed by then-sheriff Lieseke. The Pahrump Valley Times obtained a copy of a letter renewing Piazza's status, dated Sept. 16, 2002. It reads: "To Whom it may concern: Due to his duties and exposure as a Special Deputy, Ignatius A. Piazza is required to be armed 24 hours per day. This includes maintaining his firearm, concealed on his person when flying commercial airlines. Special Deputy Ignatius Piazza has received an extensive amount of specialized and advanced firearms training."
Click to expand...

So basically here's a guy who is really good with a handgun and is really good at manipulating these officials and he got himself a letter, from a county out in the middle of the desert, authorizing him to carry on planes, but they're still wringing their hands about letting pilots do that.

If I were a sheriff I would happily make pilots into special deputies and give them a letter like that.
 
Federal Flight Deck Officers

Kentak wrote:

To the *best* of my recollection, the sidearm is a .40 Glock.
Click to expand...

See: http://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/programs/ffdo_information.shtm
"FFDOs are issued firearms and other necessary equipment by TSA."

And then we have THE LIST of TSA approved firearms and ammunition:
http://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/programs/editorial_2273.shtm

Authorized Handguns:

Beretta Model 92F (9mm)
Beretta Model 96D Brigadier Service Pistol (.40 S&W caliber)
Glock Pistol Models 17, 19, 21,22,23,26, and 27 (9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP calibers)
Heckler & Koch P2000 (.40 S&W caliber)
Heckler & Koch USP40 Compact Law Enforcement Model Pistol (.40 S&W caliber)
Sig-Sauer P226 Pistol (9mm and .40 S&W caliber)
Sig-Sauer P228 Pistol (9mm)
Sig-Sauer P229 Pistol (.357 Sig and .40 S&W calibers)
Sig-Sauer P229 DAK Pistol (.40 S&W caliber)
Sig-Sauer P239 Pistol (.357 Sig and .40 S&W calibers)
Smith & Wesson Model 6906 Pistol (9mm)
Sturm, Ruger & Co. Pistol Models P93 and P95 (9mm)

Authorized Ammunition:

9mm, 124 grain, Jacketed Hollow Point (JHP)
.357 Sig, 125 grain JHP
.40 S&W caliber, 155 grain JHP
.45 ACP caliber, 185 grain JHP
 
>Actually the title of this thread is a misnomer. It should RE-arming pilots. Since up until somtime in the 60's pilots flying a plane carrying the US mail were required to have a firearm.

>In fact there is a recorded instance of a pilot on a passenger flight that also carried US mail using his gun to stop a hijacking. Imagine that, effective defense of a civil aviation aircraft by an armed civillian. I bet the gummint would like that little embrassing incident erased.

It has been erased, if your only source of information is TV news. Most people don't even know that pilots were only finally disarmed by the Bush Administration before 9-11. It doesn't fit the "story" that Republicans are "conservatives".
 
It is significant that the armed pilot is not permitted to go back beyond the cockpit door TO SAVE THE AIRCRAFT OR PASSENGERS. The armed pilot is only permitted to use a firearm to prevent the aircraft being hijacked and turned into a weapon.
Click to expand...

That is correct. After 9/11, it became clear that you must do everything possible to prevent the commandeering of an aircraft. The hardened cockpit doors and the possible presence of a FFDO who specifically is not allowed to exit the cockpit during a hijacking makes perfect sense and deterrence. The hijacker knows he's not getting into the cockpit.

That leaves the threat of someone who wants to bring the plane down. As you pointed out, 100% security is impossible. But, that doesn't mean you don't make it damn difficult.

K
 
They can arm every pilot in the world, but his .40 or whatever he uses is going to be useless against a bomb in the cargo hold.
Click to expand...

That's right. Different countermeasures for different threats. The FFDO is a countermeasure against taking over the aircraft for use as a weapon. Period.

K
 
Yeah, do you think that arming pilots is supposed to prevent bombs or make airplane food taste good or cure cancer or something? No, it's only for the purpose of preventing a 9/11-style plane-as-weapon attack, nothing else.

As for bringing down the plane there's little that they can do about that. The best thing they can do is good luggage screening and good screening of passenger bags. They're not even doing that. They spend their time looking for harmless things like water bottles. Sheer brilliance!

Anyway it's not hard to get a bomb onto a plane in the checked baggage; you mainly want to make sure it uses nitrate-free explosives, of which there are plenty of options. What can you do. Air travel has risks. If you don't like it, don't fly. We don't need air travel. We can drive, or ride a horse or a train or walk.
 
it used to be quite legal

for regular citizens to enjoy their rights while flying.
Some of President GW's personal security detail were questioned for reading the Koran and in the old days you could carry a gun....
I avoid flying as much as possible
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top