Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama Slows Airline Pilots From Carrying Guns  
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 5047 times:

While aviation related, this seems like much more of a political issue. Some snippets from the article:

Quote:
EDITORIAL: Guns on a plane
Obama secretly ends program that let pilots carry guns

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.

This looks like completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots. The 12,000 Federal Flight Deck Officers, the pilots who have been approved to carry guns, are reported to have the best behavior of any federal law enforcement agency. There are no cases where any of them has improperly brandished or used a gun. There are just a few cases where officers have improperly used their IDs.

Since Mr. Obama's election, pilots have told us that the approval process for letting pilots carry guns on planes slowed significantly. Last week the problem went from bad to worse. Federal Flight Deck Officers - the pilots who have been approved to carry guns - indicate that the approval process has stalled out.

Only anti-gun extremists and terrorist recruits are worried about armed pilots. So why is the Obama administration catering to this tiny lobby at the expense of public safety?

And the full article:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...bama-secretly-ends-program-that-l/

Seriously - who is against arming airline pilots? It's a brutally simple and effective means to safeguard the cockpit of an airplane. Safety fears have been completely unfounded, no one has been harmed by an FFDO in the program's history.

Do liberals just try and find ways to keep law abiding citizens from protecting themselves?

94 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineYOWza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4917 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 5042 times:

So what you're saying is that potential terrorists won't even have to bring their own guns to the party! Amazing. I think it would be prudent to keep some C4 and frag grenades on board too, you know just in case  Yeah sure

YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 5002 times:

Before going off half cocked (pun intended), perhaps finding a source with a few facts (vs. the obviously slanted rantings of a single editorial) would be useful?


"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3875 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 4996 times:



Quoting Searpqx (Reply 2):
Before going off half cocked (pun intended), perhaps finding a source with a few facts (vs. the obviously slanted rantings of a single editorial) would be useful?

Guns and 2nd Amendment, the new GOP talking point because they don't have anything else other than tax cuts for the rich.



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineMBMBOS From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 4989 times:

Good. It was a bad idea in the first place.

User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 4966 times:



Quoting YOWza (Reply 1):
So what you're saying is that potential terrorists won't even have to bring their own guns to the party! Amazing. I think it would be prudent to keep some C4 and frag grenades on board too, you know just in case

Well I have to imagine that it would some effort to break down the cockpit door now since they're reinforced, and me thinks the pilots would keep the gun in the cockpit with them.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 4949 times:



Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 4):
Good. It was a bad idea in the first place.

On what grounds?

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 5):

Well I have to imagine that it would some effort to break down the cockpit door now since they're reinforced,

Are you satisfied with a system that has no redundancy?

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 2):
Before going off half cocked (pun intended), perhaps finding a source with a few facts (vs. the obviously slanted rantings of a single editorial) would be useful?

Just because a nice, b.s.-laden White House Press Report isn't available doesn't mean it isn't a relevant talking point.


User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 4927 times:



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6):
Just because a nice, b.s.-laden White House Press Report isn't available doesn't mean it isn't a relevant talking point.

True, especially if your main goal is to  stirthepot  . . .

I was thinking more along the lines of a straight forward report of what was changed, what is still available, etc., but hey, don't let facts get in the way of emotion, mud slinging and partisan bitching.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 4924 times:



Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 5):
Well I have to imagine that it would some effort to break down the cockpit door

Keep imagining that, if it makes you feel better.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Thread starter):
The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.

[sarcasm] Great idea, because clearly pilots are the largest security threat. Did you know that 100% of hijacked planes had pilots on board? Who knows what they will do? Imagine if they ever were to gain control of the aircraft. At least we are safe from whatever they had in their shoes. [/sarcasm]



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 4924 times:



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6):
Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 5):

Well I have to imagine that it would some effort to break down the cockpit door now since they're reinforced,

Are you satisfied with a system that has no redundancy?

You missread my post. My intention was that since it would take some time to break down the reinforced cockpit door, this time would be enough for the pilots to realize what was going on and be able to pull out their guns and ensure they're locked & loaded. The poster who quoted me believes that the terrorists would be able to raid the cockpit and just overpower the pilots and take the guns from them.


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 4878 times:



Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 4):
Good. It was a bad idea in the first place

Yea I know, we can't say war on terror and now I heard today we can't refer to terrorists as "terrorists". Nepalitano scares the living daylights out of me. We are going backwards and there is no stopping the Obama runway train. We don't need to harshly interrogate, don't need to wiretap, pilots don't need guns. Maybe Obama should take a look at El Al when it comes to airliner security, but then he would have to admit there is a threat. Something he seems to not want to do. Those votes from the codepinks are really beginning to cost us big time. Al Qaida has to be licking their lips at this point.


User currently offlineYOWza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4917 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 4867 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 10):
Maybe Obama should take a look at El Al when it comes to airliner security, but then he would have to admit there is a threat. Something he seems to not want to do.

Yeah Obama who inherited 1600 in the midst of a recession and a war on two fronts is the real bad guy here. Damn it he's been in office for almost 100 days and he hasn't fixed the US aviation scene or cured HIV yet. What a slacker...

YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8950 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 4866 times:



Quoting YOWza (Reply 1):
So what you're saying is that potential terrorists won't even have to bring their own guns to the party!

How would he know a gun is aboard? Out of a random selection of 100 aircraft, how many would have a gun in the cockpit? 5? 10? 20? You don't bet your operation on something that probably won't be there.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 9):
The poster who quoted me believes that the terrorists would be able to raid the cockpit and just overpower the pilots and take the guns from them.

Now that cockpit doors are locked in flight and are reinforced, AND following 9/11, no amount of blackmail, threatening hostages or whatever will convince a pilot to open the door to let a hijacker up front, that might be difficult.

In fact there aren't many situations where the gun would be used - only if the hijackers are all in the back of the plane (unlikely) or if they become insistant and try to pry open the door, in which case the pilot has plenty of time to be waiting for him.

One last point - there are few people in the world whose simple profession indicates that they are responsible. A commercial airline pilot must be of a disciplined mindset, and very familiar with the responsibility of hundreds of lives in his hands, and with the demands of making fast yet proper decisions. I would far more trust a pilot around me with a gun than just about anyone else (especially as he knows more than anyone the risks involved in firing a gun on an airplane) and most ESPECIALLY some Washington pinhead appointed by the pinhead-in-chief.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineYOWza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4917 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 4852 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):

How would he know a gun is aboard? Out of a random selection of 100 aircraft, how many would have a gun in the cockpit? 5? 10? 20? You don't bet your operation on something that probably won't be there.

So if the guns are the end all fix for in the air security should they not be in ALL cockpits?

YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8950 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 4850 times:



Quoting YOWza (Reply 13):
So if the guns are the end all fix for in the air security should they not be in ALL cockpits?

Firstly, who said it was the "end all fix"?

Secondly, by your logic, why bother having police officers? They can't be everywhere, and can't prevent all crimes from happening, so why bother?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineYOWza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4917 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 4833 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
Firstly, who said it was the "end all fix"?

By the sheer militancy of the proponents of the guns in the cockpit crowd that is the impression we are left with.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
Secondly, by your logic, why bother having police officers? They can't be everywhere, and can't prevent all crimes from happening, so why bother?

Not quite. This is a situation of tools per deployment, not deployments within the paradigm of possibility so the correct parallel with the example you used would be to not give all cops guns. Understand?

YOWza

[Edited 2009-03-17 22:10:58]


12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20334 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 4796 times:



Quoting DfwRevolution (Thread starter):

Seriously - who is against arming airline pilots?

I am.

Facts:
Holes in planes to date: 1
Holes in terrorists to date: 0
Terrorist attacks stopped by guns in cockpit: 0
Decrease in Al-Qaeda activity attributed to guns in cockpit: 0

I don't like guns on planes, PERIOD.


User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2805 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 4787 times:

The writer of this editorial is a MORON!!!

TSA has told ALPA they have no intentions of slowing down or stopping the program. Some of the funding for it has been shifted to increase oversight. As the program has grown, so have the required resources to maintain proper oversight of it. TSA is looking for ways to cover those shifted funds so that the program can continue full steam ahead.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineYOWza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4917 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 4785 times:



Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 17):
TSA has told ALPA they have no intentions of slowing down or stopping the program. Some of the funding for it has been shifted to increase oversight.

Well it's good to see that nobody on the right bothered to actually research this before going on an Obama witch hunt.

Guns in the cockpit are a mistake.

YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineINNflight From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 3767 posts, RR: 60
Reply 19, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 4776 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Thread starter):
It's a brutally simple and effective means to safeguard the cockpit of an airplane.

I agree, just in case some terrorist tries to break through the flight deck door with the plastic knife out of his business class meal.  

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 10):
Maybe Obama should take a look at El Al when it comes to airliner security, but then he would have to admit there is a threat.

Nick has a VERY good point here, the vast difference is that El Al has air marshalls on almost every single of their flights, so those armed people sit in the cabin, as normal passengers, carrying guns; not up front.

Those air marshals can take a potential threat out before he even gets through the front curtain, pilots can only wave their glock through the window to the outside.

[Edited 2009-03-18 00:57:54]


Jet Visuals
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4729 times:



Quoting DfwRevolution (Thread starter):
Seriously - who is against arming airline pilots? It's a brutally simple and effective means to safeguard the cockpit of an airplane. Safety fears have been completely unfounded, no one has been harmed by an FFDO in the program's history.

As an airline pilot, I am against the program. The idea of introducing a weapon in the aircraft is nothing but asking for trouble. The cockpit door reinforcement is sufficient to delay/prevent anyone from entering the cockpit. If it's not enough, then let's do away with the reinforcement and arm all pilots. The simple fact is, the cockpit door will not be opened under any circumstances. I can get the aircraft on the ground in less time than it would take to break the door down.

The simple fact is the US aviation security program is a joke. As a pilot, I see it all the time. There are many other countries that have a more aggressive, less intrusive security program. And the fact is, it's much more effective than the current US program will ever be.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7627 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4716 times:

Funny how on a discussion site we always tend to discuss in extremes.
I must admit that it is good to see that no poster so far has blasted the re-inforced cockpit door, indeed it is being used as a justification for not having armed pilots, when initially proposed, the idea was laughed at in a lot of circles, another TSA folly.

As for guns on the a/c, marshalls are mentioned as being better than pilots, guess what, when the decision was made to increase the marshall program that also ran into a lot of flak.

A discussion on how best to secure a/c from future hijacking should start on the ground with proper screening, however, no one really wants that as the lines would get too long, doors were proposed, some countries other than the US think its a bad idea and have not installed them, did the US pass a law mandating that for any a/c flying into US airspace?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16):
Facts:
Holes in planes to date: 1
Holes in terrorists to date: 0
Terrorist attacks stopped by guns in cockpit: 0
Decrease in Al-Qaeda activity attributed to guns in cockpit: 0

Doclightning facts of why he is opposed to guns on an a/c, I totally respect his opinion. I quoted this to show something else, like those who enjoy playing devils advocate. I could also use those numbers to say that the new screening procedures put in place since 9/11 are working, hence the first line in my post, we tend to discuss in extremes.

There is no magic bullet for protection of aviation, however, it appears as if getting all parties around a table to discuss alternatives is very difficult, and before someone says that we on this site are not the professionals involved, that is correct, but we are the society from which those professionals are derived, what makes their personal and professional feelings different from their society?


User currently offlineThrottleHold From South Africa, joined Jul 2006, 659 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4715 times:



Quoting DfwRevolution (Thread starter):
Seriously - who is against arming airline pilots?

I'm an airline pilot and I'm against it. In fact, I've yet to meet a pilot who is supportive of it.


User currently offline757GB From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 678 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4700 times:

I see it in terms of deterrence.

I read somewhere that one of the key strategic moves during the Falklands war was to announce that there was a British nuclear submarine in the area. Maybe it wasn't there, but it could not be ignored.

Unrelated? Maybe not. If you allow pilots to have guns in the cockpit you are adding one more level of uncertainty that a potential terrorist has to deal with. Maybe there is no gun at all, but the possibility cannot be ignored. Same with the air marshalls, except that in their case you might be able to identify them in advance. But you don't know what's behind that closed cockpit door.

A painful lesson learned was that those scum planned their operation in detail. For that you need a predictable environment. Making it unpredictable makes their job much harder and they might not even try. Maybe that has happened already? We cannot possibly measure it.

I don't think firing guns would be a solution. I think that the usefulness of the weapon is the fact that it could be there and it could not be ignored. That in itself might have helped already.

 twocents 



God is The Alpha and The Omega. We come from God. We go towards God. What an Amazing Journey...
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4687 times:



Quoting 757GB (Reply 23):
I don't think firing guns would be a solution. I think that the usefulness of the weapon is the fact that it could be there and it could not be ignored. That in itself might have helped already

But, you already have that risk in the fact there might be air marshalls on the aircraft. Having another gun in the cockpit doesn't add any measure of safety. I could argue, it might be counter productive if you had a situation with weapons in the cabin. Who is who?????


25 AGM100 : I never have been comfortable with arming pilots either. The main reason is the responsibly it puts on the shoulders of the captain .. and of course
26 INNflight : One hundred percent true!!! I've got a friend who flies in the Israeli Forces as a helo pilot, and his uncle used to be an air marshal with El Al; th
27 JakeOrion : Personally, I think it should be pilot's choice, but that's just me.
28 NIKV69 : What does this have to do with arming pilots? Bush inherited a mess from Clinton and we didn't hear about it every speech or every time someone calls
29 DocLightning : Please quote someone from the current administration denying that terrorists exist.
30 Aaron747 : Craziness. Nobody would be elected President if they said such things. Either quote Obama saying AQ is no threat or retract your statement. Either wa
31 FlyPNS1 : I don't personally have a problem with arming pilots. I believe most pilots are responsible enough to carry a gun. With that said, the problem I have
32 Lowrider : I am in favor of it. The majority of the people I fly with are too. I meet more people that support it than oppose it. Given the number of FFDOs in t
33 ShyFlyer : These statements are speculation at best. We can't quantify the deterrence factor because those who would commit terrorist acts against airliners are
34 YOWza : If you read the entire post you would have seen that the point was he has been in office for less than 100 days. Rome was not built in a day, DC will
35 Par13del : I think this question and answer is a national one, example, for the average citizen in the UK it is almost impossible to get a hand gun much less a
36 FlyDeltaJets87 : The F/As and the Pilots know who the air marshall is, so this point is proobably void. Probably the best post on here. The only thing I disagree with
37 Maverick623 : They're really not that hard to spot. If someone was going to do a 9/11 style attack they'd be very observant as to who goes up to the podium, who ge
38 Alias1024 : That seems to be the majority opinion I've noticed as well. I don't plan on participating in the program, but it doesn't bother me if other pilots wa
39 Vio : I think that if anyone is to carry guns in an airplane is a trained law enforcement officer sitting in the back of the aircraft so he can observe and
40 AGM100 : Probably true ... although I don't believe that AM's board as crew do they ? Well this is one guy who will not sit back and let some wackos take over
41 FlyDeltaJets87 : Situation Evaluation - "There's somebody in the cockpit who doesn't belong here - What do you do?" Answer: BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! So the only
42 Aaron747 : And were you to be working abroad with different security arrangements than the nonsense at TSA, you would likely have a different opinion, as most A
43 757GB : Thanks. From my gut instinct I agree. I also think that if they're not willing/knowledgeable the weapon becomes more of a liability than an asset. I'
44 Khobar : A recession that he stoked to the fullest and created a downward spiral bad enough to have ol' Bill tell him to STFU. And now we find out that it was
45 ROSWELL41 : I believe this program is good and adds another level of safety to the general public at little financial cost. Most of you have no idea what type of
46 DL021 : Well, there's 12,000 other pilots who disagree with you whom you have yet to meet, I guess. (I skipped right ahead so if someone else has answered th
47 757GB :
48 Lowrider : Actually, most of my flying is outside the USA so I have had an opportunity to see what other countries do, but being very familiar with the TSA 3 ri
49 Usair320 : A one word answer to your question: Yes. Those on the far left are always complaining about warentless wiretapping and torture (And don't get me wron
50 DocLightning : I think a simple kevlar vest (which does not set off metal detectors) is the solution to the problem. The armored cockpit door is a far better deterr
51 ThrottleHold : I fly for a European carrier on US flights. My country has been suffering from terrorism for the last 100 years. Most of it funded by collections in
52 David L : I thought I'd misread the initial comment.
53 DocLightning : I agree with you that this is an inconsistency in most Liberal thought, and this is why I depart from most Liberals on this issue. I believe that the
54 YOWza : Ssssh don't let the secret out that not all terrorists have a beard and carry a Koran. YOWza
55 DL021 : I don't know that I agree with that, completely. Certainly disruptive passengers, indeed the shoe bomber guy, have been restrained by passengers acti
56 AGM100 : The most likely scenario as I see it now is that terrorist somehow ... "assemble" a explosive device on board the aircraft. There has been a few plots
57 ShyFlyer : Yes, a vest would reduce the amount of available target area. However, should a person with hostile intent breach the cockpit door (which would take
58 Fxramper : Without more information, it is difficult to discern if this is a problem. Information that is was left out - total budget, number of pilots anticipa
59 Post contains links Fxramper : I got this in a email 30 seconds after I posted... Article Enjoy.
60 757GB : From the article: According to TSA's Web site, the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks "demonstrated the need for a multi-layered approach to securing commercial
61 DocLightning : If the government comes after you, firearms are going to be worth f*ck-all. They have tanks, choppers, etc. etc. etc. A bunch of civilians armed with
62 AGM100 : Correct .... especially in modern aircraft . NG aircraft have a bewildering amount of wiring and sensitive systems surrounding the cockpit area. One
63 SkyGirl : We still require a cart barrier on UA with the exception of the 47 and 57 that have gate barriers installed, and the old shuttle 37's that don't have
64 ShyFlyer : Bullet holes in a fuselage will not cause explosive decompression. The aircraft will need repairs, but it will be able to keep its occupants safe. As
65 AGM100 : It is a very good point ..... I may have been sounding a little prikey in my comments above. I only pray that I have the courage to lead if the case
66 FlyDeltaJets87 : "Two to the Chest, One to the Head" - that's what we're taught in the military. Kevlar doesnt cover the head. On top of that, Kevlar is often bulky,
67 757GB : True. And another point: if we have learned from what happened so have they. They will be a lot more alert towards the possibility of passengers risi
68 RJ111 : I think it's completely unnecessary to give pilots guns. Having good security is about doing the basics effectively and prudently, not about ridiculou
69 ShyFlyer : Theatrics like that are so far removed from the reality of FFDO training that it isn't even funny.
70 AGM100 : Its a good point ... In this type of situation ... they will need to be hit hard early. One thing that you will learn in most self defense training s
71 757GB : SO TRUE. The problem with this type of situation if you are in the "reacting" side is that unless you are extremely alert you will need some time to
72 FlyDeltaJets87 : And they could just bring a few more people for crowd control, probably strong body builder types. The hijackers can limit the effect of the superior
73 SkyGirl : Spartans on a Plane. The image in my head right now is horrific, and at the same time slightly amusing. And also plausible. Because this occurs on a
74 DL021 : Well, since there are nearly 200 million firearms in the hands of at least 80 million Americans let's look at what less than a couple hundred thousan
75 Usair320 : Thanks for your reply. As a conservative I often find myself at odds among other conservatives on a few social issues (abortion, gay marriage, drug p
76 DocLightning : No, I'm talking about the people who view guns as the solution to all problems. Believe it or not, many other stable democracies do not treat firearm
77 RJ111 : I'm exagerrating, jeez. If no-one can get in the cockpit, what use are guns to pilots? We managed for so long without guns on the aircraft. The reali
78 AustrianZRH : Better employ some air marshals: * better training * more room to act in the cabin than in the cockpit Those can even be taken from existing anti terr
79 757GB : That makes sense but it also works both ways. An air marshal can be seen or detected. Just the other day some guys at work were commenting on how the
80 Columba : The only pilots that should be armed are military pilots that fly over a war zone.
81 FlyDeltaJets87 : Putting bullets on target from 6 feet isn't rocket science. If there are hijackers aboard the plane, that plane IS a war zone.
82 ShyFlyer : Especially if they have managed to get past the cabin crew, other passengers, FAMs and the reinforced door. This is where the FFDOs come into play, n
83 KaiGywer : You need to get out more Exactly. Hell, the TSA even makes me take off hooded sweatshirts every now and then.
84 RGElectra80 : Because, you know, there has never been any terrorism in Ireland. Ever. Come on, dude, go learn a little about world politics before you start these
85 DocLightning : Still waiting for the source for this statement, NIKV.
86 DL021 : As opposed to the people who view them as inherently evil in all situations? Or the ones who feel that ordinary citizens ought not to be allowed to o
87 DocLightning : This is off-topic. My contention is that a firearm aboard an aircraft is a poor idea. My contention is supported on the data that showed that one fir
88 Post contains links PPVRA : Here's what happened: http://secure-skies.org/doc/PRESS%20...A%20IN%20PILOTS%20GUN%20MISHAP.pdf Another reason the TSA makes no-one safer.
89 DocLightning : Oh, so a poor policy relating to a poor policy caused this? Leave it to the Bush administration...
90 RJ111 : Precisely, i could see a fire arm being used by a suicidal pilot, or during a stupid argument between pilots, before it would get used on a terrorist
91 Flybyguy : I think introducing firearms on civil aircraft is ridiculous considering the amount of redundancy in the civil aviation anti-terror system. (1) we hav
92 ROSWELL41 : The previous two replies are troubling. First, a "suicidal pilot" as mentioned above would not need a firearm to cause tremendous damage. Reference Eg
93 Flybyguy : I don't deny that pilots in charge of getting us to our destinations safely are trustworthy enough to protect us in emergency. However, I think effec
94 ShyFlyer : I ask the following question of you not to be an ass, but out of genuine curiosity: Are you aware of the training that FFDOs receive prior to being a
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airline Pilots Should Never Record An Album posted Tue Jun 7 2005 16:54:20 by Superfly
Obama, Geithner Get Failing Grades From Economists posted Thu Mar 12 2009 04:47:56 by Dreadnought
Letter From Bush To Obama? posted Wed Jan 21 2009 17:11:24 by Poadrim
AP: Obama Hours Away From Naming Running Mate posted Fri Aug 22 2008 11:42:20 by Radarbeam
An Intelligent Proposal From Obama On SS Reform posted Mon Sep 24 2007 18:22:49 by Pope
Obama Seeks Advice From Sec Of State Powell posted Tue Jun 12 2007 00:45:02 by 102IAHexpress
From Airline Job To Travelagency.... posted Thu Feb 3 2005 07:55:21 by OYRJA
Guns And Pilots, Whats Your Take? posted Sun Dec 23 2001 04:26:08 by Toadpipe
Obama Ponders Outreach To Elements Of The Taliban posted Sat Mar 7 2009 20:26:25 by Mortyman
Why Are All Lights Seen From Above Yellow? posted Sat Mar 7 2009 13:27:00 by Paneuropean