Rejected For Guns, Pilots Criticize Test

The Washington Times ^ | February 5, 2004 | Audrey Hudson

[Squawk 8888]

Thanks for the ping.

This is stupid at so many levels- if a pilot can't be trusted with a gun then he shouldn't be trusted with an aircraft, period.

I'm not sure what US law says, but the Criminal Code of Canada definition of "Peace Officer" includes "The pilot in command of an aircraft in flight". That means pilots are the only cops who are not allowed to arm themselves. Let's face it, the only thing airport security does is render us all defenceless.

[Brian Allen]

<< They prefer to trust government-employed F-16 pilots in the federal chain of command to shoot down hijacked airliners with missiles.

It's a control thing. >>

Yep.

Although there are many in the free world's military forces, ours included, who also would otherwise be deservedly unemployed, there are none so absolutely bloody stupid and mean-spirited as those bottom feeders and quota hires who, after America's twenty-five thousand or so free enterprise businesses and corporations have seined, fished, netted, long-lined, trawled and dredged the depths of our nation's incredible pool of talent, get to be paid every month by the feral and other gummints.

And, self loathing, envious, rage-engined and hatred-driven as to a man they most decidedly are, nothing brings out the worst in every one of them faster than giving them a little power over the rest of us.

Sixes covered, Travis.

Per Adua Ad Astra -- Brian

[yarddog]

This policy comes from the top. Only two people can be held responsible. George Bush and Mineta.

I worked for civil service for 20 years and recall many times when even a suggestion was made from those in control. We little guys were basically made to do somersaults by mid-level management to try and comply.

[yarddog]

You sound like more than a little bit of a slimeball yourself.

You mean you didn't report this weird behavior? Oh I forgot, you were participating.

[yarddog]

"per ardua ad alta" was my high school's motto. It is engraced on my high school ring.

I think "per ardua ad astra" is the state motto of Kansas.

[Travis McGee]

To the vast majority of Americans, volunteering to have your penis whacked off is a sign of serious mental problems.

You think it's normal?

[freeeee]

The irony is, if that missile ever has to fly, the full weight of the question, "how did it come to this?" will land squarely in the lap of the one at the top of the chain.

No one will care. They're to busy throwing a fit over Janet Jackson's boob to bother with 'trivial' things like that.

[cynicom]

The colonel may well have a drinking problem or some other flag that was raised.

[yarddog]

Ok, I officially refute all your points.

By your own admission you are indeed a slimeball by the standards of normal society.

To be honest I doubt I could satisfy three different women at the same time. One is enough but I sure never needed viagra.

It has been my experience that those who brag about their prowess in any area, not just sex, are usually, although not always, among the weakest.

[freeeee]

I don't care what you do on your free time. I will address your points.

1. A sterile area should be kept sterile, PERIOD! Introducing hundreds of "authorized" firearm carriers is asking for disaster. Terrorist WILL exploit that!

If a handgun in the cockpit is needed, then terrorists have breached the cabin door and the area is no longer sterile. If they get control of the gun, they will have already taken control of the plane.

2. The logistics of maintaining control of the firearms within in the sterile area is one headache financially strapped airlines do not need.

The pilot retains control of the firearm. I can't think of any expenses involved there, save purchasing the firearm.

Where would they be kept?

In the pilot's shoulder holster or his locked briefcase.

Who will pay for the secure lockers?

If they absolutely need lockers in terminals, it should come out of the national defense budget.

3. Who will insure the gun has been loaded with reduced charge rounds

The same people who check Marshall's weapons.

Who assumes liability?

Gov't agents have sovereign immunity. Extend it to pilots and there is no liability.

4. If the gun is not stored within the sterile area at a crew base, if not then how do accommodate commuting pilots? Do you allow them to carry the weopon on-board while they jumpseat from their home to their base or do you force them to check the gun as luggage, if so then them complicates the handling issue as they do fly standby.

That would be up to the pilot. He can carry or check it as he desires.

5. Every hear of a drunk pilot?

If a pilot is in no condition to handle a handgun, he's in no condition to fly a plane.

6. The Israelis are the world best in aviation security, they are firm believers in unarmed pilots.

A. We aren't the Israelis. B. Israelis have no cabin doors that open to the rest of the plane.

Now I have a question for you: What damage can a handgun do that an air to air missile can't?

[Brian Allen]

It is also the motto of the Air Force in which I was once a [Lean, mean fightin' machine] boy pilot.

Blessings -- Brian

[DFW_Repub]

1. A sterile area should be kept sterile, PERIOD! Introducing hundreds of "authorized" firearm carriers is asking for disaster. Terrorist WILL exploit that!

If a handgun in the cockpit is needed, then terrorists have breached the cabin door and the area is no longer sterile. If they get control of the gun, they will have already taken control of the plane.

The sterile area I am referring to is anything airside past the security checkpoint. The idea is to keep weapons out of that area. You arm thousands of pilots, you will loose guns or loose control of them. The point is not to make it easier for the terrorist to have access to weapons beyond the checkpoint, arming pilots will negate that layer of security.

2. The logistics of maintaining control of the firearms within in the sterile area is one headache financially strapped airlines do not need.

The pilot retains control of the firearm. I can't think of any expenses involved there, save purchasing the firearm.

Then you complicate the pilot’s ability to clear through security and you open a BIG loophole for terrorist to bring guns through that checkpoint. Every hear of forged id’s and stolen uniforms? If you do arm the pilots, you want to keep that weapon in the sterile area and and not allow continued passage of guns back and forth through the checkpoints. Remember, many TSA employees are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

Where would they be kept?

In the pilot's shoulder holster or his locked briefcase.

Briefcases are stolen and I could beat the crap out of 90% of pilots in a restroom and take that holstered gun, run out into the terminal and blast away. Terrorist don’t always have to be terrorist only in flying aircraft. Remember, we are trying to keep that terminal sterile of all weapons.

Who will pay for the secure lockers?

If they absolutely need lockers in terminals, it should come out of the national defense budget.

(No response)

3. Who will insure the gun has been loaded with reduced charge rounds

The same people who check Marshall's weapons.

I see, so we hire thousands of more guvment weenies to be at each crew domicile and operations area, so when the pilots duty in they are there to verify the weapon and it’s rounds.

Who assumes liability?

Gov't agents have sovereign immunity. Extend it to pilots and there is no liability.

Hello!! Earth to you, Every hear of lawyers? Airlines will be sued and liability will be assumed, anyway you cut it, the flyboy is on the airline’s payroll.

4. If the gun is not stored within the sterile area at a crew base, then how do accommodate commuting pilots? Do you allow them to carry the weapon on-board while they jumpseat from their home to their base or do you force them to check the gun as luggage, if so then them complicates the handling issue as they do fly standby.

That would be up to the pilot. He can carry or check it as he desires.

Then you complicate the pilots ability to clear through security and you open a BIG loophole for terrorist to bring guns through that checkpoint. Every hear of forged id’s and stolen uniforms? If you do arm the pilots, you want to keep that weapon in the sterile area and and not allow continued passage of guns back and forth through the checkpoints. Remember, many TSA employees are not the sharpest knives in the drawer

5. Every hear of a drunk pilot?

If a pilot is in no condition to handle a handgun, he's in no condition to fly a plane.

Yea, that works!! (Sarcasm)

6. The Israelis are the world best in aviation security, they are firm believers in unarmed pilots.

A. We aren't the Israelis. B. Israelis have no cabin doors that open to the rest of the plane.

The Israelis have two cockpit doors with a small vestibule in-between. They do have cabin access. This is a much better solution and will probably be accommodated in the new Boeing 7E7.

Now I have a question for you: What damage can a handgun do that an air to air missile can't?

Kill both pilots for sure. The manpad MAY down an aircraft, more likely it will bend and burn some metal but you can still land the plane in most cases. A loose gun in the cabin will kill those swinging pilots for sure

[freeeee]

Let's take 2 hijacking scenerios through their logical conclusions.

Terrorists take control of the passenger area. If the passengers attack and subdue/kill the terrorists, fine. If the passengers are unwilling or unable to disable the passengers, the terrorists next move will obviously be to take control of the cockpit. Perhaps they'll begin to execute passengers. Under no circumstances are the crew to open the door. If they do, at the very least everyone on the plane will die from being blown out of the sky by an F-16, at worst the plane will be used as a weapon and kill many on the ground. If the terrorists begin executing passengers, the remaining passengers will see that they have nothing to lose, and attack in a fight to the death. If that doesn't happen, and the terrorists will attempt to breach the door by force.

Scenerio 1: The pilot is armed. As the door is breached, he fires his weapon at the small opening only a couple of feet away. This is no great feat of marksmanship. If he kills all the terrorists, fine. At the very least he will have reduced their number and the passengers may at that point have the upper hand. He could also kill the terrorist pilot thereby removing the ability to use the plane as a weapon and saving untold numbers on the ground. If he is overrun, the terrorists have control over the plane, and everyone on the plane will die from an air to air missile attack, gun or no gun. The terrorist obtaining the pilots gun will be of no tactical advantage.

Scenerio 2: The pilot is not armed. The cockpit door is breached and the flight crew is killed. Terrorists take control of the plane, and use it as a weapon, killing everyone on the plane and many on the ground, or an F-16 blows the plane out of the sky, killing everyone on board.

If you can find any flaws in these scenerios I'd like to hear them. It's painfully obvious that having an armed pilot is a win-win situation. There simply is no downside, aside from some BS red tape on the ground. And if the Bill of Rights can take such a hit, then so can lawsuits and red tape.

BTW, we're not talking about MANPADS fired from the ground. We're talking about an air to air missile from a F-16. There would be no survivors.

[Natural Law]

You are absolutely right. The Big Gov Democrats like Mineta do not want anyone with firearms who is not directly within the governments chain of command.

[Natural Law]

You are absolutely right. The Big Gov Democrats like Mineta do not want anyone with firearms who is not directly within the governments chain of command.

[jpl]

They prefer to trust government-employed F-16 pilots in the federal chain of command to shoot down hijacked airliners with missiles.

It's a control thing.

Which is why if I'm on a flight and I see any dude suddenly going for the cockpit, I fully intend to do everything possible to kill him. I figure if he gets in there I'm dead anyway.

[DFW_Repub]

If You are so terrified of another 9/11 style attack then place onboard every commercial airline flight 2 armed air marshals, whose FULL TIME job is law enforcement and who train on a regular and consistent basis for that job. A pilots FULL TIME job is to fly aircraft.

It's easy to comprehend the very real scenario that once you allow thousands of armed pilots behind the security checkpoint you have just made the terrorist jobs much much easier and you have erased the additional safety that we just spent billions of dollars on. No longer do they have to worry how they will get their box cutters and knives past the TSA. They already have guns waiting for them on the other side.

Consider this, you arm 10% of the commercial airline pilots, you now have thousand of legitimate guns inside the sterile area. Al Quada with one or two insiders will quickly identify who the armed pilots are. Narrow that list to the ones who commute and begin to note their commuting patterns. Most commuting pilots take pretty much the same flight as they travel to their crew base for their trips. Abdul,Muhammed and whoever else buy tickets on that flight. They clear security unarmed and board the flight. During that flight they jump the armed or armed pilots and take the weapons. They now have a gun or guns instead of a knife or box cutter. They take control and all will die. It is a real easy concept and one that will be exploited by the terrorist. They are patient and they plan well.

As I said before, if you are so concerned about another 9/11 style attack and place onboard all flights air marshals and go to the double cockpit door model. Also the new cockpit doors are bullet proof. Personally I am not worried about that happening again. and I fly a lot. (about 70K miles in 03)

The armed pilot scenario does not increase safety, it diminishes it.And the Israelis agree.

[jpl]

There aren't enough air marshalls to put on every flight in U.S. airspace, not even close. And going to the double cockpit door on every plane is probably a good idea, but it'll never happen because it's far too time-consuming and expensive.

And pilots were permitted to carry up until around the late 70s and we never had a problem with it back then. Your rationalizations really don't make any sense.

[freeeee]

You say this: "If You are so terrified of another 9/11 style attack then place onboard every commercial airline flight 2 armed air marshals"

Then you say this: "you arm 10% of the commercial airline pilots, you now have thousand of legitimate guns inside the sterile area."

Putting 2 marshalls on every flight will put 2000% more guns in the sterile area than 10% armed pilots would.

So clearly having guns in the sterile area isn't your concern. I'm thinking you're worried about who has them.

A pilots FULL TIME job is to fly aircraft.

Most of the time the plane is on auto-pilot and the pilot monitors the instruments. If that won't work, the co-pilot can fly the plane for a couple minutes.

Also, if the pilot is unarmed and therefore his throut is cut, he's going to have a hard time flying the plane seeing as he's dead.

Most commuting pilots take pretty much the same flight as they travel to their crew base for their trips. Abdul,Muhammed and whoever else buy tickets on that flight. They clear security unarmed and board the flight. During that flight they jump the armed or armed pilots and take the weapons.

The flight crew is in the cockpit. They can't just 'get jumped'. The terrorists can attept to breach the cockpit door during the flight, but we've already covered that in scenerio #1 of post #54.