Posted on 04/02/2004 10:02:05 AM PST by neverdem
Senator Tells TSA: Arm Pilots or Lose Funding
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
April 02, 2004
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Frustrated by the Transportation Security Administration's delay in arming airline pilots with guns, four members of Congress said Thursday they want the agency to quit dragging its feet.
"We're not interested in any excuses from here on out. This is too important to our national security," said Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), who introduced legislation that would require TSA to speed up the process of arming pilots.
Bunning was joined by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) and Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who is sponsoring a companion bill in the House. But it was the Kentucky senator who had the harshest words for TSA.
"They'll get the message or they'll lose their money for the program," Bunning said. "We'll put it somewhere where it will get the job done."
Congress passed the federal flight deck officer program in November 2002 in hopes of making airline pilots the last line of defense against hijackings. A year later lawmakers added cargo pilots to the program.
But, as a CNSNews.com investigation found, TSA has made the program cumbersome and discouraging for pilots. According to Wilson, less than 1 percent of the 40,000 pilots who signed up to participate have been trained.
Pilots have complained about the way federal flight deck officers must transport their firearms - in lockboxes, except inside the cockpit; TSA-administered background investigations, psychological exams and the release of personal information; and the remote location of the program's single training facility in Artesia, N.M.
"To have an agency that is unelected, that is sitting on legislation like this and not doing it is absolutely wrong," Boxer said. "In essence, TSA is turning its back on a law that is the law of the land."
Added Bunning, "It's not up to them to like the legislation. It's up to them to implement the legislation that the Congress passed."
When asked to respond Thursday, a TSA spokeswoman requested that CNSNews.com submit written questions. The agency had not responded to the inquiry as of Thursday evening.
The lawmakers at Thursday's gathering on Capitol Hill stressed that TSA already has the authority to properly implement the law. But they said that clearly isn't happening, given the complaints from pilots and the small number who have successfully completed the training.
"This could be done administratively by TSA," Wilson said. "All we're trying to do is really push what should already occur."
The bill, called the "Cockpit Security Technical Corrections and Improvement Act," makes a number of changes that would speed up the process of arming pilots and tear down the barriers that turn off pilots from ever applying.
Not only would pilots have to be trained within 90 days, but it would also allow pilots with a military or law enforcement background to be armed immediately.
The TSA would have to open more training facilities and use private training facilities for recurrent training, according to the bill. The agency would be responsible for picking up the tab for the pilots' travel expenses.
The legislation would also end the use of lockboxes, allow pilots to carry a gun outside the cockpit and let them pass through security like other law enforcement officers. Pilots could sue the TSA if the agency violates the law.
"As airline pilots, our fundamental mission remains the same: get our passengers, our crew, our cargo safely to its destination," said David Mackett, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance. "It is unfortunate, but nevertheless true, that fulfilling that mission now requires new tools, including an armed cockpit."
Representatives from the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations, Astar Air Cargo and the Law Enforcement Alliance for America were also on hand to offer their support.
Bunning, citing an urgent need for the legislation, promised to take the matter up with the Senate Commerce Committee immediately.
"It is a gaping hole in our national security, particularly for those who fly on a daily basis or a weekly basis," Bunning said. "And we're all, the people here in this Congress, on that schedule. So it isn't just for us, but it's for all the daily commuters and fliers that we plug this big hole."
And for someone like Boxer, who flies frequently to her home state of California, the issue transcends her typical alignment with gun-control proponents. Both the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Gun Owners of America are strong proponents of the legislation.
"We're not just going to sit quietly by," Boxer said. "This whole program was meant to make sure that what happened on 9/11 never happens again. This is a plan that is a very important part of that never happening again. And they're not executing it. And we've pretty much had it."
See Earlier Story:
Thousands of Pilots Won't Fly Armed, Blame TSA (Jan. 15, 2004)
E-mail a news tip to Robert B. Bluey.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
The catch is Boxer packs heat.
Against what sort of adversary would havy pilots have to use their weapons, and in what sort of conditions?
Unless you believe that an airplane cockpit could come under attack from multiple invaders from multiple directions aremed with assault rifles, I would think the situations would be quite different.
AAAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
gasp....
Ok, ok, I can say this....
breathing . .
Source? . . . Buwaaahahahahahahahaha ! !
It's just the peons who deserve to be disarmed--that would be you and me and all our friends and families. Both of them are worried ONLY about their own skanky butts.
In effect, the armed pilots would be functioning as THEIR OWN armed bodyguards for their frequent and necessary air travel. It's just an unimportant side effect that the peons will be protected too. IMO.
They're both pilots. The preferred terminology is Captain for the pilot-in-charge, and First Officer for the backup airplane driver.
Assuming right-handed flight deck crew- not necessarily a given; about one in 6 is a southpaw- and a conventional aircraft cabin layout where the two are seated side-by-side with the Captain in the portside front seat position, as in most automobiles, it's preferable that the Captain flies the plane and leaves the First Officer to deal with any threat coming from the aisle between an behind them. You can try this yourself from the seated position in your car, first from the driver's seat with your weapon in your right hand, trying to swivel and cover a potential threat from behind your rightside shoulder, or from the First Officer's starboard/ righthand side position in what would be the front passenger seat of an auto, in which the right hand controls the weapon that can then cover a threa in a aisle rearward over the left shoulder of one in that position. That also leaves the leftside *weak hand* for and defensive activity that may be required.
The First Officer is the bodyguard for the aircraft's Captain. Likewise, the Captain is the bodyguard for the First Officer. It's simple teamwork and cockpit resource management.
1. Read the clarity of truth encompassed in Freeeee's post #36. US fighters WILL down any hijacked airliner heading toward a likely target. The appearance of an F-15 or F-16 off the wing of your airliner after Joe Sixpack in 32F gets out of hand is DEFINITELY not a good thing. The fighter was not sent to help your pilot find the airport. He's there to kill YOU and your fellow travelers if your pilots lose control of the flight-deck.
2. Air Marshals are a great idea. Unfortunately, nothing short of an army of Marshals is required to provide "round-the-clock" coverage to prevent a well planned repeat of 9-11. Remember, the new enemy aren't hijackers in the old understanding, they are kamikaze, intending to die. If only 1 of of 10 missions succeed, how would Al Queda judge the success? -How would you?
3. My military M-9 (Beretta 92FS) training was better than you describe. My self initiated additional follow-on/continuation training was outstanding. At under ten feet, left or right handed, even twisted in a seat, missing a heart shot is (nearly) impossible with any handgun, all the better with a sweet 92F.
4. A skilled pilot can... Thats me bucko, and it aint goin down like you think. Any pilot attempting to "maneuver a Boeing 757 to 5.5Gs" will find himself flying formation with mass quantities of shredding aluminum, disintegrating luggage, vaporizing fuel and a plethora of distraught flailing passengers. Large transport category aircraft (airliners) are stressed for 2.5Gs to -1G in cruise, 2.0Gs to 0Gs with flaps. Slightly exceeding that limit bends the jet. Exceeding that limit by a factor of 1.5 "voids the engineer's warranty" aka may cause structural failure.
5. You may need to discuss this with a few more "Navy pilots" or freepmail me if you'd like.
P.S. Let pilots do what they do best. Fly.
Please, give me a break. Flying airplanes goes far beyond manipulation of controls. Seems to me providing third eyes to a bunch of Kamikaze Mohammads would be a jolly fun way to break the monotonous repetition.
That's fine by me and as it should be.
The point I was trying to make was that Feinstein and Boxer regard the armed pilots as their--Feinstein's and Boxer's--own armed bodyguards. I guess I'm guilty of "unclear antecedent" once again. "Their own" definitely was meant for the elitist, hypocritical, self-important senators.
Minetta was/is against arming the pilots!
John, evasive manuevers were not tried because the pilots had their necks slashed in 1-2 seconds after they realized they were under attack. How long would it take to put an airliner into a zero - g manuever? Think how long it takes to spin up a turbine running at low rpm? How long for control surfaces designed for straight and level flight to put the nose over? I mean these planes were not designed to have fast response. Maybe you are thinking of a corporate jet?
No, the doors are stronger, and flight attendants more likely to resist than help a hijacker, but the fact remains that guns in the hands of the pilots givern the short time involved is the way to deter hijackings. We do need security on the ground so they can't bring explosives aboard. I have no problem with doing both. I can't see not taking some options that are available.
Oh, and don't worry about a big airliner being depressurized by a few shots that miss. They will fly just fine.
Yeah. The widdle gun grabber frequently has to fly coast to coast...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.