Posted on 03/05/2002 11:30:05 PM PST by JohnHuang2
The director for Homeland Security's comment that it doesn't "make sense" to allow commercial airline pilots to be armed appears to be at odds with the opinion of a majority of Americans and pilots' groups.
Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge said yesterday if pilots were permitted to be armed, the trend would likely spread to other sectors of the travel industry – something he didn't seem prepared to sanction.
"I don't think we want to equip our pilots with firearms," Ridge said. "That doesn't make a lot of sense to me." Asked why, Ridge replied, "Where would it end?"
White House officials, according to USA Today, say they believe Ridge's comments reflect President Bush's point of view, though Bush has never publicly commented on the issue.
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, a Cabinet-level holdover from the Clinton administration – which was hostile to gun rights – told the Los Angeles Times Saturday that he, too, didn't think pilots should be armed.
John McGaw, head of the Transportation Security Administration, or TSA, will make the final decision whether to allow pilots to be armed, but probably not soon, according to spokesman Jim Mitchell.
Meanwhile, Federal Aviation Administration and Department of Transportation officials are sorting through comments sent by thousands of Americans who have spoken about whether pilots should be allowed to carry guns or other "less-than-lethal" weapons. And officials say most people seem to approve.
Kent Stevens, a spokesman for the FAA's Air Carrier Operations division – which sought the public comments – told WorldNetDaily his agency has yet to sort through all 7,700-plus replies, but the "prevailing opinion" seems to favor arming pilots.
"It looks like the majority of folks want to see pilots armed with something, whether it's less-than-lethal or lethal," he said.
There "are all sorts of issues with that," but most respondents said they'd "feel safer if pilots had some sort of deterrent," he said.
Stevens said his office would eventually send recommendations based on responses to McGaw. "Whether we decide on lethal or less-than-lethal, or whatever, there are both positive and negative aspects."
He said his agency has not received all the comments yet because mail was sent to be irradiated at a site in North Dakota due to the anthrax scare last fall. That has delayed the delivery of an untold number of public comments. The comment period ended Feb. 14.
Former FAA security chief Billy Vincent, in an interview with the National Rifle Association, said arming pilots was a long-overdue security measure that the federal government could both afford and implement immediately.
"I am continually amazed at our failure … to take the actions that we need to take to protect ourselves," he said, adding that the "influence of money by the airlines" still plays a part in aviation policymaking, even after Sept. 11.
Vincent called the FAA's commentary period "ludicrous," and said the government should be operating under "emergency procedures" to implement rules permitting pilots to be armed.
"One pilot standing in the door defending the cockpit" is no match for several hijackers, Vincent said.
Nevertheless, some lawmakers who seemed enthusiastic about armed pilots are now more reserved.
Steve Hanson, spokesman for the House Transportation Committee, said chairman Don Stevens, R-Alaska – an early advocate for allowing pilots to be armed – will abide by McGaw's decision.
"When Chairman Young wrote the Aviation Security legislation, he purposely wrote it so that the final decision [on arming pilots] would be made by the TSA," Hanson told WorldNetDaily. "He wanted them to look at it, discuss all the details, then make a decision.
"The comments made by Secretary Mineta, Undersecretary McGaw, and now Gov. Ridge, seem to indicate they will not pursue, at this point, allowing pilots to have firearms," he said. "Therefore, Chairman Young will be supportive of the final decision."
In a letter to Mineta last year, Young said he supported arming pilots and urged the transportation secretary to implement the sections of a newly passed aviation security law permitting them to do so.
"We hope that you and the new undersecretary will move expeditiously to implement Section 128 [of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act] in order that these indispensable provisions [allowing pilots to carry guns] can be carried out seamlessly and without delay," Young wrote in a letter signed by 60 House members.
Airline pilots groups, however, are still pushing.
"An armed flight crewmember would be the last line of defense and would be able to protect his/her crew, the passengers and, ultimately, people and property on the ground," said Capt. Duane Woerth, president of the Airline Pilots Association, in a petition sent to the Transportation Department March 1.
"Moreover, armed flight crewmembers would be a deterrent to hijacking because hijackers would have to not only consider how to defeat the multiple security layers but also how they would overcome armed flight crewmembers after breaking into the cockpit," Woerth wrote.
ALPA, which represents more than 64,000 commercial pilots, also suggested that the new Transportation Security Administration establish an advisory committee to develop an advisory circular to assist air carriers in formulating and submitting their respective plans to arm flight crewmembers, according to the petition.
One official, who asked not to be identified, said federal law enforcement "wasn't too happy" about arming pilots. "They think only they should be armed," he said.
What kind of a question is THAT? Why must it end, Tom?
As of 3/5/02 9:49 PM Central we have $3,672.45 in donations from Never Never Land. Starting tomorrow, March 6, 2002, from 6:00 PM Central, to March 7, 2002, 11:59 PM Central,
(I have to keep track, so I get to choose the time zone)
the state which contributes the most to Free Republic during this time period will get to add Never Never Land's total to their own state.
Let's see some of that "limited government" you're always blathering about, Republican Party!
Ridge needs to shut up and butt out.
What is it with these "conservative" types? Lack reading skills? Can't comprehend at least the ten amendments that make up the bill of rights?
When will it "end?" Why was it not so to begin with? That is the bigger question. Armed pilots would have killed most of their assailants on 9-11, or crashed the planes FAR from their targets.
How can literate republicans who claim they care about reading and education fail to read and comprehend the benefit and expediency of the second amendment? How can one become that stupid? It is literally beyond me.
Criminals fear armed citizens, pilots and police. Terrorists cannot complete their missions when they are swallowing 45 caliber slugs at a rate of 500 feet per second... God help Tom Ridge to get a brain... I mean that sincerely, get him a brain or get him a replacement! Please, somebody with reading comprehension skills.
Hey, Tom, you weasel; it will end the next time a plane lands on the Capitol building with 20,000 pounds of fuel on board. Then you'll think that an ex-military guy, flying a $50m plane with 250 people on board can't control a .38 weapon. There must be something with the name "Tom." You're jerks are from the opposite ends of the different spectrum. Daschle's got balls, but he's a pinko, friggin traitor who despises his country. You are a jellyfish that can't tie his shoes without an instruction manual; However, you both meet in the middle because you cannot THINK!
Get out of Dodge fatso; you're just another layer of mindless morons in DC.
Now that that's off my chest... time to send W a note asking him to have Rummy appoint a decision maker to do Tom Ridge's job. Hopefully someone like Special Forces Major Bob Belevachia (sp) that we've seen on Fox. Smart man, no bullshit, knows ops and thinks on the fly.
Regards
Topic: Homeland Security Manager
Dear Mr. President,
If you want an effective resource Managing Homeland Security, then we need to resource a "thinker."
Many of us Conservatives recommend that Mr. Rumsfeld should resource a sharp military person to handle this enormous responsibility.
Since "security" is implicit with intel and logistics skill-sets, I'd ask that Mr. Rumsfeld look into finding a recently retired Major or Colonel who has hands on intelligence, and logistics background.
The Governor from Pennsylvania is not trained nor equipped to handle the responsibilities of Defense. Warmest regards,
Mark and Karen Davis
Tomkins Cove, NY
Bush is nice to a fault; he should send this guy packing and get a total redneck for the job of homeland defense.
This guy was, sad to say, not willing to wait around in line very long when they were passing out brains.
I have no plans on flying anytime in the near future. It's not safe regardless of what the government says. The same people are doing the security checks now that were doing them before 9-11. They're taken to task every time they closely screen a person of Arabic background. So instead they decide to search little old ladies and a World War 2 Congressional Medal of Honor winner who is in his late 80's. Pilots and copilots are not allowed to carry weapons. (You see, they are really stupid and might shoot holes in the fuselage. The alternative of letting hijackers crash a plane into a building or nuke plant is more acceptable to the idiots making these stupid decisions.)
So what will get me back into the air?
1. Pilots and copilots are required to carry sidearms. They are trained and certified to use deadly force. (To the uninformed out there, this means they can kill bad guys.)
2. The US Army is expanded by two straight leg infantry divisions. These are assigned to Homeland Defense. They are staffed by both men and women draftees. (That's right, we bring back the draft but it is used only for homeland defense.) Term of service? How about 18 months? That's enough time to have these people go through basic, then military police training, and then about 15 months of security work. Yes, these two divisions are used for airport security and security at other high risk potential targets. Some will like what they do and will reenlist for longer terms (read that as future Homeland Defense noncommisioned officers.)
Look at the advantages. Like the last draft, everyone who is physically capable of service, is eligible regardless of family connections or personal wealth. No deferments for education. No deferments for wealth. No deferments for political connections. Because airports and sites all over the nation need coverage, your assignment could (and probably would) be close to home. After achieving a certain rank, your housing could be in non-military lodging. You could continue your education through local schools or military sponsored correspondence. These young people would be placed in a maturing environment and would be contributing to the defense of their country. A lot better job than pumping gas or flipping burgers.
Which would you rather have screening at an airport? A young military trained professional or the society dregs that we now have.
Hasn't anyone thought of having one more person in the cabin crew, who has the skills to navigate and fly the plane if absolutely necessary, has proven skills in negotiation and problem solving, and carries a gun? Another thing, the qualifications for flight attendent should change. Skip the meals...get ex-military who can handle passengers and situations. Give up the silly costomes and put them in pratical uniforms for performing security tasks if necessary.
Worst. Appointment. Ever.
He is smart enough to stay one bureaucratic step ahead of those who suspect it. Why Bush rewarded him with this post after his miserable performance in the election, which clearly cost Bush Pennsylvania, is the real mystery.
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.