Posted on 03/05/2002 11:30:05 PM PST by JohnHuang2
Yeah, and having to put up with minor inconveniences like landing on the side of an office buiding are a small price to pay for the privilege of putting up with your sh*ttitude.
I hope you've set aside something for a rainy day, egoman. The gov't bailouts won't keep on flowing forever, and at the rate people are voting with their feet, you'll be on the unemployment line before too long.
Can't say I won't relish the idea of seeing you having to eat what you've been dishing out.
Don't lump him in with the rest of them. 5000 pilots and the majority of airline employees support the pilots being able to defend the cockpit. A third of the 393 people who submitted questions asked about aviation security. Many pilots, flight attendants and passengers endorsed the idea of arming pilots. "Why can I not have one last chance to save my passengers and crew?" asked J.J. Lowers, an airline captain from Orange County, Calif.
The Air Line Pilots Association supports letting pilots carry guns on a voluntary basis, provided they receive training.
I wouldn't be surprised that Arkie isn't just against the pilots being armed, but was probably anti-gun way before Sept 11th. Totally irrational and very uninformed.
The cockpit is the last line of defense. The majority of the pilots are former military PLUS they would receive further FBI training. You'll trust a pilot with a 20 million dollar plane but won't trust him with a gun?
You expect me to think a Texas mom's opinion is more valid than a pilot's? Duh!
I have a friend who is a pilot, ex-military, flew in to NYC from Germany yesterday. He's a hunter, familitar with guns and doesn't want one in the cockpit. I truly feel they know more about it than you or I.
I have to concede, yes, your thinking is more on target than mine. I hadn't thought about that. However, it's hard to beleive that we don't have a sort of gun/weapon type of tranquilzer that WOULD bring them down IN SECONDS... about the body covering/hair, yes your right. Are you totally against pilots being armed in some way altogether ? Just curious on your opinion and suggestions..
Representing 67,000 pilots who fly for 47 carriers, ALPA's response to the FAA's comments solicitation recommended the U.S. government "enable qualified and trained pilot volunteers to be armed . . . [as] the last and most important line of defense against another terrorist attack. We know of no other measure that comes close to meeting it in terms of protection, deterrence and cost-effectiveness."
The ALPA filing also noted: "Less-than-lethal weapons are not suited for countering hijackers and terrorists." Three firearms-handling options were proffered in its comments: Storing a handgun--owned and maintained by the airline or government--in a locked box in the cockpit. It could be taken from the box and worn in a holster during flight, but would not leave the flight deck.
Storing firearms in airline flight operations. Certified "federal pilot officers" would carry the weapon on and off the aircraft.
Allowing certified pilot officers to own and carry their own firearms at all times while on duty, including layovers. The APA, which represents 11,000 American Airlines flight deck crews, and Southwest's Swapa prefer allowing pilots to carry weapons. A survey of APA members showed 90% of the pilots favor carrying a gun on their person, according to Gregg Overman, the union's director of communications. Jonathan L. Weaks, president of Swapa, confirmed that his union's submittal to the FAA "supports arming individual pilots." The cockpit gun safe or "lockbox" option suggested by ALPA "was not supported by the Swapa board," he said. More than 70% of approximately 900 Southwest pilots who responded to a February survey were in favor of arming crews. The same percentage said they would apply for the right to carry a gun.
A senior flight instructor, who routinely deals with pilots throughout his airline's nationwide system, estimated that 80% of flight deck crewmembers "are in favor of firearms in the cockpit, and will say that publicly." Another 15% or so are fairly ambivalent, willing to go either way. The final 5%--or less, he said--are opposed. "I've only found one [pilot] who was adamantly against it. (Arkie their talking about you.)
<"The overwhelming majority don't know what the [Armed Pilot] Program is, though. They just want a better way to defend the cockpit," he added. When told that the APSA program is voluntary, and that pilots would not be required to pack a gun, "that puts a lot of the [15% ambivalent ones] at ease, and they're more in favor of it." Those opposed expressed concerns over a gun-related accident harming them or someone else.
. While union and APSA leaders are cautiously optimistic about eventually getting approval for firearms in the cockpit, line pilots are losing patience with the overall U.S. commercial air security program. Weaks, Swapa's president, reflected his members' growing resentment of illogical airport screening methods. "It defies common sense that a pilot can't carry a Leatherman [multipurpose pocket tool] or Swiss Army knife, but he has a crash ax in the cockpit. In all of [airline] history, there's never been a case of a crew hijacking its own aircraft," he said.
Another captain, who chose to remain anonymous, said current practices ignore a long-lived tenet of military defense. "You have to protect from the inside out. Right now, our system is the reverse of that. We're protecting the outside, but leaving the terrorists' prime target--the cockpit--unprotected. Armed pilots have to be the final line of defense."
Price agreed, but noted the ultimate reason for having firearms on the flight deck is to preclude an attack in the first place. "Arming pilots is at least a 95% deterrent, if not more," he said. "Terrorists won't attempt an attack that has a high probability of failure.
"People need to remember how scary it was back in mid-September," he added. "[If TSA regulations] will allow pilots to carry firearms, passengers will feel safer on an airliner. They'll know the likelihood of a repeat hijacking is very, very small. But if it did happen, the pilots up front are equipped to defend the airplane."
What some folks still keep describing as an apparent lack of common sense in government, or even any sort of lawfullness or 'fairness" is not exactly that, what they are looking at is the classical one step at a time frog boiling, just keep turning up the heat. That being done using overlapping waves of social change based on the hegelian dialectic. We are at simmer stage now with tyranny, full roiling boil is just not that far away. Give it one or two more whopper "incidents" like 9-11 to happen.
allowed? how about legally required? IMO, all passengers over 18 and all crew must be armed to board.
I think all commercial pilots should be armed, at minimum.
I further favor the institution of a federal airline CCW for qualified passengers (basically, if they can get a CCW in their home state, they can go through a background check, and a training program, at their own expense). The sky marshal program is too costly to actually provide protection for all air travelers.
Your arguments against are not very convincing. They are remarkably similar to those used to justify "gun control", or more truthfully "victim disarmament".
I'm sorry, but the terrorists have extended the job description. It's not up to your perception any more. If you sincerely think it's about being "pilot" and "cop" simultaneously, you are confused. It's about being "pilot" and not becoming "cruise missle payload". If you say, "it's not my job", you're relying on the pilot of the F-15 to pick up the slack. And there's only one ending to that story.
If you are a pilot, you might want to re-consider your risk analyisis to exclude a knee jerk.
Let's wait for the next couple of hijackings and see how it goes.
Isn't it nice we are all entitled to our own opinions.
Aha, a framing it differently. I disagree, you are the one making it into armed pilots vs armed law enforcement. I'm supporting pilots who want to be armed, without making it an either/or situation.
Sorry I didn't make that clear. Now, where do you really stand on the issue? Only Air Marshals and Hijackers shall carry firearms on board? What if the Hijackers get the firearms from the Air Marshals (you said it was possible and likely)? What are you going to do with the crash axe then?
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.