Posted on 01/15/2004 7:29:05 AM PST by 69ConvertibleFirebird
(CNSNews.com) - The federal agency charged with providing security for U.S. airlines, and the airlines themselves are intentionally sabotaging the congressionally-mandated program to train and certify pilots who volunteer to carry guns in the cockpit, according to supporters of the program who claim tens of thousands of pilots have opted out s a result.
Pilots with knowledge of the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO), or "armed pilots" program tell CNSNews.com that the manner in which the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) requires FFDOs to carry their weapons not only discourages participation, but also renders them defenseless against potential terrorist attacks when they are most vulnerable. The pilots also complain that TSA has issued a "thinly veiled threat" to disclose personal information discovered during background investigations and subjective results of psychological evaluations in an attempt to further discourage pilots from volunteering for the program.
The U.S. House passed the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act by a vote of 310 to 113 in July of 2002. The proposal became law Nov. 22, 2002, as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
An FFDO, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told CNSNews.com in an exclusive interview that the TSA is "not pursuing [the armed pilots program] with any sense of urgency."
"The TSA has designed the program to deter participation and they're being successful," the FFDO said. "The program should be a large program so that it can be an effective deterrent and, because it is not as large as it should be, it is not the deterrent that it should be."
Capt. Dave Mackett, a commercial airline pilot and vice president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance (APSA), said actual enrollment in the program speaks volumes about TSA's performance, or lack thereof. He said nearly 40,000 certified pilots initially signed up with his organization, indicating their interest in serving as Federal Flight Deck Officers. But now, Mackett says, there are "only a few thousand volunteers" registered with TSA.
"As a result of the program's attributes -- the way the TSA designed the program -- roughly 88 to 90 percent of the original pilots who expressed an interest changed their minds," Mackett explained.
Chris Rhatigan, a spokeswoman for TSA, initially offered to comment on the allegations reported in the CNSNews.com investigation of the FFDO program, with some restrictions.
"I'm not going to respond to those types of statements," Rhatigan said when asked about specific allegations that are reported in the article. "I can respond to your specific questions about the program, how it's operated, what it's doing. But, as far as going back and forth like that, I'm not going to be able to participate"
Rhatigan was asked how many of the 40,000 pilots, who had originally registered with APSA, had formally volunteered for the FFDO program, but declined to answer.
Method of carrying weapon blamed for most pilots' decision to withdraw
One FFDO, who agreed to comment on the "carry protocol" for armed pilots' handguns only if CNSNews.com did not disclose the person's identity, said the regulation is "designed to deter participation."
"A lot of my coworkers have watched what I go through and they say, 'You know what? I'm not signing up,'" the FFDO explained.
The FFDO also believes such comments are the result TSA desires. "I've had so many pilots tell me, 'I'm not signing up for this. I'm not putting myself through this kind of agony to go through what you go through.'
"That is the thing that's really deterring participation," the FFDO added.
As CNSNews.com previously reported, the TSA requires FFDOs to be essentially disarmed anytime they are outside the cockpit of their aircraft.
"The jurisdiction of use of the weapon is in the cockpit and the cockpit only. They are called 'Federal Flight Deck Officers,'" explained Heather Rosenker, a spokeswoman for TSA in a February 2003 interview. "If somebody tries to intervene [sic] into the cockpit of that aircraft, [FFDOs] have the right to use their weapon."
Asked if there were no other circumstances under which a pilot would be justified in using the weapon, Rosenker replied, "That's correct."
Unless the pilot is behind the locked cockpit door, TSA requires that the weapon be holstered, locked inside a hard-sided gun case and stored inside "a bag that is non-descript."
The policy leaves pilots defenseless during the time when law enforcement and security experts agree that the cockpit is most vulnerable.
"The weapon needs to be re-secured in the locked box if the cockpit door is open," Rosenker explained, acknowledging that the regulation would include times during flights when one of the pilots leaves the cockpit to use the restroom or get food.
Dean Roberts, a former federal law enforcement officer and pilot, now flies for a commercial passenger airline. He told CNSNews.com that even some pilots with federal law enforcement experience would not apply for the FFDO program because of the lock box requirement.
"I know of, there are five in my crew base alone that are all graduates of FLETC (the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center) or graduates of the FBI Academy who have no intention of putting in paperwork to go to this," Roberts said.
"When I carried a gun as a federal law enforcement officer on an airplane, it was a hassle carrying a gun [on board]," Roberts explained. "The FFDO program has got about 20 more unnecessary steps in the process that make it more hassle than it is worth."
TSA's policy allegedly causing guns to be lost, could facilitate robberies
One pilot, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the risk of a handgun carried inside a lock box, inside another piece of luggage, being stolen from an FFDO or taken by force should be obvious.
"Criminals know that [some] pilots carry guns in lock boxes and those guns are not available to the pilots," said the aviator who also has a background in federal law enforcement. "TSA has set up every FFDO to be the victim of an armed robbery to get their gun."
Commercial airline captains and first officers, the pilot noted, are required to travel between terminals and distant employee parking lots at all hours of the day and night, often with little or no security. Because an FFDO's handgun is sealed inside the lock box, which is carried inside another piece of luggage, the CNSNews.com source said it would be impossible for the "armed" pilot to use it to defend against one or more attackers.
The FFDO policies and procedures also forbid pilots from carrying their lock boxes inside the passenger compartment of a plane unless they are the assigned captain or first officer for that particular flight. As a result, pilots who are "deadheading," or flying as passengers to or from an assignment, must place their firearm lock boxes into the cargo hold of the aircraft.
Roberts, who previously worked as a special agent and pilot for both the U.S. Customs Service and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), is a graduate of both the FBI Academy and FLETC. He said that while baggage handlers are not supposed to touch the lock boxes belonging to deadheading FFDOs, the lock boxes frequently get mixed with the luggage of other passengers.
"[FFDOs] go down to pick up the gun from a trip and it's already whisked off to baggage claim," Roberts explained. "It happens several times a day, more than once.
"Pilots go down to get the gun and the baggage handlers have already been in the belly [and] unloaded it and the gun is on its way to baggage claim," Roberts elaborated. "The FFDOs then have to get back up into the airplane, go down out of the terminal, down to baggage claim and hopefully find their gun on the carousel."
TSA's Rhatigan was asked how many times deadheading FFDOs had reported such incidents to TSA.
"I don't have access to that information to share with you at this time and I'm going to conclude this interview," Rhatigan responded. "I'm going to refer this up to Mark Hatfield the director of communications here and see if he has somebody he'd like to have you talk to."
Despite having refused such an offer during the initial interview, Rhatigan later called back to request that CNSNews.com submit a list of questions for TSA to consider. That list was submitted Tuesday evening. Wednesday morning, TSA was reminded of and acknowledged the reporter's Wednesday afternoon deadline. More than 24-hours after initially being contacted, however, TSA had provided no further response.
An FFDO who agreed to talk to CNSNews.com confirmed Roberts' claim on background but did not wish to be quoted on the issue, fearing reprisals for violating TSA's prohibition on FFDOs disclosing any flaws with the program to anyone other than TSA management.
Despite Roberts' extensive firearms training background and federal law enforcement experience, he was expelled from FFDO training on the last day of classes. He believes challenging the lock box and other TSA policies that are contrary to standard law enforcement procedures led to his dismissal.
"If you got pushy and demanded some answers and called them on their double-speak," Roberts speculated, "[TSA managers] said, 'Well, you've got to go. You're a troublemaker.'"
TSA accused of discouraging participation before program's official launch
APSA says TSA tried to discourage pilots from volunteering for the FFDO program even before the program officially began ... Read Part Two
E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
It is amazing how much a pilot can do in a deadly situation, if he is willing to take responsibility for his actions.
How any citizen could simply sit back and be murdered today, without taking some action, is beyond my comprehension. It would never happen on any flight that I was on!
I would even use a dead body (even my own wife's if requried) as a shield, in an effort to kill that terrorist.
Lets Roll!
Congress, the senate, the courts, and, yes, the President. We've created such a HUGE bureaucracy that the president can't change the system by simply firing the head of any agency. One of my best friends is a division chief at one of the super-secret agencies. He's been through this many times. He says that the govies simply wait out the new appointment until he/she is gone. Usually three years max. It's easy for the low-levels to wait the new, gung-ho, top people out when you're on a cushie government salary with virtually no possibility of being fired. Worst case you get transfered and even that takes years.
The only solution is for the Senate and Congress to start appointing judges that follow the law and make agencies accountable (by use of the wallet).
To lay it soley at the presidents feet is too simplistic.
It is amazing how much a pilot can do in a deadly situation, if he is willing to take responsibility for his actions.
Now enter John Edwards, stage left, for multi-billion dollar class action lawsuit. The injured passengers vs. pilot/airline who decided to do stunt flying in his 707. I'm fine with a pilot rolling the plane. But, the lawyers will see it as the next feeding frenzy. Even people who had relatives killed in 9/11 sued (everyone but the people responsible).
Agreed. And even in the extremely unlikely event that doesn't happen, if the terrorists begin executing passengers one by one because the cockpit occupants won't open the door (as theorized in post #40), at that point the passengers will see they have nothing to lose and absolutely will charge the terrorists in a fearless, all or nothing fight to the death.
Arming the pilot is a win-win situation. When the scenerio of a terrorist attack is closely examined, it is clear nothing bad can come of arming pilots because there's nothing a handgun seized from the pilot by the terrorists can do that an air to air missile sent to shoot down the compromised plane can't do.
Their priorities ware spelled out in very simple language, that anyone could understand. Demand that they be held accountable for their actions.
Remember, President Bush can not create a single law. Only Congress has that power!
Maybe you can tell me why this won't work:
President to TSA head: "You have ____ weeks to effectively implement the armed pilots program, and stop blocking its effectiveness. Failure to do so to my satisfaction will result in your immediate removal from office, as well anyone and everyone under your command who also impedes this order."
Let's say the TSA head fails to obey his order and is removed. The next carefully screened TSA head comes into the Oval Office:
President to TSA head: "You have ____ weeks to effectively implement the armed pilots program, and stop blocking its effectiveness. Failure to do so to my satisfaction will result in your immediate removal from office as well anyone and everyone under your command who also impedes this order. If you think I'm kidding, I'd like you to think about why the last man to hold your position was removed."
It will work.
Re-read my previous post for 90% of the answer. Here is the rest. After TSA head #2 gets fired nobody in their right mind will accept that position. (now ex-head at next interview "Well, yes, I was fired after 4 weeks, but so what...") You have to go at these things with a 20 year plan, or more. Just as liberals slowly got us here we can't suddenly reverse it all. You have to do it small steps at a time. Otherwise you alarm the low level govies and they refuse to do it.
No possibility of being fired? He's the president, if he can't change that what can he do? Change that, fire these people! If half the Constitution and the Bill of Rights can be ignored and gutted during "wartime", then so can their stinking contracts!
Clean house! If the pres can't fire them, our government has all kinds of slimy ways to lean on citizens when they feel like it, IRS audits, paper violations that result in a 3am SWAT raid, etc... I'm not advocating any of those mind you, I'm just saying if they really wanted to implement this policy they could.
The reason they aren't implementing it is painfully obvious. The President (among others) doesn't want it implemented because he is hostile to gun rights. The public clammored for it, they went through the hollow motions to placate us, then did what they wanted anyway. How very, very Clintonesque! If that's the way the pres is going to be, then we as citizens need to do a little cleaning house of our own:
Voters to President: "You have until November 4 to effectively implement the armed pilots program, and stop blocking its effectiveness. Failure to do so to my satisfaction will result in your immediate removal from office."
Having first worked in private industry, with no government dealings, for many years I used to think the same thing as you. Then I worked closely with government agencies for many years. I know how the agencies operate. Except for outright theft, nobody in the government gets fired. Transfered, maybe. Fired, no. If the low-levels (engineers, paper pushers, secretaries, technicians, accountants, etc.) don't want to do it it won't happen. No matter how much the top people insist that it happen. This is reality. This is government job culture. You can say that it should be different all you want but that doesn't make it different.
Congress made a law. They're conspiring to breaking it. Throw the RICO act at them. That's a felony, and when they're arrested, give them the 'felon stop' treatment government just loves (guns pointed, pets shot, etc...) It's a terrible law, but since we're stuck with it maybe just for once it could do some good.
Use asset forfeiture on them (I loathe that one too). They're making money from breaking a law (they take paychecks and break Congress's directive to arm pilots). Seize their houses and cars without a trial. Take their cars too.
Sounds outragous doesn't it? It is. Happens to the 'little people' all the time. Point the exact same thing at government and all of a sudden its an outrage.
None of this will happen because the president doesn't want pilots armed.
Of course! No federal agency wants any program that demonstrates the effective use of a firearm as a means of defense or as a deterrent against personal attack or violence.
It is not in the interest of the feds to show the masses that guns are an effective tool against terror or oppressive government, that would be a direct attack on their monopoly of power, can't have the serfs thinking they can survive without the help of big brother.
If the feds thought that they could get away with it, they would ban and confiscate all firearms immediately.
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.