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.
Yes, I do blame President Bush for any TSA abuses.
As Clinton said when it comes to controlling the Executive branch organizations:
"Stroke of the pen, law of the land... kinda cool"
Executive Order could change that. Won't happen.
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.
Executive Order could change that. Won't happen.
"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"
President could fire Rhatigan. Won't happen.
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.'"
President could fire TSA managers. Won't happen.
And there's only one reason why: Bush doesn't want pilots to have guns.
LOL!!! It's kind of cute how idealistic and extraordinarily naive some Freepers are!
Maybe take care of the whole thing by signing an executive order banning terrorism. Problem solved with the stroke of a pen!
Bush is responsible for the TSA and how it operates. If the Democrats wanted a REAL campaign issue for this election, this would have been it.
Democrats can not use this issue, since they created this insane organization, rules and regulations.
I for one, will not allow President Bush to get off-the-hook with this issue.
He can and could change how things work in our airports today, but has refused to do the right thing.
Can or cannot the president issue and executive order to TSA to not devolve the results of pilot investigations?
Can or cannot the president fire Rhatigan and the other obstructive TSA managers, or order the TSA head to fire them?
A simple yes or no will do.
Oh, another question: Why did Congress have to pass a law allowing pilots to carry guns, when the president could have done so without them?
LOL!!! Hillary?!? What are you doing here???
Who cares. What one **can** do and what is **reality** are often times two different things. Many Freepers don't understand this. Therefore they do things like vote for Mr. 0.0001% candidate thinking that they made a difference, etc.
I'll keep living in the real world, thank you.
Since you brought her up, do you think Hillary would let pilots carry guns? I don't.
What one **can** do and what is **reality** are often times two different things.
Here's reality: Even if the president doesn't care about doing the right thing and caters solely to popular opinion, there is overwhelming public support for armed pilots.
It was public pressure that caused Congress to pass the armed pilots initiative in the first place. Bush is (for once) going against popular opinion and spending his precious 'political capital' on this issue. Why would he do that? The obstruction by his inferiors is designed to protect him from the political fallout from his unpopular stance.
I'll just stick with the an executive order banning terrorism. That is just as realistic, and will accomplish just as much, or more, than your suggested methods.
That's comforting.
You'd have thought they learned their lesson after 9/11. Apparently not.
Bush has been pathetic on this issue (armed pilots).
Even tradionally anti-gun democrats have been to the right of Bush on this issue.
Notice how they made it so that pilots were "temporary federal employees" while flying armed?
This administration is simply terrified of recognizing the fundamental Right of Americans to defend themselves.
And it would free up the billions wasted on TSA and Air Marshalls for more legitimate and useful purposes.
It's interesting to observe that when it comes to screwing us over, the politicians find a way to do it a matter of minutes.
But when it comes to doing something positive, or actually recognizing our Rights, we're just supposed to shut the hell up and "wait 20 years".
I don't know what's more pathetic:
The fact that so-called conservatives are the ones screwing us over.
Or the way their defenders try to spin it.
Speaking of firing gov't employees, it didn't take Bush very long to fire a retired general working for TSA who objected to the Bush plan of putting armed air marshalls on planes that cabinet members were flying, instead of the planes that posed the biggest threat to national security.
Yup. He's no different from the rest of them. He created this agency, yet the apologists are willing to offer any excuse to absolve him of responsibility.
The fact that so-called conservatives are the ones screwing us over.
Or the way their defenders try to spin it.
Oops... missed one. What's pathetic is the lack of education and/or intelligence many Freepers have when it comes to real world situations. They go off and vote for the candidate who gets 0.0001% of the vote then proudly boast of "doing something." Or they say "change everything... RIGHT NOW" and expect it to be done. Yes, pathetic.
Yes, it does take time to undo messes that the politicians put us in. Messes that they never should have put us in in the first place. But, that's reality. The TSA is unionized. That never should have been done and will take time to change, if it ever changes.
How uneducated of us to expect politicians to follow the Constitution they took an oath to!
How stupid of us to actually expect that they keep their word.
They go off and vote for the candidate who gets 0.0001% of the vote then proudly boast of "doing something."
Some posters here insist that those candidates are "irrelevent".
Others insist that those candidates are capable of costing Bush the election.
And some posters claim both.
And as far as that 0.0001% goes, maybe you should ask Bush Sr. how quickly that number adds up when rarely a day went by where he didn't screw conservatives over.
Or they say "change everything... RIGHT NOW" and expect it to be done.
They created the TSA out of thin air. And now, we're supposed to believe that they are incapable of changing what they created?
The TSA is unionized. That never should have been done and will take time to change, if it ever changes.
And who's fault is that?
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.