Posted on 09/22/2001 7:34:26 AM PDT by annie oakley
From the FAA web site:
"Share your thoughts, recommendations, and suggestions about aviation safety and security."
-------------------
Every convenience store, bank and now even intersections have cameras. Why not on airplanes.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Why are we still guessing at what took place in the cock pits of those hijacked planes and relying on witness descriptions of what the perpetrators looked like.
The signal could be sent to a receiver in the ground control that has the plane in their command just as easily as the pilots voice is sent.
And if you put them on the approach to runways and the runways themselves, you would not have to guess what happened when a plane crashes on landing and take off.
I know you can do it. You do it for your crash tests. It seems way too simple and that it should have been tought of a long time ago. What am I missing?
--------------
Stay Safe.
Allow American citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Frank L. Davis, Jr.
Captain, USNR (Ret)
To arms, to arms, the terrorists are coming! 
America's Militia wants YOU!
Weekend alert summary.
FReeper report of middle eastern men asking for location of water treatment plants.
Nine out of ten Americans will fight to keep George W. Bush in the white house, and Osama bin Laden out!
It is theoreticaaly impossible to so thouroughly disarm the passengers that the bad guys can't bring on board anything dangerous. What's it going to be next - garottes made of nylon cord? Pointed sticks?
If you can't disarm the bad guys, you have to arm the good guys. In order of ease, cheapnes, and speed to implement, here are my ideas:
Arm the pilots. Any pilot who's ex-military (as many of them are) should know how to use a side arm - why aren't they carrying them? Re: background chects, etc. - Anyone who can be trusted with the flying bomb we now know an airliner to be can be trusted with a gun.
Arm as many of the passengers as possible. Any off duty cop, FBI agent or military personnel flying commercially should be not merely allowed but encouraged to travel armed. We'll probably need a national database of those qualifed to do so, otherwise terrorists will take a gun on board using a phony ID.
Flight marshals. Problem is, they cost.
Arm any willing cabin crew, and pay them a small bonus. Training them will take a little while, but once you have them trained, you have a bunch of armed "good guys" for almost free.
Longest term - volunteer air mashalls. Anyone with a concealed carry permit in their home state can apply to undergo a background check, take a training class, and be added to the database of those allowed to carry on a plane. Once you reach this stage, anyone who announces they're hijacking a plane won't last a minute.
1. Lever action .22 rifle on the flight deck. (Ruger model 96/22) Both pilots have to operate mechanical releases on opposite sides of the airplane to gain access to firearm and ammo. Positive and negative check releases during preflight. Pilots are suitably trained, including methods to disarm a rifleman at close quarters. (Use the leverage of the long barrel.)
2. Armored cockpit door with gunports.
3. Periodic martial arts training available for cabin crew
Wrong direction. Rather than limit even plastic knives; ISSUE A SHORT KNIFE, ON BOARDING, to every male 21 years of age or older and any female 21 years of age or older who requests one. We as a people have a moral imperative to resist evil.
The FAA has disarmed even those willing to try.
Name/Addr/E-Mail
It does if it helps prevent reoccurance. I don't agree with you.
In light of recent horrific attacks in which passengers and crew on four flights lost their lives as well as thousands on the ground, it is time that the FAA comes out strongly for allowing qualified citizens to carry concealed handguns on any air carrier that agrees. Qualifications would consist of having a state issued concealed carry license, additional training appropriate to a passenger aircraft environment, and a demonstration of a high degree of proficiency. The pool of persons that already have a concealed carry licenses is large enough that the deterrence factor of having even two or three percent of passengers armed on any given flight would be very high. This type of program will not be costly, candidates could pay for their own training if they wished to become qualified. Passengers, especially those who fly frequently, have a strong interest in protecting their own safety and a program that allowed concealed carry would likely only grow stronger over time. Crew would be especially good candidates for this program as well.
The first problem with a new Sky Marshal program is cost; there is no way to have a Sky Marshal, let alone two or three, on every flight without a staggering cost. No doubt the program will only be able to either randomly place Sky Marshals on flights, or limit them to the routes and airports peceived as most vulnerable. The second problem is the boredom that this job will entail. This is bound to lead to high turnover and reduced effectiveness. Potential attackers could target less traveled routes in the hopes of avoiding a flight with a Sky Marshal aboard or simply seed a flight with enough attackers that they would hope to overwhelm any one or two defenders.
The record of concealed carry license holders on the ground is one of responsible and safe weapons use. Concealed carry has exerted a high deterrence factor in states that have adopted objective criteria for licensing. It is time to extend that deterrent to the nation's airways.
I recommend that the FAA and airlines institute a by plane security officer arrangement. For each airliner at the gate there is one non uniformed security expert to monitor loading, refueling, and replenishment. He also has access to the interior of the aircraft to inspect the replenishment and cleaning, should speak to the crews before boarding, and observe the boarding of passengers. The security officer should have a working relationship with law enforcement and be advised of persons or objects to look out for.
This person could also be the Federal liason for background checks and issues for that airline and concourse gate ensuring that the process is working properly before someone works.
I understand that this will be a costly procedure, but I think it will actually cost less than having an air marshall aboard each aircraft because the security officer would be in the proactive/preventative mode enhancing safety and security instead of reactive which often leaves nothing to do.
This is the true way security is supposed to work. Expert individuals charged specifically with a manageable workload. You cannot trust someone who does not have contact with the aircraft, crew, and passengers to care as much as someone who does.
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.