Pilots threaten to stop service if kept unarmed

Union Leader ^ | 10/05/01 | KATHRYN MARCHOCKI

[kattracks]

Commercial airline pilots will be asked to suspend air service if they cannot have trained, armed pilots in the cockpits, a New Hampshire pilot said.

A resolution that will be circulated among the various councils of the 67,000-member Air Line Pilots Association this month asks federal regulations be changed to allow for the voluntary arming of flight crew members, Robert Giuda, a United Airlines captain of Warren said.

“Had we had armed pilots on Sept. 11, we wouldn’t have the horrific tragedy that we’re dealing with at this point,” Giuda said of the four hijacked jetliners.

Pilots would first get training in firearms by the FBI and would use their weapons only to defend against an attempted breach of the cockpit, the resolution said.

The resolution also calls for federal licensing of pilots to carry concealed weapons and for the government to indemnify air carriers and their employees against the legitimate use of a firearm.

If those steps are not carried out, the resolution calls for “a national suspension of air service, at such times and in such manner as is deemed appropriate by the leadership of the Air Line Pilots Association.”

“We’re hearing members of Congress say they don’t want a bunch of armed hooligans running around,” said Giuda, a New Hampshire state representative.

He said there was “no more professionalized, highly-scrutinized group of people in the world than airline pilots.”

The security of the flight deck cannot depend solely on armed sky marshals, he said.

Sky marshals can be picked out of a crowd and, if overpowered, would provide a hijacker with a weapon, Giuda said.

“It’s time to throw the gauntlet to the mat. We are going to get politicized into unarmed cockpits and then we’ll get shot with the guns the marshals used because they will be taken away from them,” he added.

Arming pilots introduces the element of “risk, fear and doubt” into the mind of a potential hijacker, he said.

[TLBSHOW]

is your hobby being a liberal?

[kattracks]

When are they going to stop allowing "pilots" from other airlines to hitch a ride in the cockpit? (Often in stolen uniforms with false licenses)

I have a feeling that this is a prctice that has seen it's last days.

[mrustow]

He said there was “no more professionalized, highly-scrutinized group of people in the world than airline pilots.”

Make that American pilots. Remember El-Batouty?

[riley1992]

until the public square deemed it prudent.

Would this be the same public square that doesn't deem it 'prudent' to allow law abidding citizens to carry arms in their own states? That was a ridiculous statement.

[mrustow]

Any member of Congress saying that, is the kind that doesn't want any law-abiding civilian carrying a friearm. Or any police officer, either. Only registered gang bangers. Must have been Rep. Barbara Lee.

[gonzo]

spunk, arming our Pilots is the simplest solution to the hi-jacking of airplanes. Everybody knows it, but until Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings are heard screaming, as they crash into the Empire State Building, or the Sears Tower in Chicago ( the Sears Tower WILL be crashed-down soon!), we'll continue to hear the Liberal bullshit about 'reasons' and 'compassion', and 'understanding'.

The only reason that Baghdad isn't a pile of rubble tonight, is that these assholes are still alive!

ABCCBSNBCCNN act like it's just a minor occurance that they can milk for some ratings, as long as they can get the prettiest talking-heads in front of the cameras!

Well, welcome to the real thing, kids. This should be fun, back here at home....FRegards

[FReethesheeples]

Yes.

Why, if the AF is given authority to shoot them down, are the pilots, themselves, not given guns?!

[SevenDaysInMay]

By regulation, a flight's captain can refuse any passenger. Kick congressmen and Lee off all flights. We have faith in you, air crew.

It is a cockpit, not a sheeple pen.

[lavaroise]

Firearms are ideal for the pilot in order to get a quick resolution of the conflict without disturbance of the flight while keeping full authority over the flight as Pilots in Command.

[Zon]

Further proof of their incompetence, creating problems that need not exist and cause to remove/fire them from office. The politicians and bureaucrats glaring failed logic when the logic is so obvious to just about everyone else is cause to question their self-proclaimed superiority. ..They claim the citizens would run society headfirst into destruction without their superior authority. It's a HOAX.

[Elsie]

They areThere are 10 folks who would be eager to take the place of each of them,

Yup, and 8-9 of them are named Mohammed or Abdul or Ibrahim!

---

Actually, since there seems to be quite an oversupply of planes right now (or is it an undersupply of passengers?), why not put TWO flights in parallel to each city?

One with "Pilot's carry weapons" and the other with "Unarmed pilots" clearly indicated at the gate.
Then, let the MARKET decide which they wish to fly on.

[VRWC_Member428]

Q: Do you own a gun?

No. But I live in a very low crime suburb.

Does that mean I can stop wearing my seatbelt because I have an excellent driving record and drive a big vehicle?

Does that mean I can get rid of my smoke detector because I don't smoke, have all electric appliances, and live in a house less than four years old?

Does that mean we can get rid of airline security since out of all the flights which occur every year, an infintecimally small percentage get hijacked?

Anybody else have more examples to demonstrate absurdity by being absurd?

[tomkat]

your arguments are based on fear and/or impotence.

why would you possibly choose to flaunt that fact ?

[patriciaruth]

One airline has already installed a crossbar inside the cockpit door, but no matter what they do some evil genius will figure out a way around it.

All I can tell you is that my airline Captain friend says he wants to have a last line of defense.

And for Spald, Aren't most commercial pilots former officers in the military?

Nope, but my Captain friend is a Texan, and has a ranch and has a concealed carry permit, and has practiced on coyotes and turtles. And is not a hotdog, a very cool, reasoned professional who will happily undergo special training, just like he did to be able to fly his 767 jet fuel bomb.

[patriciaruth]

apparently you think the pilots should have a right to arms on the job even when their employer says no.

Couple things to keep in mind. The plane belongs to the company, but the license to fly belongs to the pilot. The plane doesn't go anywhere and the company can't do business without the consent of the person who holds the license. And the person who holds the license is responsible for the passengers and crew and plane.

What we haven't seen here is any kind of a breakdown of what percentage of pilots want to be armed and what is their rank (Captain, flight officer, ?) and seniority (years of experience). If it is the most experienced and the highest ranks that are MOST in support of this, then maybe we should hear them out.

[patriciaruth]

When are they going to stop allowing "pilots" from other airlines to hitch a ride in the cockpit? (Often in stolen uniforms with false licenses)

I have a feeling that this is a prctice that has seen it's last days.

Can't. Pilots have to deadhead to get to their assigned locations. Logistics of not allowing this would enter nightmareville. ID is just going to have to go retinal or some other technology.
However, most pilots deadhead in the rear of the plane. A fact which led one pilot to remark that if a plane went into a fatal dive, you'd find him toward the front of the crash site as he would have been racing up the aisle to try to help.

[DeaconRed]

NO! NO! NO!
They don't need guns.
All they need are "WARNING LABELS". At the entrance to the Aircraft: "Warning Hijacking NOT ALLOWED.
In the cockpit: WARNING DO NO FLY INTO ANY BUILDING: SEVERE DAMAGE WILL OCCUR.
Hey it works for cigarettes, booze and automobiles.

[VRWC_Member428]

If someone really wants to make the point that the cockpits can never really be made secure, and that guns in the cockpit is statistically reasonably likely as a matter of prediction to thwart foul play that would otherwise obtain after securing the cockpits, have at it. I will respectfully listen.

I'd like to make that point by drawing a parallel. So, you're saying that a cockipt can be made completely secure, while still allowing for entry and egress. After all, as it was pointed out earlier, cockpits can't simply be a completely enclosed area.

Okay, let's use the analogy of a firearm. It has a safety which can be enabled and disabled. So, let's say I have a Kimber 1911 style pistol. I'm certain that probably everybody here will agree that Kimber makes one of the finest pistols around. (read: highly reliable) So, I'll show you this Kimber 1911 pistol. I'll let you read the manual, and give you a thorough explanation of how the safety works. I'll then load the gun, and place a round in the chamber. I'll then let you set the safety on the gun in the 'safe' position. So, we can agree that the safety is on.

My question is, would you voluntarily allow me to put the gun to your head, and pull the trigger?

This loaded gun analogy fits well with the secure door on an airplane. The plane is the gun. The door is the safety. Hijackers are the cartridges. The Sears Tower is you. If you knew that there were four hijackers on the plane, would you still be against arming the pilots??? (plus 6000+ question marks - one for every casualty)

[packrat01]

There are 67,000-member Air Line Pilots ..., and you're saying that there are 670,000 willing to take the pilots place? No thanks. I don't want YOU driving a plane where I'm a passenger. Get a clue.

BTW, how many of the 670,000 are terrorists? Who's side are you on?