Posted on 10/04/2001 9:38:13 PM PDT by 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.
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that there are federally trained employees who can't hit the right house in a firefight. Oh wait - I already know that to be true.
Your allegiance to the government is so strong that you would eliminate the last-ditch line of defense, just because the proposal gives power to a private citizen instead of a government agent. Disgusting.
The pilot already has a job.
Giving the pilot ANOTHER job, one that requires him to pursue a high level of competence in a completely different field of endeavour, is not a good idea.
Instead, have a third person in the cockpit, one whose task, in the event of an attempted hijacking, is to keep the cockpit secure while the pilot gets the airplane on the ground. This lets people do what they're good at, and concentrate on that to the exclusion of other tasks.
I have read far too many accounts of gunfire getting unleashed at a range of two feet AND MISSING COMPLETELY to be optimistic about the pilots holding the cockpit by themselves without a lot of training--and I hear complaints about "too much training, not enough time for it" from airline pilots as it is.
Yeah right. When the terrorists burst through the cockpit door and find totally unarmed pilots, the most important thing is they won't be distracted by trying to shoot the intruders. They'll continue to keep the plane at level flight right up to the time their throats are slit and terrorists reroute the jet toward the nearest prominent landmark.
--There is no reliable method in place for the State Dept. to get actual intel on applicants for US Immigrant visas. Having been through the whole legal immigration process with a family member I can see several ways we are screwed. For one, the airport screeners - most of them - can't pass a security check themselves, and are not able to get a line badge for ramp access. Why? They either have criminal records, or are from foreign countries.
The foreigners working for low-bid contractors and others on airport property (uniform sevices, caterers, janitors, etc.) often have ramp access badges - even though they are in many cases ILLEGAL ALIENS. The background checks for these people can only go back as far as their often forged documents take you. For the legal immigrants, the litmus test for the State Department is a letter from the visa applicant's home jurisdiction. In case of a Russian immigrant, this means the OVIR or MVD must write a document they do not officially provide under any circumstances. Those obtained documents on-file at State dept. are all obtained through some favor or a monetary instrument. In a case I am quite familiar with, it was $300.00, so America gained a great MD. The Russians or Ukranians are very happy to get rid of a nutcase or criminal. They do not care, and might not have charged him for servces rendered. As for most other countries, I can certainly say there is often good reason for the immigrant visa applicant to NOT communicate his/her desire to emmigrate, as it compounds already difficult situations. Therefore, police documents are often more convenient than reliable. Any criminal can get them in most countries.
At IAH ad DFW, there are MANY ILLEGAL ALIENS at ramp level. Most of them are good people aside from their status issues, method of entry - (Mexicans, etc.). I have discussed this with IAH authorities and police. Nothing has yet been done, - just eyewash adding uniformed National Guardsmen. OK fine. What about the airports with high-density muslim workforces? JFK, LGA, BOS... Have ramp badge? YEP! Access to the aircraft? OH YES!
The local authorities are powerless to do a damn thing about it. Too PC in the good old USA!
Put a person in the cockpit whose ONE JOB is to keep the bad guys out. You neglected that little detail of my proposal.
BTW, this proposal involves the FBI training the pilots. Your assumption is that the idiots who can't hit the right house in a firefight will be able to teach the pilots to react from a position of tactical surprise and shoot the terrorists (and ONLY the terrorists) dead instantly while still flying the airplane...I must admit don't quite follow your logic.
I would have no problem looking at that, although it does make me wonder whether people trained to a high level (as you suggested above) are best utilized in the cockpits of planes. While I realize the critical importance of maintaining the cockpit's integrity, I wonder if these highly trained folks' talents are needed somewhere else. By the way, from whom will these security officers receive their paycheck?
BTW, this proposal involves the FBI training the pilots. Your assumption is that the idiots who can't hit the right house in a firefight will be able to teach the pilots to react from a position of tactical surprise and shoot the terrorists (and ONLY the terrorists) dead instantly while still flying the airplane...I must admit don't quite follow your logic.
My point is this: your claim that only a government agent is capable of handling the situation is preposterous. Experience shows that government agents may respond no more efficiently under stress than a trained civilian. There are two pilots in the cockpit. Here's my scenario...as the terrorists are defeating the cockpit door, one continues to fly the plane while the copilot gets ready to shoot. I believe it to be feasible.
In general Poohbah, you discount any possibility that civilians are capable of defending themselves. You should realize that the government is not the answer to every question.
It is a cockpit, not a sheeple pen.
According to Lee's logic, you'd have to shut down the airline industry. Can't have planes piloted by "hooligans," armed or not.
We can't remove them from office, since some of these characters actually do "represent" -- their constituents are as dumb and spiteful as they are. And those that aren't representative representatives, will be removed by the voters next election.
Meantime, We, the FReepers, can get the names of the guilty, and ensure that they become brand names, like Scotch (tape), for political venality and incompetence. (I'm going to try and determine who said what.)
Remember when we were "discussing" the James Beck episode? As I recall, your position was that any collateral damage was Beck's fault. Government agents who acted improperly and killed/injured innocent civilians were not be held accountable, because Beck started it. In this case, the terrorists "started it", yet here you are unwilling to allow any "acceptable breakage". It seems your standards change based on whether the person in question gets a check cut from Uncle Sam or not.
Not obvious to me, especially if we require all passengers to be armed. A few bad guys just don't matter if there are 100 good guys.
< dream>"Good afternoon and welcome aboard, passengers on Fight 3... as a unit of the irregular militia we are required by law... "< /dream>
Imagine a 12 guage round loaded with these plastic pellets, there would be little chance of damaging the airframe but would do a number on the hijacker at a range of 6 ft.
I know - I've encountered Poohbah many times before. We'll bring him back around yet... ;-)
You know, pilots in the air are responsible for people they carry. And damn, do not they have a right to take care about their own life?!
But... no wonder armed pilots will not fit in your agenda. No one must defend its land and people against terrorists, separatists, bandits and other bastards.
I also live in low crime suburb, but I never came to conclusion that it is bad thing to be able defend myself and my family. May be your neigbourhood is safe EXACTLY because there are some tought people around - and criminals know it quite well?
I ope so, but you notice that we've heard nothing more since the announcements a week or so ago about the bogus pilots hitching rides in the cockpit. Are the airlines afraid of liability? Is the government keeping a cap on this news? I hope it isn't just brushed under the rug.
There was a little squib in my local paper this morning about the FBI, CIA, and law enforcement asking for records of students on visas at various Wisconsin colleges. Most of the colleges were not co-operating. St. Norberts, however, turned over information on a Saudi student because he was taking flying lessons. Then they dropped the investigation because someone said the student was affiliated with the Saudi Air Force.
Hmmmmmmmmm.
Are you proposing also shooting down the planes which are flown by the armed pilots? Armed pilots are too dangerous for the terrorists.
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.