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.
Are you some kind of retard ? THE PUBLIC has deemed it prudent to arm pilots .... the congress is the one standing in the way .....
Another quick question Torie, if we put the Bill of Rights to a vote before the public square, how many of our rights do you think would survive?
P.S. Didn't mean to hit you too hard, but I feel very strongly that the best defense to terrorism is to not act like victims, but instead to arm yourself and fight back whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Are you some kind of retard ? THE PUBLIC has deemed it prudent to arm pilots .... the congress is the one standing in the way .....
If an armed society is a polite society, an armed society on an airplane will probably be just as polite.
I do not recall any phrase in the Second Amendment which says government gets to choose which "special" group of citizens "is allowed" to carry -- we all are allowed to carry!
For the want of four pistols, nearly 7,000 people lost their lives! How tragic. How utterly stupid!
Government at its best!
That's one good argument.
Another is cost. Some estimates place the number of skymarshalls required at around 100,000 men. That's 10 divisions worth of troops. The cost of this many marshalls, plus the cost of training them, would be quite a bill. Guess who pays? Yup, the taxpayer AND the airline passenger. It would be cheaper to arm the pilot and copilot, and secure the cockpit door, and make other changes such as installing a system that puts the plane into autopilot during a hijacking which cannot be overriden without a code or signal from the ground or which allows remote control of the jet to steer it away from urban areas.
Captains and officers of passenger liner ships that sailed the oceans used to be armed. Why can't the captains of the air be likewise armed? And arm the bus drivers too.
The proposals that have been made like canceling -curbside check-in or having dump inspections of carry-on bags don't even begin to address the problem, let alone have a whole lot of potential for solving it. Skymarshalls might help, but they'll have all the problems that you mentioned.
I'd feel a lot safer knowing the pilots were armed.
Did you take a poll or something? Not that I would hew to polls when emotions run high. That is why we have brakes on that kind of thing. But post the poll that supports your supposition in any event.
A tip out of the pages of home security:
NEVER ASSUME that a door is secured or will remain secured.
Always have a backup system or plan. The bad guy does -- he's got a backup plan. You'd be foolish to not have one. By the way, this not only includes the airlines, but also that safe suburban neighborhood you say you are fortunate to live in. Guess what? The crime wave's headed in that direction, outward from central city urban areas. Good luck. You'll need that, and much more.
Iam absolutely certain that the captains and co-pilots of four hijacked air liners would have been willing to submit their immediate desire for a firearm, any firearm, to a committee of "cooler heads" somewhere in a no-longer smoke filled room in Washington for decision.
Perhaps the committee would decide the pilots could match the box-cutter wielding hijackers, weapon for weapon, but no guns, in the interests of fairness?
BTW, I don't think you are quite aware of the training and testing the passenger jets pilots have to undergo before they are given the keys to a multi-million dollar piece of equipment like a 747. That is the reason why no American passenger jet pilot has ever gone postal. Simply put, if you are against arming passenger pilots, logically you should have a problem with police being armed because alot more police have gone postal over than years, than have passenger jet pilots.
So did Sharon Tate and Nicole Simpson.
Congress needs to realize that PILOTS are already armed with something a lot more dangerous than a gun which can only be used to kill the people on board, if you could get them to stand still and if you had enough ammo.
In reality, pilots control a large gasoline can moving at high speed totally under their control, as the Terrorists so ably demostrated. The pilots are armed to the teeth, why not give them a measly little gun to PREVENT the big weapon from getting out of their control.
It is soooo logical to arm pilots that I can't stand it. Why would additional personnel (marshalls) in the cabin where the marshalls are subject to hijacking be preferable to just setting up the last line of defense and making sure no one could be better armed than that last line without destroying the plane???
DAMN RIGHT IT IS!!!
What part of "...shall not be infringed" do you fail to understand???
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.