Great minds....Stay Safe !
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.
How true, how true. It is the most threatening thing for politicians and bureaucrats to be accurately identified as the problem and not the solution. They fear that the Constitution and Bill Of Rights will become contagious. My brief tribute with a little help from my friends:
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." - Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged
U.S. government agents/Gestapo seeking a family's National ID Cards: What?! You don't have your papers. Take the alleged Mr. and Mrs. Smith in for questioning. Take the two children to the processing center.
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind.
They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority." -- Frederick Bastiat, The Law (1850)
Especially since they allow to pass such blatant insults to our intelligence. For example: "But I didn't inhale". "It depends on the meaning of what is, is." I didn't have an affair with Jennifer Flowers." "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski." The constitution clearly states one and only one recourse when a President is impeached: removal from office. Legislators know how to violate their oath of office.
Prohibition was a total failure but the War On some Drugs will be a success. So will the War On Poverty be a success. "Legitimize" Ruby Ridge, "legitimize" mass murder of seventy-eight innocents at Waco. How many innocents have been terrorized, physically injured, sometimes murdered and financially deprived by no-knock raids? Recently and still ongoing, the government terrorized -- is terrorizing -- 1500 farmers at Klamath Falls basin and in the process destroyed the farmers livelihoods/businesses. And the biggest "good-guy" liberty thief -- the IRS -- how many thousands of innocents have been physically, emotionally and financially terrorized by the IRS criminal investigation division (CID).
Only a man's prior actions can hope to speak for his future intents.
Who are the value producers? Who are the value destroyers?
Protect the value producers -- prosecute the value destroyers.
The Constitution of the Universe
Article 1
No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual.
Article 2
Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Article 1.
Article 3
No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.
Actually not, as I understand it. It's the FAA, although many in Congress and White House feel that way too. But as it stands now, Congress has already provided for armed pilots, requiring a certfication course, but FAA has not certified any courses. Hmm, where have we heard that before?
First of all, arming the pilot and copilot isn't going to do much good if it's easy for someone to break into the cockpit and surprise them. I think everyone here would agree to that. Arming the pilot and copilot is just a part--but an important one--of an overall cockpit security plan.
To be sure, it would be possible to design new aircraft such that there was no passage between the cockpit and cabin. This isn't quite as simple as it sounds, however, since it would require giving the cockpit a separate lavatory and galley, and space is a rather scarce commodity on an aircraft. Additionally, for flights which are long enough to require more than one flight crew, it would be necessary that the cabin area contain seating for all crew members. Finally, there's the problem that if either the pilot or copilot has a medical emergency, it would be impossible for anyone other than the other flight officer to provide assistance despite the fact that they're supposed to be flying the plane.
As a result, while a completely-secure cockpit might be possible, it does have some drawbacks. As a result, in most cases there's going to have to be a door between the cockpit and cabin. If the pilot and copilot are reasonably alert, however, this should not pose a particular problem provided that there's a camera/monitor allowing the flight officers to see what's going on outside and provided that the door, once locked from the inside, cannot be unlocked or forced open from the outside without giving the flight officers at least a few seconds' notice.
To be sure, the pilot's control of the aircraft can itself be used as a weapon against anyone invading the cockpit (a bit hard to ram the door when you're practically bouncing off the ceiling). On the other hand, such severe maneuvers may be severely injurious to the passengers and flight attendants (especially if things like the beverage carts aren't secured) and yet not be completely effective against the hijackers (who, being aware of the possibility, may have been trained to deal with it). A firearm, fired at the specific individual(s) raiding the cockpit, may be more effective than aerobatic maneuvers against the hijackers while posing less risk to the other people in the plane.
Which members of congress saying that. Nobody wants armed hooligans running around. Anybody would say that. It seems clear that the members of congress that said that were referring specifically to pilots. That being the case, fire those members of congress for incompetence because they have allowed hooligans to pilot commercial aircraft. Or, at the very least, they don't comprehend that a pilot is highly skilled and has a twenty-ton-missile at his command and surely has the competence to manage a handgun with adequate training.
Commercial Pilot's flight training is many hundreds, if not a thousand plus hours. Hand gun training for pilots at the Front Sight Firearms Training Institute -- the best in the country and probably the world -- is a four day course. Gee wiz to the members of congress, you sound like you just fell of a turnip wagon... Or, you're intentionally causing problems where they need not exist.
Front Sight has offered to train Commercial Pilots for FREE. Click here to read more at their Web site.
The employer is not the controlling factor in regards to arming airline pilots... it is the myriad gun laws of various Federal, State and local jurisdictions that must be eliminated.
Either the Federal government must unequivocally recognize the Right of the individual (including airline pilots) to keep and bear arms, or it must carve out a specific regulation to permit airline cockpit crew members to be armed regardless of the local prohibitions to secure the safety of planes and passengers.
I would prefer a few airliners falling out of the sky (ala Flight 93) or others landing resembling swiss cheese, because either the crew or passengers fought back, than to allow another multi-million pound, hate-guided missile to slam into thousands of innocents on the ground. It would be a small price to pay.
In actual fact, Torie, neither would happen as terrorists, like bullies, will avoid the problem... if they perceive a good chance of failure, they will take their plans elsewhere. Had the crews of those four planes been armed, the terrorists would have made the classic error of bringing a knife to a gun fight!
Glaser Safety Slugs (www.safetyslugs.com)
How about requiring that any aircraft which flies between states with a gross weight or fuel weight that exceeds certain limits be required to be secured against hostile takeover by at least two armed guards whose credentials are as impeccable as those required for pilots of such craft (hint hint).
At any rate if Congress doesn't restore the captain's right, I wouldn't fly, not out of fear, but contempt for those that would bend to such nannyism. The events of 9-11-01 happened, because when the killers showed their hand no one trumped them, except those on the flight over PA, and the pilot there wasn't allowed effective force.
Great minds....Stay Safe !
I totally agree. You know, this is not an isolated incident where politicians, bureaucrats, journalists and special interest groups suddenly had a mental disorder where logic abandoned them. It is typical. Common incompetence. Intentionally creating problems where they need not exist.
Think about it, if they, especially politicians and bureaucrats can fail in logic that any other person would readily assume a logical course of action -- Torie is the only one of fifty people on this thread that doesn't "get it" -- there is an extremely high probability that politicians and bureaucrats fail just as miserably if not more so regarding other issues.
Most people on FreeRepublic should seek to understand the profound meaning of that. In short, it amounts to this...
Who are the value producers? Who are the value destroyers?
Protect the value producers -- prosecute the value destroyers.
It will cost taxpayers two to three billion dollars a year to fund the training and salaries of sky marshals and it still won't solve the problem nearly as well as armed pilots -- there's a much greater risk that a terrorist will gain control of sky marshal's gun and use it to effectively turn the plane into a missile. ...If politicians and bureaucrats have it their way -- Who are the value destroyers? To add more logic is that Front Sight Firearm Training Institute -- arguably the best in the country and probably the world -- is offering to train commercial pilots for FREE -- Who are the value producers?
Protect the value producers -- prosecute the value destroyers.
What's more, a pilot has the authority to "ground" flights if he doesn't believe it would be safe to fly (overload, mechanical problem, et c.). He's the captain. That's his responsibility.
If pilots do not believe that it would be safe to fly without the benefit of being armed to protect their passengers and crew, how is it any different than any of the other situations I've mentioned?
Must of been a democrat RAT speaking!
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.