ARMING COMMERCIAL PILOTS

Fiedor Report On the News #271 ^ | 5-5-02 | Doug Fiedor

[forest]

Who is the "Captain" of the ship -- in this case a commercial airship? There's a pilot up front driving the aircraft. But, is he or she really in charge? Maybe. But only when some younger guy riding in back allows it.

Judging by the disgruntled antics of some buttinski bureaucrats in the federal government, commercial aircraft pilots should no longer be called "Captain." They are quickly becoming "drivers" and little else.

Ask one what types of hoops these "Captains" have to jump through to get to the ship they supposedly command. They are searched and examined by every minimum- wage "security" person along the way before boarding their aircraft.

In all appearances, outwardly and privately, the "Captain" of the ship is not trusted by government. Any lawyer can walk past security in any courthouse without being checked. But, our commercial aircraft pilots may not board the aircraft they are said to command without being searched first. Apparently, big government trusts lawyers more then those who fly an aircraft transporting hundreds of people.

Worse, if there is a young sky marshal on board an aircraft, they may command the pilot to do whatever they wish. Which means, the "Captain" is not in command. The young federal employee with the gun is.

Last fall, Congress authorized the Transportation Department to arm commercial airline pilots. Currently, all that is available to the pilot and second officer is a fire ax and (usually) some interesting little flare shooters. These can be formidable weapons in skilled hands, but a gun is handier and more efficient.

Apparently, though, administration bureaucrats do not trust the pilots who transport humans everyday for a living. Congress debated and approved arming pilots, but administration bureaucrats can't seem to make a decision. Instead of running with the ball for a score that would benefit everyone, they punt.

That's a damn shame, too. And sooner or later, it will cost lives. These bureaucrats should shut up and do as they were told. They are not a one man Congress, just paper pushers.

As U.S. Rep. John N. Hostettler (R-IN) reports: "The American people support the idea. In a Time/CNN poll conducted just weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks, 61 percent said they favored allowing pilots to carry guns. Two more recent polls conducted by the Wilson Center and the Winston Group found support for arming pilots has risen to 75 percent. Airline pilots themselves overwhelmingly favor this option. . . . The pilots make the very good point that they are the first line of deterrence and the last line of defense on their aircraft. And few professionals are better equipped to be armed. Pilots endure rigorous screening before they can work for a major airline. More than 70 percent of the pilots at the major airlines have military training."(1)

Hostettler also admits that the federal government is far from prepared to provide much security: "There are nowhere near enough federal marshals to cover the 35,000 flights that take place in the United States daily. Federal baggage screeners will not be in place at the nation's 429 airports until November. Meanwhile, knives, mace and even an occasional gun have slipped through the intensified screening process."

John R. Lott, Jr., a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute(2), agrees: "Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has based airline security on three policies: improved screening, air marshals, and strengthened cockpit doors. While all are helpful, no one can ignore the evidence from the last couple of weeks that all three policies are simply not enough. If the administration is going to be serious about keeping terrorists out of the cockpit, Mineta and Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge need to begin considering something they have long resisted -- arming pilots."

According to Lott: "Of the three pilots' unions, 83 percent of the Allied Pilots Association, 78 percent of the Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association and 73 percent of the Air Line Pilots Association support arming pilots. More than 70 percent of the pilots of major airlines have served in the military and are familiar with guns. They know more about their planes than the marshals. All the pilots' groups have agreed to training programs before being armed."

As the Wall Street Journal said so distinctly last Wedensday: "Arming pilots is an important security measure. Federal air marshals will never be able to protect more than a small fraction of flights. Reinforced cockpit doors, while an improvement, aren't impregnable and will still need to be opened periodically during flight. Stun guns, favored by Mr. Mineta, can be rendered ineffective by thick clothing, and they immobilize attackers for mere seconds.

"In short, the same Transportation Secretary who's letting the phony issue of racial profiling stand in the way of effective airport screening is now refusing to authorize the best defense should terrorists get on board an airplane again. Maybe it's time for the White House to exert some policy supervision over Mr. Mineta and his bureaucracy. Failing that, we're all for Congress taking the law back into its own hands. It shouldn't take another disaster before we get serious about keeping hijackers out of the cockpit."

Exactly! The pilot and co-pilot are in command of the ship. Anyone else may assist. But the "Captain" should be in ultimate command and responsible for all decisions made while the aircraft is in operation.

All commercial aircraft pilots I know were also well experienced military pilots. One has 4,300 hours in a B-52 and quite a number of hours successfully leading his Wing bombing North Vietnam. We shall not ask how many hours he also has driving a fully armed B-52 over the United States, but it's a lot. And, he happens to be a very good shot with a handgun.

To deny a capable commercial airline Captain like that the means of protecting his aircraft, crew and passengers is nothing short of legal negligence. As a (non)frequent flyer, I would feel comfortable knowing that all commercial airline pilots were armed anytime they were in uniform.

There is a petition available that is a coordinated effort between the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance (APSA), the Allied Pilots Association (APA), the Southwest Airline Pilots Association (SWAPA), the Coalition of Airline Pilots Association (CAPA), and the Independent Pilots Association (IPA). Everyone interested is invited to sign it.(3)

-----------------------------

1. http://www.house.gov/hostettler

2. http://www.aei.org

3. http://www.secure-skies.org

 END

[forest]

Judging by the disgruntled antics of some buttinski bureaucrats in the federal government, commercial aircraft pilots should no longer be called "Captain." They are quickly becoming "drivers" and little else.

Worse, if there is a young sky marshal on board an aircraft, they may command the pilot to do whatever they wish. Which means, the "Captain" is not in command. The young federal employee with the gun is.

They are searched and examined by every minimum- wage "security" person along the way before boarding their aircraft.

Last fall, Congress authorized the Transportation Department to arm commercial airline pilots. Apparently, though, administration bureaucrats do not trust the pilots who transport humans everyday for a living. These bureaucrats should shut up and do as they were told. They are not a one man Congress, just paper pushers.

Both the American people and the pilots favor pilots carrying guns.

All you Freepers are asked to stand and sign this petition.

[conserve-it]

I think most of us have. To those who haven't, last call to do the right thing here.

[pabianice]

According to US law, the pilot in command of a commercial aircraft is the sole, absolute authority of that aircraft. He is under zero obligation to obey any commands from anyone else, no matter who they are. True, once he's on the ground (or after he's been shot down), he may have to defend his decisions, but while airborne, he is it.

[Elsie]

Not if he don't have the gun!

[DakotaGator]

I find it amazing that no one, especially the news media, has pressed the government for the results of its survey about arming the aircrew!

The Department of Transportation asked for public comment in an under-reported effort through Docket # FAA-2001-11229. It received over seven thousand responses. As near as I can tell, the responses hugely endorsed arming aircrew!

This is probably another case of the "elite" not liking the results. The old, "Ignore it and maybe it will go away." game! Anyhow, if you want to see it, here's the link:

Docket Management System

Simply enter 11229 and enjoy the wonderful sensation of real public opinion about arming aircrew!

[Always A Marine]

...Which means, the "Captain" is not in command. The young federal employee with the gun is.

Big government hates Freedom, and resents anything independent of government "protection" and "assistance." Taking only a slightly broader view, it could be said:

...the unarmed "Citizen" is not free to live his own life. The young federal employee with the gun is.

[Mulder]

Big government hates Freedom, and resents anything independent of government "protection" and "assistance."

And Bush and Ridge are "big government" politicians, despite what Republicans might think.

Based on their stance on this issue (and others), I'm convinced that neither Bush nor Ridge believe in individual Rights. Rare is the politician who does.

[hoosierham]

", the "Captain" is not in command. The young federal employee with the gun is"

AND NOT JUST ON THE AIRCRAFT, BUT ALL OVER THE NATION....

[upchuck]

From the article: Last fall, Congress authorized the Transportation Department to arm commercial airline pilots.

From post #5 by DakotaGator: The Department of Transportation asked for public comment in an under-reported effort through Docket # FAA-2001-11229. It received over seven thousand responses. As near as I can tell, the responses hugely endorsed arming aircrew!

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this. Maybe someone can raise my IQ? The congress passes legislation telling the Trans Dept to "make it so." So what's with this public comment crap? The public already spoke thorough the congress. At least that's the way it's supposed to work. Anybody???

[DakotaGator]

Post #9 by upchuck expressed an outrage we should all feel:

...The congress passes legislation telling the Trans Dept to "make it so." So what's with this public comment crap? The public already spoke thorough the congress. At least that's the way it's supposed to work. Anybody???

In typical DC fashion, the laws involved gave the Secretary of Transportation authority to arm the aircrew if he so desired. Both the Secretary and the Director of Homeland Security are opposing arming the aircrew.

So it comes down to this; If the Administration wanted the aircrew to be armed, they would be armed right now! The Secretary and the Director take their marching orders from the President. Why he hasn't given them the order to arm aircrews is beyond me. Our tax dollars at work.

[Shooter 2.5]

I checked into the requirements of becoming a Sky Marshal. The age limit is 37 years old. Apparently, just as in everything else, the government regulates private businesses with age discrimination laws but not themselves.

[forest]

But what if Congress passes a dumb law to override the old law?

[hattend]

Pilots with guns scare ABC's Cokie Roberts because "airplanes is one of the few places I feel safe from guns. Having some pilot who's gone off his nut for some reason running around with a gun does not make me feel safe." This Week co-host Sam Donaldson stood with Roberts against guns, even when pressed by George Will about whether he wished the pilots had guns on September 11th.

During the roundtable segment on the May 5 This Week with, for now, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts, Donaldson raised how commercial airline pilots have signed a petition to allow them to carry guns in the cockpit.

The prospect horrified Roberts, who denounced the idea: "I don't feel safer. Airplanes is one of the few places I feel safe from guns. Having some pilot who's gone off his nut for some reason running around with a gun does not make me feel safe."

George Stephanopoulos, the future solo host of the program, pointed out: "That's always a danger. That person is always in control of the plane and could fly it into the ground if he wants to..."

George Will quipped: "It is the case, I think, that support for pilots being armed increases as people have more and more experience with so-called airport security."

Will soon asked Donaldson: "Do you or do you not wish the pilots on September 11th had been armed? Yes or no Sam."
Donaldson: "Well I wish that somebody-"
Will: "That's not a yes or a no."
Donaldson: "Well, when I asked Secretary Powell for a yes or a no question we heard two or three minutes and I and I'm happy to do it."
Will: "The prosecution rests."
Roberts interjected: "Suppose the hijackers had pulled the gun out of the pilot's hand if the pilot had a gun?"
Donaldson came to Roberts' side: "I don't know whether it would have made any difference. If it could have made a difference of course you would want it to happen. But I think, in the long run, guns in the cockpit are not a good idea. I join Cokie."

What if the hijacker would have pulled the gun out of the pilot's hand? C'mon Cokie! What would have happened? Tell us!

What if the pilot had killed the guy entering the cockpit? Cokie, you ignorant slut...