Posted on 05/10/2002 5:11:41 PM PDT by Rightfield14
I have no question that Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge are good and decent men. However, they are clearly wrong in their opposition to arming the pilots of commercial airliners.
When Congress is blindly engaged in a mad rush of airline safety legislation, you would think they would choose to pass a bill that might actually accomplish their stated intention of providing safety and security to the flying public.
The concept of armed captains and pilots is not a new approach. It used to be commonplace. Therefore, it is an idea whose time has returned.
Anybody who chooses to travel on a commercial airline is already trusting his life to the pilot. Thousands of Americans travel on planes for business and pleasure every day. They willingly place their lives and security in the hands of a pilot. We seldom question his maturity, his years of training, or his level of skills and competence.
I wish somebody could please explain to me the difference between arming sky marshals and arming pilots.
If we can trust a pilot to safety take us from one coast to another, then why would we assume that the same man does not have the skill and judgment to capably handle a weapon in an emergency?
There are far too many Americans who get hysterical over the mere thought that a gun might be anywhere near them. Guns are not only used in the commission of crimes; they often prevent them! A gun is not an object with supernatural powers. If carried by a pilot, a firearm will not magically spring from the holster and shoot a bunch of innocent passengers.
Too much of what we "think" we know we learned from Hollywood movies. According to Ronald Hinderberger, director of aviation safety for Boeing, a stray bullet piercing a fuselage will NOT necessarily bring down an airliner. There could be some depressurization, but there are numerous cases where planes have landed with much more severe structural damage than a tiny bullet hole. And, yes, there is always some risk of an errant bullet causing a fire, an explosion, or harming the electrical or hydraulic systems. However, if the pilot is forced to remove that gun from his holster, then the plane and its passengers are already in serious and imminent danger.
I understand that the arming of pilots is sometimes opposed by the attendants. No doubt they fear a doomsday scenario where a planeload of dead passengers and flight attendants is landed by pistol-packing pilots. Although it may sound rather cold to some, there are certainly far worse things than a plane landing with a bunch of dead passengers. On September 11th, we learned what one of those things was.
The lessons of Black Tuesday must never be forgotten. These flights were chosen primarily because the hijackers assumed the passengers would be defenseless. Unfortunately, the terrorists were correct on three of the four flights. An untold number of lives were saved because Americans chose to bravely fight back against their hijackers. The passengers did so with the full knowledge of their eventual fate, if they chose to do nothing.
Well, now we all know. United Airlines Flight 93, that crashed into that once peaceful Pennsylvania countryside, was not successfully used as a weapon off mass destruction. But the possibility remains that other airlines could be. However, that possibility is lessened when terrorists realize that their actions would be met by armed, capable, and hostile resistance.
If we have the will to do that which we know must be done, then another hi-rise building could be left standing. Another historical, economic, or governmental landmark might be unharmed. And a bunch of happy passengers can routinely count on safely reaching their destination.
Guns in the cockpit are not a threat to the passengers. They could be their ultimate salvation.
© 2002 Robert Yoho
The important difference is the difference between flying an airplane and shooting to kill.
Ask any Concealed Carry Instructor, or ask any commercial ailine pilot.
Neither flying nor shooting are as easy as on tv or in the movies.
Make it voluntary, and kick the FAA in the butt to authorize structural mods to airliners to keep the rotten bastards out of the cockpit.
This paranoia to make pilots into shooters is becoming a disillusioning fad.
There are so many better ways to prevent skyjacking. Putting a pistol with cockpit crews is false security.
(signed)
NRA, pilot
They may be good and decent men, but they clearly do not understand why and how traditional America worked as well as it did. It was because, not despite, of our dependence upon the self-reliant, responsible and accountable individual. What makes the economy work--the free market, where everyone must put forth his best effort if he will succeed--is based upon the same principal. But that principal seems to be better understood in economic terms, than in security terms, or in education terms, or in terms of life in general.
Hopefully the pilots will take a stand; will demand the most fundamental right of any of us: The right to self-protection. The insulting, patronizing attitude of men of words, who would restrict men of action, is really rather incongruous in an America built by rugged individualists, who knew how to take care of themselves. Those "good and decent men" had better rethink who has their ear.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Nonsense. By this decision, they show that they are *not* good and decent men. They are clearly saying that they prefer a planeload of dead subjects to haveing a few armed citizens.
I trust my doctor with my life. I would not trust her to fly or to shoot.
You, as a paying passenger can have all the fine opinions as your right. Please wait until you are a licensed airline pilot and licensed pistol shooter before you tell your pilot what to do.
Would you tell your surgeon what tools to use?
The important difference is the difference between flying an airplane and shooting to kill.
Ask any Concealed Carry Instructor, or ask any commercial ailine pilot.
I am a concealed carry instructor. I know several more. I also know several commercial pilots.
They are ALL in favor of allowing pilots to carry.
Neither flying nor shooting are as easy as on tv or in the movies.
And your point is?
Make it voluntary, and kick the FAA in the butt to authorize structural mods to airliners to keep the rotten bastards out of the cockpit.
All of the proposals that I have read make it voluntary.
This paranoia to make pilots into shooters is becoming a disillusioning fad.
There are so many better ways to prevent skyjacking. Putting a pistol with cockpit crews is false security.
Wrong. It has stopped skyjacking in the past, and would be a powerful deterrent now. It makes it very difficult to take over an armored cockpit.
(signed) NRA, pilot
I hope that you rethink this issue. This measure poses almost no risk to the public, yet increases the security of the crew quarters. The attitude of Mineta, that he would rather have dead planeloads of subjects, because "where would it end? Bus drivers would be asking to be armed next." Shows that he is more concerned with keeping his subjects unarmed than he is about protecting them.
Mineta should be fired. He is an ultra liberal holdover from the Clinton administration.
Then take an armed defense class and learn what shooting a pistol in defense can and can't do.
Until then, you're speaking without adequate knowledge.
Do you really believe there is only one pilot in the cockpit and have you ever heard of automatic pilot?
Best regards,
No and I also wouldn't tell my pilot not to use a tool he obviously is qualified to use and wants to use.
The majority of pilots and the pilots unions want the pilot to be able to carry a weapon as the last line of defense of the cockpit. It would be the pilots ( surgeons) choice as to what tool he/she felt was necessary.
I would like "armored" cockpits, much more than "armed" cockpits. Big difference.
In my opinion, the best defense is to keep the S.O.B.s away from the controls. Make that cockpit armored (there there are interesting ways) and we don't have to depend on OK Corrals.
I really don't care what has happened in the past, or care what might be a powerful deterrent in the future. The former is history, the latter is a gamble.
Secure the cockpit. Don't depend on yesterday's history, or likelihood in the future. Until 9/11 everybody was happy with historical safety features. On 9/11 the bad guys made new history.
Secure the cockpit.
Are you an airline pilot?
If you are, you are in a small minority in your views.
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.