Posted on 06/01/2002 11:18:55 AM PDT by forest
Recently, I received a message from the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance (1), which is a coalition of the Allied Pilots' Association, the Coalition of Airline Pilots' Associations, the Air Line Pilots' Association, and the Independent Pilots' Association. The message concerned arming commercial airline pilots, but it provided some very good information the national media seems to have overlooked. For instance:
“Most people don't know that for many decades after the dawn of commercial aviation, airline pilots carried firearms in the cockpit without incident. However, in late 1987, after a suicidal attacker broke into the cockpit of an airliner, murdered the pilots and crashed the airplane, the FAA started requiring pilots to pass through screening checkpoints to ensure that they had no weapons. (Don't worry; we never understood that one either.) After the FAA disarmed airline pilots in late 1987, it was only a matter of time before some terrorist organization took advantage of their foolishness.”
Of course! Terrorists, like crooks, tend to stay away from areas where they know people are well armed. That’s a characteristic of the breed. Disarming pilots gave them another free-play zone.
One wonders, also, just how many pilots were armed before 1987 and why there were no reported incidents. Could these be outstanding citizens we can actually trust? Government is not acting like it.
Anyway, the message continues:
“OK, fast forward now to July of 2001. Airline pilots have been defenseless for over a dozen years and a flood of intelligence reports warn that Al Queda might hijack an airliner soon. Interestingly, in the thicket of the Federal Aviation Regulations, there remained a little known and completely unused provision that allowed individual airlines to arm their pilots. Coincidentally, the FAA chose July of 2001 to start the process of removing that regulation from the books. The sad irony is that the process was completed in September of 2001. The very month that airliners were used as guided bombs was the month that the FAA made it official that no airline pilot could ever be armed.”
The national media must have been sleeping back then. Very little was said. This should have been big news after 9-11 -- big enough news to cause great public outcry. After all, most commercial pilots were previously military pilots and have a strong familiarity with weapons of all sorts. The pilots agree:
“Many airline pilots, like many ordinary citizens, saw the problem with defenseless cockpits on September 11th and knew that we needed to change the rules. We had to stop assuring terrorists that the pilots were easy pickings once you got past the cockpit door. In fact, we needed to promise the terrorists that if they did attempt a cockpit takeover, that they would be met with lethal force.”
The problem was, many bureaucrats in government did not agree. So, in October of 2001, these pilots formed the group that became the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance (APSA).
“APSA immediately started to lobby Congress. In November of 2001, Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire offered an amendment to the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) that allowed airline pilots to be armed. Representatives Don Young (Alaska) and John Mica (Florida) placed similar language in the House version of the bill. Unfortunately, the language in other provisions of the bills was not identical between the House and the Senate versions, and a conference committee was held on November to iron out the differences. APSA lobbied the conferees heavily and we fought hard to keep the armed pilot provisions in the final bill. It was in the conference committee that the language for arming pilots was diluted, giving the Bush Administration and the airlines the OPTION to arm pilots with firearms. On November 19, 2001, President Bush signed into law the ATSA, making it again possible (if the administration and the airlines approved) for pilots to be armed.
“To us, arming pilots was only common sense. Airplanes were used as weapons of mass destruction after the pilots were brutally murdered. Arm the pilots so they can defend their airplanes and you can deter future attacks. All we needed to do (we thought) was produce a well thought- out plan for arming pilots, present it to the administration and -- voila -- they will do the sensible thing. In December of 2001, the FBI produced its Special Operations and Research (SOAR) report and Cockpit Protection Program (CPP). Both recommended arming pilots with firearms and the SOAR report stated clearly that Tasers and Stun Guns should not be relied upon to defend the cockpit of an airliner. The FAA opened a period of public comment on the subject of arming airline pilots. Public response was immediate and overwhelming in favor of arming pilots with firearms. It seemed clear that the administration was moving in the direction of arming pilots.
“Working completely independently, APSA, the Allied Pilots' Association (APA), the Coalition of Airline Pilots' Associations (CAPA), the Air Line Pilots' Association (ALPA) and the Independent Pilots' Association (IPA) produced programs for arming airline pilots. Interestingly, all of the programs reached very similar conclusions. First, the program should be voluntary and should include screening and training by a federal agency. The firearms should be used only as a last resort, final line of defense of the cockpit when terrorists have broken through the cockpit door. Aviation and firearms experts should select specific firearms and ammunition. Seeing that they had reached nearly identical conclusions, these groups began to work together toward the common goal of arming pilots.”
By February of 2002, the FAA public comment period closed with over 8,000 comments favoring arming pilots. So, APSA took the time to brief the White House Domestic Policy Institute, The National Institute of Justice at DOJ, DOT, FAA, OIRA, OMB, TSA and the Director of the Federal Air Marshals. Shortly after, when APSA briefed Deputy Undersecretary of the TSA Steve McHale, he admitted that, "The threat is real and the clock is ticking. We need to make a decision on this very soon."
But: “In late April, the White House made it clear to us that they did not intend to create any meaningful program for arming airline pilots. Very reliable sources told us that the White House was under intense pressure from the airline's lobby group -- the Air Transport Association (ATA) -- to keep pilots from being armed. Even though the ATA was publicly neutral, they privately lobbied powerfully against arming pilots.
“Understanding the above realities, it becomes clear that the ATA's problem is not liability or distraction or loss of cabin pressure or any other safety concern. In fact, all of the above problems are red herrings and arming pilots with firearms will return us to the higher level of safety we enjoyed prior to 1987. No, the reality is that the airlines are willing to trade safety for victory in the power struggle they have initiated with their own pilots. Arming pilots will not degrade the authority and stature of airline pilots, it will enhance it and that is totally unacceptable to the ATA.”
He who pays the piper gets to call the tune. The airline industry has the money. So, the announcement by DOT Undersecretary John Magaw that the TSA would not allow airline pilots to be armed (it is the TSA's option under existing law) was not unexpected, say the pilots.
John Magaw, some might remember, has no fear of the use of guns. He just wants government agents to be the ones doing the shooting. Most notably were his positions as the government administrator honchoing the cover-ups of the atrocities by federal agents at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
So, what is government’s position today? A pilot may not be armed because someone may get hurt. But, if the aircraft is hijacked, the Air Force has permission to shoot it down -- killing everyone on board.
Something seems terribly wrong with that type of logic!
As an attempt to instill just a little common sense in that misguided “safety” bureaucracy, Congressmen Young introduced legislation that would mandate arming airline pilots and take the option to say no away from the TSA and the airlines. Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) joined with a coalition of Senators (Murkowski, Burns, Miller, Bunning, Thurmond) to introduced a bill that mirrors the House bill.
All we can do is hope. . . . .
1. http://www.secure-skies.org
John Magaw, some might remember, has no fear of the use of guns. He just wants government agents to be the ones doing the shooting. Most notably were his positions as the government administrator honchoing the cover-ups of the atrocities by federal agents at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Arming pilots will not degrade the authority and stature of airline pilots, it will enhance it and that is totally unacceptable to the ATA.
So, what is government’s position today? A pilot may not be armed because someone may get hurt. But, if the aircraft is hijacked, the Air Force has permission to shoot it down -- killing everyone on board.
Something seems terribly wrong with that type of logic!
I honesty can't believe they let statist pig-boy freak John Magaw be in charge of anything.
Why should I BELIEVE IN a government that doesn't trust me?
Why should I SUPPORT a government that doesn't trust me?
And on and on it goes.
John Magaw, an established bureaucrat on a personal power trip.
Wrong. All you can do is strike... but you pilots wont do that, will you?
Tuor
We need a national campaign to boycott all domestic commercial flights until pilots are allowed to carry sidearms. Next, institute a letter-writing campaign telling the airlines exactly why we won't fly until this change is implemented.
That's a good idea. But as a potential passanger, I'm already boycotting because I refuse to subjugate myself to GateRape in order to fly. I'll never fly again except for an emergency (such as a death in the family).
Tuor
Watch what they do, not what they say. The Bush administration is not pro 2A. And I know all about that Ashcroft/Olson position given so much play a few weeks ago...it left a loophole for the government to confiscate and ban guns big enough to drive a howitzer through.
I've always kind of looked down my nose at the NWO crowd. On a bad day however, one could understand how the goofy types over at John Birch may be coming up with that stuff.
My point exactly. Been there, doing that. Also, I refuse to fly on an aircraft where my Glock is not allowed.
In my younger days, when I was a frequent traveler, I always had a handgun with me. That was legal on aircraft back then. No one was ever shot -- or even threatened with being shot. Of course, the airport people were a lot nicer to people back then.
It seems to me that if at least one person on one of those 9-11 aircraft had a handgun, and knew how to use it properly, that aircraft would not have been crashed.
I agree that cockpits should have secure doors. But, no door is completely secure unless it is built like a bank safe.
Therefore, both pilots should be armed.
Let's face it, most aircraft fly themselves most of the time. So, if some reprobate is trying to break through the cockpit door, the pilots have time to stand up and get ready. When the Neanderthal perpetrators finally break through the door and get into the cockpit, only one action need be taken: shoot them dead.
That is the only action that will stop that foolishness.
Proper application of a couple raw pork chops wouldn't hurt, either. But, I suppose that pushes the envelope a little too far for the politically correct among us.
Still, the fact is that direct (and fatal) action is required when these types of felonies are perpetrated. Personally, I would hate to blow someone's brains around the room. But, if anything like that happens in front of me, I would take quick and decisive action and worry about it later.
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.