Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The White House Warms to Idea, Once Opposed, of Arming Pilots [Gains Traction With Gun Foes]
The Wall Street Journal ^ | Thursday, August 15, 2002 | STEPHEN POWER

Posted on 08/15/2002 7:42:34 AM PDT by TroutStalker

Edited on 04/22/2004 11:46:54 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: TonyRo76
What you said.
22 posted on 08/15/2002 9:06:11 AM PDT by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TonyRo76
Agree 100%. I was responding the comment of Quilla's pilot friend who felt like he'd have a target on his back "Hello I'm a pilot, I'm carrying a gun." My point is that would only be the case if all pilots carried a gun. Since not all of them will be packing, then Quilla's friend's concern is not so much of an issue.

Besides, isn't a gun a good defense against someone coming at you in an airport for your gun? If he already has a gun, then what's the point in taking yours? If he doesn't, then that's quite an advantage...

23 posted on 08/15/2002 9:06:20 AM PDT by freedomcrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: TonyRo76
What you said - and I can't exaggerate how depressing it is that you even have to explain it. It should be as obvious as water in its liquid form is wet or similar truism.
25 posted on 08/15/2002 9:27:39 AM PDT by Let's Roll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: JohnHuang2
"When the White House three months ago held its first hearing on whether to let airline pilots carry guns, the Bush administration didn't bother sending anyone to register its opposition..."

Ummm, that's because Bush never opposed arming pilots.

What Bush said (which was frequently misquoted by the press) was that he wasn't sure that arming all pilots was absolutely necessary. He never said that he was opposed to doing it. There's a big difference between being certain of an absolute necessity - from being opposed to something.

So now the press is backtracking. They've figured out that they've been wrong about Bush "opposing" arming pilots, and now that it appears Congress will pass the new measure, they've also figured out that Bush will sign it into law.

So the spin begins.

"Bush has reversed his position on guns in the cockpit", the press now lies.

No, in fact President Bush has ALREADY signed into law a bill that provides for the training and arming of 2,500 pilots with firearms.

That provision was in the same bill that federalized all airport security workers.

No, it hasn't been Bush who has reversed his position, it's the press.

The press has been lying. The media has been claiming that Bush opposed arming pilots.

And they've been wrong from day one (so what else is new).

27 posted on 08/15/2002 10:28:30 AM PDT by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TonyRo76
Exactly. I get the impression that Habib,the terrordrone, would think twice about hijacking a 747 with a knife if he knows that the pilots could be armed.

EBUCK

28 posted on 08/15/2002 10:30:36 AM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
I had a conversation about arming pilots this week with... a pilot for American Airlines... (flying) into South America and the Bahamas. He is against the proposal as it stands and explained that he walks through the airport and goes through security just like everyone else.

What is he implying here? A hassle with security? Why does he even need to be searched at security once they have verified he is the pilot (and probably armed)? Putting the aircrew (especially the pilots) though security is nonsense. At any time they can destroy the aircraft without a gun, and a lot easier!

If he were armed, he said it would be like walking through the airport with a bullseye painted on his forehead.

Pure B*llsh!t!

He questioned what he would do with his gun when he arrived in Columbia as officials there certainly wouldn't allow it into the country.

Nonsense. They could be pursuaded to agree if there were procedures for storage. For example, have weapons stored in a safe at American Flight Operations and checked back out when the pilot leaves the country on his next flight.

He did have a solution though - guns should be part of the plane's equipment locked in the cockpit

This could be a solution, particularly if kept in a lockbox on board and the aircraft sealed (the US military does this all the time). He should check the key in at Flight Operations where it would be secured.

...(locked) via satellite. When weight was removed from the landing gear, the box would unlock. Conversely, it would relock upon landing, again, all by way of satellite or similar untamperable system.

This guy is dreaming to avoid personal responsibility. Why the expensive system there is a much simpler way and he could do it very simply himself? Besides, the weapon would not be readily available prior to takeoff and it may not be at all if the system fails.

Sounded pretty good.

To me, it sounds pretty lame.

If this $200,000/year International pilot doesn't want the responsibility of carrying a gun to protect his ship, crew and passengers, maybe somebody else who does can step up to the plate instead. This wuss can maybe find a job he is more suitable to hold, such as a lobbyist for Sarah Brady. He could snivel all he wants there and get paid for it!

29 posted on 08/15/2002 11:31:24 AM PDT by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gritty
If he were armed, he said it would be like walking through the airport with a bullseye painted on his forehead.

Pure B*llsh!t!

I'm just relaying a conversation and I may not have done it well. He thinks if he is taking a gun from, say, his vehicle to the cockpit, he will go through security with no problem. Still he will have to walk a considerable distance to the plane. He believes that during this time, a terrorist, a nut, anyone who knows pilots will be armed, could accost and wrestle the gun away from him. BTW, this fellow was about 5'-7" tall and weighted 150 max.

Personally, I think all pilots should be armed. The logistics of doing it should involve looking at all possible scenerios.

30 posted on 08/15/2002 11:52:29 AM PDT by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
Hell get rid of the bozo air marshalls just arm all of the air crews!

Air marshal program in disarray, insiders say

By Blake Morrison, USA TODAY

For years, the government touted federal air marshals as the best of the best — an "elite corps" of undercover officers trained to stop hijackings on commercial flights.

Two federal air marshals engage in live-fire, tactical handgun training at the FAA Technical Center in Pomona, New Jersey. By Tom Mihalek, AFP

But today, after rushing to hire thousands of new marshals, the program is so beset with problems that sources say at least 80 marshals have quit, and other marshals say they are considering a class-action lawsuit over working conditions that they fear put travelers at risk.

Documents obtained by USA TODAY and interviews with more than a dozen current and former marshals from around the nation suggest many have grown disillusioned with a program that one says has become "like security-guard training for the mall."

Hiring standards for marshals added since Sept. 11 have been lowered dramatically, sources say. No longer must applicants pass a difficult marksmanship course that used to be the make-or-break test for the program. In addition, many new hires were given guns and badges and put aboard flights before extensive background checks were completed.

At some of the agency's more than 20 regional offices, the program has struggled to provide ammunition for shooting practice, sources say. Despite the undercover nature of the work, officials have implemented a dress code that marshals worry identifies them to terrorists. And scheduling has been haphazard: While some marshals have not flown for weeks at a time, sources say others are working 12- to 16-hour days and are falling asleep or getting sick aboard flights.

"This used to be an elite, great group. This used to be the baddest people you could find — war heroes," says one marshal who joined the program just after the terrorist attacks. "Now they've turned this into a laughingstock."

At least three incidents involving the conduct of individual marshals are under investigation by federal authorities.

In one incident last month, a marshal was removed from a flight in Washington after smelling of alcohol. The head of the air marshal program confirms at least two cases in which marshals accidentally discharged their weapons, one in a hotel room in Las Vegas. And sources say one marshal was suspended after he left his gun in a lavatory aboard a United Airlines flight from Washington to Las Vegas in December. A passenger discovered the weapon.

By law, the marshals — all with top-secret security clearances — are not allowed to speak publicly about the program. All requested anonymity and say they have been told they will be fired or prosecuted for talking to the media. Based on a presidential order first issued in 1979, they cannot form a union, either. That's why some of the marshals say they're considering contacting lawyers. They say they're frustrated that managers ignore their concerns, and they have little hope that the organization will improve.

Officials with the new Transportation Security Administration (TSA) downplay the concerns. They say any organization that has grown as quickly as the air marshal division is bound to have some problems. Although the precise number of marshals is classified, sources say about 6,000 have been hired since Sept. 11. Before the terrorist attacks, fewer than 50 marshals flew, and only on international routes.

Tom Quinn, the head of the program, disputes those figures and the number of marshals who have resigned. "I'm not going to share the number, but it's significantly less" than 80, he says. The marshals with complaints, Quinn says, represent "a small number of disgruntled individuals who are total amateurs."

"I'm very pleased with the way the program is going so far. ... We've gotten it right," he says.

'It's not growing pains'

That's not how some marshals see it. They say they were lured to the program with promises of promotions and four-day workweeks to make up for the rigors of travel and days away from their families. Now, they say they've been misled or lied to, and they worry that new rules put them and travelers in harm's way.

"A lot of people were drawn to this agency because it was a fresh agency," says one manager involved in the hiring process. "Now it's spoiled to the point that it's rotten. They tell us to bear with it, that it's growing pains. It's not growing pains. It's a disease."

After Sept. 11, the air marshal program became especially appealing to hundreds of law enforcement officers who guarded the nation's borders, monuments and federal buildings. Promises of better pay enticed many applicants, who left jobs with federal law enforcement agencies and local police departments.

The typical marshal earns about $52,000 a year, officials say — at least $2,000 to $5,000 more than a Border Patrol agent.

"The people I see staying are one of two types: people who were on the border working in the heat for 60 hours a week, and the other are local cops who are seeing another $18,000 to $20,000 a year in salary," says the marshal who joined the program just after Sept. 11.

But even some of those marshals have come to regret their decisions, says the president of the union representing border patrol agents.

"We've had over 700 people go over there, and we hear from a fair number of those people — people who have left (the air marshals)," says T.J. Bonner, head of the National Border Patrol Council. Bonner says the former agents he talks with say "they made a mistake" by becoming air marshals.

'Real issues with morale'

"The folks were lured over and were told they'd be flying three days a week with a day of training. Now they're flying five days a week and rarely train," Bonner says. "They never in a million years thought they'd be taken advantage of the way they're being taken advantage of."

Documents obtained by USA TODAY, including e-mails, minutes from meetings and standard operating procedures for the division, underscore their complaints. One memo from a June 18 teleconference of regional managers notes "real issues with morale in the ranks" of those applying for leadership positions in the program.

Among the concerns:

A marksmanship test that simulates conditions a marshal might face aboard a jet was eliminated as a means of qualifying for the program, apparently to get more marshals on more flights quickly, sources say. A manager and two sources within the TSA say the difficult shooting course was cut from qualification tests after a high number of applicants began failing what had once been the program's critical requirement. Program officials insist the shooting standards for marshals are among the highest for law enforcement organizations.

Regular training opportunities, such as time on the shooting range, are often precluded by the expanded flight schedules, marshals say. Even getting bullets for shooting practice has proven difficult.

Quinn denies any office ever has struggled to provide ammunition to marshals. "It's never been true," he says. But one memo obtained by USA TODAY documents the problem last March: "The question keeps coming up and believe me I feel your pain," says an e-mail to marshals from a manager in one regional office. "We are getting bullets shortly. ... You can shoot on your own time and buy bullets with your own money however."

Although they work undercover, marshals at some regional offices have been ordered to adhere to a dress code that requires them to wear "conservative male or female business attire" during most of their trips, documents show. Without special permission, they cannot dress more casually.

Quinn says working marshals reviewed the dress code before it was issued, and good marshals "would clearly understand, respect and appreciate" the policy. He says marshals who provided details of the dress code to USA TODAY "are putting us all at risk."

Do dress codes threaten cover?

But marshals say making them look and dress alike is what threatens their cover. "This is really dangerous," says one marshal, who left the Justice Department for the air marshal program five months ago. "We are so obvious, the terrorists don't need to bring guns on the planes anymore. They just need to gang up on us and take our guns."

New hires were given badges and guns and put aboard flights before extensive background checks necessary for national security clearances were completed. Quinn says that, in order to hire marshals quickly, the new hires were given waivers while the more extensive background checks were underway. "Would I prefer it another way? Certainly," he says.

So would some marshals. "If someone slips through the cracks, how do you not know they're not a terrorist?" says one marshal who received a waiver. "You've already put them on a plane."

Work schedules are disorganized. Schedules reviewed by USA TODAY show marshals often fly with different partners each day, even though they were told during training that developing rapport with a partner was crucial. Many end up flying more than 10 hours a day. "It's ridiculous," says the marshal from the Justice Department. "Guys are complaining about headaches and vertigo and dizziness. We're falling asleep. We're nodding off."

And though one memo from a manager's teleconference says the agency is "being judged on how many flights we can cover," more than a dozen marshals in each of two offices were not scheduled for weeks at a time, sources say.

"In May, for 3 1/2 weeks, they forgot about me," says one marshal. "And not just me. There had to be 15 guys in the office they forgot about. We sat in the office watching kung fu movies."

The marshal says many colleagues, cynical about the division's failure to offer them training, jokingly considered the Bruce Lee movies "our close-quarters training." When the marshals repeatedly called the scheduling center in Atlantic City to try to get on flights, schedulers said, "Don't worry about it. You're getting paid," the marshal recalls.

Charge 'totally erroneous'

Quinn denies the marshal's account. "Totally erroneous," he says. "There was no office with federal air marshals sitting there watching kung fu movies for a month."

Other marshals say they routinely work more than 50 hours a week but, because of a government pay structure for law enforcement officers, never earn overtime.

Instead, based on a policy called "law enforcement availability pay," they are paid for 50 hours of straight time each week even if they work more than that. Quinn says schedulers take into consideration whether marshals have worked long weeks and try to schedule them for less time in subsequent weeks. But one manager says if marshals report more hours than 50 hours, time sheets are changed to reflect only the 50 hours. "I do it on a weekly basis," the manager says. "I'm having to white 'em out."

When he speaks with marshals at regional offices, Quinn says he stresses two points: "Professionals embrace change. Amateurs cling to the past and what somebody may have said to them along the way."

But for some marshals, what they were told when they applied affected their decision to join the program.

In an Aug. 1 letter of resignation obtained by USA TODAY, one former marshal wrote of frustrations stemming from "the lies that were fed to myself, and most of my colleagues." The letter details concerns about scheduling, pay and promotions. The marshal who wrote it would not comment on the letter, but he accepted a position outside the division "because I can trust the people and organization that I will be working for," he wrote.

The new job, he wrote, pays "$11,000 less" than his air marshal salary.

Find this article at:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/acovthu.htm

31 posted on 08/15/2002 7:53:20 PM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson