Posted on 06/24/2003 5:52:44 AM PDT by Mulder
Pete the Pilot, who I interviewed on Sept. 12, 2001, for the "Sept. 11" chapter of my latest book, had a layover in Vegas a short time back, so I asked him how things were going with arming America's commercial airline pilots.
"You see, the airline executives were against it, and the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) was against it -- the pilots were the only ones who wanted it." So, although Congress overwhelmingly mandated the program, "they've already run into some problems with it. The original TSA guy didn't want the pilots to be armed, so he set out to keep this from happening by making it very distasteful and inconvenient to be armed. So they've already redesigned the program."
How does it work?
"You do it on the Net. You answer some questions, then you get sent to another (online) site to take a test, and then you have to go take a six-day class. You have to go there at your own expense, on your own time. The airline does not pay to get you there, and if you miss a flight rotation that's money out of your pocket."
To get around admitting that it could ever, ever be a good thing to allow mere "civilians" to go armed, the authorities have mandated that pilots who complete the training will now be officially deputized. "You get a badge and everything; you're a `federal flight deck officer.' "
Where's the six-day course held?
"They're moving the location of the course facility again; it's somewhere out West that's not very convenient."
TSA southwest regional spokesgal Suzanne Luber says the first "prototype" class started with 48 pilots and ended up deputizing 44 "flight deck officers" at the federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga., in April. After a second small class graduates this summer, the training program will move next fall to Artesia, N.M.
"We have a budget of $8 million through the end of the fiscal year, which is September, and the cost of the course per pilot is $2,100," not including overhead and start-up costs. "It's 48 hours, so the course is six days." The pilots don't have to pay for that, but they do attend on their own time, she confirmed.
To get to bustling Artesia, "You fly to either Albuquerque or El Paso, and then you take a small plane to Roswell, and then you drive," Ms. Luber says, cheerily.
"And you have to get re-certified twice a year," Pete continues. Re-certification can be at any federal law enforcement shooting range; the pilots won't have to go back to Georgia or New Mexico twice a year, Ms. Luber says.
There are about 60,000 commercial airline pilots in America. How many are now being trained to fly armed?
"They took like 45 people," Pete says. Then there's going to be a second class, but that's already full, too."
And out of the more than 3,000 pilots that fly Pete's airline? How many are now being trained to go armed?
"Six guys."
So a hijacker's chances of running into an armed pilot would be ... two-tenths of 1 percent?
Pete shrugs.
"The bureaucrats who fought the arming of airline pilots are now placing outrageous roadblocks in the implementation of the law authorizing pilots to carry guns during flights," is the way Phil Brennan reported the story on NewsMax.com back on Feb. 19, in a story headlined "Federal Bureaucrats Obstruct Armed-Pilots Law."
"The requirements proposed by the Transportation Security Administration, including exhaustive psychological evaluations, are `intrusive' and `obscene,' charges the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance (APSA)."
Tracy W. Price, a spokesman for the pilots group, complains the TSA wants each pilot seeking to carry a gun to submit to a wide-ranging background investigation, including interviews with neighbors, relatives, friends and co-workers, an interview with a TSA psychiatrist, a second government psychological exam and a medical evaluation.
Many of those requirements are redundant because the Federal Aviation Administration already conducts physical and psychological exams of pilots every six months, Price told Newsmax.com.
Is Pete going to apply?
"I'm not going to do it."
Why?
"I'm not going to go into the psychological testing and being told whether I'm psychologically fit to carry a weapon. I already carry a gun, and I've already been judged fit to fly a plane, where I have responsibility for the lives of 200 passengers. So I'm not going to do that. And I also don't want to be a federal deputy. They actually deputize you and give you a badge and everything -- you're an officer of the federal government, and I just don't feel I can do that."
Let's just say Pete is not exactly a fan of our increasingly intrusive central government.
Didn't most pilots go armed up through the early 1960s, without all this federal folderol, I asked him -- in fact, wasn't it required to carry a sidearm if you were flying the U.S. mails; didn't Lucky Lindbergh always wear a sidearm when he carried the mail?
"1960s? Heck, most of the pilots were armed right up into the '70s. All this screening stuff is the fault of our own Airline Pilots Association, if you can believe it. Back when we started to have all those hijackings to Cuba, the pilots association demanded they do something, so we gave up our guns and in return we got the start of this wonderful screening system we've got now."
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of the books "Send in the Waco Killers" and "The Ballad of Carl Drega." His Web site is www.privacyalert.us.
Reason #3412 not to fly.
Real deep.
DIA has another TSA fiasco going on today. Just caught part of it in on the morning news and can't comment with a lot of authority, but it seems that they (TSA) laid off a lot of security checkers there and the security lines are an hour (at least) long. People ariving for 10 AM flights at 8 AM are missing them. Talk is of hiring some part timers to fill in the gap (makes me feel real secure to hear this).
Personally, (and I admit my views are entirely unique to me, not one else will feel this way) I'd rather fly with an armed pilot than with a bunch of passengers checked out by part timer security people.
The original TSA guy didn't want the pilots to be armed, so he set out to keep this from happening by making it very distasteful and inconvenient to be armed.That would be John Magaw, one of the worst of the JBTs.
The fact that the first head of the TSA ran perhaps the most out of control federal agency (BATF) during the most out of control administration in recent memory spoke volumes about what TSA was meant to be. At best, President Bush got some really bad advice there.
-Eric
The last airline safety conference I had to attend, I went to via Amtrack, though I could have ridden free on my own airline employer's planes or jumpseated with another carrier.
They were real happy about reimbursing me for the ticket, lemme tellya. But like I told my station manager, hey, if neither the government nor the airline trusts the pilots, why should I?
-archy-/-
Unreal...
They also laid them off days before benefits would kick in.
A pilot landing in NYC who has this badge is immune to the insane anti-gun laws of that municipality.
If he did not have such a badge and designation, he would be arrested as soon as his weapon was detected by the local yokels.
Of course, all this would be unneccesary if the 2nd amendment was in full force throughout the land.
Meanwhile, there are still some airports that have more screeners than passengers each day.
Personally, (and I admit my views are entirely unique to me, not one else will feel this way) I'd rather fly with an armed pilot than with a bunch of passengers checked out by part timer security people.
I'd rather fly with an armed pilot AND armed passengers. Personally, I'm not flying again until the gov't recognizes all of my Rights, including the Right to be armed.
Yeah, must be all those darned Klinton holdovers.
Thanks! I was in a hurry to get out the door so I could go support some corrupt politicians, welfare moms, and illegal immigrants through my tax dollars.
I'd sooner hitchike across the country than submit to the Nazi tactics at the airports. Getting arrested for questioning "authority" or accidentaly having the wrong thing in my luggage outweighs any benefits to flying.
If I'm going to pay $300 to get treated like dirt, there are attractive women who do that sort of thing for a living. Or so I've heard.
They were real happy about reimbursing me for the ticket, lemme tellya.
I haven't had to go through this yet at my job, but expect to have to deal with it later this year. I figure I'll simply drive, and ask them to reimburse me for it. If they raise hell about "not flying", I'll explain that they can save money by simply having the meeting over the phone.
If the federal government recognized any of our Rights any more, they'd put a couple of agents on each flight into an "anti" state and arrest any of the "state authorities" who intereferes with an armed pilot.
They'd be charged with attempting to violate an American's civil Rights.
Meanwhile, our nation is being invaded by illegals.
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.