My choice for cockpit protection
Posted on 10/04/2001 9:38:13 PM PDT by kattracks
Commercial airline pilots will be asked to suspend air service if they cannot have trained, armed pilots in the cockpits, a New Hampshire pilot said. A resolution that will be circulated among the various councils of the 67,000-member Air Line Pilots Association this month asks federal regulations be changed to allow for the voluntary arming of flight crew members, Robert Giuda, a United Airlines captain of Warren said. “Had we had armed pilots on Sept. 11, we wouldn’t have the horrific tragedy that we’re dealing with at this point,” Giuda said of the four hijacked jetliners. Pilots would first get training in firearms by the FBI and would use their weapons only to defend against an attempted breach of the cockpit, the resolution said. The resolution also calls for federal licensing of pilots to carry concealed weapons and for the government to indemnify air carriers and their employees against the legitimate use of a firearm. If those steps are not carried out, the resolution calls for “a national suspension of air service, at such times and in such manner as is deemed appropriate by the leadership of the Air Line Pilots Association.” “We’re hearing members of Congress say they don’t want a bunch of armed hooligans running around,” said Giuda, a New Hampshire state representative. He said there was “no more professionalized, highly-scrutinized group of people in the world than airline pilots.” The security of the flight deck cannot depend solely on armed sky marshals, he said. Sky marshals can be picked out of a crowd and, if overpowered, would provide a hijacker with a weapon, Giuda said. “It’s time to throw the gauntlet to the mat. We are going to get politicized into unarmed cockpits and then we’ll get shot with the guns the marshals used because they will be taken away from them,” he added. Arming pilots introduces the element of “risk, fear and doubt” into the mind of a potential hijacker, he said.
I think they should be fired if they refuse to fly. Who elected them to make these policy decisions? They are 10 folks who would be eager to take the place of each of them, sans guns unless and until the public square deemed it prudent.
Every Freeper needs to contact his/her congresscritter to keep this moving.
If they won't do this on their own, let's make 'em a deal they can't refuse.
9-11 DIDN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN -- DAMN IT!
And if they try to fly these planes with replacement pilots, I'm sure there won't be too many people flying with them.
But, it seems to me, that somehow in all our high techiness - America should be able to figure out a surefire way to de-activate any hijacker who makes a threatening move. Surely we can come up with sensors that when set off automatically seek out and find someone using violence - and somehow visitng that someone with some kind of high voltage shock or perhaps very high pitched sound - or both.
What you just said doesn't make sense. And I have to say I am surprised cuz usually you make sense. The whole point of this is that we shouldn't act like victims. And to rely solely on Air Marshals for the defense of passenger jets is a recipe for victimhood.
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.