Pilots threaten to stop service if kept unarmed

Union Leader ^ | 10/05/01 | KATHRYN MARCHOCKI

[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.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"Who elected them to make these policy decisions?"

And who elected YOU God to make them be unarmed? People have the RIGHT to self defense, so what gives YOU the right to take that away? I'd strike, and give YOU the finger!

[caddie]

Pilots, unlike most Americans, are not idiots, and they also have balls.

Of course they should be armed.

[caddie]

You don't get it, do you?

All your silly little Barney-Disney-PBS rules don't apply anymore.

This is way too important for silly liberal technicalities.

The towers are now rubble, and 7000 New Yorkers are dead, because of your infantile liberal world-view.

Grow up.

[caddie]

Yes, let's read a bunch of law books.

That will solve this terrorist dilemma very elegantly.

[Paleo-Con]

I suppose you are a supporter of Air force Generals having the right to shoot down whole airliners as your last line of defense but don't trust the pilots with a sidearm???? you really trust the government more, huh?

[Virginia-American]

Perhaps this isn't fair, but it's almost like you're looking for an excuse not to arm the pilots, crew, and passengers. I generally hate class-action lawyers, but I'd like to see a suit against the airlies on second amendment grounds. Federal law (IIRC) does not prohibit armed passengers or crew. Airline regs did. The crew and passengers were prevented from forming a militia when it mattered, and as a result are dead.

[verity]

The airlines will not need an expensive bailout!

[null and void]

No. But I live in a very low crime suburb.

Not any more. We all live in a higher threat of terrorism neighborhood...

[ELS]

I just think cooler heads should determine whether the gun thing is efficacious and necessary.

I believe the pilots are thinking with cool heads. Their primary concern is airplane safety. They are not irresponsible hotheads. I accept, and fully support, their judgement that pilots should be armed.

[Ditto]

I think they should be fired if they refuse to fly. Who elected them to make these policy decisions?

Someone probably made that same argument 80 years ago when construction workers wanted hard hats.

If they refused to fly because of a defect in an aircraft, would you fire them also? If I can't trust a pilot with a gun, why in the world would I trust him to fly the plane?

[TCanna]

Bang!

[Come get it]

I think they should be fired if they refuse to fly. Who elected them to make these policy decisions?

When we fly, we are entrusting our lives to the airline and the pilot. They can decide our fate, if they choose. If the pilot is to take responsibility for 200 lives, he better damn well have a means of protecting them.

You do not ask the police or the military to protect the citizens without giving them a means to do so.

[Poohbah]

Is "idiot juce" the stuff that makes you spell "juice" incorrectly?

I want something EFFECTIVE done. Giving pilots firearms is nice and symbolic. Please note that there are an APPALLING number of shootouts inside of ten feet where all rounds miss their intended targets. The pilot is going to have his hands full getting the aircraft on the ground ASAP--I would prefer a guy whose sole job is to keep the bad guys out of the cockpit.

[alieno nomine]

BTT

[Poohbah]

I seem to be the only guy who understands that the pilots are paid to, well, fly the airplane!

I would prefer that there be someone in the cockpit whose sole job is to keep the bad guys out--he can be trained much more extensively than a pilot could for the task (the pilot, after all, is going to have most of his training time spent on things related directly to the three sacred tasks of aviating, navigating, and communicating), and this is one area where you get one and ONLY one chance to do it right.

[Poohbah]

Well, if the airlines would go bankrupt instituting proper security measures, then maybe we need to rethink our national transportation system. You seem to favor a feel-good system of minimal to nil effectiveness over an system that would actually work because the latter costs too much. You must be a professional beancounter.

[steve-b]

On the contrary, I favor a system that would actually work: arm the pilots (to insure a minimum of one armed person), have expert armed guards (randomly, since there just aren't enough people capable of Delta Force standards to cover all flights, and we need a lot of the people who are to be in, er, Delta Force), and allow qualified passengers (background and competence proofs would obviously be needed, with some room to hash out details) to carry on board.

[ChemistCat]

I had a dream about a security system so close to being perfect that it would be almost completely safe. Determined people could get through it in a heartbeat. There's no perfect safety. If EVERY PASSENGER was strip searched and put in a prison-style uniform and deprived of ALL POSSIBLE carryons, and watched every second by computer, it still only takes one corrupt security officer or plane maintenance worker to make all that security nill. Armed pilots will prove the cheapest way of gaining the highest possible degree of safety. Still not perfect--who watches the pilots? But you know, ya gotta trust somebody sometime, and I think I'll go along with that.

Yesterday in the grocery story a stockperson walked past me pushing a cart full of cardboard cases: onions, potatoes, leeks. He dropped a box knife right at my feet. Such a surreal episode! Neither of us knew each other. I suppose I could have picked up the box knife and slashed him with it, if I were that kind of person, and he was just walking around with it after all--he could have killed a hundred people within half an hour if he'd been so inclined. Nothing dramatic happened--I moved aside a little, he picked up the knife, and that was it. Our society works because we really can, usually, trust each other to be what we appear to be. He was a big black guy pushing a cart of produce and carrying a box knife to open (wow) boxes. I was a customer pushing a cart full of mostly junk & comfort foods. And you know, it seems statistically certain to me that all or almost all licensed US pilots aren't going to go crazy killing people or crashing their planes.

[Poohbah]

What makes Delta Force so rare is not their proficiency with the pistol: it is their proficiency at so MANY different and complex tasks. Being proficient at (a) shooting someone trying to come into the cockpit and (b) closing the door to the cockpit is a much shorter job description.

Arming the pilots basically makes their job more difficult (it's one more task to get current on), it makes sure that the armed person will always be at a tactical disadvantage (his attention will be divided between flying the plane and shooting the terrorists), and in general is not likely to accomplish the intended goal. Give the job to someone who can train full-time when they're not flying (as it is, too many airline pilots I know complain that there aren't enough training hours available for all the stuff they need to be able to do as it is; adding another task to get qualified on will simply make that problem worsse).