Pilots threaten to stop service if kept unarmed

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

[boltfromblue]

From Ron Paul,TX: You might be interested to know that I have introduced H.R. 2896, "The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001," which prohibits the federal government from not allowing pilots to carry a firearm. This way, any pilot that wants to carry while they fly - can.

[spycatcher]

Exactly. These pilots shouldn't get shot down without a fighting chance

[wayne_shrugged]

What if ALL of us protested in this fashion...?

[spunkets]

"Arming pilots introduces the element of “risk, fear and doubt” into the mind of a potential hijacker, he said."

It'll also put a quick end to the scheme if they don't get the hints.

[cfrels]

Let the customer decide...a choice between an armed flight crew and an unarmed crew. I'd bet the "armed planes" would be full.

[cynicom]

spy...

The terrorists do understand deadly force.

[spunkets]

This is a good plan. Something that needs support.

[spald]

What's the big decision here?

Aren't most commercial pilots former officers in the military? Aren't many active officers in the National Guard? Haven't they received military training?

If we can't trust officers with weaponry, who the heck can we entrust?

At the very least, those current officers in the Air National Guard should be required to carry weapons as part of our new National Defense.

[RobFromGa]

Good for the pilots, they must be armed. It is the most secure option. (combined with cockpit security).

Here are my answers to the common stupid reasons for not arming airline :

Stupid Reason #1. Pilots can't be forced to be armed. It should be voluntary.

A #1. Does the same logic apply to other jobs? What about bank security guards" or Secret Service officers? Should they be allowed to keep their jobs if they refuse to carry? I say No, and they should be well-trained.

Stupid Reason #2. We'd be leaving ourselves open to the threat of terrorist infiltration of air marshall ranks.

A #2. Or an ever bigger threat, hijackers impersonating air marshalls. If marshalls are undercover the crew doesn't know who they are. What does a crew person do if they see an armed passenger? Assume they are air marshalls? What if they aren't?

Stupid Reason #3. It seems that some people have had the ability to steal airline uniforms and credentials. Such a successful imposter would be able to take a firearm on a plane.

A #3. What about imposter air marshalls? They don't even have uniforms, they are undercover. How hard can it be to fake an air marshall ID? How does the crew decide between the real air marshall and the fake one who is a suicide bomber?

Stupid Reason #4. Anyone can impersonate a pilot and get a gun on board.

A #4. If the imposter pilot successfully gets on board, is in the cockpit and has total control of the plane already, WHAT DOES HE NEED A GUN FOR?

A Note about Undercover Sky Marshalls:

My argument against undercover sky marshalls is: How are the crew going to know who is a undercover sky marshall and who is an undercover suicide bomber?

Let's say that a hijacker has a gun on board and is spotted by one of the crew. Should they feel safe? What if said hijacker pulls out official (fake) Air Marshall ID and presents it to the crew and says that they need to talk to the pilot because they saw something out of the ordinary in Row 3? And then proceeds to pop the unarmed pilot. And drive it into the Sears Tower. Couldn't happen? Why not?

IMHO, pilots should be forced to carry-- it is a job requirement-- and they should be the only ones to carry. They should also be locked in the cockpit for the duration of the flight. Problem solved

[Califreeper]

I'll fly with the ARMED crew!!!!

[Torie]

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

[onyx]

Besides their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, I want my pilots armed!

[Jay W]

And if they try to fly these planes with replacement pilots, I'm sure there won't be too many people flying with them.

Especially if the replacement pilots are like replacement officials in the NFL, or replacement players back during the NFL player strike.

[backlash]

Thats a damned cavalier attitude to take with someone elses life. What if it was you? Would you willingly fly unarmed if there was a chance it would be a one-way trip into a tall building? Would you allow other people to decide if you should be armed? No skin off your butt, right? Just fire the sorry SOBs.

[Torie]

Unfortunately, this highly regulated industry (still, and now more than ever) at present is not well suited to offering alternatives at most airports to most locations between airlines with disparate policies. But in a free market, I would agree with you.

[bootless]

My father was an airline captain. In my mind, this is a safety issue. As pilot in command, the wheels didn't roll until he was convinced all safety issues were resolved. They are not resolved until the pilots can be armed.

[oyez]

About four years ago an attempt was made to take over a FexEx plane and crash it into the hub in Memphis by an ex employee. I say if the plane drivers want a side arm, "Fine." If they can be trusted with millions of dollars worth of airplane and cargo so be it. It time for Americans to once again be able to defend themselves.

[Torie]

I just think cooler heads should determine whether the gun thing is efficacious and necessary. I tend to doubt it, assuming the cockpits are secured with bullet proof and secure doors, as is now at last happening asap.

[madison46]

Good for them. They need to do it. I'd feel better knowing or not knowing if they were armed. Hell, my life is in his hands anyway.

Only stupid liberal winnies have a problem with it, and under the guidelines spelled out, it would be a great thing.