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

Skip to comments.

Pilots threaten to stop service if kept unarmed
Union Leader ^ | 10/05/01 | KATHRYN MARCHOCKI

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-245 next last
To: Torie
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.

Are you some kind of retard ? THE PUBLIC has deemed it prudent to arm pilots .... the congress is the one standing in the way .....

41 posted on 10/04/2001 10:22:04 PM PDT by Centurion2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Torie
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.

Another quick question Torie, if we put the Bill of Rights to a vote before the public square, how many of our rights do you think would survive?

P.S. Didn't mean to hit you too hard, but I feel very strongly that the best defense to terrorism is to not act like victims, but instead to arm yourself and fight back whenever the opportunity presents itself.

42 posted on 10/04/2001 10:22:42 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Torie
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.

Are you some kind of retard ? THE PUBLIC has deemed it prudent to arm pilots .... the congress is the one standing in the way .....

43 posted on 10/04/2001 10:22:54 PM PDT by Centurion2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Maybe the passengers should refuse to fly until they can carry also?

If an armed society is a polite society, an armed society on an airplane will probably be just as polite.

I do not recall any phrase in the Second Amendment which says government gets to choose which "special" group of citizens "is allowed" to carry -- we all are allowed to carry!

For the want of four pistols, nearly 7,000 people lost their lives! How tragic. How utterly stupid!

Government at its best!

44 posted on 10/04/2001 10:23:21 PM PDT by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Torie
You sound as if your reliance on big brother has precluded your ability to assess a situation for yourself. How high should the bodies be piled before the efficacy of armed pilots becomes apparent?
45 posted on 10/04/2001 10:26:46 PM PDT by backlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa
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?

That's one good argument.

Another is cost. Some estimates place the number of skymarshalls required at around 100,000 men. That's 10 divisions worth of troops. The cost of this many marshalls, plus the cost of training them, would be quite a bill. Guess who pays? Yup, the taxpayer AND the airline passenger. It would be cheaper to arm the pilot and copilot, and secure the cockpit door, and make other changes such as installing a system that puts the plane into autopilot during a hijacking which cannot be overriden without a code or signal from the ground or which allows remote control of the jet to steer it away from urban areas.

Captains and officers of passenger liner ships that sailed the oceans used to be armed. Why can't the captains of the air be likewise armed? And arm the bus drivers too.

The proposals that have been made like canceling -curbside check-in or having dump inspections of carry-on bags don't even begin to address the problem, let alone have a whole lot of potential for solving it. Skymarshalls might help, but they'll have all the problems that you mentioned.

I'd feel a lot safer knowing the pilots were armed.

46 posted on 10/04/2001 10:27:51 PM PDT by Jay W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
Yesterday, on one of the talking-head shows(I apologize for not remembering which one), a guest said "There could be dire consequences if Pilots are armed." How stupid and unthinking can these people be? How much more dire can the consequences be than what happened on 9-11?
47 posted on 10/04/2001 10:30:31 PM PDT by gc4nra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
THE PUBLIC has deemed it prudent to arm pilots ...

Did you take a poll or something? Not that I would hew to polls when emotions run high. That is why we have brakes on that kind of thing. But post the poll that supports your supposition in any event.

48 posted on 10/04/2001 10:30:50 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
Are you suggesting that armed pilots are a Bill of Rights issue, or is this just a rhetorical and irrelevant point?
49 posted on 10/04/2001 10:32:18 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Torie
assuming the cockpits are secured with bullet proof and secure doors, as is now at last happening asap.

A tip out of the pages of home security:

NEVER ASSUME that a door is secured or will remain secured.

Always have a backup system or plan. The bad guy does -- he's got a backup plan. You'd be foolish to not have one. By the way, this not only includes the airlines, but also that safe suburban neighborhood you say you are fortunate to live in. Guess what? The crime wave's headed in that direction, outward from central city urban areas. Good luck. You'll need that, and much more.

50 posted on 10/04/2001 10:33:09 PM PDT by Jay W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Re: "...cooler heads..."

Iam absolutely certain that the captains and co-pilots of four hijacked air liners would have been willing to submit their immediate desire for a firearm, any firearm, to a committee of "cooler heads" somewhere in a no-longer smoke filled room in Washington for decision.

Perhaps the committee would decide the pilots could match the box-cutter wielding hijackers, weapon for weapon, but no guns, in the interests of fairness?

51 posted on 10/04/2001 10:39:06 PM PDT by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Torie
My point was that when something is right (and having armed pilots is undisputably the right thing to do), you shouldn't have to rely on the 'public square' (as you so quaintly put it) to justify having them as a last line of defense before the plane is shot down.

BTW, I don't think you are quite aware of the training and testing the passenger jets pilots have to undergo before they are given the keys to a multi-million dollar piece of equipment like a 747. That is the reason why no American passenger jet pilot has ever gone postal. Simply put, if you are against arming passenger pilots, logically you should have a problem with police being armed because alot more police have gone postal over than years, than have passenger jet pilots.

52 posted on 10/04/2001 10:39:08 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Scott from the Left Coast
I AGREE> Kudos to THIS union!!!!!
53 posted on 10/04/2001 10:40:23 PM PDT by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Torie
No. But I live in a very low crime suburb.

So did Sharon Tate and Nicole Simpson.

54 posted on 10/04/2001 10:41:19 PM PDT by Britton J Wingfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Jay W
Good points.

Congress needs to realize that PILOTS are already armed with something a lot more dangerous than a gun which can only be used to kill the people on board, if you could get them to stand still and if you had enough ammo.

In reality, pilots control a large gasoline can moving at high speed totally under their control, as the Terrorists so ably demostrated. The pilots are armed to the teeth, why not give them a measly little gun to PREVENT the big weapon from getting out of their control.

It is soooo logical to arm pilots that I can't stand it. Why would additional personnel (marshalls) in the cabin where the marshalls are subject to hijacking be preferable to just setting up the last line of defense and making sure no one could be better armed than that last line without destroying the plane???

55 posted on 10/04/2001 10:43:39 PM PDT by RobFromGa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
I don't doubt the pilots ability to handle firearms tempermentally provided they are trained for it. But I don't think anyway here has really made the case that they are needed provided the cockpits are secure. And THAT is my point. If someone really wants to make the point that the cockpits can never really be made secure, and that guns in the cockpit is statistically reasonably likely as a matter of prediction to thwart foul play that would otherwise obtain after securing the cockpits, have at it. I will respectfully listen.
56 posted on 10/04/2001 10:44:19 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Torie
"...Bill of Rights issue..."

DAMN RIGHT IT IS!!!

What part of "...shall not be infringed" do you fail to understand???

57 posted on 10/04/2001 10:44:20 PM PDT by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Britton J Wingfield
Neither actually lived in a suburb. One had an unfortunate significant other. The other was just plain unlucky. But a Manson like crew would stick out a bit more where I live than in Laurel Canyon where they would just seem like the neighbor next door. Not that Laurel Canyon isn't a great place. It really is.
58 posted on 10/04/2001 10:47:16 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
Another time. I am impressed that you think you are a second amendment constitutional scholar. If you are really interested, I will link you to a rather complete law review article on the subject. In any event, apparently you think the pilots should have a right to arms on the job even when their employer says no. Whatever.
59 posted on 10/04/2001 10:49:46 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
I think 'aware' is the key word here. He smugly speaks as if the old rules are still relevant to this new threat. Thousands of dead Americans speak for self-defence. How anyone can argue otherwise is beyond me.
60 posted on 10/04/2001 10:50:09 PM PDT by backlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-245 next 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