Posted on 05/21/2002 7:34:17 AM PDT by Cagey
WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal government said Tuesday that pilots will not be allowed to have guns in the cockpits of commercial airplanes.
The announcement was made at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing by John Magaw, undersecretary for transportation security. It followed months of debate over whether arming pilots would be a deterrent to hijackers.
Both Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge previously indicated their opposition to arming pilots.
Magaw gave no reason for his decision, which was announced in response to a question from Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the committee.
Airline pilots have been pushing for guns, saying it would allow them to confront a hijacker who breaks into the cockpit. Hijackers took over four commercial airlines on Sept. 11, crashing two of them into the World Trade Center and a third into the Pentagon. The fourth crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.
Flight attendants, meanwhile, have advocated nonlethal weapons, such as stun guns, that they could use in emergencies.
Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., who chairs the Commerce Committee, said guns would not be needed as long as pilots kept cockpit doors locked while in flight.
"You can put the rule in right now and cut out all the argument about pistols and stun guns," Hollings said.
Opponents of arming pilots have said reinforced cockpit doors now required on all planes mean that pistols are unnecessary. They have also expressed concern that an errant shot might hit a passenger or damage a key electrical system on the plane.
Two House Republicans have introduced legislation to arm pilots and the House Transportation Committee is scheduled to take up the bill this week.
"You can put the rule in right now and cut out all the argument about pistols and stun guns," Hollings said.
See anything wrong with the *cough* honorable Senator's statement that 'guns would not be needed as long as pilots kept cockpit doors locked while in flight? I don't believe a hijacker has to get into the cockpit to take a plane down or accomplish what they want--which is to kill a lot of people.
What happens if doors are opened in flight, or the little windows are broken out? What happens when cabin pressure is lost? Are pilots able to determine what's happening in such situations and be able to 1) even fly the plane, 2) get it to a lower altitude fast enough to save any of the passengers?
McGaw, Mineta, Ridge: "We are opposed to arming pilots. Pilots will not be armed so long as we can help it."
Bush: "Gentlemen, your services are no longer required. I expect to have your resignations on my desk in the morning. Be out of your offices by lunch or you'll be arrested for trespassing."
A little spine to do what's right. That's all it takes.
WIMom, this recess appt of Magaw should tell you something. Either Pres Bush gave him blanket authority as to who could (and could not) have guns, or approved this decision. Either way, bad decision by both.
Agree, hooray!, we still have some sanity in out national capital. Let's hope and praty we have enough to carry us.
The taxpayers can not afford to employ an air marshal for every civil aircraft flight. It is folly. At a minimum, the pilots need to be armed. Armed passengers would be even better, as that would leave a potential hijacker uncertain about where the source of armed resistance exists on the aircraft.
Ridge and Mineta are twin twits. But don't forget, Bush is the boss, and with a stroke of his pen could allow it. So save some of your outrage for the fact that Bush thinks it's perfectly ok for pilots of F16's to be able to fly the friendly skies and blow a jetliner out of the air with air to air missiles, but not allow a pilot to have a handgun in the cockpit.
Brace yourselves for financial turbulence, because a lot of people, myself included, will not fly again until we know that genuine safety has been restored to the skies, not mere window-dressing. To feel safe we will require as a start:
1) Secure doors and bulkheads on ALL airplanes to protect the pilots
2) Armed pilots
3) Sensible profiling and search of all Middle-Eastern-looking types, not Swedish grandmothers or children.
4) Airport screeners with common sense, good courtesy and decency and an IQ higher than a turnip.
No one can force us to fly or will convince us to fly until real changes are made. Tell it to Congress, you are about to go belly-up unless the customer is happy!
Have a nice day!
JOHN Q. PUBLIC
Oh yeah, McGaw is just hot for any idea that will put PRIVATE FIREARMS in the role of suggesting that they can be used for BENEFICIAL PURPOSES.
NOT!!!
You Bushies need to get on your guy about firing at least THREE currently employed federal morons...(I know, I know -- "federal moron" is an obvious redundancy.)
What are they supposed to use? Harsh language?
That's because any failing of government can only mean those who failed were underfunded, and need more taxpayer money to do their jobs right. At least, that's what I keep hearing. If only I could convince MY boss to think that way...
Let the pilot fly the plane and let an air marshall protect it.
For example...???
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.