I do agree that he should have made it clear to Norm Mineta, who should have pushed for arming of the pilots.
A simple equation, the terrorist cannot steer the plane into a building if they don't control the cockpit. The reinforced door should be a compliment to the pistol. A bullet in the hijackers head is the preferable result of a hijacking.
But, I must admit, the pilots also have the plane to use as a weapon. They can do a snap roll, which would likely send the hijackers flying, knocking them unconscious or snapping their neck even. In fact, if I were a pilot, I would make this announcement:
"With the possiblity of hijacking at an all-time high, I am asking that the following be done. If this plane is hijacked, you have 15 seconds to put your seatbelt on. For the hijackers to gain control of this plane, they will have to get into this cockpit. THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT! If a hijacking takes place, buckle your seatbelt and grab a barf bag, 'cause we are going for a ride. I will be in control of the plane the whole time, so just pretend it is a roller coaster ride. I can assure you this, no hijacker will make it to the cockpit door. After our rollercoaster ride and the hijaker(s) unconsciousness, I ask that five of the largest, strongest people on the plane get out of their seat and bludgeon the hijacker(s) to death. We clean the carpet later.I think that could be just as effective.Thanks for flying with us today."
John Magaw is the undersecretary for transportation security, which is an executive branch department.
The Office of Homeland Security was created by Bush, and its director, Tom Ridge was appointed by Bush.
Nominating and retaining people with such policies was either done purposely or is an act of sheer negligence and extremely poor judgement.
In both cases, Bush could and should tell both these individuals to change their policy or submit their resignation. This is a matter of the highest national importance, and the President should assert his authority in the matter.
Let's be candid: This decision came from the administration. Since it's an unpopular and unreasonable decision, Bush has his lowers give the announcement and they are supposed to catch all the heat, insulating the President from political backlash and preserving his ratings in the polls. We're not little kids here, and I'm not fooled for a moment by these shenanigans. I know full well who is responsible for this outrageous decision.
More than one com'l crew has thought all this out.
Exactly how does one hijack a plane while wearing a seatbelt or while hurtling around the cabin as of a result of not wearing one??
I say again: a pilot's only job should be the operation of the aircraft. Most of them, along with the rest of the members of their flight crews, already have enough "attitude" without ratifying and further inflating their oft-rampant egos.
And if a tablecloth-headed bastard orders you to unbuckle your seatbelt, you join your fellow travelers in either refusing to do so and/or rushing him and his flea-bitten litter-mates en masse.
"Let's Roll!" would best mean (partially) rolling the aircraft several times while proceeding to land it ASAP....
Not unless you want to see the wings come off. A barrel roll can be executed by some airliners like the 707, which has performed one at the hands of a test pilot. A good hard bank or zero-G maneuver will take them off their feet quick enough though.
Quote of the day.