U.S. pilots will not be armed... (merged)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA on guns in cockpits
HOMELAND INSECURITY
Armed pilots banned
2 months before 9-11
FAA rescinded rule allowing guns in cockpits just before terror attacks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 16, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jon Dougherty
A 40-year-old Federal Aviation Administration rule that allowed commercial airline pilots to be armed was inexplicably rescinded two months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, leading aviation security experts to lay at least some of the blame for the tragedy at the feet of airlines, none of which took advantage of the privilege while it was in effect.
The FAA adopted the armed pilot rule shortly after the Cuban missile crisis of 1961 to help prevent hijackings of American airliners. It remained in effect for four decades.
But in July 2001 – just two months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks – the rule was rescinded.
According to FAA officials, the rule required airlines to apply to the agency for their pilots to carry guns in cockpits and for the airlines to put pilots through an agency-approved firearms training course.
The aviation agency said, however, that throughout the life of the rule not a single U.S. air carrier took advantage of it, effectively rendering it "moot," according to one agency official.
"In the past, FAA regulations permitted pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit provided they completed an FAA-approved training program and were trained properly by the airlines," FAA spokesman Paul Takemoto told WND in a voice-mail message. "That was never put into effect because no requests for those training programs were ever made. …"
Takemoto said the newly created Transportation Security Administration is now responsible for deciding whether pilots can be armed. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act signed into law by President Bush Nov. 19, 2001, has a provision allowing pilots to be armed, but the law does not mandate that the right be granted.
The FAA failed to return numerous follow-up phone calls requesting to know why the rule was rescinded, who was responsible for the decision, whether a particular incident spurred the decision and whether the aviation agency believes the airlines share some culpability for never taking advantage of it in the first place.
Some security experts speculate that had airlines taken advantage of the rule, it likely would not have been rescinded by the FAA. And if it had been implemented by the airlines, they say, the Sept. 11 hijackings – which led to the deaths of nearly 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. – may never have occurred.
"It's hard to say," said Capt. Robert Lambert, a commercial airline pilot and founding board member of the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance. But in lieu of the attacks, he said he can't understand why airlines still refuse to support arming their pilots.
"We're convinced there was a myriad of reasons why the airlines refused to allow pilots to be armed" before the attacks, said Lambert. He said the airlines were likely concerned about liability issues, but "of course, they have a lot of liabilities after Sept. 11, too," he added.
"For airlines not to trust us [with a gun in the cockpit] is totally ludicrous," he said.
Other pilot advocacy groups have said arming pilots as a "last line of defense" against terrorist hijackings is a better option – even if some innocent passengers are inadvertently harmed – than having Air Force fighters blow entire airliners out of the sky, assuredly killing all aboard.
Nico Melendez, a spokesman for the TSA, said his agency wasn't aware of the FAA's former rule. But when asked if it could have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks, he refused to speculate, saying, "I won't go there."
Melendez also refused to say when or whether the agency would sanction arming pilots. "That will be announced in due time," he told WND.
Airlines mum
None of the airlines WND attempted to contact for this story returned inquiries asking whether they believed they shared some culpability for the Sept. 11 attacks.
Bill Mellon, a spokesman for Northwest Airlines, initially responded but, after repeatedly declining to answer pointed questions as to why his company never applied for the FAA program, referred further inquiries to an airline industry group.
"Those are industry questions," he told WorldNetDaily in an e-mail response, "not Northwest Airline questions," referring the newssite to the Air Transport Association, or ATA, the industry's primary trade group.
But the ATA, along with America West, American Airlines and United Airlines, also failed to respond to numerous requests for comment.
APSA's Lambert said the ATA, which purports to speak for the entire airline industry, has "historically been against arming pilots," a position he said was "hard to understand."
According to published statements, the ATA said it has traditionally supported "more federal air marshals" instead.
Congressional help?
Some lawmakers are working to implement new legislation that would require federal officials to "deputize" airline pilots and allow them to be armed.
The House Transportation Committee is considering H.R. 4635, called the "Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act," which would make volunteer pilots Federal Flight Deck Officers, according to a published summary.
The bill would mandate – not simply ask – the "Under Secretary of Transportation for Security to … deputize qualified volunteer pilots as federal law enforcement officers to defend the cockpits of commercial aircraft in flight against acts of criminal violence or air piracy."
The program would go into effect 90 days after it is signed into law, and would be implemented in conjunction with the federal air marshal program.
The head of the Center for the Study of Crime, Randall N. Herrst – an attorney by trade who said his arguments have been used successfully in anti-gun control cases – disagrees with the government's intention of placing sky marshals on each flight. He says arming pilots would be a better, more cost-effective and faster plan to implement.
"At 35,000 flights a day, even if some marshals can cover two round trips per day on short routes, we will still need 90,000 sky marshals if we want at least two on each flight," taking into account days off, vacations and sick days, he said.
He agreed that "there are no guarantees" armed pilots would have prevented the Sept. 11 hijackings. But he added: "That is the only course of action that could have stopped the attacks."
Herrst said arming pilots would amount to a military principle known as "defense in depth."
"If you have a choice," he says, "you never depend on a single line of defense – you always have a second, third and fourth line as well."
He is also suspicious that despite Sept. 11, lawmakers, bureaucrats and the White House are still dragging their feet over arming pilots.
"The reasons must be purely political," he told WND. "[But] if there is another major round of hijackings, it will probably bankrupt the entire U.S. airline industry."
"People are so obsessed with banning guns that they are willing to sacrifice human lives and a huge portion of our economy to political correctness," he added.
Armed pilots banned
2 months before 9-11
FAA rescinded rule allowing guns in cockpits just before terror attacks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 16, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jon Dougherty
A 40-year-old Federal Aviation Administration rule that allowed commercial airline pilots to be armed was inexplicably rescinded two months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, leading aviation security experts to lay at least some of the blame for the tragedy at the feet of airlines, none of which took advantage of the privilege while it was in effect.
The FAA adopted the armed pilot rule shortly after the Cuban missile crisis of 1961 to help prevent hijackings of American airliners. It remained in effect for four decades.
But in July 2001 – just two months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks – the rule was rescinded.
According to FAA officials, the rule required airlines to apply to the agency for their pilots to carry guns in cockpits and for the airlines to put pilots through an agency-approved firearms training course.
The aviation agency said, however, that throughout the life of the rule not a single U.S. air carrier took advantage of it, effectively rendering it "moot," according to one agency official.
"In the past, FAA regulations permitted pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit provided they completed an FAA-approved training program and were trained properly by the airlines," FAA spokesman Paul Takemoto told WND in a voice-mail message. "That was never put into effect because no requests for those training programs were ever made. …"
Takemoto said the newly created Transportation Security Administration is now responsible for deciding whether pilots can be armed. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act signed into law by President Bush Nov. 19, 2001, has a provision allowing pilots to be armed, but the law does not mandate that the right be granted.
The FAA failed to return numerous follow-up phone calls requesting to know why the rule was rescinded, who was responsible for the decision, whether a particular incident spurred the decision and whether the aviation agency believes the airlines share some culpability for never taking advantage of it in the first place.
Some security experts speculate that had airlines taken advantage of the rule, it likely would not have been rescinded by the FAA. And if it had been implemented by the airlines, they say, the Sept. 11 hijackings – which led to the deaths of nearly 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. – may never have occurred.
"It's hard to say," said Capt. Robert Lambert, a commercial airline pilot and founding board member of the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance. But in lieu of the attacks, he said he can't understand why airlines still refuse to support arming their pilots.
"We're convinced there was a myriad of reasons why the airlines refused to allow pilots to be armed" before the attacks, said Lambert. He said the airlines were likely concerned about liability issues, but "of course, they have a lot of liabilities after Sept. 11, too," he added.
"For airlines not to trust us [with a gun in the cockpit] is totally ludicrous," he said.
Other pilot advocacy groups have said arming pilots as a "last line of defense" against terrorist hijackings is a better option – even if some innocent passengers are inadvertently harmed – than having Air Force fighters blow entire airliners out of the sky, assuredly killing all aboard.
Nico Melendez, a spokesman for the TSA, said his agency wasn't aware of the FAA's former rule. But when asked if it could have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks, he refused to speculate, saying, "I won't go there."
Melendez also refused to say when or whether the agency would sanction arming pilots. "That will be announced in due time," he told WND.
Airlines mum
None of the airlines WND attempted to contact for this story returned inquiries asking whether they believed they shared some culpability for the Sept. 11 attacks.
Bill Mellon, a spokesman for Northwest Airlines, initially responded but, after repeatedly declining to answer pointed questions as to why his company never applied for the FAA program, referred further inquiries to an airline industry group.
"Those are industry questions," he told WorldNetDaily in an e-mail response, "not Northwest Airline questions," referring the newssite to the Air Transport Association, or ATA, the industry's primary trade group.
But the ATA, along with America West, American Airlines and United Airlines, also failed to respond to numerous requests for comment.
APSA's Lambert said the ATA, which purports to speak for the entire airline industry, has "historically been against arming pilots," a position he said was "hard to understand."
According to published statements, the ATA said it has traditionally supported "more federal air marshals" instead.
Congressional help?
Some lawmakers are working to implement new legislation that would require federal officials to "deputize" airline pilots and allow them to be armed.
The House Transportation Committee is considering H.R. 4635, called the "Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act," which would make volunteer pilots Federal Flight Deck Officers, according to a published summary.
The bill would mandate – not simply ask – the "Under Secretary of Transportation for Security to … deputize qualified volunteer pilots as federal law enforcement officers to defend the cockpits of commercial aircraft in flight against acts of criminal violence or air piracy."
The program would go into effect 90 days after it is signed into law, and would be implemented in conjunction with the federal air marshal program.
The head of the Center for the Study of Crime, Randall N. Herrst – an attorney by trade who said his arguments have been used successfully in anti-gun control cases – disagrees with the government's intention of placing sky marshals on each flight. He says arming pilots would be a better, more cost-effective and faster plan to implement.
"At 35,000 flights a day, even if some marshals can cover two round trips per day on short routes, we will still need 90,000 sky marshals if we want at least two on each flight," taking into account days off, vacations and sick days, he said.
He agreed that "there are no guarantees" armed pilots would have prevented the Sept. 11 hijackings. But he added: "That is the only course of action that could have stopped the attacks."
Herrst said arming pilots would amount to a military principle known as "defense in depth."
"If you have a choice," he says, "you never depend on a single line of defense – you always have a second, third and fourth line as well."
He is also suspicious that despite Sept. 11, lawmakers, bureaucrats and the White House are still dragging their feet over arming pilots.
"The reasons must be purely political," he told WND. "[But] if there is another major round of hijackings, it will probably bankrupt the entire U.S. airline industry."
"People are so obsessed with banning guns that they are willing to sacrifice human lives and a huge portion of our economy to political correctness," he added.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C'mon guys and gals....only criminals are allowed to have guns on airplanes...not law-abiding citizens.....let's get real...If I shoot a burglar in my home, I have less rights than if he breaks in and shoots me....but hey...at least I CAN have a gun......
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Ruling Lets Pilots Act All Crazy
Washington, D.C. (SatireWire.com) ? In a long-awaited decision, the Transportation Security Administration today denied a request that would have allowed airline pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit, but said it would allow them to "do that wacko crazy-person thing where you make lots of erratic movements and scream at yourself and swear and bark and ****" in order to fend off possible hijackers.
While refusing the pilots' petition, the TSA approved a controversial request by the flight attendants' union that would allow cabin stewards, in the event of an emergency, to "run like hell" straight into a bulkhead and knock themselves out.
http://www.satirewire.com/briefs/pilots.shtml
Washington, D.C. (SatireWire.com) ? In a long-awaited decision, the Transportation Security Administration today denied a request that would have allowed airline pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit, but said it would allow them to "do that wacko crazy-person thing where you make lots of erratic movements and scream at yourself and swear and bark and ****" in order to fend off possible hijackers.
While refusing the pilots' petition, the TSA approved a controversial request by the flight attendants' union that would allow cabin stewards, in the event of an emergency, to "run like hell" straight into a bulkhead and knock themselves out.
http://www.satirewire.com/briefs/pilots.shtml
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armed Flight Deck
I was walking past a small suburban bank recently when a security company was making a delivery of cash.
By the size of the cash box I'd guess a total of a a few hundred thousand bucks.
The driver & two guards were all armed with heavy calibre revolvers.
The politicians & bureaucrats don't seem to have any problem with this scenario but can't come to grips with the protection
of an airliner that could be flown into a nuclear plant by suicide terrorists. All to appease the anti gun lobby no doubt.
By the size of the cash box I'd guess a total of a a few hundred thousand bucks.
The driver & two guards were all armed with heavy calibre revolvers.
The politicians & bureaucrats don't seem to have any problem with this scenario but can't come to grips with the protection
of an airliner that could be flown into a nuclear plant by suicide terrorists. All to appease the anti gun lobby no doubt.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Out West
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U.S. pilots won't be armed...
U.S. pilots won't be armed.
It all seems so simple to the good senator,
I don't know about the rest of you, but no one has installed a galley or lavatory in my flightdeck yet.
What say we all just stay home for a while and let the "experts" really put some thought into developing effective security.
-----------------------------------
It all seems so simple to the good senator,
South Carolina Democrat Ernest Hollings, chairman of the commerce committee, said guns will not be needed as long as pilots keep cockpit doors locked while in flight.
What say we all just stay home for a while and let the "experts" really put some thought into developing effective security.
-----------------------------------
Clown
All other aspects aside, as a last resort, don't you wish the crews on Sept11 were armed? I wish they had that option. At worst they would still have crashed, perhaps though one or more of the aircraft might not.
All other aspects aside, as a last resort, don't you wish the crews on Sept11 were armed? I wish they had that option. At worst they would still have crashed, perhaps though one or more of the aircraft might not.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Out West
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clowns. Its not about arming / dis-arming the pilot's that concerns me as much as the inane concept of a sealed and secured flight deck.
The good senator's advice on keeping the flight deck door locked is purely for public perception and nothing to do with real security.
It's time for real discussion and real solutions (however this may have to include pilots and cabin crew), and by the look of the pol'tics that have been involved thus far, we will continue to be left out of the process.
-----------------------------------------------
The good senator's advice on keeping the flight deck door locked is purely for public perception and nothing to do with real security.
It's time for real discussion and real solutions (however this may have to include pilots and cabin crew), and by the look of the pol'tics that have been involved thus far, we will continue to be left out of the process.
-----------------------------------------------
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, Now our "Last line of defense" is the f16 waiting to shoot us down. Makes you think twice about reporting being hijacked, doncha think?
I am not sure I would squawk hijack intodays atmosphere...
Cheers
Wino
I am not sure I would squawk hijack intodays atmosphere...
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Kagerplassen
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we already discussed the pros and contras of guns in the cockpit extensively here... Seems more a side-of-the-ocean conflict than anything else, therefore I was surprised to hear this (in my ears) good news coming from the US!
P77
P77
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have read the Globe and Mail article posted by Orca and support guns in cockpit as a last line of defence. Hollings and his mates worry about a passenger being injured or electrical system malfunction before we all get shot down by an F-16 and die anyway. If terrorists want to get in they're going to. Next time they will probably pick a softer target. Europe? The reinforced doors theory is nonsense, they still have to be opened for food anyway and I saw a 'locked' door fall open during descent.
e28 driver
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
reminds me of a story years ago when an inbound aircraft asked ATC to order seven and a half tonnes of fuel for them from the airfields fuel suppliers. Some bright spark in the tower decided it was some kind of code and asked them to repeat the figure using numerals only and then ordered a full scale security alert for the planes arrival - ooops! Soz, completely irrelevant...
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to the people that read my reply on an other thread, but my opinion:
Guns on flightdeck: NO WAY!
Before you know it the capt and FO having a contest who can clean the gun fastest. You need to do something after six hours flying from LAX to LHR.
"XXX123, Mayday, mayday, my capt just shot himself cleaning his gun!!"
ATC: "Say again
??
Guns on flightdeck: NO WAY!
Before you know it the capt and FO having a contest who can clean the gun fastest. You need to do something after six hours flying from LAX to LHR.
"XXX123, Mayday, mayday, my capt just shot himself cleaning his gun!!"
ATC: "Say again
??
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: DisneyLAN
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALPA Responds to Magaw Statement against Arming Pilots
Here's the response from the ALPA on this issue:
http://www.alpa.org/internet/news/2002news/nr02044.html
Cheers,
http://www.alpa.org/internet/news/2002news/nr02044.html
Cheers,
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots carried guns for longer than they have been banned. They were REQUIRED to untill into the 50s, and were actively encouraged to do so during the hijackings of the 70s.
I know of no cases where anything bad happened as a result of pilots carrying guns. I can point to one hijacking that was stopped when the hijacker was shot dead by the Captain (American Airlines DC-6 in the fifties)...
It certainly couldn't have made things worse on Sept 11.
Cheers
Wino
I know of no cases where anything bad happened as a result of pilots carrying guns. I can point to one hijacking that was stopped when the hijacker was shot dead by the Captain (American Airlines DC-6 in the fifties)...
It certainly couldn't have made things worse on Sept 11.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Too Far North
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.... and before the 50's how many "Columbine" incidents did we have. How many "he was just a normal, well balanced guy before this..." incidents of mass murder and gun rage did we have?
Guns in the cockpit...NO WAY.
There are plenty of non lethal alternatives.
Guns in the cockpit...NO WAY.
There are plenty of non lethal alternatives.
Last edited by Rice Whine; 22nd May 2002 at 04:18.