Gun carrying Passengers

[ShotOne]

The thread on the secret service agent denied boarding because of discrepancies in his paperwork has become a little bogged down in the racial angle.

Would anyone like to comment on whether the US policy of allowing off-duty law-enforcement personnel to carry firearms on board is a good idea? There seem to be two very obvious drawbacks. firstly, how difficult would it be to obtain false documents to "permit" a gun on board. Second it would only take a moments inattention to place a gun in the wrong hands.

This secret service agent wasn't protecting the president on this flight. Why did he need to be carrying a gun in the first place?

[TR4A]

The following Federal agencies may be armed during flight -whether on official business or not.
-Bureau of Printing and Engraving
-Coast Guard
-Customs
-Defense Nuclear Agency
-Dept of Agriculture (Poultry Inspectors, etc)
-Dept of Commerce
-Dept of Education
-Dept of Health and Human Services
-Dept of Labor
-Dept of State
-Dept of the Air Force/Army/Navy
-Dept of the Interior
-FBI
-General Services Administration
-Postal Service
-Secret Service
-Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
-FAA
-IRS
-Dept of Transportation
-CIA
-DOD
-Dept of Energy
-Dept of Housing and Urban Development
-Dept of State
-Dept of the Treasury
-National Security Agency
-DEA
-Federal Prison System
-Federal Protective Service
-Marshals Service
-Smithsonian Institution


Federal Aviation
Administration
October 5, 2001
Law Enforcement Executive
Dear Colleague:
This letter provides information that may be useful to you and those agents or officers
of your agency or department who travel armed as ticketed passengers on commercial
aircraft. As a result of the tragic events of September 11, many long-standing policies,
procedures and standard practices must be changed. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) has worked with the aviation industry and the U.S. law
enforcement community to revise regulations and guidance governing law enforcement
officers (LEO) traveling armed.
The changes to the FAA regulation (14 Code Federal Regulations (CFR) part 108)
governing LEOs flying armed were published on July 17, 2001, and become effective
November 14, 2001 (see Federal Register, Vol. 66, page 37330). While the rule is not
yet effective, it reflects the FAA's policy. One of the many changes is a requirement
that all LEOs who have a need to fly armed complete the FAA training "Law
Enforcement Officers Flying Armed" prior to traveling armed on board commercial
aircraft. We understand that most or all Federal LEOs who fly armed have had this
training. LEOs who have had the current training may continue to fly until agencies
have had the opportunity to provide updated training. Changes to the training package
are underway and will be distributed soon. The events of September 11 have altered
how we look at terrorist activity and have resulted in far-reaching and immediate
changes.
The enclosed pages provide information that may be helpful for an immediate update
on the subject of LEOs flying armed. The first enclosure is a basic statement as to
FAA's policy regarding LEOs traveling armed. It highlights changes that allow Federal
agents to travel armed under their agencywide directive. It also reflects other regulatory changes (new section 108.219) and provides information that the FAA considers necessary for each law enforcement agency and its officers who fly armed.
The second enclosure is a copy of 14 CFR 108.219, Carriage of accessible weapons, the
section of the regulations that will govern such travel.

Please pass on the information contained in this letter to each and every LEO or agent
under your employ who has a need to fly armed.
Sincerely
Michael A Canavan
Associate Administrator for Civil Aviation
Security
Enclosures

INFORMATION FROM THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
ARMED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
ABOARD AIR CARRIER AIRCRAFT
The FAA recognizes that law enforcement officers at times have the need to fly armed.
For state and local LEO's, the regulation provides a process by which they may gain
authority to fly aboard a particular flight in an armed status in conjunction with a
specific duty assignment. 14 CFR 108.219 (Federal Register, Vol. 66, page 27330)
recognizes that federal law enforcement officers have nationwide jurisdiction. The
FAA authorizes Federal law enforcement officers to carry firearms aboard aircraft
whether or not on official travel, and armed in accordance with an agency-wide policy
governing that type of travel established by the employing agency by directive or policy
statement.
WHILE FLYING ARMED:
1. It is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL that you fulfill, in a timely manner, your
obligation to notify the air carrier in advance of your intended travel. Your check-
in process must be accomplished in full compliance with FAA requirements and air
carrier policy.
2. You must use discretion to avoid alarming passengers or crew by display of the
firearm.
3. If you are armed and traveling by air carrier, DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR
FIREARM TO ANYONE.
4. If you cannot resolve a problem with any representative of the air carrier, to include
the captain of an aircraft prior to departure, you should immediately request the
assistance of the air carrier's GROUND SECURITY COORDINATOR or
STATION MANAGER.
5. State and local officers must have a letter from their department authorizing the
armed travel and detailing the itinerary. Federal agents do not need a letter from
their agency to travel armed.

Sec. 108.219 Carriage of accessible weapons.
(a) Flights for which screening is conducted. The provisions of Sec. 108.201(e), with
respect to accessible deadly or dangerous weapons, do not apply to a law
enforcement officer (LEO) aboard a flight for which screening is required if the
requirements of this section are met.
This paragraph (a) does not apply to a Federal Air Marshal on duty status under Sec.
108.223.
(1) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, the armed LEO shall meet the
following requirements: (i) Be a Federal law enforcement officer or a full-time
municipal, county, or state law enforcement officer who is a direct employee of a
government agency. (ii) Be sworn and commissioned to enforce criminal statutes or
immigration statutes. (iii) Be authorized by the employing agency to have the
weapon in connection with assigned duties. (iv) Has completed the training
program Law Enforcement Officers Flying Armed.''
(2) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the armed LEO
must have a need to have the weapon accessible from the time he or she would
otherwise check the weapon until the time it would be claimed after deplaning. The
need to have the weapon accessible shall be determined by the employing agency,
department, or service and be based on one of the following: (i) The provision of
protective duty, for instance, assigned to a principal or advance team, or on travel
required to be prepared to engage in a protective function. (ii) The conduct of a
hazardous surveillance operation. (iii) On official travel required to report to
another location, armed and prepared for duty. (iv) Employed as a Federal LEO,
whether or not on official travel, and armed in accordance with an agency-wide
policy governing that type of travel established by the employing agency by
directive or policy statement. (v) Control of a prisoner, in accordance with Sec.
108.221, or an armed LEO on a round trip ticket returning from escorting, or
traveling to pick up, a prisoner. (vi)
FAA Federal Air Marshal on duty status.
(3) The armed LEO shall comply with the following notification requirements: (i) All
armed LEOs shall notify the aircraft operator of the flight(s) on which he or she
needs to have the weapon accessible at least 1 hour, or in an emergency as soon as
practicable, before departure. (ii) Identify himself or herself to the aircraft operator
by presenting credentials that include a clear full-face picture, the signature of the
armed LEO, and the signature of the authorizing official of the agency, service, or
department or the official seal of the agency, service, or department. A badge,
shield, or similar device may not be used, or accepted, as the sole means of
identification. (iii) If the armed LEO is a State, county, or municipal law
enforcement officer, he or she shall present an original letter of authority, signed by
an authorizing official from his or her employing agency, service or department,
confirming the need to travel armed and detailing the itinerary of the travel while
armed. (iv) If the armed LEO is an escort for a foreign official then this paragraph
(a)(3) may be satisfied by a State Department notification.
(4) The aircraft operator shall do the following: (i) Obtain information or
documentation required in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii), (iii), and (iv) of this section. (ii)
Advise the armed LEO, before boarding, of the aircraft operator's procedures for
carrying out this section. (iii) Have the LEO confirm he/she has completed the
training program Law Enforcement Officers Flying Armed'' as required by the
FAA, unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator. (iv) Ensure that the
identity of the armed LEO is known to the appropriate personnel who are
responsible for security during the boarding of the aircraft. (v) Notify the pilot in
command and other appropriate crewmembers, of the location of each armed LEO
aboard the aircraft. Notify any other armed LEO of the location of each armed
LEO, including FAM's. Under circumstances described in the security program, the
aircraft operator must not close the doors until the notification is complete. (vi)
Ensure that the information required in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section
is furnished to the flight crew of each additional connecting flight by the Ground
Security Coordinator or other designated agent at each location. (b) Flights for
which screening is not conducted.
The provisions of Sec. 108.201(e), with respect to accessible deadly or dangerous
weapons, do not apply to a LEO aboard a flight for which screening is not required if
the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1), (3), and (4) of this section are met. (c) Alcohol.
(1) No aircraft operator may serve any alcoholic beverage to an armed LEO. (2) No
armed LEO may: (i) Consume any alcoholic beverage while aboard an aircraft
operated by an aircraft operator. (ii) Board an aircraft armed if they have consumed an
alcoholic beverage within the previous 8 hours. (d) Location of weapon. (1) Any
person traveling aboard an aircraft while armed shall at all times keep their weapon: (i)
Concealed and out of view, either on their person or in immediate reach, if the armed
LEO is not in uniform. (ii) On their person, if the armed LEO is in uniform. (2) No
person may place a weapon in an overhead storage bin.

[E. MORSE]

Captain has final decision in these particular cases.
His defense his easy.

[The Guvnor]

Smithsonian Institution?!?!?!

[penguin]

Poultry inspector? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[Toilet Porpoise]

What?!?!?!?!

No Bureau of Overdue Congressional Library Books?

It amazes me...

Our government, so well armed. Yet they cringe at the thought that I keep a loaded handgun safely stored in my house for the purpose of my protection.

WTF is the Smithsonian Institution doing on this list and who the heck is the Bureau of Printing and Engraving?

[The Guvnor]

Toilet Porpoise - the BPE prints the greenbacks (and all other secure US government documents).

[jetgirl]

I tell you what, lets arm everyone on board. Perhaps stow it in the seat pocket and include some instructions on the safety cards. Then we could give the cabin crew a couple of M16s to put in the trolleys and the pilots could have a machine gun or two. Between all of them someone would surely hit the bad guy..........

Mind you they say that the best bet is to take your own bomb on board, since statistics show that there is unlikely to be more than one on any flight!!

THIS IS ALL A JOKE before anyone gets on their high horse!

[ 05 January 2002: Message edited by: jetgirl ]</p>

[TJ13]

I agree with a few others here, but I also have to wonder about HUD and Dept. of Ed.

[Man-on-the-fence]

-Postal Service

Armed Posties....now there IS a scary thought..

Hang about though the FAA can can carry guns as well. Why, to protect themselves from mutinous Postal Workers.?? <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[Roadtrip]

With no system of electronic and positive ID, imagine what a morass this is for an aircrew. Further, creating fake ID's and badges is easy.

This is typical FAA incompetence. They won't fix it, so they throw it on the aircrew and airline to figure out. If something goes wrong, guess who gets the blame?

ALPA has been asking the FAA since 1989 for a system of positive and electronically verifiable ID for aircrews (which should go to include passengers authorized to carry firearms). FAA action? Nothing, as usual.

[ 05 January 2002: Message edited by: Roadtrip ]</p>

[reportfurther]

Just a thought.

What happens if you have say 5 or 6 of these armed officials travelling off duty on a flight, and also the flight is protected by armed sky marshals?

Suppose there was trouble, if even 1 or 2 of these chicken inspectors etc decided to "help out", they may be mistaken by the sky marshals as being with the hijackers?

Also all these people carrying guns on board, I take it that they have "normal" ammunition in their weapons, NOT special ammunition like the sky marshals?

Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

[Toilet Porpoise]

reportfurther the answer to your question would be close to the proverbial knife fight in a phone booth.

Personally I think the only one in the cabin who should be armed is a sky marshal also known to the crew. And the cockpit crew should have a last line of defense beyond the secure flightdeck door.
Handgun, stungun, pissed off ex-wife or a rabid feral cat! I don't care just give me the ability to make a last stand before Abdulla Omar bin Swalahillie slits my throat with a packet of coffee creamer wrapped in tinfoil and then drives my jet into the side of the local seven-eleven...

Thanks for the answer Guv. I had no idea who they were.

[TR4A]

[quote]I agree with a few others here, but I also have to wonder about HUD and Dept. of Ed. <hr></blockquote>

Along with the usual FBI, SS, DEA, Customs, DOJ, I have had a few postal inspectors, Dept of Labor, USDA, Social Security, and yes, Dept of Education on my airplane. And I can't even carry nail clippers or scissors. But I have a nice crash axe in the cockpit. <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

[SaturnV]

For those into pernicious detail, the full FAA rule on airport and aircraft security with comments by various airlines, ALPA, etc., can be found at:
<a href="http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=27672016176+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve" target="_blank">http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=27672016176+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve</a>

TR4A's list appears to be self-constructed. It omits a number of agencies with LEOs and includes agencies which would ordinarily be subsumed by a larger department (ministry).

A few other comments:

Bureau of Printing and Engraving (within Treasury, prints currency and stamps. The list excludes the US Mint, which makes coins.)

Defense Nuclear Agency (no agency by that name currently exists)

Dept of Agriculture (Poultry Inspectors, etc. Actually most USDA LEOs are more likely to be Animal, Plant, Health Inspection Service officers who are on duty at airports and ports.)

Dept of Education (the only armed officials of this and a number of other departments MIGHT be Inspectors General staff; i.e., auditors. Hard to believe why these staff feel a need to be armed.)

CIA (I doubt there are many CIA officers flying armed as they would not wish to identify themselves as CIA agents.)

Smithsonian Institution (there are armed guards at the Smithsonian Museums. However, perhaps the more prominent cultural police force is the National Zoological Park Police.

As an example of armed Federal law enforcement agencies omitted from the list, and a great example of the jurisdictional patchwork of law enforcement within Washington DC, there are within 1000 meters of the US Capitol, the following police forces with primary patrol, arrest, etc. jurisdiction for particular areas within that radius:

US Capitol Police
Supreme Court Police
Library of Congress Police
AMTRAK Police (railroad terminal)
US Park Police (Dept. of the Interior)
National Gallery of Art Guards
Smithsonian Guards
Postal Inspectors (post office is nearby)
Federal Protective Service (guards for Federal agency buildings)
Executive Protective Service (for neaerby embassies and consulates)

and the municipal District of Columbia police force. I think the approximate ratio of residents to police in the District of Columbia is &gt;100:1.

Only in America.

[TR4A]

My list was from another post. I have had most of the mention LEO's, <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> , on my airplane. The USDA guy did not tell me what he does, he could be checking chickens. The Dept of Labor (guns in the work place) or the Dept of Education guy just shows how crazy my government is at arming Law Enforcement Officers. I guess they enforce laws show they must be allowed to carry them. As a captain of a major airline I enforce laws and regulations. Where is my weapon? They scariest ones were two postal inspectors on the same plane. Good thing they did not go postal. :) The Smithsonian Institute one has to do with transporting certain items and would require them to be armed. That's what I heard.

[TR4A]

[quote]TR4A's list appears to be self-constructed. It omits a number of agencies with LEOs and includes agencies which would ordinarily be subsumed by a larger department (ministry).<hr></blockquote>

My list was not all inclusive. I have carried a few Deputy Barney Fife's too on their way to Las Vegas.

It shows you how crazy this has gotten that any one that calls him or herself a Law Enforcement Officer can get on an airplane with their weapon. [quote]Captain has final decision in these particular cases.<hr></blockquote> You are going to be seeing your chief pilot a lot or your name gets in the news like the AA captain.

[ 06 January 2002: Message edited by: TR4A ]</p>

[Tripower455]

[quote]You are going to be seeing your chief pilot a lot or your name gets in the news like the AA captain.<hr></blockquote>

Not to mention the requisite psychological testing!

[TR4A]

Tripower455

I didn't mention the company we work for, did I? Whew! I don't need that psychological evaluation. They did say that we could not talk to the media and mention that we work for XYZ Airlines. Is this considered the media? :)

[Check 6]

U.S. Postal inspectors rightly carry firearms, because one of their duties is investigating the movement of contraband via the mails, i.e. narcotics, weapons, "anthrax", and as a consequence arrest these suspects and also serve search warrants.

As far as the Departments of Education and Labor, who knows.

The USDA includes the U.S. Forest Service. They employ Special Agents and other law enforcement personnel who investigate crimes on National Forests. These crimes include murder, rape, and drug violations.

[boofhead]

I personally have no problem with any of these good gentlemen and gentleladies carrying weapons on board, and would offer to you that since this has been going on for many years already, and that this has not caused any problem to the general public nor has it constituted a safety problem, why get all hot and bothered about it?
BTW, if there are more than one armed passengers on board, they are notified of the presence of each other, so there should be no problem with misidentification in the event of an incident.
If only one of these people had been on board the airplanes taken over on Sep 11, many thousands of persons in the US and Afghanistan would not have had to die.
Guns are tools, they can be used for good or evil. Treating the good guys as part of the problem is not the way to go.

[reportfurther]

Just out of interest, does anyone know whether or not there were any of these people on any of the 4 aircraft on 911?

[Old_Belgian_Student]

Boofhead,
I couldn't agree more :
Quote "I personally have no problem with any of these good gentlemen and gentleladies carrying weapons on board, and would offer to you that since this has been going on for many years already, and that this has not caused any problem to the general public nor has it constituted a safety problem, why get all hot and bothered about it?"

Crew carrying pocket knives & nailclippers, grandmothers with knitting-gear, or zillions of passengers who've taken 'tools' or objects on board that COULD have been made to use for a purpose it wasn't intended for in the first place - as a weapon - haven't caused any problem or constituted a safety problem either.
So why are governments, security, airlines making such a fuss about it now?

Because they have to do 'something'...that's why.

Are those extra security-measures going to prevent it from happening again in the future? No way... ANYONE with mal intent has ample of tools at his disposal to achieve his goals... Whether you be using a plastic knife to cut up your F/A, driving your jeep through your local kindergarten playground, or hitting your ex-wife's lover over the head with a bottle of whiskey at your local pub.

What's the police for? They usually keep an eye on things... They notice your light on your bike doesn't work and fine you for it, so you'll remember that being a safety-hazard doesn't pay off. Or they notice that there's some money missing from a bank and they go investigate & find the wrong-do-ers.
They are your every-day professional profilers ! Think you can get away with it? Not! There's always something 'unusual' you didn't think about or plainly forgot, and guess what? They notice!

Morale of the story: there will always be good and bad!
You can only hope for the good guys to notice what the bad guys are up to... in time!

O_B_S

PS: English isn't my mothertongue... so pardon my 'french' if i made any mistakes regarding grammar and spelling.

[Man-on-the-fence]

[quote]U.S. Postal inspectors rightly carry firearms, because one of their duties is investigating the movement of contraband via the mails, i.e. narcotics, weapons, "anthrax", and as a consequence arrest these suspects and also serve search warrants. <hr></blockquote>

No no no no no....

Postal workers carrying guns, this has just gone too far. But that is probably cause and effect. Why - for instance- are these people serving search warrants? Surely that is the job of the law enforecent agencies.

Very few of these agencies actually NEED to carry guns. They need backup that carries guns in certain circumstances.

You guys need to sort your priorities out quickly before it becomes a case of having to register if you arent carrying a gun on a Aircraft.

I really do love America, but I just dont think I will ever understand America fully. (I am happy to be corrected on the above however)

And this from a Brit who would happily see his Police force armed as a matter of course....but thats another story.

[ 06 January 2002: Message edited by: Man-on-the-fence ]</p>

[Mycroft]

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing like to be known as such and have since they were formed during the Civil War.
Don't forget that the Smithsonian has a number of small valuable objects (including the Hope diamond) and I assume where such items are in transit to other museums, armed guards would be carried. Many of the other agencies are mystifying - why would a chicken inspector/ schools inspector need to be armed at all, let alone when in transit. It would seem to be sensible that most of the above agencies should travel disarmed, and if their duty requires them to be armed in flight they should require special permits or even escort by other agencies. However in the current case it would appear that the agent followed proceedure in notifying the crew that he was armed, and his duties require that he be armed at all times (if the above list of agencies was to be severely cut, the Secret Service would probably be the last to be disarmed).
Note that the above list includes several sub-agencies, ie both the Secret Service and BEP come under the Department of the Treasury and in the majority of agencies listed, very few of the personnel would be required to be armed at all (I believe that regulations actually prohibit members of the Federal Prison Service travelling armed, even on active duty)

[boofhead]

It doesn't matter why these people carry guns; that is their business. What matters is that they are trained to carry a weapon and are an asset to the flight crew if they are on board.

I noticed the usual mention of how guns are a problem in the US compared with the UK, where guns are banned. Yet the usual blindness is showed toward the rapidly rising and out-of-control crime rate in the UK and Aus, where the government successfully removed all legal guns, leaving only the criminals to be armed. Aus and the UK now have the industrial world's highest crime rate as a result. One crime that is particularly heinous is Home Invasion robberies, often involving physical harm and death. The rate of this type of crime is way higher than it is in the US, where the crim knows he may be facing an armed householder.
What type of crime is similar to home invasion? Why airplane hijacking of course! Methinks that the authorities are setting us up!

[Check 6]

Boofhead, well said.

We have an expression in the U.S.:

"AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY."


Cheers,

[ShotOne]

I don't have any problem with gun ownership in principle, boofhead. The point is not why do all these agencies require to carry weapons, but why they must be carried ON MY AIRPLANE?

I have never seen a US postal/prison/poultry inpectors/zookeepers service ID card and would have no idea whether it had just been run up on an apple-mac. Nor do I suspect have many airport security staff.

[SupremeSpod]

Check 6 :

"We have an expression in the U.S.:

"AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY.""

Obviously this doesn't apply to U.S. Immigration, see other post on subject :)

[christep]

But I assume our colonial cousins' rationale is that the INS know that you are not armed and hence they don't need to be polite.

Clearly the answer is to have in-bound duty-free firearms shops at all US airports, thus ensuring that everyone is polite to each other as soon as possible.
<img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[penguin]

SaturnV: The url doesn't work. Appreciate if you can repost it.

[Julian]

Boofhead, very interested in your comment that UK and Aus are now have the largest crime rate in the industrail world so did a bit of digging.

You might want to take a look at

<a href="http://www.un.org/cgi-bin/pubs/infonatn/dquery.pl?rtype2=on&lang=e&unk=on&usa=on&areak=on&poptt=on&popdn=on&crime=on&%20SUBMIT=View+Info" target="_blank">link</a>

But if you dont want the trouble, result ares:
Country UK Aus USA
Area 242900 7741220 9363520
Total Pop ('000) 58744 18705 276219
Pop Density 240 2 29
Homicides Per 100k 1 2 9


Hmmm, seems by the end of'99 the US were winning not Aus of UK.....

[ 09 January 2002: Message edited by: Sick Squid ]</p>

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Julian,

It is traditional for Americans to claim that their burglary rate is lower than the UK's whilst forgetting the statistics on murder and robbery. Nothing new here.

But I'd be interested in some hard data on the burglary rates - are we sure that the same thing is being measured in each case?

[boofhead]

The violent crime rates quoted show that for rape, burglary, robbery with violence, assault, etc, the worst industrialised country is Aus, followed by the UK. For murder, the US is the worst.
Personally I have doubts, since the reporting methods differ. I spend a lot of time in both the US and Aus, and have never suffered any crime in either country, but the point of the study is that since Aus and the UK took guns away from the honest citizens, the rates of all type of crime soared, including the use of guns.
In those States of the US where permits are routinely issued for concealed carry of handguns, crime has dropped in all categories. It seems logical to me that what works should be adopted and what does not work should be dropped.
Unless all guns can be confiscated, something that the UK government, for example, never intended to do, disarming the victims merely makes the crims' work easier.
If the flightcrew and passengers are also emasculated, the terrorist will find his work easier too.

[swashplate]

The Dept of Education....?

ARMED School Inspectors....? <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

Maybe it's something to do with the teenagers...... :) :) :) :)

[ft]

Uhm... so a postal worker will be allowed on board an aircraft with a gun and he will be told if there are any other gun-carrying passengers on board. Or, what worries me more, he will know if there aren't other armed individuals on board.

Now... what I wonder is... how good is the screening of postal workers?

This doesn't make sense. Must be politics. Ah, the land of the free, where everyone is free to tell everyone else what they can't do and where everyone has the right to arm bears. :)

Cheers,
/ft

[con-pilot]

All, repeat, all federal LEO are sworn to enforce all federal laws, whether the law falls under their department or not. Postal worker are NOT armed. Only postal inspectors are allowed to be armed. Postal inspectors make felony arrest and escort valuable mail shipments. I know for a fact that all U.S. Marshals and all deputy U.S. Marshals are required to be armed at all times because they considered to be on duty at all times. The only exception being on leave in a foreign country, by the way even I had to get permission to leave the U.S. on leave and I was just a pilot.

[christian_MD80]

The use of weapons onboard of aircraft needs extensive and high quality training in this field, plus the right equipment (gun, ammo). Therefore I will not accept any armed person on board except our "sky marshalls".

My opinion

christian

[Orca strait]

“Guns are a tool”, absolutely, but so is a hammer, but the hammer is only one of many tools in a kit. How many of the LEO’s mentioned in the approved list by the FAA are also qualified experts in confrontation management, hand-to-hand combat and martial arts?

Reading into the many posts on this thread, you cannot help but get the impression that all LEO’s are super cops and if they have a side arm will ultimately save the day. A sidearm is a last resort tool in a properly trained LEO’s kit. An armed LEO on an aircraft has introduced a weapon into a secure environment; he/she not only needs to be an expertly qualified shooter, but also expertly qualified to be able to retain that weapon through other means in the event of being overwhelmed by intruders or expertly trained terrorist(s). Look at that LEO list again, and I think you will recognize that only a small portion of the list has the qualifications as mentioned above. If you happen to know a Sky Marshall, ask him/her if they would like to have one or several “generally trained” LEO’s packing loaded side arms on their flights.

It’s also interesting to note that according to the criminal code and Federal Law, the Pilot In Command holds powers as peace officer from the time the final aircraft door is closed until the time the first door is opened upon arrival. Some of my colleagues have extensive backgrounds in military (some special forces), and law enforcement, yet the policy makers and public are dead set against arming any of these individuals as arming “pilots is dangerous”. Arm every pilot? Absolutely not, logistics prevent that. Arm some pilots? Why not, it creates an extra layer of security, therefore on any given flight, your crew may or may not be armed, and you guess which flight. The whole idea folks, is prevention!

As an Airline Captain, I find it extremely disturbing that our policy makers and security continually run airline crews through the most idiotic searches and bans (nose hair trimmers, nail clippers etc.), and doubt our ID, Licenses etc. (they issued them!). Yet we are supposed to accept any armed LEO’s ID as legitimate.

The Secret Service Agent in the AA case is no doubt expertly qualified, however, it appears his professional demeanour could use some brushing up.

The Captain of the flight is the final check in the system when that last aircraft door is closed and is given the AUTHORIZATION & RESPONSIBILITY by LAW to achieve this. As any good LEO will attest, sometimes it comes down to experience and gut instinct in assessing a situation. The easiest thing for the AA Captain to do would have been to ignore this gut instinct, processed the paperwork and carried on, hoping for the best and thereby saving himself a load of paperwork.

If crews are going to be continually questioned and harassed for these decisions, the public can expect the quality of future critical decision-making to take a turn for the worse.

----------------------------------------------

[RATBOY]

Been in this business for years and I have never seen a U S Federal statute that states that the PIC of an aircraft is also a law enforcement officer. Don't recall taking that oath or getting that training. Don't confuse Part 91 of the FARs that says PIC is final authority on the safe operation of the aircraft as making the PIC a demigod or even a deputy marshall.

There are some state laws that may get into this, but if they are contrary to federal law I wouldn't want to hang my hat on them as aviation is federally regulated. I believe there may be a few state laws conferring some kind of status on PICs. Alaska has a state law that requires that a rifle, among other things, be carried as survival equipment in aircraft operated in that state. Neat trick when they go across the border to Canada.

[Orca strait]

Rat Boy;

Here’s a Canadian perspective (and these are Federal Statutes).

*Criminal Code Chapter C-46
2. In This Act, "peace officer includes"
(f) the pilot in command of an aircraft while the aircraft is in flight.
It further defines in-flight as:
(8) For the purposes of this section, of the definition "peace officer" in section 2 and of sections 76 and 77, "flight" means the act of flying or moving through the air and an aircraft shall be deemed to be in flight from the time when all external doors are closed following the embarkation until the later of:
(a) the time at which any such door is opened for the purpose of disembarkation*
The Aeronautics Act, Chapter A-2 stated:
* "pilot-in-command" means, in relation to an aircraft, the pilot having responsibility and authority for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time. *



<a href="http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/A-2/288.html#rid-296" target="_blank">[/URL]

<a href="http://http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/35481.html" target="_blank"></a>

[URL=http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/35481.html#rid-35487]</a>

-----------------------------------------------

[ 08 January 2002: Message edited by: Orca strait ]</p>

[Orca strait]

Here's the Criminal Code URL that did not come through on above post.

<a href="http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/35481.html#rid-35487" target="_blank">Link</a>

---------------------------------

[ 09 January 2002: Message edited by: Sick Squid ]</p>

[englishal]

I suppose the armed postal worker could always shoot the Anthrax.

[Tripower455]

[quote]I don't have any problem with gun ownership in principle, boofhead. The point is not why do all these agencies require to carry weapons, but why they must be carried ON MY AIRPLANE?
I have never seen a US postal/prison/poultry inpectors/zookeepers service ID card and would have no idea whether it had just been run up on an apple-mac. Nor do I suspect have many airport security staff. <hr></blockquote>

This sums up my opinion exactly.....

[quote]Tripower455
I didn't mention the company we work for, did I? Whew! I don't need that psychological evaluation. They did say that we could not talk to the media and mention that we work for XYZ Airlines. Is this considered the media?

<hr></blockquote>

ZTR4A, I won't tell if you don't! <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> I HAVE had my suspicions about you though! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[Iron City]

Well, it seems the Canadian Federal Law makes the PIC a law enforcement officer. Doesn't seem to say anything about requiring or authorizing being armed. Do Canadian pilots receive training in the law or use of law enforcement authority? Trying to imagine that as part of the written test for PPL.

In the U S context, the postal inspectors can be thought of as a Secret Service/U S Marshalls Service with juristiction over the U S mails. These people are the real deal as law enforcement people, so comments about armed "postal workers" are either humorous (?) the first few times or purposefully thick. When air mail started in the U S the pilots were required to wear a sidearm so that if they had to land somewhere and let the mail continue by other means they could guard it until it's custody could be passed. Look at some of the old pictures of airmail pilots and you can see the .38 revolver or some such in many cases.

Qualified armed people would be okay to have aboard in theory, but from a practical point of view it is difficult to establsh the bonafides of people from a zillion different agencies and it would be a good idea to limit it to people with proper training (done in U S to some extent) and properly preflight briefed. PIC permission should be required, another item on the preflight checklist. Just make sure they don't shoot themselves in the backside when they clear their weapons.

[Orca strait]

Iron City

Peace Officer status for the PIC stems from marine law. The purpose is not to make the PIC or Ships Captain a “Law Enforcement Officer”, but to have in place, on the vessel a figure of authority with the backing of the courts to maintain good order and in a Ships Captains case, discipline.

Consider that, when a ship or aircraft are under way, they may be crossing multi-jurisdictions nationally and internationally and are not immediately accessible by normal law enforcement means. Does that mean when we have a rowdy passenger on board that may be violating local or international law, do we go back, cuff him, arrest him and read him his rights? No. If this or these offending persons are a hazard to the safety of the aircraft, crew or passengers, the PIC can authorize to have the offender restrained (if physically possible by cabin crew and volunteer passengers), land at the nearest suitable airport, and have the local authorities arrest the offender. The PIC will relay documented events and evidence, and the offender will have his day in court.

Due to the inaccessible nature of ocean going ships on the high seas, the Captain is also granted the power and authority to use whatever force required to maintain good order and discipline on the ship. I know a few Ships Captains, and they’ve never been to Mountie school either.

I bring all this up as it seems the roles, duties and authority of the PIC have become muddled lately, in part our own fault. Rather than being seen as a professional whom not only fly’s the aircraft (along with some very competent First Officers), and CEO of a multi-million dollar company (its up to you and your crew when that aircraft pushes back from the gate), we’ve become in managements and the public eye, overpaid prima-donnas that work ten days a month.

I know I’m going to pay for that last line.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[SaturnV]

Penguin, link didn't work for me either.

But this should get you there:

go to: <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html</a>
click on "serarch the federal register" link

when in the federal register database page,
click on 2001 for year and
search for "armed law enforcement officer"

on completed search page, click on aircraft operator security link

that should get you the complete FAA rule with comments.

[Roadtrip]

Next time an armed law enforcement office boards your airplane and wants to retain his weapon, ask these questions. I'll bet the answer to each will be "NO."

1. Do you have frangible bullets in your weapon?

2. Are you protecting a witness on this flight?

3. Are you transporting a prisoner?

4) Are you protecting a political dignitary?

5) Are you a trained Air Marshall and did you advise dispatch that you're on board?

[Julian]

Boofhead I like yourself visit the US quite frequently and personally have never had any problems with crime, although someone did gun down and kill and officer 1 bblock up from my hotel last year whilst I was there.

I thik to say that carrying a concealed firearm is the reason crime is dropping in the US is a pretty sweeping statement, we all know countries that allow their residents to carry firearms that have a major problem as well. At the end of the dayits down to a lot of factors including social ones.

The 2001 British Crime Survey (produced by the Home Office) prelim results are availiable and show:

Burglary -17%
All vehicle related theft -11%
Household Theft -16%
Violent crime -19%
All BCS offences -11%
Av between '95-'00 -6%/Yr.


Seems also that their is abit of a debate going on at the mo between the UK and Us on the report you mention, see below from the BBC website...In fact if you look at the firearms stats in you will see that it appears the US has a bt of a problem!

The Home Office has dimissed an American television report's claims that Britain is more violent than the US as a "simplistic comparison".
The TV report, which followed news of an apparent drug rape of an American teacher in London, described the streets and shopping centres of Britain as a "battleground" of crime.

CBS News called the UK one of the most violent urban societies in the western world, where people were more likely to be burgled, twice as likely to be robbed and two-and-a-half times more likely to be assaulted than in America.

Charles Clarke: report is "absolute nonsense"

But the Home Office has hit back at the statistics, claiming that the average American is seven times more likely to be murdered than their British counterpart and 60 times more likely to be shot.

The row came as government sources confirmed a crime summit will be held at Downing Street next week at which Prime Minister Tony Blair will urge police to cut violence and disorder.

It is reported that chief constables from the Metropolitan, West Midlands, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire forces will be given £20m to crack down on street crime.

'Trivialised comparisons'

Home Office Minister Charles Clarke dismissed the CBS News report as "absolute nonsense", saying the way offences were defined and collated varied from country to country.

He told the BBC's Newsnight programme: "Violent crime is a very serious issue and needs to be very seriously addressed, but I don't think it's helped by the trivialised comparisons the CBS engaged in."

Mayhem is on the way

CBS News
Home Office figures showed the murder rate in the US in 1998 was 6.3 per 100,000 people compared with 1.4 per 100,000 in England and Wales.

The murder rate in London is 2.9 per 100,000 compared with 8.6 per 100,000 in New York and 49.15 per 100,000 in Washington DC.

A report produced by the US Department of Justice in 1998 would appear to support the Home Office's claims.

It shows the murder rate was 5.7 times higher in the US than England and Wales and the rape rate was about three times higher.

[boofhead]

Julian, I agree that with an agenda you can use statistics to 'prove' anything. But there does seem to be a trend in the figures that show an increase in crime wherever the authorities remove guns from the honest citizen, while leaving the criminals free access. It makes sense that if the 'bad guys' do not have to fear their victims then they will be bolder. Most reports show this link, and they also show that where a liberalisation of gun regulations is in place the crime rates drop.
You will note that in your figures, the highest murder rate is in cities in the US that have a complete ban on private ownership of guns. Leaving only the criminals armed.
And on airplanes, if the crew and passengers are completely disarmed, with scissors, nail files and such being taken from them, they will be defenceless against the terrorist, who will ignore the rules and take whatever he wants on board with him. It will be a long time, perhaps never, before the criminal loses the edge. No matter what rules you might want to write, criminals will always find a way around them. They always have, and the insanity in "security" after Sep 11 must show you that they always will.
I for one am sick and tired of being treated as a criminal, searched and prodded and pushed around even though I am in uniform, wearing an offical ID card and about to command an airplane with 400 plus passengers on flights of 9,000 kilometers or more. By people who have been through a few hours training and are trying to show they are better than the federal minimum-wage replacements.
It must be some satisfaction to the passengers who read about shoe bombs and smuggled weapons, despite the increased security, and who are told that to protect the President and the White House, they can be shot down by F16s, orbitting all the time just for the chance.
Armed passengers will always be welcome on my flights; I consider them to be an asset. If some crazy gets up with a liquid explosive or box cutter, I would expect my man with a gun to walk up and blow him away. I am prepared to deal with any damage his bullets might cause, after they have been slowed down by passage through the crazy's cranium. Better a .38 or two than fifty 20 mm cannon shells!