U.S. pilots will not be armed... (merged)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armed Flight Deck
Well it seems those who argue to not arm pilots are failing to win over support from those in favour of the armed flight deck.
However, there is one group who would fully support the unarmed pilots argument - al Qaida.
I trust this causes some discomfort to those in favour of a defenceless flight deck.
However, there is one group who would fully support the unarmed pilots argument - al Qaida.
I trust this causes some discomfort to those in favour of a defenceless flight deck.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Pointy End
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was under the impression that we were discussing methods of ensuring flight security.
Pax who happen to be armed, do not come into the equation.
The thought of you blazing away at the first thing through the door is precisely why our governments won’t allow us to be armed.
It has been already been pointed out that pax will now know they have to intervene or die. The odds that a small number of unarmed terrorists will prevail over 200 plus pax, fighting for their lives is slim at best. They most certainly won’t have the time to break into the flight deck at their leisure. (Just me doing some critical thinking
)
I think it very strange that some advocates of arming the flight crew believe that they don’t require practise in CQB. Just about all security agencies that do this, train very hard at it. I will admit that most team members don’t include a pilot among them; perhaps that’s where they’re going wrong.
It’s not elitist BS, it’s the simple truth. Next time you’re down the range give it a go and see how you compare. Just like flying, it has to be trained for and the skill level maintained.
The ammunition used by some teams is designed to disintegrate after hitting a target. This helps protects the A/C skin. Shooting through an innocent passenger (as has been suggested) in an effort to hit a terrorist is a big no no for that reason alone, not to mention the legal and ethical implications. I have no idea whether the US sky marshals are issued with this type of ammunition though. Even standard ammunition does strange thing after passing through a medium. I have seen a 7.62 round hit a small bit of wood and change direction by at least 80 degree’s. This is no surprise to anyone that shoots a lot.
It does occur to me that if the normal type of police firearms training were sufficient to deal with this kind of threat, why do governments spend fortunes, training special teams?
I repeat, the best thing IMHO is to let properly trained men and women do the job, while we fly the aircraft, it’s what we do best.
Some form none lethal flight deck defence would be a good idea though, how about very powerful cattle prod that could double as a nightstick. This way it could be left on the A/C like the handcuffs and is unlikely to upset to many foreign governments. I would imagine that you could defend the flight deck with such tool.
Pax who happen to be armed, do not come into the equation.
The thought of you blazing away at the first thing through the door is precisely why our governments won’t allow us to be armed.
It has been already been pointed out that pax will now know they have to intervene or die. The odds that a small number of unarmed terrorists will prevail over 200 plus pax, fighting for their lives is slim at best. They most certainly won’t have the time to break into the flight deck at their leisure. (Just me doing some critical thinking
)I think it very strange that some advocates of arming the flight crew believe that they don’t require practise in CQB. Just about all security agencies that do this, train very hard at it. I will admit that most team members don’t include a pilot among them; perhaps that’s where they’re going wrong.
It’s not elitist BS, it’s the simple truth. Next time you’re down the range give it a go and see how you compare. Just like flying, it has to be trained for and the skill level maintained.
The ammunition used by some teams is designed to disintegrate after hitting a target. This helps protects the A/C skin. Shooting through an innocent passenger (as has been suggested) in an effort to hit a terrorist is a big no no for that reason alone, not to mention the legal and ethical implications. I have no idea whether the US sky marshals are issued with this type of ammunition though. Even standard ammunition does strange thing after passing through a medium. I have seen a 7.62 round hit a small bit of wood and change direction by at least 80 degree’s. This is no surprise to anyone that shoots a lot.
It does occur to me that if the normal type of police firearms training were sufficient to deal with this kind of threat, why do governments spend fortunes, training special teams?
I repeat, the best thing IMHO is to let properly trained men and women do the job, while we fly the aircraft, it’s what we do best.
Some form none lethal flight deck defence would be a good idea though, how about very powerful cattle prod that could double as a nightstick. This way it could be left on the A/C like the handcuffs and is unlikely to upset to many foreign governments. I would imagine that you could defend the flight deck with such tool.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. If the pax manage to stop the terrorists, they won't be tearing down the cockpit door. Hence, no need for lethal cockpit defense. Can we be sure that that will be 100 percent effective? OF COURSE NOT.
2. If someone manages to break through the door, I don't have time to play 20 questions on their motive or identity. For the sake of saving thousands of lives, questions come later.
3. I don't need to go to a "range" to be proficient at hitting a man size target at 4 feet range . . . . just armed and prepared. The hardened door give me time to prepare physically and mentally.
4. The aircraft can fly itself on autopilot if necessary. Because the pilot takes his hands off the yoke and throttle doesn't mean the airplane snaps out of control. Another non-sensical false arguement put forth by the ill-informed or disengenuous.
5. Lethal cockpit defense is LAST DITCH. For those who are challenged by critical thinking, that means that it's the defense of LAST RESORT. Last resort means all other screening, air marshals, Barney Fifes, Fish Inspectors, pax intervention . . . . AND the hardened cockpit door has failed. Lethal cockpit defense is the LAST THING BEFORE COMMAND OF THE AIRCRAFT IS LOST AND THOUSANDS POTENTIALLY ARE MURDERED.
6. The governement and airlines have, so far, show themselves to be INCOMPETENT of defending the cockpit. Personally I don't care what the government or companies want or don't want. It's not THEIR LIVES at stake everyday. It's ours - EVERYDAY.
Security is best in layers. Forbidding the final and most effective form of defense is just plain stupid.
And BTW, cockpit defense weapons should be installed as aircraft equipment in quick reaction safes at each pilot position, not carried on the person.
2. If someone manages to break through the door, I don't have time to play 20 questions on their motive or identity. For the sake of saving thousands of lives, questions come later.
3. I don't need to go to a "range" to be proficient at hitting a man size target at 4 feet range . . . . just armed and prepared. The hardened door give me time to prepare physically and mentally.
4. The aircraft can fly itself on autopilot if necessary. Because the pilot takes his hands off the yoke and throttle doesn't mean the airplane snaps out of control. Another non-sensical false arguement put forth by the ill-informed or disengenuous.
5. Lethal cockpit defense is LAST DITCH. For those who are challenged by critical thinking, that means that it's the defense of LAST RESORT. Last resort means all other screening, air marshals, Barney Fifes, Fish Inspectors, pax intervention . . . . AND the hardened cockpit door has failed. Lethal cockpit defense is the LAST THING BEFORE COMMAND OF THE AIRCRAFT IS LOST AND THOUSANDS POTENTIALLY ARE MURDERED.
6. The governement and airlines have, so far, show themselves to be INCOMPETENT of defending the cockpit. Personally I don't care what the government or companies want or don't want. It's not THEIR LIVES at stake everyday. It's ours - EVERYDAY.
Security is best in layers. Forbidding the final and most effective form of defense is just plain stupid.
And BTW, cockpit defense weapons should be installed as aircraft equipment in quick reaction safes at each pilot position, not carried on the person.
Last edited by Roadtrip; 13th Jun 2002 at 16:24.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Pointy End
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We also cannot be sure that an armed pilot would be 100% effective. Part of any soldier or LEO’S firearms training includes clearing stoppages. One at the wrong time and you’re stuffed.
It’s very easy to miss a man size target. You can see it every day on the range, especially when you throw fear or panic into the equation. Try shooting against a pro-timer one-day and see how good you are then. You personally may be an excellent shot, but there are many more shooters out there where the safest place for bystanders is in front of the person shooting and these individuals have been blazing away for years.
I suppose that in your scenario the terrorist wouldn’t be unsporting and attack the flight deck in numbers, so you can calmly shoot them one at a time.
You’re dead right about security in layers though. This has got to be the way forward.
It does seem that the US government would rather shoot down an A/C if it becomes hi-jacked and heads toward a sensitive area. It’s now just another unfortunate fact of life.
I would hope that the US government considered the arguments for and against arming flight crews. Although you’re arguments are passionately put, they and similar arguments failed to win the day. I suspect that some of the counter arguments came from the security agencies themselves. Until you find a more convincing argument, you’re going to have to stick with the fire axe like the rest of us.
Cheers.
PS Thanks for the tip re the autopilot, I’ve always wondered why things calmed down when I say, “centre in command” after we’ve cleaned up
It’s very easy to miss a man size target. You can see it every day on the range, especially when you throw fear or panic into the equation. Try shooting against a pro-timer one-day and see how good you are then. You personally may be an excellent shot, but there are many more shooters out there where the safest place for bystanders is in front of the person shooting and these individuals have been blazing away for years.
I suppose that in your scenario the terrorist wouldn’t be unsporting and attack the flight deck in numbers, so you can calmly shoot them one at a time.
You’re dead right about security in layers though. This has got to be the way forward.
It does seem that the US government would rather shoot down an A/C if it becomes hi-jacked and heads toward a sensitive area. It’s now just another unfortunate fact of life.
I would hope that the US government considered the arguments for and against arming flight crews. Although you’re arguments are passionately put, they and similar arguments failed to win the day. I suspect that some of the counter arguments came from the security agencies themselves. Until you find a more convincing argument, you’re going to have to stick with the fire axe like the rest of us.
Cheers.
PS Thanks for the tip re the autopilot, I’ve always wondered why things calmed down when I say, “centre in command” after we’ve cleaned up
max cont,
It's good to see that your mentioned security agencies have provided the cockpit crews the training and guidance on defensive use of the crash axe.
Have you gotten any real training?
I for one am scared of sinking it into the head of my Captain on the backswing yet I read nothing about this from any of the anti gun crowd.
Your gun range examples don't apply much either. How many rounds have you seen fired from a seated postion at a simulated cockpit door 3 feet away? We aren't talking about hitting head looking around the mid-gally from the cockpit, we are talking about hitting a struggling human in the final stages of a successful door breech, one at a time.
If you want to play Medievel axe warrior, go ahead. I think the modern defense will be safer many miles from safety at 50W
It's good to see that your mentioned security agencies have provided the cockpit crews the training and guidance on defensive use of the crash axe.
Have you gotten any real training?
I for one am scared of sinking it into the head of my Captain on the backswing yet I read nothing about this from any of the anti gun crowd.
Your gun range examples don't apply much either. How many rounds have you seen fired from a seated postion at a simulated cockpit door 3 feet away? We aren't talking about hitting head looking around the mid-gally from the cockpit, we are talking about hitting a struggling human in the final stages of a successful door breech, one at a time.
If you want to play Medievel axe warrior, go ahead. I think the modern defense will be safer many miles from safety at 50W
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Pointy End
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WhatsaLizad? Sorry I don’t get the bit about security agencies giving advice re the fire axe. To clarify my statement: since the US pilots are not allowed to have a handgun on the flight deck, the only item of use is the fire axe. (Pretty much like the rest of aviation)
Rest assured, your government is not the only government not to have a coherent strategy for aircraft security and no, I’ve not had any training on the use of a fire axe for self-defence. We’re still debating which bit to use, the spike or the blade.
If you think it’s likely that you are going to hit your skipper on the back swing with the axe, I don’t like his chances of surviving an encounter with you armed with a handgun.
My reference to the range has more significance than you would imagine. The hero only blows the evil terrorist clean off his/her feet with a pistol in Hollywood. In real life thing are a bit more difficult. Unless you can hit the body T right at the start, your suicidal terrorist will be all over you like a rash. He or she may die from wounds received later on, but that won’t matter. If they have done their homework they will know how to enter a defended doorway and maximise their chances of achieving their goal. You being able to hit him in the foot arm leg abdomen or wherever doesn’t get the job done. You can bet your life you aren’t going to get the chance to shoot them one at a time, it’s going to be fast and furious. One of the reasons security agencies use SMG’s as the weapon of choice is because it far easier to hit the right places when you’re stressed.
I agree with you that a pistol is far more effective than an axe… in trained hands. The problem is, is that some pilots believe that they don’t need the training or practice to maintain that effectiveness.
Unless your government has a change of heart, I’d start working on that back swing of yours.
Rest assured, your government is not the only government not to have a coherent strategy for aircraft security and no, I’ve not had any training on the use of a fire axe for self-defence. We’re still debating which bit to use, the spike or the blade.
If you think it’s likely that you are going to hit your skipper on the back swing with the axe, I don’t like his chances of surviving an encounter with you armed with a handgun.
My reference to the range has more significance than you would imagine. The hero only blows the evil terrorist clean off his/her feet with a pistol in Hollywood. In real life thing are a bit more difficult. Unless you can hit the body T right at the start, your suicidal terrorist will be all over you like a rash. He or she may die from wounds received later on, but that won’t matter. If they have done their homework they will know how to enter a defended doorway and maximise their chances of achieving their goal. You being able to hit him in the foot arm leg abdomen or wherever doesn’t get the job done. You can bet your life you aren’t going to get the chance to shoot them one at a time, it’s going to be fast and furious. One of the reasons security agencies use SMG’s as the weapon of choice is because it far easier to hit the right places when you’re stressed.
I agree with you that a pistol is far more effective than an axe… in trained hands. The problem is, is that some pilots believe that they don’t need the training or practice to maintain that effectiveness.
Unless your government has a change of heart, I’d start working on that back swing of yours.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: NorthTijuana, USA
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
llamas,
A stunning dimissal that clearly indicates who is the better man.
It is also clear that anyone with a poor memory and/or who misspells shall have their whole life's work and knowledge justifiably repudiated.:o
A witty retort, & unresponsive:
You have done much to support firearms in the cockpit with your haughty oneupmanship.
The absolute ne plus ultra team player
A stunning dimissal that clearly indicates who is the better man.
It is also clear that anyone with a poor memory and/or who misspells shall have their whole life's work and knowledge justifiably repudiated.:o
With frangible bullets in the firearm, the plane’s passengers could be protected...
it really doesn't matter if a bullet punctures the fuselage of an airplane. Trust me, the plane will not explode if it does, and no passengers will be sucked out, James Bond films notwithstanding.
The absolute ne plus ultra team player
Last edited by LAZYB; 16th Jun 2002 at 21:13.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not the PC politicians and security agency chiefs that put their ass on the line everyday. They sit in their safe offices very detached from the reality situation. After all, these are the same people responsible the mess we're in now.
I say again. I don't need to be a marksman to hit an intruder trying to break through a reinforced door at 4 feet, especially with warning. With a moderate training program in weapon handling and ROE, pilots could be taught to handle weapons, especially since many are already familiar. I dare say that a single hit to any part of the body would significantly slow the breaching process. The second hit would most likely stop it altogether.
A jam? In the very unlikely event of a jam, there's another weapon instantly available from the other pilot. Any weapon is only most effective when warning time is available -- that is what the reinforced door does -- it buys time. When the time is up, the door is breached and you're facing down determined terrorists, what do you want to be holding, a .40 cal. or your d**k?
In case you're not informed, Mr. Magaw, head of the TSA, is a former BATF type and is fevently anti-gun. I guess as long as his butt isn't in the sling everyday, it's easy to hold his opinion. Further, if lethal cockpit defense is such a bad idea why haven't they even tried to explain and give their reasoning behind their ruling, aside from "we don't support it." The reason is THEY DON'T HAVE ANY LOGICAL REASONS EXCEPT THAT THE ATA AND ANTI-GUN LOBBY ARE AGAINST IT.
These guys are betting with our lives that 9/11 won't happen again. Gross buffonery comes to mind as a pertinent descriptions.
I'M SURE 9/11 WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WORSE HAD THE COCKPIT HAD LETHAL DEFENSE.
I say again. I don't need to be a marksman to hit an intruder trying to break through a reinforced door at 4 feet, especially with warning. With a moderate training program in weapon handling and ROE, pilots could be taught to handle weapons, especially since many are already familiar. I dare say that a single hit to any part of the body would significantly slow the breaching process. The second hit would most likely stop it altogether.
A jam? In the very unlikely event of a jam, there's another weapon instantly available from the other pilot. Any weapon is only most effective when warning time is available -- that is what the reinforced door does -- it buys time. When the time is up, the door is breached and you're facing down determined terrorists, what do you want to be holding, a .40 cal. or your d**k?
In case you're not informed, Mr. Magaw, head of the TSA, is a former BATF type and is fevently anti-gun. I guess as long as his butt isn't in the sling everyday, it's easy to hold his opinion. Further, if lethal cockpit defense is such a bad idea why haven't they even tried to explain and give their reasoning behind their ruling, aside from "we don't support it." The reason is THEY DON'T HAVE ANY LOGICAL REASONS EXCEPT THAT THE ATA AND ANTI-GUN LOBBY ARE AGAINST IT.
These guys are betting with our lives that 9/11 won't happen again. Gross buffonery comes to mind as a pertinent descriptions.
I'M SURE 9/11 WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WORSE HAD THE COCKPIT HAD LETHAL DEFENSE.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 92
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "hijack theme" of breaking into the cockpit and wrestling control from the pilots is no longer an option for terrorists. This technique has already been expended and would no longer provide an element of surprise.
The knowledge and certainty that all concerned passengers, fearing for their own safety and survival, would pounce on any prospective hijacker(s) makes the likelihood of this scenario and the necessity of pistol packing pilots history. (El Al pilots are unarmed).
As has been demonstrated in the Middle East, the greater danger will come from suicidal martyrs with explosives strapped to their bodies. Getting past airport security checkpoints with undetected explosives on body or in checked baggage must be the mission of enhanced airline/airport security.
Additionally, airport perimeters could be made more secure. Instead of an ordinary chain link fence, a concrete retainer wall encompassing terminals and runways would prevent potential "truck bombs" from being driven and crashed into taxiing jets.
The knowledge and certainty that all concerned passengers, fearing for their own safety and survival, would pounce on any prospective hijacker(s) makes the likelihood of this scenario and the necessity of pistol packing pilots history. (El Al pilots are unarmed).
As has been demonstrated in the Middle East, the greater danger will come from suicidal martyrs with explosives strapped to their bodies. Getting past airport security checkpoints with undetected explosives on body or in checked baggage must be the mission of enhanced airline/airport security.
Additionally, airport perimeters could be made more secure. Instead of an ordinary chain link fence, a concrete retainer wall encompassing terminals and runways would prevent potential "truck bombs" from being driven and crashed into taxiing jets.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The "hijack theme" of breaking into the cockpit and wrestling control from the pilots is no longer an option for terrorists."
I guess that's why the airlines are being forced to spend about $20k per aircraft on hardened cockpit doors.
The lack of critical thinking is truly astounding. Gamble with your own life, not mine, pal.
I guess that's why the airlines are being forced to spend about $20k per aircraft on hardened cockpit doors.
The lack of critical thinking is truly astounding. Gamble with your own life, not mine, pal.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: California, USA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is progress being made after all...
From the latest issue of Avweb:
GUNS ALOFT, CONTINUED: Yesterday, bipartisan legislation that would create a test program allowing up to 1,400 airline pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit was approved by the U.S. House Subcommittee on Aviation.
The legislation would authorize a two-year testing period
during which 250 airline pilots would be deputized to carry weapons. At the end of the two-year period, the program would be reviewed and could be expanded to include up to 1,400 pilots. Preference would go to pilots with experience in the military or law enforcement.
NOTE: AVweb's NewsWire at <http://avweb.com/n/?25b> includes the complete text of the proposed legislation, HR-4635, the "Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act."
From the latest issue of Avweb:
GUNS ALOFT, CONTINUED: Yesterday, bipartisan legislation that would create a test program allowing up to 1,400 airline pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit was approved by the U.S. House Subcommittee on Aviation.
The legislation would authorize a two-year testing period
during which 250 airline pilots would be deputized to carry weapons. At the end of the two-year period, the program would be reviewed and could be expanded to include up to 1,400 pilots. Preference would go to pilots with experience in the military or law enforcement.
NOTE: AVweb's NewsWire at <http://avweb.com/n/?25b> includes the complete text of the proposed legislation, HR-4635, the "Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know what is the actual weapon being proposed or considered likely and also any info on if special rounds (ammunition) is being proposed or considered and if so what type?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weapon of choice
I have no idea what weapon or round but my vote would be for a S&W revolver - no problems with jams as with an auto pistol,simple & reliable as pointed out in previous post by Ilamas.
A low velocity hollow point round might provide ample stopping power ? I'm no expert & out of my province in the matter of firearms and the above suggestion maybe nostalgia.
I was trained in one day to safety & proficiency standard with the S&W 38 shooting from standing & kneeling on one knee position a long time ago. Seems to me that is all that is required - you don't need to be trained to Special Forces standard to be a deterrent to suicide hijackers.
The proposal seems inadequate but at least a step in the right direction.
A low velocity hollow point round might provide ample stopping power ? I'm no expert & out of my province in the matter of firearms and the above suggestion maybe nostalgia.
I was trained in one day to safety & proficiency standard with the S&W 38 shooting from standing & kneeling on one knee position a long time ago. Seems to me that is all that is required - you don't need to be trained to Special Forces standard to be a deterrent to suicide hijackers.
The proposal seems inadequate but at least a step in the right direction.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Out West
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The discussion on weapon and ammunition IMHO is not relevant. Whatever combination is chosen should not be public knowledge.
The idea of arming some flight decks is to provide one more reason not to take on an airliner when there are more accessible targets of opportunity out there for the would be anarchists.
Let’s hope they are foiled at all roads and avenues…
The idea of arming some flight decks is to provide one more reason not to take on an airliner when there are more accessible targets of opportunity out there for the would be anarchists.
Let’s hope they are foiled at all roads and avenues…
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Richmond Texas
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thirty-eight
The standard US military sidearm for many years was a .38 calibre revolver. In the early 1900s the Colt model of 1905 and later the 1911 replaced it because it would not stop Muslim fanatics called, I think, Juramentado. These used to enter US military areas in the Phillipines and do serious damage before noticing multiple .38 calibre hits. In this case size does matter.
While I see the rationale behind many of the anti gun in the cockpit arguments, I cannot think that there are many pilots who would not wish to be armed when the b******s are at the door.
Obviously preventing them from getting there should take first priority.
While I see the rationale behind many of the anti gun in the cockpit arguments, I cannot think that there are many pilots who would not wish to be armed when the b******s are at the door.
Obviously preventing them from getting there should take first priority.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: _
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My problem with having guns in the flight deck is:
1. a potential hijacker will KNOW that there's a gun on board, which solves one of his problems;
2. training & recurrent training on gun handling;
And regarding those armored flight deck doors - what's to happen if we are knocked out in a crash, and the cabin crew can't open the ****ing door to get to us?
Let's get better-trained personnel manning better equipment at our airport screening stations. Let's NOT saddle pilots with more resposibility than we already have.
1. a potential hijacker will KNOW that there's a gun on board, which solves one of his problems;
2. training & recurrent training on gun handling;
And regarding those armored flight deck doors - what's to happen if we are knocked out in a crash, and the cabin crew can't open the ****ing door to get to us?
Let's get better-trained personnel manning better equipment at our airport screening stations. Let's NOT saddle pilots with more resposibility than we already have.