U.S. pilots will not be armed... (merged)
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF point of view: I'm personally in favour of... something. While you can't force flight crew to carry guns for those that want to and are certified I say let them.
Don't tell anyone, the traveling public do not, IMO, need to know the details. On the other hand the thought that any given crew might be 'packing heat' (as they say) may deter and would certainly complicate hijack planning.
I can imagine the first carrier to differentiate themselves by coming up with a marketable security package / concept may very well set the tone and in so doing win market share. The customers will then decide whether they buy into it or not.
This is a very tricky debate, I respect and share all concerns raised, and wish you all the very best in finding a workable solution. If I come up with anything real good I'll let you know.
Don't tell anyone, the traveling public do not, IMO, need to know the details. On the other hand the thought that any given crew might be 'packing heat' (as they say) may deter and would certainly complicate hijack planning.
I can imagine the first carrier to differentiate themselves by coming up with a marketable security package / concept may very well set the tone and in so doing win market share. The customers will then decide whether they buy into it or not.
This is a very tricky debate, I respect and share all concerns raised, and wish you all the very best in finding a workable solution. If I come up with anything real good I'll let you know.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Florida
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I penned this several months ago:
To Whom It May Concern:
News reports are indicating that the Airline Pilots’ Association is proposing an initiative that would arm our nation’s airline pilots with pistols, stun guns, and other weapons. If such a plan is enacted, the basic nature of my entire career will not only be changed, but essentially will be completely transformed into something I am terrified to contemplate.
We are not marshals or security guards. We are professionals that are charged with the responsibility of safely transporting the public. Arming the pilots adds another level of responsibility that will be an incredible distraction to carrying out our jobs. If additional security arrangements are required, then let us use professionals specifically trained for the job, not pilots trying to learn the critical decision making skills needed to use deadly force from a short training course. Law enforcement officers constantly train to hone their skills with firearms and when to use them. How many accidental discharges occur each year in your local police precinct? Will a once-a-year training course give us the tools we need to properly carry out the additional responsibility associated with arming the pilots? I think not.
I’ve often heard it said that if you choose to have a gun at home you are more likely to shoot a family member than you are likely to shoot an intruder. Also, you are more likely to have that weapon turned against you. Do we want this aboard our nation’s airliners? ?
We must consider the exponential increase in risk that will come with arming pilots. The secured area of our airports will now be filled with pilots sporting guns. To prevent this we will need completely separate security checkpoints for armed crewmembers, and separate entrances to the airsides and jetways to keep us away from the public. We will need separate and secure flightcrew bathroom facilities to prevent opportunistic thefts of our weapons. We will also need to more closely monitor each pilot’s mental health in an attempt to prevent inappropriate actions with these weapons. I can only imagine how oppressive it will get.
Last week (Note: Oct 2001) my tweezers were confiscated at the security checkpoint in Oakland – while a passenger’s corkscrew was allowed through. Now, we’re considering allowing guns? Absolutely not! The members of the National Rifle Association must be slapping each other on the back as they listen to these rash proposals.
Please mark me down as completely against guns in the cockpit. If they are allowed, please mark me down for a desk job. I am not a cop, I am a pilot. I don’t allow guns in my home and I certainly will not live with one in my cockpit. Even if such a program is voluntary, I absolutely will not have a gun in the cockpit with me – period.
Respectfully,
<name removed for pprune post>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
That's all I have to say!
AKAAB
To Whom It May Concern:
News reports are indicating that the Airline Pilots’ Association is proposing an initiative that would arm our nation’s airline pilots with pistols, stun guns, and other weapons. If such a plan is enacted, the basic nature of my entire career will not only be changed, but essentially will be completely transformed into something I am terrified to contemplate.
We are not marshals or security guards. We are professionals that are charged with the responsibility of safely transporting the public. Arming the pilots adds another level of responsibility that will be an incredible distraction to carrying out our jobs. If additional security arrangements are required, then let us use professionals specifically trained for the job, not pilots trying to learn the critical decision making skills needed to use deadly force from a short training course. Law enforcement officers constantly train to hone their skills with firearms and when to use them. How many accidental discharges occur each year in your local police precinct? Will a once-a-year training course give us the tools we need to properly carry out the additional responsibility associated with arming the pilots? I think not.
I’ve often heard it said that if you choose to have a gun at home you are more likely to shoot a family member than you are likely to shoot an intruder. Also, you are more likely to have that weapon turned against you. Do we want this aboard our nation’s airliners? ?
We must consider the exponential increase in risk that will come with arming pilots. The secured area of our airports will now be filled with pilots sporting guns. To prevent this we will need completely separate security checkpoints for armed crewmembers, and separate entrances to the airsides and jetways to keep us away from the public. We will need separate and secure flightcrew bathroom facilities to prevent opportunistic thefts of our weapons. We will also need to more closely monitor each pilot’s mental health in an attempt to prevent inappropriate actions with these weapons. I can only imagine how oppressive it will get.
Last week (Note: Oct 2001) my tweezers were confiscated at the security checkpoint in Oakland – while a passenger’s corkscrew was allowed through. Now, we’re considering allowing guns? Absolutely not! The members of the National Rifle Association must be slapping each other on the back as they listen to these rash proposals.
Please mark me down as completely against guns in the cockpit. If they are allowed, please mark me down for a desk job. I am not a cop, I am a pilot. I don’t allow guns in my home and I certainly will not live with one in my cockpit. Even if such a program is voluntary, I absolutely will not have a gun in the cockpit with me – period.
Respectfully,
<name removed for pprune post>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
That's all I have to say!
AKAAB
Guest
Posts: n/a
AKAAB,
Sounds to me like you are in the anti-gun lobby. You are still much more likely to be killed on the road than by a gun. You do not suggest that maybe some may be comfortable carrying them, you want to ban them altogether from the cockpit, just like your house. At the moment I don't get danger money and want the chance to defend myself if anyone gets in.
Sounds to me like you are in the anti-gun lobby. You are still much more likely to be killed on the road than by a gun. You do not suggest that maybe some may be comfortable carrying them, you want to ban them altogether from the cockpit, just like your house. At the moment I don't get danger money and want the chance to defend myself if anyone gets in.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: USA or Surrey
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Nothing about the argument, against arming pilots, that I've put forward here is "absurd"--so spare me your histrionics. That whole *tsk, tsk* routine is the bad substitute for logic, from hell, as far as I'm concerned. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't have a clue about the subject you're so "expertly" addressing. Your concepts and misunderstandings are illogical and ridiculous. You would be well-advised to stick to subjects of which you have knowledge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't have a clue about the subject you're so "expertly" addressing. Your concepts and misunderstandings are illogical and ridiculous. You would be well-advised to stick to subjects of which you have knowledge.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "You don't have a clue about the subject you're so "expertly" addressing. Your concepts and misunderstandings are illogical and ridiculous. You would be well-advised to stick to subjects of which you have knowledge."
Care to elaborate? Or are you just whistling Dixie, my aptly named friend?
Care to elaborate? Or are you just whistling Dixie, my aptly named friend?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Out West
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mriya225- The lady doth protest too much.
You bring up some very good points in your post. It's the throwing over control idea that sets me off.
Guns on the flight deck; (cockpit, box office, pick your flavour).
My beef with the gun argument is either way you vote for it, the issue is detracting from the real issue - security. As you stated, we need to know what’s coming, forewarned is forearmed. If someone where to ask me "can a pilot be qualified to carry a sidearm?" I would state absolutely. "Should a pilot carry a sidearm", I would state, under most circumstances no. I would love to see a society that settled its differences with words and wisdom; however, we're not quite there yet.
An unarmed Bobby walking the streets of London is a beautiful thing to see, but make no mistake, not far away is a Bobby that is fully armed and ready to react. It’s up to you to guess how far away.
Cheers,
---------------------------------------------------------------
You bring up some very good points in your post. It's the throwing over control idea that sets me off.
Guns on the flight deck; (cockpit, box office, pick your flavour).
My beef with the gun argument is either way you vote for it, the issue is detracting from the real issue - security. As you stated, we need to know what’s coming, forewarned is forearmed. If someone where to ask me "can a pilot be qualified to carry a sidearm?" I would state absolutely. "Should a pilot carry a sidearm", I would state, under most circumstances no. I would love to see a society that settled its differences with words and wisdom; however, we're not quite there yet.
An unarmed Bobby walking the streets of London is a beautiful thing to see, but make no mistake, not far away is a Bobby that is fully armed and ready to react. It’s up to you to guess how far away.
Cheers,
---------------------------------------------------------------
To all the naysayers about guns being allowed in the cockpit as a FINAL defense mechanism:
What do you propose in it's stead?
Here in the States, the final solution is a sidewinder up the tailpipe and we ALL lose.
With a gun at least we have a fighting chance. Let me re-iterate I do not own a gun at this time.
Don't say profiling, because it is not allowed.
Stun guns don't work through leather jackets and cannot be administered numerous times to multiple unfriendlies.
Yes, there are potential negatives to having firearms on the flight deck, but if one life is saved than it was worth it.
What does the following list of events have in common?
1. 1972 Munich Olympic murders
2. Iran hostage situation
3. Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking
4. Pan Am 103
5. TWA hijackings/inflight bombings mid 1980's
6. Numerous airport shootups in Rome, Vienna & Frankfurt
7. Assassination attempt on the Pope
8. Iraq invades Kuwait
9. too numerous to list attacks on Israel
10. Berlin disco bombing
11. Marine barracks and Embassies blown up
12. USS Cole attacked
13. Sept. 11th
Answer: All perpetrated by extremist Arab/Muslim groups or regimes intent on destroying western civilization.
Any of the above events are considered acts of war, but God forbid that we profile all Arabs and/or defend ourselves.
We are being warned that the next attack is inevitable and could be far worse considering that they might use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. But the naysayers, including those in our own freaking govt. are telling us to NOT defend ourselves.
Please explain to us why we should sit back, be spectators in our own lives and do nothing.
What do you propose in it's stead?
Here in the States, the final solution is a sidewinder up the tailpipe and we ALL lose.
With a gun at least we have a fighting chance. Let me re-iterate I do not own a gun at this time.
Don't say profiling, because it is not allowed.
Stun guns don't work through leather jackets and cannot be administered numerous times to multiple unfriendlies.
Yes, there are potential negatives to having firearms on the flight deck, but if one life is saved than it was worth it.
What does the following list of events have in common?
1. 1972 Munich Olympic murders
2. Iran hostage situation
3. Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking
4. Pan Am 103
5. TWA hijackings/inflight bombings mid 1980's
6. Numerous airport shootups in Rome, Vienna & Frankfurt
7. Assassination attempt on the Pope
8. Iraq invades Kuwait
9. too numerous to list attacks on Israel
10. Berlin disco bombing
11. Marine barracks and Embassies blown up
12. USS Cole attacked
13. Sept. 11th
Answer: All perpetrated by extremist Arab/Muslim groups or regimes intent on destroying western civilization.
Any of the above events are considered acts of war, but God forbid that we profile all Arabs and/or defend ourselves.
We are being warned that the next attack is inevitable and could be far worse considering that they might use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. But the naysayers, including those in our own freaking govt. are telling us to NOT defend ourselves.
Please explain to us why we should sit back, be spectators in our own lives and do nothing.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mryia 225, I was interested to read your earlier post that mentions the fact that "3 feet between door and crew" and reaction time and your view that noone can react that quickly so therefore guns have no place. Your last paragraph appears to shoot your theory in the foot, so to speak. You are correct that noone will react that fast, however, you go on to say that given your idea for security, re a heads up etc, then grabbing the crash axe etc, what's wrong with having the firearm instead of the axe? Why is the axe suitable in your example but not the firearm? As I stated earlier, I have no view either way, as I don't fly a transport aircraft. But given the choice, I would consider it ok to carry whatever is necessary. I am trained extensively in firearms and If i'm extremely fortunate may make a career in transport a/c. I think the question of choice and proper alternatives is more important than just one example of the "let's not have that here" idea. As has been pointed out, the naysayers are very quick to say NO, but have no credible alternatives to serve up as yet.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orca Strait,
"Box office"... I hadn't heard that one yet--I like it though, it's pithy.
Re: Switching command
I'm not very familiar with the particulars of that myself--hell, even if I were, I'd be loathe to discuss it publicly. But I completely understand your misgivings about relinquishing control of your aircraft; it assumes a lot about the flightworthiness of the aircraft and the soundness of the technology we're using to bring you into a secured area... I respect where you're coming from on that. You're right, it won't be as trustworthy as an experienced pilot--but, it's still better than the most likely alternatives.
Aside from the other reasons I've mentioned for not arming yourselves, there's also the the situation for the A-T unit, to think of. Once we get you all back on the ground--you can imagine how the presence of firearm(s)in the aircraft will both prolong and complicate matters for the team that's charged with the responsibility of securing your a/c, and getting everybody out of there alive.
When it comes to circumventing terrorism, intel and firepower may be sexy but tedium is the truly effective weapon. Success is rooted in making the logistical pain-in-the-butt factor exceed whatever benefit these ******s are hoping to get out of it. And I honestly believe that it has the best potential of saving your life, the lives of your crew and your passengers.
Not for nothing, but you don't need to sell me on the British being able to fend for themselves (with or without firearms). Your SAS is probably the most elite special forces unit on the planet--so, you're preaching to the choir here.
Grand Prix,
The problem isn't that people don't want you to protect yourself. The problem with firearms in that environment is strictly a liability vs. benefit issue.
Dale Harris,
see the explanation given to Orca Strait above.
"Box office"... I hadn't heard that one yet--I like it though, it's pithy.
Re: Switching command
I'm not very familiar with the particulars of that myself--hell, even if I were, I'd be loathe to discuss it publicly. But I completely understand your misgivings about relinquishing control of your aircraft; it assumes a lot about the flightworthiness of the aircraft and the soundness of the technology we're using to bring you into a secured area... I respect where you're coming from on that. You're right, it won't be as trustworthy as an experienced pilot--but, it's still better than the most likely alternatives.
Aside from the other reasons I've mentioned for not arming yourselves, there's also the the situation for the A-T unit, to think of. Once we get you all back on the ground--you can imagine how the presence of firearm(s)in the aircraft will both prolong and complicate matters for the team that's charged with the responsibility of securing your a/c, and getting everybody out of there alive.
When it comes to circumventing terrorism, intel and firepower may be sexy but tedium is the truly effective weapon. Success is rooted in making the logistical pain-in-the-butt factor exceed whatever benefit these ******s are hoping to get out of it. And I honestly believe that it has the best potential of saving your life, the lives of your crew and your passengers.
Not for nothing, but you don't need to sell me on the British being able to fend for themselves (with or without firearms). Your SAS is probably the most elite special forces unit on the planet--so, you're preaching to the choir here.
Grand Prix,
The problem isn't that people don't want you to protect yourself. The problem with firearms in that environment is strictly a liability vs. benefit issue.
Dale Harris,
see the explanation given to Orca Strait above.
U.S. pilots wont be armed
Pray tell: What would the logical and viable alternatives to having an armed cockpit as a LAST line of defense be?
I guess that many of you are comfortable with the aircraft being blown out from underneath you.
Interesting to note that no-one has commented on the history re-cap.
Please enlighten me as to how my logic is flawed.
I guess that many of you are comfortable with the aircraft being blown out from underneath you.
Interesting to note that no-one has commented on the history re-cap.
Please enlighten me as to how my logic is flawed.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grand Prix,
I can see that you're getting a little wigged-out about this; allow me to recommend taking your mind off it with a lighthearted reminder to your mechanics about the need to clean up after themselves, when they're finished working in your cockpit. You know what dirty little monkeys we can be.
Now, me, I'm pretty good about ensuring that I have all my equipment with me when I'm finished--'cause that stuff's expensive--but some mechanics are just downright careless...
I can see that you're getting a little wigged-out about this; allow me to recommend taking your mind off it with a lighthearted reminder to your mechanics about the need to clean up after themselves, when they're finished working in your cockpit. You know what dirty little monkeys we can be.
Now, me, I'm pretty good about ensuring that I have all my equipment with me when I'm finished--'cause that stuff's expensive--but some mechanics are just downright careless...
Last edited by mriya225; 24th May 2002 at 19:39.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The views divide depending on which side of the ocean you are from. By and large the Europeans are more willing to accept civilian casualties and react after the fact, and the Americans want something done proactively before it happens.
Its a different way of looking at life but it seams to sum up position on this, gun control, and the middle east.
Cheers
Wino
Its a different way of looking at life but it seams to sum up position on this, gun control, and the middle east.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WINO
This time you have got to be kidding, It was the USs inability at organising any sort of security at check in, or any part of a US airport, that started this SH"T
THE AMERICANS WANT SOMETHING DONE PROACTIVELY, BEFORE IT HAPPENS.
Rearange this GATE, HORSE, BOLTED,
This time you have got to be kidding, It was the USs inability at organising any sort of security at check in, or any part of a US airport, that started this SH"T
THE AMERICANS WANT SOMETHING DONE PROACTIVELY, BEFORE IT HAPPENS.
Rearange this GATE, HORSE, BOLTED,
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okeydokey,
Lets rephrase that to say that Americans don't like to make the same mistakes twice, and won't continue with the same pattern that got them where they are today, and would be intollerant of an ongoing drawn out thing like say the IRA dispute...
And Nostradamus, EVERYSINGLE WEAPON USED ON SEPT 11 was completely legal to carry on any EU aircraft as well. Infact you could have BOUGHT them inside security at switzerland at the duty free shop or in London Heathrow at the Duty free shop.
What was exploited was not American security as no contraband was used in Sept 11. What was exploited was the same things things that you are argueing in favor of now! Complacency. "We don't need any extra measures." it worked up till now... It happend there but no, it couldn't happen here...
Cheers
Wino
Lets rephrase that to say that Americans don't like to make the same mistakes twice, and won't continue with the same pattern that got them where they are today, and would be intollerant of an ongoing drawn out thing like say the IRA dispute...
And Nostradamus, EVERYSINGLE WEAPON USED ON SEPT 11 was completely legal to carry on any EU aircraft as well. Infact you could have BOUGHT them inside security at switzerland at the duty free shop or in London Heathrow at the Duty free shop.
What was exploited was not American security as no contraband was used in Sept 11. What was exploited was the same things things that you are argueing in favor of now! Complacency. "We don't need any extra measures." it worked up till now... It happend there but no, it couldn't happen here...
Cheers
Wino
Not Manchester
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Salford
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, Wino.
Well you could have said that without the gratuitous remarks about Europeans, couldn't you?
If no contraband was used on the ill-fated internal flights on Sept 11, then the items must have been legal on US airlines as well, mustn't they?
Europeans place the same value on human life that Americans do, and are no more willing to accept civilian casualties.
We (generally) don't think that bigger and better guns are necessarily always the answer to every situation.
This is not America, but all that makes us is different.
Well you could have said that without the gratuitous remarks about Europeans, couldn't you?
If no contraband was used on the ill-fated internal flights on Sept 11, then the items must have been legal on US airlines as well, mustn't they?
Europeans place the same value on human life that Americans do, and are no more willing to accept civilian casualties.
We (generally) don't think that bigger and better guns are necessarily always the answer to every situation.
This is not America, but all that makes us is different.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WINO
Nailclippers, or THE USS NIMITZ I could of got them both airside pre 9/11 .
And as for the USA not making mistakes twice??
How many examples do you want
and I am not yank bashing, but you do leave yourself wideopen.
Nailclippers, or THE USS NIMITZ I could of got them both airside pre 9/11 .
And as for the USA not making mistakes twice??
How many examples do you want
and I am not yank bashing, but you do leave yourself wideopen.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nostradamus,
Plenty of guns and swords were stopped by security before 9/11.
The point is that the weapons used were completely legal, EVERYWHERE.
What has been proven is that a small group of lightly armed reasonably well trained people can overcome another untrained and unprotected group.
By burying your heads in the sand and refusing to lock the cockpit doors (Plenty of European pilots on the forum here saying that its unsafe to do so) you are just setting up for a repeat.
And remember, it isn't just the lives in the aircraft anymore. This is a whole new ballgame and anything that an airplane flies over is at risk, an I am constantly astounded at the lack of recognition of that fact.
Counting on the pax to stop it, that's funny. The only thing that does is increase the number of bad guys required (and not by a whole lot for that matter) The pax would be a help, but if 10 guys stand up who know what they are doing, the only the pax will be is cannon fodder. Yes I am grateful for PAX assistance, yes it is necesary. No by itself it is not enough to return to the way things were. I have flown plenty of empty aircraft since 9/11 where you could put 10 guys on it and outnumber the good guys. Happens all the time in the morning and evening.
And CASLANCE, YES YES YES YES YES! I have been saying all along that there was NO failure of security on 9/11 as no contraband was used. Security performed as was intended. What failed was a lack of imagination. Security was set up around keeping guns and bombs off of aircraft, as everyone only thought in terms of destroying or hijacking aircraft, not using them as weapons. Its easy, can be done again, and most likely will be done again. No one had the imagination before.
Cheers
Wino
Plenty of guns and swords were stopped by security before 9/11.
The point is that the weapons used were completely legal, EVERYWHERE.
What has been proven is that a small group of lightly armed reasonably well trained people can overcome another untrained and unprotected group.
By burying your heads in the sand and refusing to lock the cockpit doors (Plenty of European pilots on the forum here saying that its unsafe to do so) you are just setting up for a repeat.
And remember, it isn't just the lives in the aircraft anymore. This is a whole new ballgame and anything that an airplane flies over is at risk, an I am constantly astounded at the lack of recognition of that fact.
Counting on the pax to stop it, that's funny. The only thing that does is increase the number of bad guys required (and not by a whole lot for that matter) The pax would be a help, but if 10 guys stand up who know what they are doing, the only the pax will be is cannon fodder. Yes I am grateful for PAX assistance, yes it is necesary. No by itself it is not enough to return to the way things were. I have flown plenty of empty aircraft since 9/11 where you could put 10 guys on it and outnumber the good guys. Happens all the time in the morning and evening.
And CASLANCE, YES YES YES YES YES! I have been saying all along that there was NO failure of security on 9/11 as no contraband was used. Security performed as was intended. What failed was a lack of imagination. Security was set up around keeping guns and bombs off of aircraft, as everyone only thought in terms of destroying or hijacking aircraft, not using them as weapons. Its easy, can be done again, and most likely will be done again. No one had the imagination before.
Cheers
Wino
Last edited by Wino; 25th May 2002 at 03:51.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't come from either side of the Atlantic, but maybe you could get the USS NIMITZ airside before 9/11, but security airside in Europe could stand improving too you know. As the guys who got away with millions from Heathrow, before AND after 9/11. Security is Security, and NOONE has a monopoly on it.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a lot more to security than just screening handbags.
If that is the intended level of security, then ofcourse security has failed.
Gathering and reacting to intelligence are by far the most effective means to ensure safe airtravel.
In 1995 plans to hijack airliners and fly them into US landmarks was uncovered by the Philippines intelligence.
Was there any reaction to this information?. You be the judge.
If that is the intended level of security, then ofcourse security has failed.
Gathering and reacting to intelligence are by far the most effective means to ensure safe airtravel.
In 1995 plans to hijack airliners and fly them into US landmarks was uncovered by the Philippines intelligence.
Was there any reaction to this information?. You be the judge.
