U.S. pilots will not be armed... (merged)

[PPRuNe Radar]

Many thanks to B Sousa for accepting that his words could be misconstrued or seen as unacceptable. The user account has now been reopened.

It is also fully accepted by PPRuNe that his intention was not to be racist but only that his choice of words was perhaps not the best in the circumstances. Any inference that the user is or was acting in this manner has now been resolved and I am personally glad that this has been found to be the case.

[B Sousa]

Capt Claret

Sorry to offend you. Its been resolved I believe. I shall not say bad words about the folks We are at war with anymore...

[mriya225]

Our war and your bigotries are two separate things Bert.

[Roadtrip]

Despite the naivities of some posters on this board, I dare say there is a vast majority of arab muslims that either openly support, or tacitly condone the terrorists actions against the west. Even in the UK, Europe, and the US, there are many hotbeds of sympathizers like the Englishman who tried to murder all aboard the American flight out of Paris and the Frenchman who allegedly conspired with the 11 Sep gangs.

Don't kid yourself. This war isn't over and won't even start to be over until we in the west get out of our PC denial.

[mriya225]

B Sousa,
My last came off sounding a bit more harsh than I'd intended. I hate to see people using this war to advance their hateful agenda--but I don't know enough about you to know if that's an appropriate criticism, or if you're just too ticked to phrase yourself more logically... It happens.

Roadtrip,
I agree to some extent--there's no shortage of people who despise and revile America in the Mid-East (or Europe, Asia, Africa and South America for that matter). And believe me, I have no sympathy for a willingly propadandized mind. But, I think those nations that have free press should be taken to task for an unnecessarily critical bias long before we start slurring people who live in terribly oppressive environments--the kinds of places where expressing dissenting opinions has nasty consequences to your health.
In any case, I maintain that we can conduct a war without becoming the same brand of zealously hateful monsters that we're trying to contain.

[mriya225]

neutral99,
I'm afraid I'm going to need some clarification on some elements of your post, if you'd be so inclined:

Quote: "But do you ever pause to consider why some people might "support, or tacitly condone" SOME terrorists actions against the US?"

My answer to this one is an unqualified "No". I sympathize with people who're not at liberty to express their revulsion--but that's as far as my feeble understanding will carry me.
Maybe it would be helpful if you provided me with some examples of what you consider to be "acceptable" reasons to approve of, or condone, illigitimate warfare that intentionally targets defensless civilians.

Quote: "This WoT won't be over until the US reconsiders its policy in the Middle East, stops funding Israel's military and terrorist actions against the Arabs and takes a more even-handed approach to its crucial super-power role."

This is perplexing to me on a number of different levels...

You fail to mention the extensive U.S. funding throughout the region ( MidEast Foreign Assistance--pdf ) principly to Egypt, Jordan and West Bank/Gaza; why is that? Is this information being factored into a comprehensive understanding of our fiscal obligations in the MidEast, or are you satisfied to focus exclusively on Israel?

And this issue, which has always confounded me...
I have yet to see one critic of our foreign policy where Israel's concerned acknowledge the ideological soundness of our continued support--given that they are the only democracy in the region. So, here we are--doing the very thing that people insist our foreign policy should be about, and yet it not only displeases you, but it is far and away the most contentious feature of our foreign policy. Would you care to address that glaring contradiction? And, furthermore, can you shed some light on why this criticism is supposed to compel us to betray an ally, given that virtually every other nation in the MidEast spends an inordinate amount of time spewing hatred not only towards Israel, but also towards the United States (including those that we assist financially)?

Unreal...

[B Sousa]

Mriya

ITs funny how fast We get off the topic. I think this originally had to do with Arming Pilots in the Cockpit.... Probably about time to kill this thread and take it all to Jet Blast....

I take it your a Pilot?? Your position on being armed in the Cockpit??

[Wino]

Neutral99

Can we have ONE thread without your anti Israel bigotry rearing its head. We all know you are anti Isreal... Nothing like lies and veiled threats of Israeli terrorism in the US to prove that. Start another thread in Jetblast if you want to tell lies about Israel, I will be happy to respond there.

And for the record it was NOT ME WHO BROUGHT THIS UP, I AM TRYING TO GET BACK TO THE THREAD.

Now back to the thread

The pilots should be armed.

Cheers
Wino

[mriya225]

B Sousa,
My not being a pilot doesn't mean that misfortune won't find us facing the same fate on an airliner one day...

Wino,

Now back to the thread

The pilots should be armed.

[John McLaughlin impression]Wrong. Pilots will not be armed, now or in the near future.[/John McLaughlin impression]

[Capt. Crosswind]

War against Terrorism

Suggest non aviators should not clutter up the thread & leave operational matters to those in the front line.

[Orca strait]

mriya225 -

I like the "we" in A-T Team. Wink wink, nudge nudge, you lads lay down in the pointy end and we'll try not to take you out when we storm the aircraft.

When the A-T Team arrives at the aircraft all previous measures (policy, intelligence, security and prevention) have failed. It is akin to practicing medicine by rejecting prevention and going straight to amputation.

For the non-aviators, there are many in the pointy end of the aircraft that had, and have, many more qualifications and responsibilities than just flying the aircraft, some of it highly classified.

Well said by West Coast:

Every time you get on an air carrier aircraft, you are putting your life in our hands. You trust in our abilities to get you from A to B. Arming pilots is just an extends our ability to do so. As hazards to aviation are recognized, pilots adapt to new procedures, and welcome new equipment to overcome them. Be it CFIT, runway incursions or hijackings, give us the training and equipment to try to overcome.

There are many tools in our toolbox and we must continually update and upgrade our tools and our skills, whether it is keeping a mountain from penetrating your windscreen to preventing some crazy barging into the flight deck (cockpit).

By the way mriya, some excellent political observations and comments.

Cheers
-----------------------------------

[Capt. Crosswind]

Armed & Fortified Flight Deck

Neutral99
My post was not directed at you 99,but at previous submissions.
You posted your comment while I was typing my post , so I came in after your post. Please accept my apology for seeming to complain about your cluttering the thread which you certainly have not done.

New Subject:
How's this for a typical example of the bureaucratic wiseass, taken from the recent hearings on the 9/11 tragedy.

Senator George Allen (R) Va. " If they had firearms,if they had a pistol to defend themselves or their plane,would that have made a difference ?"

John Magraw. Transportation Security Under Secretary
(who unilaterally has made the decision that pilots should not be armed & is trying to tin plate his ass as all bureaucrats do)

"Well it may have,but that's a lot different today than it was then"
??????????????????????
Ah - Say again all after 'Well' ?

And that, fellow Pruners, is the argument for not arming the flight deck!?

[GrandPrix]

Been earning a living for the last 3 days and still not one viable alternative to an armed cockpit.
Lots of diversionary fluff from the likes of Mriya, but no solutions.

[I. M. Esperto]

No-draw Magaw

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 27, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern



By Joseph Farah



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

With a stroke of the pen, one un-elected and unaccountable federal bureaucrat – whose name may not be familiar to you – recently ruled that airline pilots may not keep firearms in their cockpits.

His name is John Magaw, or, as I call him, "No-Draw Magaw."

Magaw's newest job is Transportation Security Administration director.

Last week, Magaw told the U.S. Senate that pilots don't need guns. He told the Senate pilots would be better off concentrating on flying their planes. He told the Senate he is considering allowing pilots to carry stun guns or collapsible metal batons.

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., asked the obvious question about how the tragic and devastating events of Sept. 11 might have been recast without such restrictions imposed on responsible airline pilots, most of whom are trained in the military.

"If they had firearms, if they had a pistol to defend themselves or their plane, would that have made a difference?"

Here is the incomprehensible, elusive, nonsensical response from Magaw: "Well it may have, but that's a lot different today than it was then."

Hello? Earth to No-Draw: Don't the American people deserve a slightly better explanation than that? Don't the victims of Sept. 11 deserve a slightly more thoughtful response? Don't the families of those victims in both the planes and the buildings deserve some straight talk?

Let me tell you a little more about No-Draw Magaw and his career path to what has become a critically important post in this security-conscious age of international terrorism.

On April 19, 1995, Magaw was director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. You may remember that date in history. It was the day the Oklahoma City federal building was bombed.

"I was very concerned about that day and issued memos to all our field offices," Magaw explained. "They were put on the alert."

As a result of that alert, no ATF field agents in the Murrah Building were killed or injured – even though they were the apparent target of the bombing. No one else in the building got any warning, so 168 men, women and children were killed. But no ATF agent got a scratch. Magaw did a great job of protecting his own that day, but he didn't do much to protect innocent civilians.

The next time I heard about John Magaw was a year later. In 1996, Congress passed a contemptible piece of legislation known as the "Gun Free Zones Act." It created a 1,000-foot "gun-free" zone around every school in America – thus ensuring the Columbines to come.

But No-Draw Magaw, still the ATF director, interpreted this law in an amazingly broad fashion – one that betrayed his persona as a gun-grabbing activist rather than a responsible public official serving the best interest of the taxpayers and under the authority of the U.S. Constitution.

Magaw expressed the opinion in writing to at least one member of Congress that "schools," in the case of the "Gun Free Zones Act," included "home schools" that are operated under state law. In other words, Magaw decided it was against the law for home-schooling families to own guns and equally illegal for gun-owners to home-school.

That wasn't the end of the No-Draw Magaw saga. In 1999, President Clinton appointed Magaw to another powerful and sensitive position – coordinating domestic terrorism efforts for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In other words, No-Draw was instrumental in planning national policy to prevent terrorism two years prior to the biggest terrorist assault in world history.

We know now, of course, that Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts were all devoted to rooting out an imaginary threat from Christian, right-wing, anti-government militia types. Islamist threats were systematically overlooked.

Why did Magaw keep getting these big jobs during the Clinton administration? No-Draw was a favorite of the former president. Before getting the job at BATF, he served as director of Clinton's Secret Service. Imagine the secrets such a man will take to the grave.

Of course, that may explain why he got such posts during the Clinton years. What else explains his continued prominence as a virtual dictator of command-and-control-style national security policy during the Bush administration?

Americans may elect new members of Congress. They may elect new presidents. But they can never, it seems, change the names and faces of the permanent federal bureaucracy, which, ultimately has more negative impact on our rights and liberties than all three of the supposedly accountable branches of government combined.

That's the sad state of American self-government today. As many as 95 percent of Americans may back the common-sense idea of guns in the cockpit, but the permanent government can simply flout the will of the people.

[Orca strait]

No Draw Magaw sound like a star candidate for the ever career sensitive Washington FBI Directors job...

[Orca strait]

People who carry guns in the performance of their duty:
* Agriculture inspectors.
* School Trustees.
* Armoured Car / Transport Guards.
* Bank / Institution Guards.
* Doorman at select Night Clubs.
* Etc.

Pilots? Craziest idea I’ve ever heard, they can’t be trained and apparently they have nothing of value to protect…

By the way, the first two are considered LEO’s and can carry their weapons on board a commercial airliner.

Here’s a previous post of mine that you may find informative:

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

Criminal Code Chapter C-46. 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. *

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

[Wino]

Neutral 99

I know of no such cases where the Israelis have pretended to be the otherside and carried out a terrorist attack, furthermore I certainly know of no case where they have committed terrorist attacks against the USA, like you infer. Just proves you are reading that Arab propaganda hook line and sinker like those obscene claims that 5000 jews didn't show up for work in the WTC. We all know its lies. To bad you don't. Even further too bad that you can't stay on thread.

PILOTS SHOULD BE ARMED.
Comment on that please Neutral 99 as that is the tread.

Cheers
Wino

[Delboy]

Alternatives to the arming of pilots range from improving security on the ground to unarmed combat and initiating an aerobatic sequence. Aeros in a 747 at 33000 feet sounds decidedly risky. Unarmed combat is best left to the SAS. I don't know whether the advocates of better airport security have yet realised, but all the publicity about security from our various governments is not to make our skies safer, but to mollify the travelling public. They like to think that something is being done and our politicians will not disappoint them.
The reality is that now all our nailclippers have been taken off us, the only people on the aeroplane with any weapons are the terrorists. Nice to see our governments making someone's job safer, even if it is not ours. Wouldn't want to see a terrorist being attacked by some nailclipper wielding
granny.
An organisation with the resources of Al Queda would have no difficulty fashioning weapons that could pass through security in the spines of briefcases. The next phase will be to ban all hand baggage. Once the terrorist has pulled his kevlar knife out of the lapel of his suit, we will then have to walk through security in the buff. Eventually, the simple straightforward answer will look so obvious. We shall arm the flight deck. Why didn't we think of that before we lost another couple of hulls to terrorist action?
The PC brigade are going to kill more of us with their blinkered views. Keep it simple. Give me a gun.
Incidentally, I am a European, or more accurately, a Brit.

[steamchicken]

hmmm...this "worldnetdaily" lot sound really objective and entirely unbiased...

[Orca strait]

steamchicken-

Hmmm... a wannabee with full comprehension of what it takes to gain and retain the commanders chair of an airliner...

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