U.S. pilots will not be armed... (merged)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Out West
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
18-Wheeler-
A bit tough on Tripower there old boy. From what I've seen, a valid argument (debate) has been put forth by several sides. The freedom to debate one's views is one of the cornerstones of our society. As a result of the many inputs, maybe, just maybe, we can glean from the high points of all sides and come up with a viable solution to our present (in)security conundrum.
Resorting to personal attacks would indicate that your argument ammo has been depleted and you are now picking up rocks...
-------------------------------
A bit tough on Tripower there old boy. From what I've seen, a valid argument (debate) has been put forth by several sides. The freedom to debate one's views is one of the cornerstones of our society. As a result of the many inputs, maybe, just maybe, we can glean from the high points of all sides and come up with a viable solution to our present (in)security conundrum.
Resorting to personal attacks would indicate that your argument ammo has been depleted and you are now picking up rocks...
-------------------------------
Moderator
Thanks for the defense Orca, but since 18 wheeler can't argue a point logically, he resorts to insult and innuendo.......It's sad that people like him are in the aviation industry.....
BTW, 18 wheeler.
Is this the sentance that you are referring to? While I respect his FORMER position (scout sniper is a tough MOS), his statements re: firearms on aircraft show quite a bit of ignorance on this subject, which brought on my rhetorical question, "professional what?". Since I am a professional pilot, I do not comment on scout snipering.
Once again, I challenge you to refute (sans insult) ONE statement I've made on this subject or at least come up with some sort of viable solution to suicidal hijackers. BTW, what exactly IS your position in the aviation field? You CAN'T be a pilot!
{edit}
Never mind, after reading your website, I find that not only are you a pilot, but we have very similar backrounds and interests. Why one would want to attempt to get 500 hp from half an engine is beyond me though
.
Why the hostility for disagreeing with you on this subject? I have read every post on this and other threads, and still haven't seen any alternative that is as viable, effective or SIMPLE as arming trained pilots. If I sound like a broken record, then CONVINCE me that there is a workable, effective alternative. There are lots of issues to address, but none that are unworkable.
Insulting me or others that disagree with you makes you look bad. I am only assuming that you disagree with my position since you never actually counter any of my statements, just post insults.
BTW, 18 wheeler.
I sent Lowlight over because he's a former USMC scout/sniper and an expert with firearms
Once again, I challenge you to refute (sans insult) ONE statement I've made on this subject or at least come up with some sort of viable solution to suicidal hijackers. BTW, what exactly IS your position in the aviation field? You CAN'T be a pilot!
{edit}
Never mind, after reading your website, I find that not only are you a pilot, but we have very similar backrounds and interests. Why one would want to attempt to get 500 hp from half an engine is beyond me though
. Why the hostility for disagreeing with you on this subject? I have read every post on this and other threads, and still haven't seen any alternative that is as viable, effective or SIMPLE as arming trained pilots. If I sound like a broken record, then CONVINCE me that there is a workable, effective alternative. There are lots of issues to address, but none that are unworkable.
Insulting me or others that disagree with you makes you look bad. I am only assuming that you disagree with my position since you never actually counter any of my statements, just post insults.
Last edited by Tripower455; 30th May 2002 at 16:41.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Out West
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The argument to arm the flight deck or not needs to be put in context. The focus has been placed solely on the weapon, whether it’s sexy or not (too many movies, gun + attitude = bad a$$ mf). I’m a professional as are my colleagues. Command ratings are not handed out in holsters. Want to know what the next generation of First Officers have strapped to their hips? F-teen, B1, B2 etc., do you suppose a .45 will make them feel any manlier? As I’ve stated before in this thread, your aircraft Commanders and future Commanders come from a surprisingly “diverse “background.
I don’t want to have to be armed. Our job is about priorities, risk management, responsibility and authority. Those last two items are legislated.
Prior to 9/11 we had an entire curriculum on hijack response; unfortunately it was based on 1960’s scenarios; get the aircraft on the ground and negotiate. Things have changed. As Commanders and crew we could face the ultimate decision of sacrificing the entire aircraft to save a city block, or worse.
Put yourself in that seat for a quiet moment; think about the scenario, the people onboard, the people on the ground, the tragic events about to unfold. Now work your way backwards from that point in which you had to relinquish control of your aircraft. What tools, equipment and training would have given you the best chance to prevent that situation from developing to the point of no return? (And no; hiring 90,000+ Air Marshals is not the answer.)
Informed opinions would be nice.
---------------------------------------
I don’t want to have to be armed. Our job is about priorities, risk management, responsibility and authority. Those last two items are legislated.
Prior to 9/11 we had an entire curriculum on hijack response; unfortunately it was based on 1960’s scenarios; get the aircraft on the ground and negotiate. Things have changed. As Commanders and crew we could face the ultimate decision of sacrificing the entire aircraft to save a city block, or worse.
Put yourself in that seat for a quiet moment; think about the scenario, the people onboard, the people on the ground, the tragic events about to unfold. Now work your way backwards from that point in which you had to relinquish control of your aircraft. What tools, equipment and training would have given you the best chance to prevent that situation from developing to the point of no return? (And no; hiring 90,000+ Air Marshals is not the answer.)
Informed opinions would be nice.
---------------------------------------
Join Date: May 2002
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not tried to talk to you about flying, rather about the issues in become a combat handgunner who happens to flying a plane. But using your own words you reduce yourself to taking shots at me. I put this as simple as I could, I could tell everyone that a 230 grain .45 caliber bullet has a muzzle velocity of 835fps at the muzzle and 830fps at 50yards, but it starts to get dizzying. Needless to say you are under the impression that each armed person can keep their cool and control the weapon during an unknown stress situation involving humans not equipment, I have issue with that. You are one voice and actually the only voice I have seen debating the merit of this exercise. I have some pretty realistic life experience in CQB and know first hand the dangers of engaging in a gun fight in close quarters. Take your glock and glasers and go shoot a car door, if you think it is safe you sit on the other side and at 15yards I'll shoot it... I have seen a .45 go through a Honda Civic from the trunk exiting the front fender, at much farther. Glaser are telfon coated for a reason, to penetrate the leather jacket of a person and it expands when it hits the correct tissue density ie: the body.
The only real defense is a uncertain offense, if they don't know what to expect at any given time they cannot prepare for it. You seriously don't understand the resolve and experience of the people your fighting. I have seen written alittle too much here the worry about a missile up the tailpipe, if it gets to that point isn't it too late anyway? And if your spending money cannot these planes be equiped to be flown from the ground? (Albeit expensive, but possible?)
Defense works in perimeters, you have to have several layers, each insures the next is that much safer, the answers happen before anyone reaches the plane. That means, people who care about their job, devices in place to detect and prevent, training to identify red flags, alot more can be accomplished off the plane rather than on the plane.
Anyway, I think it is a combination more than a single sided solution. But I am just a former, and not really sure what I am saying, so what do I know... Maybe you should come over to Sniper's Hide we only have some of the highest trained people around the world there talking about the issues of putting rounds on target.
The only real defense is a uncertain offense, if they don't know what to expect at any given time they cannot prepare for it. You seriously don't understand the resolve and experience of the people your fighting. I have seen written alittle too much here the worry about a missile up the tailpipe, if it gets to that point isn't it too late anyway? And if your spending money cannot these planes be equiped to be flown from the ground? (Albeit expensive, but possible?)
Defense works in perimeters, you have to have several layers, each insures the next is that much safer, the answers happen before anyone reaches the plane. That means, people who care about their job, devices in place to detect and prevent, training to identify red flags, alot more can be accomplished off the plane rather than on the plane.
Anyway, I think it is a combination more than a single sided solution. But I am just a former, and not really sure what I am saying, so what do I know... Maybe you should come over to Sniper's Hide we only have some of the highest trained people around the world there talking about the issues of putting rounds on target.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just so you don't think I am blowing smoke about the training, here is newly released article with some insight to the threat:
Full Article
Hamid Gul, a former chief of Pakistan’s spy agency, said Hekmatyar should not be underestimated. Gul was closely allied to Hekmatyar during the 1980s Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and during the bitter factional fighting that followed the collapse of the pro-Moscow regime in Kabul in 1992.
“They should be afraid of Hekmatyar. He is a hard-liner, who has a large following,” said Gul, whose intelligence agency funneled millions of dollars in weapons to Hekmatyar during the 1980s war.
In 1992, when the U.S.-backed Islamic insurgents took power in Kabul and turned their guns on each other, Gul continued to be a strong supporter of Hekmatyar.
As prime minister of the feuding government, Hekmatyar fought bitterly with Defense Minister Ahmed Shah Massood, killed last September in a suicide bombing. Hekmatyar pounded Kabul with thousands of rockets until 1996, when he finally made peace with Massood and took power.
“They should be afraid of Hekmatyar. He is a hard-liner, who has a large following,” said Gul, whose intelligence agency funneled millions of dollars in weapons to Hekmatyar during the 1980s war.
In 1992, when the U.S.-backed Islamic insurgents took power in Kabul and turned their guns on each other, Gul continued to be a strong supporter of Hekmatyar.
As prime minister of the feuding government, Hekmatyar fought bitterly with Defense Minister Ahmed Shah Massood, killed last September in a suicide bombing. Hekmatyar pounded Kabul with thousands of rockets until 1996, when he finally made peace with Massood and took power.
Moderator
I have not tried to talk to you about flying, rather about the issues in become a combat handgunner who happens to flying a plane. But using your own words you reduce yourself to taking shots at me.
This is an important issue that hits very close to home for me and a lot of other pilots.
I put this as simple as I could, I could tell everyone that a 230 grain .45 caliber bullet has a muzzle velocity of 835fps at the muzzle and 830fps at 50yards, but it starts to get dizzying.
Needless to say you are under the impression that each armed person can keep their cool and control the weapon during an unknown stress situation involving humans not equipment, I have issue with that.
You are one voice and actually the only voice I have seen debating the merit of this exercise.
I have some pretty realistic life experience in CQB and know first hand the dangers of engaging in a gun fight in close quarters.
Take your glock and glasers and go shoot a car door, if you think it is safe you sit on the other side and at 15yards I'll shoot it...
seen a .45 go through a Honda Civic from the trunk exiting the front fender, at much farther.
theyare teflon coated for a reason, to penetrate the leather jacket of a person and it expands when it hits the correct tissue density ie: the body.
The only real defense is a uncertain offense, if they don't know what to expect at any given time they cannot prepare for it.
You seriously don't understand the resolve and experience of the people your fighting.
I have seen written alittle too much here the worry about a missile up the tailpipe, if it gets to that point isn't it too late anyway?
And if your spending money cannot these planes be equiped to be flown from the ground? (Albeit expensive, but possible?)
Defense works in perimeters, you have to have several layers, each insures the next is that much safer, the answers happen before anyone reaches the plane. That means, people who care about their job, devices in place to detect and prevent, training to identify red flags, alot more can be accomplished off the plane rather than on the plane.
Anyway, I think it is a combination more than a single sided solution.
But I am just a former, and not really sure what I am saying, so what do I know...
I am still waitiing for a reasonable, well thought out alternative to arming pilots.
Maybe you should come over to Sniper's Hide we only have some of the highest trained people around the world there talking about the issues of putting rounds on target.
Last edited by Tripower455; 30th May 2002 at 21:55.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's just say you did it again, and from the first posts?
Training with the local PD, would that be the one you refer to as "Podunk"?
I guess the question becomes, "how many others have your level of commitment to firearm training?"
You're arguments in the merit of an armed flightdeck still rings of a single threat, but that can be my reading of you words? I would hope that given this threat and the option to be armed the guys pick your plane out of how many thousands of flights so you can calmly pull off that series of head shots...
Moot point? That Glaser have a velocity of 1350fps, that max effective is well beyond 100 yards, and a miss still hits something potentially vital? (PS pretty sure the plastic is a form of telfon, hence the material penetration boasted by Glaser)
Anyway we are walking in circles here, quick question what happens the first day an off duty pilot shoots someone in a bar out of their home state? Litigation Hell anyone... Far worst than any terrorist threat, cutting into company profits.
Training with the local PD, would that be the one you refer to as "Podunk"?
I guess the question becomes, "how many others have your level of commitment to firearm training?"
You're arguments in the merit of an armed flightdeck still rings of a single threat, but that can be my reading of you words? I would hope that given this threat and the option to be armed the guys pick your plane out of how many thousands of flights so you can calmly pull off that series of head shots...
Moot point? That Glaser have a velocity of 1350fps, that max effective is well beyond 100 yards, and a miss still hits something potentially vital? (PS pretty sure the plastic is a form of telfon, hence the material penetration boasted by Glaser)
Anyway we are walking in circles here, quick question what happens the first day an off duty pilot shoots someone in a bar out of their home state? Litigation Hell anyone... Far worst than any terrorist threat, cutting into company profits.
Moderator
Let's just say you did it again, and from the first posts?
Training with the local PD, would that be the one you refer to as "Podunk"?
I guess the question becomes, "how many others have your level of commitment to firearm training?"
You're arguments in the merit of an armed flightdeck still rings of a single threat, but that can be my reading of you words?
In the case of another 9/11 type hijacking, there is simply no other effective way to prevent the aircraft from being used as a missile, save the aforementioned future new hire in the f-teen, and that is not assured either..
I would hope that given this threat and the option to be armed the guys pick your plane out of how many thousands of flights so you can calmly pull off that series of head shots...
Moot point? That Glaser have a velocity of 1350fps, that max effective is well beyond 100 yards, and a miss still hits something potentially vital? (PS pretty sure the plastic is a form of telfon, hence the material penetration boasted by Glaser)
Anyway we are walking in circles here, quick question what happens the first day an off duty pilot shoots someone in a bar out of their home state? Litigation Hell anyone... Far worst than any terrorist threat, cutting into company profits.
Heck,I've had a ccw for my entire adult life. Guess what? I've never shot anyone, nor have I ever had an AD. Ever. And I am a pilot that is often off duty. I won't carry in a bar though.....
The question you should ask is what happens when an off duty sky marshall shoots someone in a bar.............we'd fall under the same bureaucratic umbrella.........
Long before 9/11 and this talk of arming pilots, I used to joke that the only person more dangerous than a pilot with a gun, is a cop with a gun. This stems from years of being around cops and firearms............
Join Date: May 2002
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would an off duty pilot shoot someone in a bar (other than the ex Marine types.... KIDDING!). Why would you think that pilots are any less responsible than say, the average postal inspector, podunk cop, soldier, fbi agent, USDA chicken inspector etc, etc,etc,etc.......... If it did happen, then the litigation hell you describe would likely be true, and for good reason. But it would be the Feds that authorize and train us, so, who gets sued?
Oh, and trust me you did, about 3 times.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radio show to talk - guns and pilots
Reporter Jon Dougherty guest on national program tomorrow
------------------------------------------
Posted: May 30, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Nita Brown
Tomorrow morning, WorldNetDaily columnist and reporter Jon Dougherty will join Phil Paleologos, host of the "American Breakfast" radio program, to discuss the arming of commercial airline pilots as a deterrent to terrorist hijackings.
Dougherty wrote a series of exclusive reports on the issue of arming pilots in the aftermath of Sept. 11 attacks, chronicling the progression of Federal Aviation Administration rulings that permitted, then later banned, commercial airline pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit.
According to Dougherty's reports, the FAA rescinded a rule allowing commercial airline pilots to be armed the same month it received a classified briefing that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network may be planning hijackings of U.S. airliners. His exclusive stories include: "FAA began 'disarming' pilots in '87," "Armed-pilot rule nixed after hijack briefing" and "Armed pilots banned 2 months before 9-11."
see link
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=27779
Reporter Jon Dougherty guest on national program tomorrow
------------------------------------------
Posted: May 30, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Nita Brown
Tomorrow morning, WorldNetDaily columnist and reporter Jon Dougherty will join Phil Paleologos, host of the "American Breakfast" radio program, to discuss the arming of commercial airline pilots as a deterrent to terrorist hijackings.
Dougherty wrote a series of exclusive reports on the issue of arming pilots in the aftermath of Sept. 11 attacks, chronicling the progression of Federal Aviation Administration rulings that permitted, then later banned, commercial airline pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit.
According to Dougherty's reports, the FAA rescinded a rule allowing commercial airline pilots to be armed the same month it received a classified briefing that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network may be planning hijackings of U.S. airliners. His exclusive stories include: "FAA began 'disarming' pilots in '87," "Armed-pilot rule nixed after hijack briefing" and "Armed pilots banned 2 months before 9-11."
see link
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=27779
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope,
its not the antigun lobby I think.
What I think is that it is a scope issue for the police/TSA. They want to be seen as incharge and that gun on their hip makes em special. Lord knows the TSA aint doin much else.
Cheers
Wino
its not the antigun lobby I think.
What I think is that it is a scope issue for the police/TSA. They want to be seen as incharge and that gun on their hip makes em special. Lord knows the TSA aint doin much else.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armed Pilots
You're right Wino - In fact I believe the anti gun lobby are in favour of arming pilots or are at least ambivalent.
It seems the rear echelon bureaucrats are the problem and are trying to tinplate their asses now they are under the spotlight.
If they now approve arming pilots the next question is "then why weren't they armed years ago". Or in the case of the FAA at least after the warnings of increased risk months prior to 9/11.
It seems the rear echelon bureaucrats are the problem and are trying to tinplate their asses now they are under the spotlight.
If they now approve arming pilots the next question is "then why weren't they armed years ago". Or in the case of the FAA at least after the warnings of increased risk months prior to 9/11.
Last edited by Capt. Crosswind; 31st May 2002 at 03:49.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its even worse.
Why was the authority to carry guns removed AFTER the first rumblings of an impending action by Alqueada (before 9/11) was received by the FAA.
Isnt it amazing that not one person in government or the airlines or law enforcement resigned or been demoted over 9/11? During Pearl Harbor as Admiral King surveyed the wreckage he demoted himself by a star or two and then was further picked on by congress. He wasn't more or less cleared to well after WWII.
Infact, the incompentant have gained power over this.
Cheers
Wino
Why was the authority to carry guns removed AFTER the first rumblings of an impending action by Alqueada (before 9/11) was received by the FAA.
Isnt it amazing that not one person in government or the airlines or law enforcement resigned or been demoted over 9/11? During Pearl Harbor as Admiral King surveyed the wreckage he demoted himself by a star or two and then was further picked on by congress. He wasn't more or less cleared to well after WWII.
Infact, the incompentant have gained power over this.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino,
I share your interest in the conspicuous lack of demotions and outright firings over this extraordinary series of systemic "lapses"...
Looks like they've chosen FBI Director Meuller to take it on the chin for the lot of them--in spite of the fact that he'd been on the job for less than two weeks before the tragedy occured.
This administration has repeatedly stonewalled and rejected the value of any investigation into the events that preceeded 9/11--which I find phenomenally suspect.
I think the reason nobody's been canned is because they had, indeed, advised the Vice President and the President that the possibility for something like this to happen was getting more and more real--with every passing day. I think their collosal arrogance got the better of them and they blew it off, in favor of granting "wishes" and operating effectively like a governmental arm of the oil and gas industry to keep the pockets of friends and family well lined---that's what I think.
Now, think back--to that look on Cheney's face when he was talking about the directive to shoot down flt93--remember that look of tough resolution... See if that doesn't make your stomache turn, in the wake of the possibility that they had been forewarned--but opted, instead, to dedicate their energy elsewhere.
I don't know why this was suddenly rescinded--I were going to pull meaningless regulations off of the FAA's books, I wouldn't have started there... But, whatever.
What troubles me, is that we're already seeing signs of people becoming too confident: American Airlines CEO Urges Some Airport Security Measures Be Dropped
Excerpt:
"It will be a hollow victory indeed if the system we end up with is so onerous and so difficult that air travel, while obviously more secure, becomes more trouble for the average person than it is worth," Carty said in a speech to the American Chamber of Commerce in Tokyo.
Carty, who was in Japan to meet with business officials, said the airlines and the U.S. government improved airport security swiftly after the Sept. 11 attacks. In hindsight, as with many hastily made decisions, some aspects need changing, he said.
He said screening passengers at the gate after doing so at the security checkpoint merely added to costs and customer hassles.
"With the amount of security that we have in the aviation system today, the likelihood of a terrorist choosing aviation as the venue for future attack is very low," Carty said. "When you compare security across various potential venues, the airline industry is enormously well secured."
And then, he contradicts himself:
Carty said he was not opposed to pilots' having handguns in cockpits, but that priority should be given to other security measures such as screening passengers. Earlier this week, the U.S. government decided against allowing firearms in cockpits.
Carty didn't mention other specific measures he felt should be dropped.
I share your interest in the conspicuous lack of demotions and outright firings over this extraordinary series of systemic "lapses"...
Looks like they've chosen FBI Director Meuller to take it on the chin for the lot of them--in spite of the fact that he'd been on the job for less than two weeks before the tragedy occured.
This administration has repeatedly stonewalled and rejected the value of any investigation into the events that preceeded 9/11--which I find phenomenally suspect.
I think the reason nobody's been canned is because they had, indeed, advised the Vice President and the President that the possibility for something like this to happen was getting more and more real--with every passing day. I think their collosal arrogance got the better of them and they blew it off, in favor of granting "wishes" and operating effectively like a governmental arm of the oil and gas industry to keep the pockets of friends and family well lined---that's what I think.
Now, think back--to that look on Cheney's face when he was talking about the directive to shoot down flt93--remember that look of tough resolution... See if that doesn't make your stomache turn, in the wake of the possibility that they had been forewarned--but opted, instead, to dedicate their energy elsewhere.
I don't know why this was suddenly rescinded--I were going to pull meaningless regulations off of the FAA's books, I wouldn't have started there... But, whatever.
What troubles me, is that we're already seeing signs of people becoming too confident: American Airlines CEO Urges Some Airport Security Measures Be Dropped
Excerpt:
"It will be a hollow victory indeed if the system we end up with is so onerous and so difficult that air travel, while obviously more secure, becomes more trouble for the average person than it is worth," Carty said in a speech to the American Chamber of Commerce in Tokyo.
Carty, who was in Japan to meet with business officials, said the airlines and the U.S. government improved airport security swiftly after the Sept. 11 attacks. In hindsight, as with many hastily made decisions, some aspects need changing, he said.
He said screening passengers at the gate after doing so at the security checkpoint merely added to costs and customer hassles.
"With the amount of security that we have in the aviation system today, the likelihood of a terrorist choosing aviation as the venue for future attack is very low," Carty said. "When you compare security across various potential venues, the airline industry is enormously well secured."
And then, he contradicts himself:
Carty said he was not opposed to pilots' having handguns in cockpits, but that priority should be given to other security measures such as screening passengers. Earlier this week, the U.S. government decided against allowing firearms in cockpits.
Carty didn't mention other specific measures he felt should be dropped.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would Mohamed Atta object to armed pilots?
---------------------------------------------------------
In a new safety initiative, the Department of Transportation has instituted an affirmative-action program for Arabs interested in pursuing careers in aviation. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta explained the security advantages of the program, saying, "surrendering to discrimination makes us no different than the terrorists."
Since you can't tell these days: This is not, in the strict sense, true. It is true, however, that the department has prohibited pilots from carrying guns and has rejected the idea of a "trusted traveler" program. In fact, it's not doing anything to make the airlines any safer. This should come as no surprise, inasmuch as Mineta recently said he was unaware of any "specific" threat against aviation.
They hate us. They're trying to kill us. They use airplanes as weapons. If Mineta doesn't talk to his boss, can't he at least read the papers?
In congressional testimony last week, Mineta mercifully spared the senators a recap of his experience in a Japanese internment camp and allowed his assistant, longtime Bush crony and ATF apologist John Magaw, to explain the department's key security improvements. The reason Magaw decided to prohibit pilots from having guns is – and I quote – "they really need to be in control of that aircraft."
This is literally the stupidest thing I've heard in my entire life.
It is like saying women walking home late at night in dangerous neighborhoods shouldn't carry guns (or mace, for the gunphobic) because they "really need to be getting home." If the undersecretary for transportation security thinks we need to debate whether pilots "really need to be in control of the aircraft," someone other than him really needs to be in control of airline security.
The scenario under which a gun might become useful for a pilot is this: The hijackers have penetrated the locked cockpit and thwarted air marshals, passengers and crew. It's going to be difficult for the pilot to fly the plane after the cockpit has been stormed by Arabs. Whatever could go wrong at that point – a wounded passenger, a hole in the side of the plane, terrorists wresting control of the gun – is better than the alternative.
Ah, but Magaw is worried that the terrorists will now have a pistol. Think of havoc they could wreak with a gun. Of course, they'll also have a Boeing 767 careening at 480 miles per hour toward the nearest landmark building. Magaw seems to think the real danger is that terrorists will shoot at the White House from a window, not that they'll fly the plane into it.
Magaw is the worst kind of government bureaucrat. He defends fascistic government abuses – but the trains still don't run on time. Fascism is at least supposed to keep the citizenry safe.
As the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Magaw famously justified an unprovoked government assault against Randy Weaver and his family, culminating in the murder of Weaver's wife. In testimony before a Senate committee investigating the raid at Ruby Ridge, Magaw stubbornly refused to admit the ATF had done anything wrong whatsoever.
Indeed, he even refused to acknowledge a jury verdict finding that the government had entrapped Weaver. Of the jury's verdict, Magaw said: "Do you believe Randy Weaver – or do you believe the federal agents who have sworn to tell the truth and are carrying out a career in this government?"
If only airline pilots worked for the government! Then Magaw would not only allow them to tussle with terrorists, but they would also be free to gun down innocent Americans without criticism. (The Senate report found Magaw's testimony not credible and recommended abolition of his entire agency.)
Magaw's other airline safety improvement was to reject the idea of a "trusted traveler" program, which would allow passengers to avoid three-hour airport security lines after submitting to an intrusive background check by the government. As reported by the New York Times, Magaw spurned the trusted traveler idea on the ground that "he is not sure who could safely be given the card."
I don't know, how about ... NO ARABS? (Religion-of-Peace Update: As they prepare to stone a rape victim to death in Pakistan, the latest suicide bombing in Israel claimed the lives of a grandmother and her 18-month old granddaughter.)
Amazingly, President Bush has actually found someone even dumber than Norman Mineta to secure the nation's airlines. The secretary of transportation is the only person on the face of the globe who thinks the airlines face no terrorist threat, and his deputy – by his own admission – hasn't the first idea which airline passengers can be "trusted."
If these guys were doing their jobs right, Congress would be reining them in, civil libertarians would be screaming, and professional ethnic complainers would be holding candlelight vigils and singing "We Shall Overcome." Instead, Congress is forced to pass laws overruling Mineta and Magaw, civil libertarians are scratching their heads wondering why profiling is prohibited, and professional complainers are sending them flowers.
Maybe somebody else should be doing this job.
written by Ann Coulter, well-known for her television appearances as a political analyst, is an attorney and author of
"High Crimes and Misdemeanors." about Bill Clinton.
---------------------------------------------------------
In a new safety initiative, the Department of Transportation has instituted an affirmative-action program for Arabs interested in pursuing careers in aviation. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta explained the security advantages of the program, saying, "surrendering to discrimination makes us no different than the terrorists."
Since you can't tell these days: This is not, in the strict sense, true. It is true, however, that the department has prohibited pilots from carrying guns and has rejected the idea of a "trusted traveler" program. In fact, it's not doing anything to make the airlines any safer. This should come as no surprise, inasmuch as Mineta recently said he was unaware of any "specific" threat against aviation.
They hate us. They're trying to kill us. They use airplanes as weapons. If Mineta doesn't talk to his boss, can't he at least read the papers?
In congressional testimony last week, Mineta mercifully spared the senators a recap of his experience in a Japanese internment camp and allowed his assistant, longtime Bush crony and ATF apologist John Magaw, to explain the department's key security improvements. The reason Magaw decided to prohibit pilots from having guns is – and I quote – "they really need to be in control of that aircraft."
This is literally the stupidest thing I've heard in my entire life.
It is like saying women walking home late at night in dangerous neighborhoods shouldn't carry guns (or mace, for the gunphobic) because they "really need to be getting home." If the undersecretary for transportation security thinks we need to debate whether pilots "really need to be in control of the aircraft," someone other than him really needs to be in control of airline security.
The scenario under which a gun might become useful for a pilot is this: The hijackers have penetrated the locked cockpit and thwarted air marshals, passengers and crew. It's going to be difficult for the pilot to fly the plane after the cockpit has been stormed by Arabs. Whatever could go wrong at that point – a wounded passenger, a hole in the side of the plane, terrorists wresting control of the gun – is better than the alternative.
Ah, but Magaw is worried that the terrorists will now have a pistol. Think of havoc they could wreak with a gun. Of course, they'll also have a Boeing 767 careening at 480 miles per hour toward the nearest landmark building. Magaw seems to think the real danger is that terrorists will shoot at the White House from a window, not that they'll fly the plane into it.
Magaw is the worst kind of government bureaucrat. He defends fascistic government abuses – but the trains still don't run on time. Fascism is at least supposed to keep the citizenry safe.
As the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Magaw famously justified an unprovoked government assault against Randy Weaver and his family, culminating in the murder of Weaver's wife. In testimony before a Senate committee investigating the raid at Ruby Ridge, Magaw stubbornly refused to admit the ATF had done anything wrong whatsoever.
Indeed, he even refused to acknowledge a jury verdict finding that the government had entrapped Weaver. Of the jury's verdict, Magaw said: "Do you believe Randy Weaver – or do you believe the federal agents who have sworn to tell the truth and are carrying out a career in this government?"
If only airline pilots worked for the government! Then Magaw would not only allow them to tussle with terrorists, but they would also be free to gun down innocent Americans without criticism. (The Senate report found Magaw's testimony not credible and recommended abolition of his entire agency.)
Magaw's other airline safety improvement was to reject the idea of a "trusted traveler" program, which would allow passengers to avoid three-hour airport security lines after submitting to an intrusive background check by the government. As reported by the New York Times, Magaw spurned the trusted traveler idea on the ground that "he is not sure who could safely be given the card."
I don't know, how about ... NO ARABS? (Religion-of-Peace Update: As they prepare to stone a rape victim to death in Pakistan, the latest suicide bombing in Israel claimed the lives of a grandmother and her 18-month old granddaughter.)
Amazingly, President Bush has actually found someone even dumber than Norman Mineta to secure the nation's airlines. The secretary of transportation is the only person on the face of the globe who thinks the airlines face no terrorist threat, and his deputy – by his own admission – hasn't the first idea which airline passengers can be "trusted."
If these guys were doing their jobs right, Congress would be reining them in, civil libertarians would be screaming, and professional ethnic complainers would be holding candlelight vigils and singing "We Shall Overcome." Instead, Congress is forced to pass laws overruling Mineta and Magaw, civil libertarians are scratching their heads wondering why profiling is prohibited, and professional complainers are sending them flowers.
Maybe somebody else should be doing this job.
written by Ann Coulter, well-known for her television appearances as a political analyst, is an attorney and author of
"High Crimes and Misdemeanors." about Bill Clinton.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 92
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 92
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arm The Pilots
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/p...20020529.shtml
Paul Greenberg (archive)
(printer-friendly version)
May 29, 2002
Arm the pilots
For reasons that remain impenetrable, if not just plain contrary, our inscrutable Department of Transportation continues to hold out against arming airline pilots. Why remains a mystery.
"Pilots need to concentrate on flying the plane," non-explained John Magaw, undersecretary of transportation.
But can you think of a greater aid to concentration on the part of the cockpit crew than knowing a sidearm is available should the cockpit door suddenly give way?
That kind of assurance clears away the mental clutter, and offers an answer to the unavoidable question that must now haunt cockpit crews. ("What do we do if the cockpit door gives way?")
Call it peace of mind. Arming pilots gives them a better alternative than crashing the plane with all aboard.
Why would anyone think that being rendered defenseless would help one concentrate? To quote one pilot: "How easy will it be for me to concentrate on flying an airplane when a terrorist breaks through the cockpit door and tries to slit my throat?"
A Beretta in hand is worth any number of theories in the bumbling hands of the Department of Transportation and Obfuscation.
It's a puzzlement why a government that would scramble jet fighters to intercept a hijacked plane -- which is a polite way of saying blow it out of the sky -- would deny pilots a last chance to avoid such an explosive ending.
This administration, which is supposed to be conducting a war on terror, did agree to consider -- just consider, mind you -- allowing the crews to have stun guns. But nonfatal weapons lack something essential in dealing with terrorists bent on taking over an aircraft:
Finality.
Letting those pilots who wished to arm themselves could also have a clarifying effect on those planning to hijack an airliner and plunge it into the national landmark of their choosing.
How could the terrorists know which crews were packing heat? How could they hope to overcome it? Suddenly box cutters might no longer seem the ideal weapon. No wonder three-quarters of the country's airline pilots, according to one poll, want the right to bear arms.
We're told that reinforcing the cockpit doors will make armed pilots unnecessary. We're told lots of things. The stronger doors aren't even required on all planes until next April, and there's no guarantee terrorists wouldn't find their way into the cockpit even then -- either by determined assault or some trick.
To quote George Allen, the senator from Virginia: "The cockpit doors are still not as secure as a vault. What is wrong with having a last line of defense if something does happen?"
Nothing, of course.
The argument in favor of denying the pilots weapons tends to view arming them as an alternative to stronger doors or more air marshals or better checks on the ground. But armed pilots are but one more (ITALCS) additional defense, one more failsafe, one more insurance policy. It couldn't hurt and it might prove a crucial help.
But can we trust pilots with weapons? Goodness, we trust them with the whole plane, why not sidearms? All of those pilots who wanted to carry arms would be trained before being issued a semiautomatic, and undergo psychological testing if that's any comfort.
What might comfort passengers is knowing that their cockpit crew is armed, unlike those on the planes that were hijacked and turned into guided missiles Sept. 11.
Many of these commercial pilots are ex-servicemen who already have received weapons training. They wouldn't be novices at defending themselves. And others.
The case against arming airline crews doesn't really rest on its (nonexistent) merits, but ideology -- the sheer, reflexive, unreasoning assumption that Guns Are Bad -- all guns.
To the gunphobes, it doesn't seem to matter whether those firearms are in the hand of terrorists or pilots. The ideologues bent on banning guns don't seem able to differentiate between the two.
To quote Greg Warren, a spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration: "We have just spent the last eight months purging the airspace of potential weapons. It would be unwise to suddenly flood the system with 100,000 lethal weapons."
But doesn't it make a difference who has those lethal weapons -- the airline pilots or the terrorists? Nobody seems to have a problem with air marshals' carrying weapons. Why not pilots who will be screened and trained?
Imagine how differently the events of Sept. 11 might have played out if the pilots had been armed, or even if the terrorists thought they were. It's called deterrence. And just now the country can use all of it we can get.
Read Paul Greenberg's biography
©2002 Tribune Media Services
Paul Greenberg (archive)
(printer-friendly version)
May 29, 2002
Arm the pilots
For reasons that remain impenetrable, if not just plain contrary, our inscrutable Department of Transportation continues to hold out against arming airline pilots. Why remains a mystery.
"Pilots need to concentrate on flying the plane," non-explained John Magaw, undersecretary of transportation.
But can you think of a greater aid to concentration on the part of the cockpit crew than knowing a sidearm is available should the cockpit door suddenly give way?
That kind of assurance clears away the mental clutter, and offers an answer to the unavoidable question that must now haunt cockpit crews. ("What do we do if the cockpit door gives way?")
Call it peace of mind. Arming pilots gives them a better alternative than crashing the plane with all aboard.
Why would anyone think that being rendered defenseless would help one concentrate? To quote one pilot: "How easy will it be for me to concentrate on flying an airplane when a terrorist breaks through the cockpit door and tries to slit my throat?"
A Beretta in hand is worth any number of theories in the bumbling hands of the Department of Transportation and Obfuscation.
It's a puzzlement why a government that would scramble jet fighters to intercept a hijacked plane -- which is a polite way of saying blow it out of the sky -- would deny pilots a last chance to avoid such an explosive ending.
This administration, which is supposed to be conducting a war on terror, did agree to consider -- just consider, mind you -- allowing the crews to have stun guns. But nonfatal weapons lack something essential in dealing with terrorists bent on taking over an aircraft:
Finality.
Letting those pilots who wished to arm themselves could also have a clarifying effect on those planning to hijack an airliner and plunge it into the national landmark of their choosing.
How could the terrorists know which crews were packing heat? How could they hope to overcome it? Suddenly box cutters might no longer seem the ideal weapon. No wonder three-quarters of the country's airline pilots, according to one poll, want the right to bear arms.
We're told that reinforcing the cockpit doors will make armed pilots unnecessary. We're told lots of things. The stronger doors aren't even required on all planes until next April, and there's no guarantee terrorists wouldn't find their way into the cockpit even then -- either by determined assault or some trick.
To quote George Allen, the senator from Virginia: "The cockpit doors are still not as secure as a vault. What is wrong with having a last line of defense if something does happen?"
Nothing, of course.
The argument in favor of denying the pilots weapons tends to view arming them as an alternative to stronger doors or more air marshals or better checks on the ground. But armed pilots are but one more (ITALCS) additional defense, one more failsafe, one more insurance policy. It couldn't hurt and it might prove a crucial help.
But can we trust pilots with weapons? Goodness, we trust them with the whole plane, why not sidearms? All of those pilots who wanted to carry arms would be trained before being issued a semiautomatic, and undergo psychological testing if that's any comfort.
What might comfort passengers is knowing that their cockpit crew is armed, unlike those on the planes that were hijacked and turned into guided missiles Sept. 11.
Many of these commercial pilots are ex-servicemen who already have received weapons training. They wouldn't be novices at defending themselves. And others.
The case against arming airline crews doesn't really rest on its (nonexistent) merits, but ideology -- the sheer, reflexive, unreasoning assumption that Guns Are Bad -- all guns.
To the gunphobes, it doesn't seem to matter whether those firearms are in the hand of terrorists or pilots. The ideologues bent on banning guns don't seem able to differentiate between the two.
To quote Greg Warren, a spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration: "We have just spent the last eight months purging the airspace of potential weapons. It would be unwise to suddenly flood the system with 100,000 lethal weapons."
But doesn't it make a difference who has those lethal weapons -- the airline pilots or the terrorists? Nobody seems to have a problem with air marshals' carrying weapons. Why not pilots who will be screened and trained?
Imagine how differently the events of Sept. 11 might have played out if the pilots had been armed, or even if the terrorists thought they were. It's called deterrence. And just now the country can use all of it we can get.
Read Paul Greenberg's biography
©2002 Tribune Media Services