Large Scale Central

Message on Cockpit Door: "Come on In"

General Discussion
#1

Listening to the radio this afternoon, I heard that President Obama has (very quietly) rescinded spending money for the training of airline cockpit crews in carrying and using firearms, in favor of increasing the oversight of airline personnel. I think this is another egregious attack on the American public, and clearly opens us to more 9/11 type of attacks, or worse.

If true, this guy has his head up his a$$. Why not just hang a sign on the cockpit door:

All Terrorists:
Come on in. We can’t and won’t resist!

Next time you fly, be sure to look carefully at the other folks on the airplane. On 9/11, the flight crews were not armed and were able to do little to resist the violent take over of their aircraft.

In the single known case of resistance (United Flight 93), the passengers were instrumental in changing the plans of the murdering Muslim terrorists. The three other takeovers were totally successful.

Since then, flight crews have been allowed to be armed at their own volition, and the Muslim terrorists do not know whether a bullet might await their intrusion into the flight deck. The training and support for this program has been federally funded.

Removing that threat to the murdering Muslim terrorists goes a long way to insure some future success for their “death to non-Muslims” campaign. We can only hope that President Obama has also secretly negotiated a truce with his Muslim friends.

Happy RRing.

Jerry

#2

Be nice if there was some actual evidence for this, instead of just some guy

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/federal-officials-deny-report-pilot-gun-program-end/

"Sterling Payne, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, denied the report and said the program that oversees a reported 12,000 federal flight deck officers (FFDO) is actually expanding.

“It’s inaccurate, this program continues to grow,” Payne told FOXNews.com of the editorial. “TSA continues to recruit and put new FFDOs on planes, and we continue to train them and do recurring training.”"

#3

Jerry,
I retired from international aviation in 2003, two years after 911. Unless things have changed in the last couple of years then I have never heard of a flight crew being armed (other than the Israeli airline) . Any passenger authorised to carry a weapon was required to have it stored in a lock box in the freight compartment. No weapons allowed on the flight deck.

    I have heard of many stories regarding El al,  the Israeli airline and it would not suprise me if their pilots were armed to the teeth (they were the first airline to have a locked cocpit door policy regardless of any happenings in the passenger compartment).  I receive a regular information booklet from our regulatory authority and to date have not heard of local changes to regulations.  A handgun would be simply not tolerated onboard an Australian aircraft (domestic or international).

    Random air marshalls have been a regular feature of domestic and international American airlines since 911.
#4

Well Tim, you are sadly (or perhaps happily) out of touch on this one.

Soon after 9/11, there was a significant debate (at least in the U.S.) over allowing flight deck crews to be armed (as in carry guns). At first there was government resistance to pilots being allowed to carry guns while on duty. This campaign was mostly carried out by the people who think the 9/11 murders of over 3,000 innocent civilians by Muslim terrorists didn’t happen, and another group who think the flight crews just need to talk nice to the Muslim mass murders and everything would have been alright. See this May 2002 report:

http://www.allbusiness.com/operations/business-travel/4271161-1.html

Common sense and the idea that there might be another group of devout Muslim terrorists wishing to partake of the services of whatever number of virgins are available after their last murder campaign, former President Bush signed an order stating that “. . . eligible flight crewmembers are authorized by the Transportation Security Administration Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service to use firearms to defend against an act of criminal violence or air piracy attempting to gain control of an aircraft. A flight crew member may be a pilot, flight engineer or navigator assigned to the flight”.

In December, 2003, Bush signed further legislation that expanded the program eligibility to include cargo pilots and some other flight crewmembers.

It is a big secret as to how many pilots actually choose to be trained and armed, but most studies say that around 40 to 50% of U.S. carrier flight decks have at least one armed crew member on board during a flight. If I were an airline flight crew member, I wouldn’t tell anyone except perhaps the guy in the opposite seat whether I was armed or not. I have three close friends who are senior flight deck crew with U.S. carriers. I have asked each of them whether they carry a firearm, and they all three replied with the equivalent of, “What do you think?”

Several reports today say that Obama and company are diverting money from the Federal Flight Deck Officer program to other programs in the same department. As I wrote above, I heard the report on the radio when I was on the road today. One of the first reports I found on the web is here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/17/guns-on-a-plane-obama-secretly-ends-program-that-l/

In his campaign, I was left with the idea that Obama believed in his ability to simply negotiate with those who would do Americans harm. I assume this disarming of flight crews is part of Obama fulfilling his campaign rhetoric. Note that Norman Panetta, Obama’s director of the CIA was one of the staunch opponents to the original attempt of pilots to arm themselves. Now he has the clout to make his cockpit open door policy a reality. The “We will just negotiate with these murdering Muslim terrorists” thinkers are firmly entrenched. At least until the next mass murder of innocent American civilians.

Happy RRing,

Jerry

#5

Alas, a Washington Times editorial that offers no proof is evidence of nothing. (The same could arguably be said for any article in the Times, but that’s another story.) C’mon–if Fox News is downplaying this, you know it’s a non-story. From the Fox report, it sounds like the program is going very well, and the government is looking to add some checks and balances to the program. That takes money, and they’re reallocating funds instead of simply printing more money to cover the costs. If anything’s front page news, it’s the fact that a government entity is actually being fiscally responsible.

Besides–you saw the outcry over the AIG bonuses. You really think for even a minute the flying public would let this slip by? Even the anti-gun-rights crowd generally likes the idea of guns in cockpits. Lord knows the pilots’ association would be the first to cry foul. It’s their heads with the targets on them. Any time the FAA or the airline industry does something that jeopardizes public safety, the Pilots’ union has something to say about it–and quickly. If it’s a story, you’ll hear it from them first, not on the editorial page of Moon’s rag.

Later,

K

#6

From 2000 to 2004 I was working on home remodeling projects for folks that were airline pilots for different lines. All were former military and knew how to handle weapons, and all gave me the, almost verbatim, answer Jerry received (neither admitting nor denying) when I discussed if they carried a gun in the cockpit.

#7

Anyone else recall the cargo plane that was brought down when a pilot angry at his company shot the flight crew and then himself? Yep, guns…the answer to everything. I want my pilot flying the airplane, not planning a gun battle in the cockpit.

#8

A single anecdotal incident. Do you drive a car on the highways? You take greater risks everyday than flying a berserk pilot. Why does the presence of a tool cause so many people to be so paranoid?

#9

I’d fly with this crew!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reRRgEET6Kw

#10

Here it is… http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL32022_09112003.pdf

Go to page 7, 43 dead. Then we can think of the USair pilot playing “Lone Ranger” on final approach who blew a hole in the cockpit while playing with his gun.

Sure David, single incidents.

You argument on driving a car dos not measure up, it’s comparing apples and oranges. How many hours of driving are there compared to the number of deaths? Do you really believe that if every hour one spent driving was matched by an equal hour of “gun handling” that your precious savior of society would still be as safe as you claim?

I believe in a person’s right to own a weapon, but the more I hear the right push for more guns, in more places, the more I am re-thinking my position.

Your suggestion I am “paranoid” by your post is indeed insulting. I have done nothing to you to warrant your insinuation. Your recent “let’s play nice” post is obviously long forgotten.

#11

I will apologize, but my question was an honest and general question. Why are so many folks “afraid” of an inanimate object?

Maybe your question should be expanded to; How many hours of flying compared to berserk armed flight crews causing deaths.

Removing Americans (I do not know where you reside) RIGHT to “…keep and bear arms…” is just as, if not more important than our RIGHT to speak out against our government (speech, press). To “…abridge…” any of those rights is tantamount to treason.

#12

I fear guns no more or less than I fear a car. Let me be clear…I do not fear a gun period. I do believe that all rights need to be abridged when they interfere with the rights of others. Your right to carry a gun ends when it becomes more of a threat to the public than aiding the safety of the public (for example, conceal while under the influence). If the belief that a drunk should not have the right to carry is treason then call me Benedict Arnold.

I can’t answer your question on how many hours of “armed flight time” has caused how many incidents. I do know this is a pretty new program so I can only “assume” that the number of pilots that have taken the effort to arm themselves is not that large given the training required. I also know that during the program it has not stopped an armed intruder but it has killed an aircraft windshield that was acting suspiciously.

#13

I understand your argument, but that would require Congress and the states to change the second amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

#14

I’m not afraid of guns, I’m afraid of the way they multiply the dangerous potential of jerks

#15

I really wonder if this is even necessary in todays environment.

Somehow I think anyone that tried to hijack a plane today with boxcutters and pen knives like the 9-11 terrorists did, would be attacked and beaten up so badly by the passengers that they would end up shitting sideways. It was passengers that attacked and subdued the shoebomber, and there have been other incidences where even mildly disruptive drunks have been subdued and restrained by their fellow passengers, people in the air dont take no shit anymore…the times of the submissive passengers is long gone.

#16
mike omalley said:
I'm not afraid of guns, I'm afraid of the way they multiply the dangerous potential of jerks
True enough, mike. But so does a knife, bat, etc., and as an honest, law-abiding citizen who is intent on defending myself and my family against younger, faster groups or an individual, a handgun is as the saying goes: "God made man but Sam Colt made them equal."

Any defense can be used once on a group wish to do damage. The same defense could be countered the second time it is tried. So the idea of discrete armed Air Marshals seated with the passengers is a deterrent even if one is not on-board.

#17

This is a tiresome argument. Bats, knives, rocks, garrotes, broken bottles: none of these things multiply the dangerous potential of jerks like guns do. Not even close. That’s why I support regulation of gun ownership

Cars are indeed potentially lethal–hence their ownership and use is both common and regulated

I don’t agree that regulation equals infringement, but that’s another story

For now, it seems we can lay to rest the charge that Obama has suspended the policy of arming flight crews, as was claimed in the original post

#18
Victor Smith said:
I really wonder if this is even necessary in todays environment.

Somehow I think anyone that tried to hijack a plane today with boxcutters and pen knives like the 9-11 terrorists did, would be attacked and beaten up so badly by the passengers that they would end up shitting sideways.


I would pay good money to see that! Can it even be done?

#19
mike omalley said:
This is a tiresome argument. Bats, knives, rocks, garrotes, broken bottles: none of these things multiply the dangerous potential of jerks like guns do. Not even close. That's why I support regulation of gun ownership.


Mike, you’ve got that all wrong. As my Drill Instructor, Sergeant Breen used to say, “Pity the poor fool who brought a gun to a knife fight.”

The order is not wrong. The weapon is the man, not the tool.