- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Obama secretly ends program that let pilots carry gunsAfter the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.
Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.
The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.
This looks like completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots. The 12,000 Federal Flight Deck Officers, the pilots who have been approved to carry guns, are reported to have the best behavior of any federal law enforcement agency. There are no cases where any of them has improperly brandished or used a gun. There are just a few cases where officers have improperly used their IDs.
Fewer than one percent of the officers have any administrative actions brought against them and, we are told, virtually all of those cases “are trumped up.”
Take a case against one flight officer who had visited the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles within the last few weeks. While there, the pilot noticed that federal law enforcement officers can, with the approval of a superior, obtain a license plate that cannot be traced, a key safety feature for law enforcement personnel. So the pilot asked if, as a member of the federal program, he was eligible. The DMV staffer checked and said “no.” The next day administrative actions were brought against the pilot for “misrepresenting himself.” These are the kinds of cases that President Obama wants to investigate.
Since Mr. Obama's election, pilots have told us that the approval process for letting pilots carry guns on planes slowed significantly. Last week the problem went from bad to worse. Federal Flight Deck Officers - the pilots who have been approved to carry guns - indicate that the approval process has stalled out.
Pilots cannot openly speak about the changing policies for fear of retaliation from the Transportation Security Administration. Pilots who act in any way that causes a “loss of confidence” in the armed pilot program risk criminal prosecution as well as their removal from the program. Despite these threats, pilots in the Federal Flight Deck Officers program have raised real concerns in multiple interviews.
Arming pilots after Sept. 11 was nothing new. Until the early 1960s, American commercial passenger pilots on any flight carrying U.S. mail were required to carry handguns. Indeed, U.S. pilots were still allowed to carry guns until as recently as 1987. There are no records that any of these pilots (either military or commercial) ever causing any significant problems.
The Democrats want us to return to the fun old days of the 1990's and early 2000's, when islamic terrorists with razor blades could kill thousands of people.
The lunatics don't care about the people, they're ideologically terrified of the gun.
So, should pilots have the option of being armed, or not?
BTW, don't give me any guff about cabin-depressurization. That's an ignorant argument.
There is no such thing as "terrorism" any more, just "Man-Caused Disasters" just ask the new Homeland security director. :roll:
The Obama kills funding for the training:
(Of course not. It will be Bush's fault)
I simply do not understand the hatred of guns from the left.
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."
Payne said TSA officials have recently opened a training center for FFDOs in Atlantic City, N.J., with others planned to open in Texas and other states. She declined, citing security concerns, to say how many federal flight deck officers are authorized by the agency, citing security concerns.
"We have thousands of FFDOs right now and we add thousands each year," Payne said.
Representatives from The Washington Times did not return a request for comment. A White House spokesman declined to speak on the matter, saying it was being handled by TSA officials
In a statement issued Tuesday, the Airlines Pilots Association International -- the world's largest airline pilot union, representing nearly 52,250 pilots in the U.S. and Canada -- said the Times editorial "couldn't be further from the truth."
You should probably check stories like this against sources that aren't editorials and mouthpieces for the Moonies.
Federal Flight Deck Officer ProgramToday, more than 10,000 FFDOs protect the flight decks of our nation’s airliners and defend more than 100,000 flight segments per month. In spite of the program’s tremendous growth and value, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has relegated it to a “caretaker” status. TSA has supported the increase in FFDO ranks, but has not increased the funds necessary for logistical support and infrastructure. In essence, the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS), which administers the program, is provided only the minimal resources required to sustain it.
This lack of investment in and commitment to the FFDO program by its parent agency has resulted in significant deficiencies in the following areas:
...
Passengers aren't allowed to carry guns on the plane...why should the pilots be any different? They're trained to fly a plane, not kill hijackers.
I don't see why it would be a good idea for ANYONE on a plane to have access to a gun. If someone wanted to hijack a plane, it seems like it would be considerably easier to steal the pilot's gun than to get through security with one.
You mean outside of the minor fact that if only one person on two airplanes one sunny September morn had each been armed with a teenie-tiny .22 pistol, islamic thugs with razor blades would be dead, and not three thousand Americans?
Scarecrow Akhbar said:You don't see any benefit in that, huh?
Unlikely.
An exact repeat of the scenario is even less likely.
I have a question: Do you think random people should be allowed to carry weapons on the plane (provided they have the training and licenses and whatnot)? If not, what makes a pilot so special? Are pilots law enforcement officers now?
You mean outside of the fact that if the pilot wants to crash the airplane into the Atlantic Ocean, as that Egypt Air flight did in 1999, no one's going to stop him....but if he's got a gun it's harder to make him do it?
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Why shouldn't random law abiding citizens who already have gun permits not be allowed to carry their weapons onto an airplane? No good reason is visible, only pants-wetting reasons.
Passengers aren't allowed to carry guns on the plane...why should the pilots be any different? They're trained to fly a plane, not kill hijackers.
I don't see why it would be a good idea for ANYONE on a plane to have access to a gun. If someone wanted to hijack a plane, it seems like it would be considerably easier to steal the pilot's gun than to get through security with one.
I'm not worried about the pilot using the gun. I'm worried about someone else getting ahold of it...as it's probably easier to do that than to sneak a gun through security.
And why couldn't a random law abiding citizen with a gun permit hijack a plane and fly it into a skyscraper?
Incidentally, if it is so very easy to take someone's gun away from them as you make it sound, then the answer is simple: just take it back from them. After all, it's so easy to do that, right? (/irony)
Goshin said:I'm not entirely sure that passengers with valid concealed-carry permits, and suitable ammunition shouldn't be allowed to carry aboard,
Goshin said:but one argument for allowing the pilots/crew to be armed regardless is: they're responsible for the plane and passengers.
Goshin said:After all, we entrust them with a multi-ton vehicle capable of flying at 500mph, filled with tons of highly-inflammable fuel, and dozens of passenger's lives... entrusting them with a pistol seems kind of minor in comparison, given a bit of reasonable training.
Goshin said:As I recall, a lot of pilots are ex-military anyway.
I'm not worried about the pilot using the gun. I'm worried about someone else getting ahold of it...as it's probably easier to do that than to sneak a gun through security.
And why couldn't a random law abiding citizen with a gun permit hijack a plane and fly it into a skyscraper?
You mean bust into the locked cockpit without the pilot noticing it and picking his pocket unawares? Ya, that's certainly an incredibly plausible scenario.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Oh, wait...why does the pilot have the gun in the cockpit again? To stop people from breaking in and hijacking the airplane.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:hmmmm....looks like the cap'n's got the "sneaking into the cockpit to grab the gun" scenario covered.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:The other random citizens who have their own guns who want to get to where they paid to go.
There's that tendency I've noticed among most anti-gunners.
Goshin said:There's this strange assumption that an armed citizen would be unable to do anything effective in a crisis, despite tons of evidence to the contrary.
There's this further assumption that any armed citizen is likely to break out into full postal rage all the sudden and kill lots of people. Oddly enough, it is statistical fact that concealed-carry permit holders commit violent felonies so rarely that you might at well call the rate "zero".
Hijackers would have the advantages of surprise, a plan, and more experience with violence. The pilots would not.
So basically we'd go from a situation where no one can get a gun on a plane, to a situation where nearly everyone can get a gun on a plane. Which seems safer to you? Really?
The pilots and crew are responsible, respectively, for flying the plane and handing out the peanuts.
What kind of reasonable training?
Who is going to be flying the plane while the pilot and co-pilot are going Harrison Ford on the hijackers?
I have no problem with people owning guns.
I'm not worried about the average citizen with guns breaking into full postal rage. I'm worried that this would make it easier for terrorists to get guns onto planes as well, and/or steal them from someone who brought them on the plane legally.
If there's a battle for the cockpit between a pilot with a gun and four hijackers without a gun, my money is on the hijackers.
I think you severely overestimate the number of John Wayne wannabes on the average commercial flight. My money would still be on the hijackers winning that battle. :roll:
Goshin said:There's that tendency I've noticed among most anti-gunners.
There's this strange assumption that an armed citizen would be unable to do anything effective in a crisis, despite tons of evidence to the contrary.
Kandahar said:Hijackers would have the advantages of surprise, a plan, and more experience with violence. The pilots would not.
Kandahar said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Goshin
As I recall, a lot of pilots are ex-military anyway.
Irrelevant.
Kandahar said:I'm not worried about the average citizen with guns breaking into full postal rage. I'm worried that this would make it easier for terrorists to get guns onto planes as well, and/or steal them from someone who brought them on the plane legally.
Kandahar said:And why couldn't a random law abiding citizen with a gun permit hijack a plane and fly it into a skyscraper?
Picking his pocket? What are you talking about?
Hijackers on four planes managed to bust into a locked cockpit without guns. It must not be that difficult.
If there's a battle for the cockpit between a pilot with a gun and four hijackers without a gun, my money is on the hijackers.
When you care to address the arguments I actually made, instead of the arguments you wish I made, this conversation might be more interesting.
He's got the gun.
I think you severely overestimate the number of John Wayne wannabes on the average commercial flight. My money would still be on the hijackers winning that battle. :roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?