In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Arming pilots
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Armed-pilot rule nixed after hijack briefing
Agency removed cockpit gun right despite July al-Qaida warning
Posted: May 18, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jon Dougherty
c 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
The Federal Aviation Administration rescinded a rule allowing commercial airline pilots to be armed the same month it received a classified briefing that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network may be planning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.
As WorldNetDaily reported Thursday, an FAA spokesman confirmed that its armed-pilot rule, which was adopted in 1961 in response to the Cuban missile crisis, was repealed in July 2001 ? just two months before the Sept. 11 attacks ? because in 40 years' time, not a single U.S. airline took advantage of it.
"In the past, FAA regulations permitted pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit provided they completed an FAA-approved training program and were trained properly by the airlines," FAA spokesman Paul Takemoto told WND. "That was never put into effect because no requests for those training programs were ever made."
He said the rule required airlines to apply to the agency for their pilots to carry guns in cockpits and for the airlines to put pilots through an agency-approved firearms training course.
But a congressional source told WND yesterday that officials with the FAA and a "variety of other agencies" were briefed about a potential terrorist hijacking threat on July 5, 2001.
"It's my understanding that the briefing that was done last year originally had representatives from the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI," and others, said the official, who asked not to be identified.
The Washington Post reported yesterday that officials from the Immigration and Naturalization Service also were in attendance and that the briefing was chaired by Richard Clarke, the government's top counterterrorism official, in the White House Situation Room.
"Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon," Clarke told the gathered officials, according to the Post.
It wasn't clear yesterday why FAA officials ? after receiving information that U.S. planes could be hijacked ? would still move to repeal a rule allowing pilots to be armed, even if the rule was underutilized.
It was also unclear whether FAA officials gave U.S. airlines specific information regarding the potential hijacking threat or whether the agency recommended airlines consider arming their pilots to protect planes and passengers after the briefing.
On Thursday, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told reporters that around June 22, 2001, the FAA was increasingly "concerned of threats to U.S. citizens such as airline hijackings and, therefore, issued an information circular." She said the circular "goes out [to] the private carriers from law enforcement ? saying that we have a concern."
The Post added that as late as July 31, the FAA "urged airlines to maintain a 'high degree of alertness'" ? levels of readiness that allegedly decreased by the time of the Sept. 11 attacks.
But Capt. Robert Lambert, a commercial pilot and one of the founding members of the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance ? a trade group that favors arming pilots ? said he wasn't aware of the hijacking threat discussed at the July 2001 briefing.
"I can't speak for [my airline], but nothing was passed on to the pilots," he told WND. "If such a warning were disseminated by the FAA, though, the Air Line Pilots Association should have sent out an alert."
Several messages were left for ALPA, but officials could not immediately be reached for comment. An Internet search of the group's website did not produce any statements or references pertaining to the July 2001 briefing.
WND initially established contact with the FAA, but a spokesman there abruptly referred all questions about the briefing to the Department of Transportation. However, DOT officials also did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
News of the briefing comes as the White House remains under fire by critics who charge that President Bush may have had advance warning of the Sept. 11 attacks. Reports yesterday said that the details of the July 2001 briefing weren't relayed to Bush until Aug. 6, 2001, while he was vacationing at his Crawford, Texas, ranch.
The president, however, struck back at his critics during a speech to the Air Force Academy football team at the White House yesterday, saying had he known about specific threats he would not have delayed taking action.
"The American people know this about me, my national security team and my administration. Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people," he said.
"What is interesting about Washington is that it's a town where, unfortunately, second guessing has become second nature," Bush added.
It was unclear whether the administration was aware that the FAA had rescinded its armed-pilot rule the same month it had received warning of possible terrorist-planned hijackings. Calls to the White House for comment were not returned by press time.
Meanwhile, a spokesman for Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the House Transportation Committee's aviation subcommittee, said the lawmaker continues to support a new bill that would allow pilots who volunteer for a newly created training program to be armed.
The bill, known as the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act, or H.R. 4635, also contains a provision that absolves pilots and airlines from legal liability should a passenger be killed or wounded during an armed flight crewman's attempt to thwart a hijacking.
"Congressman Mica has said if pilots could carry guns [40 years ago] in response to threats, they ought to be able to carry them now in response to today's threats," said spokesman Gary Burns.
Burns labeled as "quite a coincidence" the July 2001 dates of the briefing and the FAA's revocation of its armed-pilot rule. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27672
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Agency removed cockpit gun right despite July al-Qaida warning
Posted: May 18, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jon Dougherty
c 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
The Federal Aviation Administration 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.
As WorldNetDaily reported Thursday, an FAA spokesman confirmed that its armed-pilot rule, which was adopted in 1961 in response to the Cuban missile crisis, was repealed in July 2001 ? just two months before the Sept. 11 attacks ? because in 40 years' time, not a single U.S. airline took advantage of it.
"In the past, FAA regulations permitted pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit provided they completed an FAA-approved training program and were trained properly by the airlines," FAA spokesman Paul Takemoto told WND. "That was never put into effect because no requests for those training programs were ever made."
He said the rule required airlines to apply to the agency for their pilots to carry guns in cockpits and for the airlines to put pilots through an agency-approved firearms training course.
But a congressional source told WND yesterday that officials with the FAA and a "variety of other agencies" were briefed about a potential terrorist hijacking threat on July 5, 2001.
"It's my understanding that the briefing that was done last year originally had representatives from the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI," and others, said the official, who asked not to be identified.
The Washington Post reported yesterday that officials from the Immigration and Naturalization Service also were in attendance and that the briefing was chaired by Richard Clarke, the government's top counterterrorism official, in the White House Situation Room.
"Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon," Clarke told the gathered officials, according to the Post.
It wasn't clear yesterday why FAA officials ? after receiving information that U.S. planes could be hijacked ? would still move to repeal a rule allowing pilots to be armed, even if the rule was underutilized.
It was also unclear whether FAA officials gave U.S. airlines specific information regarding the potential hijacking threat or whether the agency recommended airlines consider arming their pilots to protect planes and passengers after the briefing.
On Thursday, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told reporters that around June 22, 2001, the FAA was increasingly "concerned of threats to U.S. citizens such as airline hijackings and, therefore, issued an information circular." She said the circular "goes out [to] the private carriers from law enforcement ? saying that we have a concern."
The Post added that as late as July 31, the FAA "urged airlines to maintain a 'high degree of alertness'" ? levels of readiness that allegedly decreased by the time of the Sept. 11 attacks.
But Capt. Robert Lambert, a commercial pilot and one of the founding members of the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance ? a trade group that favors arming pilots ? said he wasn't aware of the hijacking threat discussed at the July 2001 briefing.
"I can't speak for [my airline], but nothing was passed on to the pilots," he told WND. "If such a warning were disseminated by the FAA, though, the Air Line Pilots Association should have sent out an alert."
Several messages were left for ALPA, but officials could not immediately be reached for comment. An Internet search of the group's website did not produce any statements or references pertaining to the July 2001 briefing.
WND initially established contact with the FAA, but a spokesman there abruptly referred all questions about the briefing to the Department of Transportation. However, DOT officials also did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
News of the briefing comes as the White House remains under fire by critics who charge that President Bush may have had advance warning of the Sept. 11 attacks. Reports yesterday said that the details of the July 2001 briefing weren't relayed to Bush until Aug. 6, 2001, while he was vacationing at his Crawford, Texas, ranch.
The president, however, struck back at his critics during a speech to the Air Force Academy football team at the White House yesterday, saying had he known about specific threats he would not have delayed taking action.
"The American people know this about me, my national security team and my administration. Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people," he said.
"What is interesting about Washington is that it's a town where, unfortunately, second guessing has become second nature," Bush added.
It was unclear whether the administration was aware that the FAA had rescinded its armed-pilot rule the same month it had received warning of possible terrorist-planned hijackings. Calls to the White House for comment were not returned by press time.
Meanwhile, a spokesman for Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the House Transportation Committee's aviation subcommittee, said the lawmaker continues to support a new bill that would allow pilots who volunteer for a newly created training program to be armed.
The bill, known as the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act, or H.R. 4635, also contains a provision that absolves pilots and airlines from legal liability should a passenger be killed or wounded during an armed flight crewman's attempt to thwart a hijacking.
"Congressman Mica has said if pilots could carry guns [40 years ago] in response to threats, they ought to be able to carry them now in response to today's threats," said spokesman Gary Burns.
Burns labeled as "quite a coincidence" the July 2001 dates of the briefing and the FAA's revocation of its armed-pilot rule. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27672
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
Not all pilots would be armed under the terms of a compromise proposal offered by House Democrats and Republicans on Tuesday, but at least 250 of them would be. That, in combination with the presence of armed federal air marshals, might give would-be terrorists a case of the second thoughts. The greater the likelihood of encountering an air crew capable of defending itself and its passengers, the less likely that an attempt will be made to commandeer the plane. Terrorist thugs almost by definition choose "soft" targets and avoid places where people are more likely to put up a fight.
The compromise proposal, backed by Democratic Rep. James L. Oberstar of Minnesota and Republican Rep. John L. Mica of Florida among others, is tentatively scheduled for a full committee vote on June 26. If passed, the new law would create a two-year "experimental period" under which 250 pilots who have been through a training program devoted to the safe handling of weapons, anti-terrorism tactics and so on would be permitted to carry handguns and have them at the ready in the cockpit in the event the worst happens. The program also calls for an expansion of the number of armed pilots to 1,400 by the end of the two-year period.
While the idea of arming commercial airline pilots continues to face resistance in the Senate - as well as from, of all places, the Bush administration itself - this compromise deserves support. This isn't about wantonly tossing guns at pilots and wishing them well; it's about further careful screening and training of already well-trained and screened professionals who may be the last line of defense at 30,000 feet. Many pilots previously served in the military and are already quite familiar with the safe, effective use of handguns. Most want to be allowed access to perhaps the best and only means of self-defense against terrorists.
It's worth pointing out that, until fairly recently, pilots were in fact allowed to carry firearms aboard their airplanes - and did so with a perfect safety record. This was the case for many decades, and no one had a problem with it until the early 1980s, when anti-gun fervor resulted in a change in policy that prohibited guns in the cockpit - leaving passengers and crew virtually defenseless and arguably making the horrors of September 11 much easier to plan and execute. Had the pilots of those doomed planes been armed, it is very possible the attacks could have been thwarted or the damage minimized. The World Trade Center might still be standing.
Heightened security and reinforced cockpit doors are great ideas, but are inadequate by themselves. And while the air-marshal idea is wonderful, there simply aren't enough of them to provide the kind of blanket coverage that's needed for the program to be effective. Those pilots who prefer not to be armed would not be required to have guns under the terms of the proposal. But the open knowledge that many pilots have the means to defend themselves will certainly have a deterrent effect. Messrs. Oberstar and Mica's proposal is an eminently reasonable one that deserves the support of Congress and the Bush administration http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020621-67304.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Homeland Idiocy
So our pilots will finally get the option of being armed, starting in May.
However, before we start breaking out the sparkly and celebrate this unexpected outbreak of common sense in the TSA (Transportion Security Administration), we might want to take a closer look. Seems the TSA have managed to screw this pooch too:
Pilots criticized as unsafe the TSA's plan to require them to carry their assigned .40-caliber weapons in lockboxes through airports to aircraft. Pilots would prefer to carry the guns in holsters, concealed from public view.
"It won't take you long to figure out" which pilots have guns, said Dennis J. Dolan, chairman of a security task force for the Air Line Pilots Association. The lockboxes could make the pilots easier for terrorists and other criminals to identify, he said.
Why don't we just force the armed pilots to wear a big, yellow jersey saying "I'm Armed! Hijack the Other Plane!"?
And while we're at it, let's require the same of law enforcement. And the Armed Forces. Oh, and let's add trigger locks to the guns inside the lockboxes. And secure the lockboxes with a 32-digit alphanumerical code that you can only obtain by calling a phone number written in Sanskrit with invisible ink on the inside of a sealed envelope.
And keep the sealed envelope in another lockbox.
In Antarctica.
There. I feel safer already.
The agency and the Federal Aviation Administration are studying the effects of firing a .40-caliber handgun aboard an aircraft.
Without knowing too much about that subject, I venture to guess that the effects would be slightly less dramatic than those of a civilian airliner flying into an office building, but it's only a guess.
Let's make a study.
The TSA is also negotiating agreements with nations that have strict gun-control laws to allow U.S. pilots to carry guns on flights to those countries.
Heck, I can fix that one right quick:
"Hey, Jacques"
"Oui?"
"Our pilots are going to be armed and if you don't like it, we won't be flying to your ****ty little country any more. Oh, and your pilots won't be flying here, either. Got a problem with that? Thought not. Goodbye."
There, easy as A-B-C.
(Thanks to C.I.I. Fran)
Posted by Misha at 08:21 AM | Comments (16) | Trackback (0)
Ask Your Senators to Co-Sponsor S. 2554
While it's true that the Bush administration has been opposing efforts to allow pilots to protect their passengers by arming themselves, thanks to your efforts, legislation in Congress to allow arming pilots is gathering steam. (If you'll remember, we've done Action Items on this issue last September, then again in January, and finally in April.)
As the Gun Owners of America group (gunowners.org) notes, Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduced S. 2554, the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism and Cabin Defense Act of 2002, after the Bush administration denied pilots the ability to protect their passengers and crews. His bill would force the administration to let pilots carry arms in the cockpit and take away any discretionary authority from the Secretary of Transportation (a Clinton Democrat), who up until now has been working 100 percent against us.
Currently, pilots and airline passengers are defenseless against terrorist efforts to take over their planes. And, with F-16 fighter jets positioned to shoot down hijacked airplanes, it is only a matter of time until the current policy of disarming pilots results in another terrible calamity.
Please contact your Senators TODAY and urge them to cosponsor the Smith armed pilots bill (S. 2554). Click "Go!" above to send either a FREE email or -- even better -- an inexpensive "Extra Impact" HAND DELIVERY letter to your Senators NOW!
http://congress.org/congressorg/webreturn/?url=/sicminc/issues/alert/?alertid=251051
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
By RICHARD SIMON
Los Angeles Times
6/20/2002
WASHINGTON - Heeding arguments from pilots that they should be the "last line of defense" against airplane hijackings, the House on Wednesday moved toward approving a test program to allow them to carry guns in the cockpit.
Though a number of aviation security measures have been enacted since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration had decided against letting pilots arm themselves.
But pilot unions responded with intense lobbying on Capitol Hill, and on Wednesday the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's aviation subcommittee approved a measure to create a two-year trial program in which up to 2 percent of airline pilots - an estimated 1,400 - would be trained and deputized as "federal flight deck officers" with authority to carry guns in the cockpit. Flight attendants would receive self-defense training under the bill.
The subcommittee's approval makes it likely that the measure will pass the full House. But it faces an uncertain fate in the Senate, where the chairman of the Transportation Committee, Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, D-S.C., adamantly opposes the arming of pilots.
The Bush administration has not taken a position on the proposed test program, and the bill's backers are hoping that the White House can be persuaded to back it.
In a decision announced last month, the U.S. Department of Transportation rejected requests to let all pilots carry guns. The agency contended that pilots should concentrate on flying the plane and leave the job of fending off hijackers to federal air marshals. One of the security-related laws enacted since Sept. 11 has significantly increased the number of marshals assigned to flights.
But pilots inundated Congress with e-mails, letters and phone calls, arguing that guns in the cockpit were a necessary part of heightened aviation security. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., even received notes from pilots while flying, pressing their case.
"Of all the people who look at aviation security, there's no one that has more experience than a pilot," said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., subcommittee chairman. "Each day they see and they know the weaknesses of the system, and they are asking to arm and defend themselves."
Republicans are leading the charge to overturn the administration's decision. But a number of key Democrats have joined them, saying that guns in the cockpit might be necessary because of the time it will take to put other security measures into effect.
"Until we reach a point where we have a high level of confidence in our passenger screening system, I believe that (pilots have) got a very strong case to make," DeFazio said.
Pilot unions applauded the committee action. Duane Woerth, a Northwest Airlines captain and president of the Air Line Pilots Association, said the legislation was necessary "in light of the fact that our aviation security system is evolving."
But Patricia Friend, international president of the 50,000-member Association of Flight Attendants, complained that the legislation has "14 pages on cockpit defense, and a page and a couple of sentences on cabin defense." She objected that the bill failed to specify what kind of self-defense training flight attendants should receive.
Details of the test program, such as the type of firearms that could be used and where they would be stored, would be left to the Transportation Security Administration. Pilots would undergo background checks, and those who have served in law enforcement or the military would receive preference to participate.
Under the measure, airlines would not have a say in whether their pilots carry guns. The measure would shield airlines and pilots from liability for any damages from pilots' use of guns in response to a threat.
The number of air marshals assigned to planes is classified. But in advocating the test program, Mica said it is known that there are not enough marshals to put one on every plane.
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20020620/1021313.asp
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Why would we refuse their request? Why would we not be greatful for their willingness to help?
You tell me!
Save, research, then buy the best.Join the NRA, NOW!Teach them young, teach them safe, teach them forever, but most of all, teach them to VOTE!