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: Common Sense Solution to Terrorists
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Arming Pilots: A Common Sense Solution to Terrorists
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 28, 2002
OUR WAR on terror is turning schizophrenic. Abroad we search out the enemy and attempt to destroy him, while here at home pre-September 11 political divisions and politically correct ideas have slowed us down. In the days following September 11 there was nothing that this country - its elected leaders and its people -- would not or could not do to combat those who perpetrated the attacks on America. Now, almost three quarters of a year later, we are coming face to face with the reality of Washington politics. The war on terror is costing us billions and common sense solutions are being overlooked.
Make Comments
View Comments
Printable Article
Email Article
The unity of purpose demonstrated by Representatives singing "God Bless America" on the steps of the Capitol after 9-11 has been replaced by partisan bickering and jockeying for position in the upcoming fall elections. The light in the Capitol was illuminated until 3 a.m. on May 24 as weary Representatives battled over parts of the supplemental spending bill for anti-terrorism. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX), accused the Democrats of retreating "from our responsibility to put politics aside when the time comes to strengthen our country." Yet, missed in all the name calling between Democrats and Republicans is that this legislation added another $29 billion to the original $40 bill appropriated last October is only for the rest of fiscal year 2002 - until October 1. This brings the total anti-terrorism spending this year to $69 billion dollars - a sum never contemplated before 9-11.
Part of the $69 billion pays for all those reservists who stood with fully automatic M-16 assault rifles at the ready while airline passengers went through an assortment of degrading exercises in body searches, rummaging through luggage, and even shoe removal before boarding an airplane. While being searched recently, I had time to wonder if those M-16 rifles were loaded. At some airports I was convinced they were empty, while at other airports I believed the Guardsmen were truly armed.
Now after the National Guard has been relieved of its airport security detail it has been revealed that in many states these were Barney Fife soldiers, who carried unloaded guns. According to an Associated Press (AP) report of May 26, 2002, "At 16 airports across the state, the troops were banned from patrolling with loaded weapons, according to guardsmen interviewed by The Philadelphia Inquirer for Sunday editions." Additionally, that same report noted that New York Guardsmen were equally unarmed. I can attest to seeing blue magazines in California airports. Blue magazines designate empty magazines in the U.S. military.
Yet, I also know that some National Guard troops that were issued ammunition and their weapons were locked and loaded. The AP story revealed that the Pennsylvania guardsmen were serving under the authority of the Federal Aviation Authority, an agency of the Department of Transportation.
Thus it came as no surprise that the Department of Transportation decided this past week that the last line of defense on an airplane, the pilot, can not and will not be allowed to have a firearm in the cockpit -- not even with an empty handgun. According to testimony by Transportation Security Administration head John McGaw on May 21 before the U.S. Senate's Commerce Committee, "The use of firearms aboard a U.S. aircraft must be limited to those thoroughly trained members of law enforcement."
But, according to the May 24 USA Today, "TSA officials acknowledged Thursday that they no longer require applicants to pass the more difficult shooting test that some argue was the program's critical requirement.The source estimated that as many as three-quarters of marshals deployed today were not required to pass the advanced marksmanship test. The source said that many of the proficient marshals are reluctant to team with marshals who haven't passed."
Now let me get this straight. An untrained air marshal with a loaded gun in the cabin is preferable to a trained pilot with a gun in the cockpit. What kind of crazy logic is our government feeding us? As a passenger I am certainly more worried about a poorly or untrained marshal sitting next to me, than I am about a pilot whose job is to get the airplane back to earth safely or prevent its being used as a flying missile.
As I wrote in my FrontPageMag.com article "Americans Trust Pilots with Guns" the American public and the Congress in overwhelming numbers want airline pilots to have the option to carry a firearm in the cockpit. It is time for the public to let their Representatives know of their support for H.R. 4635, legislation introduced by Congressmen Don Young (R-AK) and John Mica (R-FL) and the Senate companion bill introduced by Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) that directs the Transportation Security Agency to establish a program to authorize and train pilots to carry firearms.
Arming pilots is certainly a better solution to the problem of airline hijacking than spending billions on National Guardsmen with empty M-16s. It is a better and less costly solution that having F-16s flying across our skies to shoot down a civilian airline. Finally, the choice between a poorly trained air marshals sitting in the cabin or an armed pilot should be a no-brainer. Arming American pilots makes sense while saving cents.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/metaksa/2002/metaksa05-28-02.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
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 28, 2002
OUR WAR on terror is turning schizophrenic. Abroad we search out the enemy and attempt to destroy him, while here at home pre-September 11 political divisions and politically correct ideas have slowed us down. In the days following September 11 there was nothing that this country - its elected leaders and its people -- would not or could not do to combat those who perpetrated the attacks on America. Now, almost three quarters of a year later, we are coming face to face with the reality of Washington politics. The war on terror is costing us billions and common sense solutions are being overlooked.
Make Comments
View Comments
Printable Article
Email Article
The unity of purpose demonstrated by Representatives singing "God Bless America" on the steps of the Capitol after 9-11 has been replaced by partisan bickering and jockeying for position in the upcoming fall elections. The light in the Capitol was illuminated until 3 a.m. on May 24 as weary Representatives battled over parts of the supplemental spending bill for anti-terrorism. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX), accused the Democrats of retreating "from our responsibility to put politics aside when the time comes to strengthen our country." Yet, missed in all the name calling between Democrats and Republicans is that this legislation added another $29 billion to the original $40 bill appropriated last October is only for the rest of fiscal year 2002 - until October 1. This brings the total anti-terrorism spending this year to $69 billion dollars - a sum never contemplated before 9-11.
Part of the $69 billion pays for all those reservists who stood with fully automatic M-16 assault rifles at the ready while airline passengers went through an assortment of degrading exercises in body searches, rummaging through luggage, and even shoe removal before boarding an airplane. While being searched recently, I had time to wonder if those M-16 rifles were loaded. At some airports I was convinced they were empty, while at other airports I believed the Guardsmen were truly armed.
Now after the National Guard has been relieved of its airport security detail it has been revealed that in many states these were Barney Fife soldiers, who carried unloaded guns. According to an Associated Press (AP) report of May 26, 2002, "At 16 airports across the state, the troops were banned from patrolling with loaded weapons, according to guardsmen interviewed by The Philadelphia Inquirer for Sunday editions." Additionally, that same report noted that New York Guardsmen were equally unarmed. I can attest to seeing blue magazines in California airports. Blue magazines designate empty magazines in the U.S. military.
Yet, I also know that some National Guard troops that were issued ammunition and their weapons were locked and loaded. The AP story revealed that the Pennsylvania guardsmen were serving under the authority of the Federal Aviation Authority, an agency of the Department of Transportation.
Thus it came as no surprise that the Department of Transportation decided this past week that the last line of defense on an airplane, the pilot, can not and will not be allowed to have a firearm in the cockpit -- not even with an empty handgun. According to testimony by Transportation Security Administration head John McGaw on May 21 before the U.S. Senate's Commerce Committee, "The use of firearms aboard a U.S. aircraft must be limited to those thoroughly trained members of law enforcement."
But, according to the May 24 USA Today, "TSA officials acknowledged Thursday that they no longer require applicants to pass the more difficult shooting test that some argue was the program's critical requirement.The source estimated that as many as three-quarters of marshals deployed today were not required to pass the advanced marksmanship test. The source said that many of the proficient marshals are reluctant to team with marshals who haven't passed."
Now let me get this straight. An untrained air marshal with a loaded gun in the cabin is preferable to a trained pilot with a gun in the cockpit. What kind of crazy logic is our government feeding us? As a passenger I am certainly more worried about a poorly or untrained marshal sitting next to me, than I am about a pilot whose job is to get the airplane back to earth safely or prevent its being used as a flying missile.
As I wrote in my FrontPageMag.com article "Americans Trust Pilots with Guns" the American public and the Congress in overwhelming numbers want airline pilots to have the option to carry a firearm in the cockpit. It is time for the public to let their Representatives know of their support for H.R. 4635, legislation introduced by Congressmen Don Young (R-AK) and John Mica (R-FL) and the Senate companion bill introduced by Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) that directs the Transportation Security Agency to establish a program to authorize and train pilots to carry firearms.
Arming pilots is certainly a better solution to the problem of airline hijacking than spending billions on National Guardsmen with empty M-16s. It is a better and less costly solution that having F-16s flying across our skies to shoot down a civilian airline. Finally, the choice between a poorly trained air marshals sitting in the cabin or an armed pilot should be a no-brainer. Arming American pilots makes sense while saving cents.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/metaksa/2002/metaksa05-28-02.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
Comments
Who's afraid of armed pilots?
Sunday, May 26, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT
So Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta would rather let an F-16 shoot down a hijacked airplane than let pilots carry guns in the cockpit.
That's the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from the Transportation's announcement last week that it won't arm pilots. When Congress passed legislation last fall authorizing Transportation to give pilots guns, it probably assumed the decision would be a no-brainer. Instead, John Magaw, director of the Transportation Security Administration, says pilots don't need firearms because federal air marshals will do the job. In fact, the only way an air marshal might foil a hijacking is to be aboard a hijacked flight, an extremely unlikely occurrence since less than 1% of flights are protected by marshals.
Congress is already working to override Mr. Mineta's decision. A bill sponsored by Representatives John Mica (R., Florida) and Don Young (R., Alaska) would authorize a firearms program for pilots and exempt airlines from related liability. Senator Robert Smith (R., N.H.) introduced a similar bill in the Senate.
Unlikely as a replay of September 11 may be, the message of Mr. Mineta's decision is clear: America still isn't serious about defending itself. If the intelligence failures that led to that tragic day are perhaps understandable, the failure to take obvious steps in its aftermath is not. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110001760
"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
Savannah Morning News
WHAT'S A greater threat to a commercial flight: An armed hijacker or an armed pilot?
The Bush administration seems to fear the latter, hence its opposition to the idea of arming airline pilots with handguns -- despite the fact most pilots welcome it.
Transportation Security Administration Director John W. Magaw told a Senate committee last week that "the responsibility of the pilot is to control the aircraft. The use of firearms aboard a U.S. aircraft must be limited to those thoroughly trained members of law enforcement."
That's a reference to federal air marshals. Although their numbers are increasing, the program is nowhere close to seating a marshal on every flight.
But there is a pilot on every plane, as well as a first officer, and many include a flight engineer. Most not only believe they can fly the plane and protect the passengers at the same time, they are demanding the added security responsibility.
According to the Air Line Pilots Association, 73 percent of its 62,000 members support federal legislation that would allow pilots to carry defensive firearms in cockpits. Polls show a similar level of support among the public.
A majority of airline pilots are former military officers experienced in using firearms. They merely would require federal certification via a refresher course and periodic review in gun safety and use.
If the government and the public can trust pilots to fly complex, multi-million-dollar machines carrying hundreds of passengers, surely they can trust them to use firearms responsibly.
Any pilot who didn't -- who, say, brandished a pistol to quiet an unruly passenger -- should not only be fired, but prosecuted on federal criminal charges.
Pilots wouldn't have to carry guns in holsters. Rather, the weapons could be kept in lockboxes in cockpits, where they could be accessed in a matter of seconds in case of an emergency.
Many critics fear a pilot's discharged weapon would blow a hole in the plane's pressurized fuselage. Contrary to Hollywood movies, however, bullet holes do not automatically cause violent decompression in the cabin.
That tiny risk could be further minimized with the use of high-velocity frangible ammunition designed to stop a human but incapable of penetrating the aircraft.
For example, Glaser Safety Slugs contain birdshot that fragments upon impact. They will knock a person on his rear without compromising the fuselage.
Just the knowledge that pilots are armed would be a powerful deterrent to hijackers. The terrorists of Sept. 11 succeeded only with box cutters precisely because they knew there was little defense against their crude weapon.
Some members of Congress are attempting an end run around Mr. Magaw. They want to pass legislation that will make every airliner a tougher target for suicidal hijackers. Georgia's congressional delegation should support these efforts.
U.S. government policy directs Air Force fighter jets to shoot down any passenger plane "that comes under terrorist control."
Since that extreme, last-resort measure would result in the destruction of the aircraft and everyone aboard, it makes no sense to deny pilots every means to prevent terrorists from gaining control of an airplane -- and make a last-ditch effort to save lives.
http://www.savannahnow.com/stories/052802/OPEDopedpilotguns.shtml
"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
The Register 27 May 2002
By Thomas C Greene in Washington
Palm Beach International Airport security workers would be racking up heaps of overtime pay dealing with more than fifty false positives daily if their bosses were to install Visionics' terror-busting face recognition gear, the airport administrators have concluded.
The kit had been installed free of charge for a trial run during which the airport, not surprisingly, decided to test it on volunteers who work there over four weeks' time. Using fifteen volunteers and a data base of 250 snapshots, Palm Beach County administrators enjoyed a success rate of less than fifty per cent. That is, more than half the people the system should have flagged slipped past undetected.
The rate of false positives was also discouraging. The tests indicate that over fifty people would be falsely pegged at a security checkpoint handling five thousand passengers per day. The rate was approximately two to three false alarms per hour per checkpoint. We hardly need elaborate on the mayhem which would result from a gizmo that finds a terrorist every twenty minutes. It would be impossible to get a single plane off the ground in such circumstances.
Eyeglasses gave the system a great deal of difficulty, in spite of copious Visionics marketing hype denying this particular glitch. Small rotations of the head, fifteen to thirty degrees off the camera's focal point, also bamboozled it repeatedly, and the lighting had to be just right.
The ACLU obtained a copy of the Palm Beach report and has posted it here.
Meanwhile, the airport has since announced that it won't be adopting the Visionics handy terrorist catcher after all. r
http://www.online.ie/tech/tech_news/viewer.adp?article=1749682
"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
U.S. Newswire
28 May 8:15
DOT 'Mickey Mice' Refusal to Arm Pilots Disgusts Gun Dean
To: National Desk
Contact: John Snyder, 202-326-5259 or 703-418-0849
WASHINGTON, May 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- "Prohibiting American air
line pilots from carrying handguns in response to the militant
islamist terrorist threat is appalling, disgusting and revolting,"
John Michael Snyder, public affairs director of the Citizens
Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, stated here this
morning.
Snyder, named dean of gun lobbyists by national media, said
"the U.S. Department of Transportation Mickey Mice responsible for
the refusal -- Mickey Mouse Magaw and Mickey Mouse Mineta -- are
sucking up to fat cat airline executives fearful of potential
liability. DOT Secretary Norm Mineta and security chief John Magaw
instead should prioritize the safety of our pilots, flight crews
and airline passengers. The Mickey Mice public reliance on an
air marshal program for flight security is demonstrably
insufficient. It's a real cop out."
Public opinion surveys indicate that both pilots and the general
public support the arming of pilots, Snyder noted.
"Fortunately," he continued, "there is a growing bi-partisan
coalition of legislators on both sides of Capitol Hill working to
enact legislation that would thwart the indolent foot-dragging of
the Transportation Department Mickey Mice. Obviously, we support
these efforts. We will work for passage of the appropriate
legislation."
The bills under consideration are H.R. 4635 in the U.S. House of
Representatives and S. 2554 in the U.S. Senate. If enacted, they
would deputize trained pilots to use guns to defend their airplanes
from terrorist attackers, mandate the administration to put armed
pilots in the cockpits within 90 days, and shield airlines from
liability.
These proposals would improve the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act, signed into law last November 19 by President Bush
after overwhelmingly favorable congressional votes. That Act
authorizes commercial pilots to carry firearms in airline cockpits,
subject to proper training, provided such carrying complies with
airline policy, and meets with the approval of DOT.
"It's time to quit fooling around with this issue," said Snyder,
"and to enact the new proposals as soon as possible. Our traveling
public's safety, as well as the future viability of the airline
industry itself, is at stake."
http://www.usnewswire.com
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
05/28 08:15
Copyright 2002, U.S. Newswire http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/first/0528-103.html
"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
Printer friendly format
Feedback
Submit Letters
The Morning Call
Editorial board
Susan Hunt,
Publisher
Deb Stevens
Assistant to the Publisher
Ardith Hilliard
Editor
Glenn Kranzley,
Editor of the Comment Pages
Eric Chiles,
Comment Pages Writer
Mary Youtz,
Comment Pages Writer
Larry Printz,
Artist and Editorial Cartoonist
News by e-mail
Sign up today!
Feedback
Contact us
More Coverage
Talking to each other about our differences
May 29, 2002
Courses on motorcycle safety are common-sense response to mishaps
May 29, 2002
The Iron Curtain fades further into history with NATO-Russia Council
May 29, 2002
New structure for Allentown police: Tough on crime and a chance to improve
May 28, 2002
'Every student can learn' in Palisades
May 28, 2002
From The Morning Call
Pilots with guns in cockpits would give a false sense of security
May 28, 2002
In the weeks immediately after Sept. 11, there was a considerable amount of talk in Washington about how to better secure airplanes in flight. Just two weeks after the terrorist attacks, the Air Lines Pilots Association called for pilots to carry firearms in cockpits. The pilots wanted to take an FBI course and be deputized as federal law enforcement officers. But it's terrifying to think about a pilot's gun being turned on him or her in the air, so it was a relief last week when the Bush administration denied pilots permission to have guns in cockpits. However, it's disconcerting that separate bills to permit pilots to carry guns are still alive in the House and Senate.
When the pilots spoke out last fall for guns in cockpits, both Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge opposed the idea. But even then, there was quick agreement by some key Republicans on Capitol Hill, such as John Mica of Florida, House aviation subcommittee chairman, and Don Young of Alaska, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman.
Other, better ideas were discussed early-on as well. President Bush and some congressional leaders talked about putting more armed marshals on flights and requiring airlines to secure doors between the cockpit and cabin on all jetliners. Both are excellent ideas and preferable to guns in cockpits. Pilots disagree among themselves as to whether armed marshals should be visible or inconspicuous; some say a clearly identifiable marshal would deter hijackers while others worry that identifying them would make marshals more likely to be targets for would-be hijackers.
But either way, during a Senate hearing Tuesday on aviation security, transportation security chief John W. Magaw said armed sky marshals would be better suited than pilots to defend passengers and crews against hijackers. The Bush administration still is considering whether to allow pilots to carry nonlethal weapons, such as stun guns. And it's interesting that the 50,000-member Association of Flight Attendants believes that while firearms in the cockpit would give passengers a false sense of security, flight attendants should be given self-defense training and access to nonlethal weapons.
These ideas merit further study, as a back-up to armed marshals, especially since marshals are only on a limited number of flights. Reinforced cockpit doors also should be more prevalent and it's worth pursuing an earlier idea of separating the pilots and their passengers with two sets of doors with a walk-in chamber between them. Neither set of doors could be opened at the same time x a simple yet effective way to better protect a pilot at a plane's controls. Airlines may also consider the use of cameras so pilots can monitor the passenger cabin. Such changes would go a long way toward making Americans feel more secure when they step on a plane.
Copyright c 2002, The Morning Call
E-mail the editor; http://mcall.com/services/newspaper/all-custservstaff.htmlstory
http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/all-editorial1may28.story
"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
Jeff Johnson, CNSNews.com
Tuesday, May 28, 2002
Capitol Hill -- An airline pilots' group says it was pressure from the airlines' political lobbying group - not fear of potential mishaps - that led the government to forbid commercial airline pilots from carrying guns.
The Airline Pilots' Security Alliance (APSA) accused the Air Transport Association (ATA) of influencing the government's decision.
"The ATA's problem is not liability or distraction or loss of cabin pressure or any other safety concern. In fact, all of the above problems are red herrings," APSA wrote in a press release Friday. "No, the reality is that the airlines are willing to trade safety for victory in the power struggle they have initiated with their own pilots."
APSA Chairman Capt. Tracy W. Price says the decision not to allow pilots to carry firearms is "great news for the terrorists and the ATA.
"For many years, airline managements have been on a campaign to minimize the authority and stature of pilots," Price said. "We are stunned that they are willing to compromise the safety of air travelers to further their interests in this power struggle they have initiated with their pilots."
As CNSNews.com previously reported, Undersecretary for Transportation Security John Magaw announced earlier this week that the administration would forbid pilots to be armed.
"After a lot of consultation and realizing my experience in law enforcement, I will not authorize firearms in the cockpit," Magaw told the Senate Commerce Committee. He gave no reason for the decision.
The ATA did not return calls requesting comment on the APSA allegations prior to publication of this story. An Internet search conducted Friday found published statements by ATA representatives opposing armed pilots.
No Reference
However, a statement issued by ATA President and CEO Carol Hallett after the passage of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act contained no reference to the armed pilots provision in its praise of the legislation.
"We are pleased that Congress and the administration have reached consensus on comprehensive legislation that will place the federal government in control of aviation security," Hallett said. "ATA airlines have strongly supported, since 1973, a federally controlled and managed aviation security system."
The statement noted that ATA has consistently called for:
more effective automated passenger profiling;
a program to certify companies conducting airport security screening;
more federal air marshals;
an aviation anti-terrorism desk at the FBI;
the increased use of sophisticated bomb-sniffing dogs; and
a strong emphasis on, and increased funding for, all elements of the intelligence community connected with anti-terrorism.
While the Air Line Pilots Association supports pilots having firearms to defend their cockpits, spokesman John Mazor disputes the APSA theory that the airlines' reluctance is evidence of a power play.
"We don't see this playing any significant role in the airlines' opposition to firearms," he said. "We think it still has to do with issues of liability and marketing concerns, and probably a healthy dose of misunderstanding of the risks."
ALPA has prepared a detailed response to the many objections made to arming pilots. APSA has a similar statement on its website.
Any objections to arming pilots that the airlines or Bush administration officials have, may be irrelevant if some members of Congress have their way.
Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., introduced a bill Friday to take discretion away from the administration and mandate the creation of an armed pilots program. S. 2554 is a companion bill to H.R. 4635 introduced by House Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young, R-Alaska, and Aviation Subcommittee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla.
Smith, who introduced the original armed pilots amendment to the transportation security law says he has no choice but to act to remove the discretion provided in the original proposal.
'Pilots Want This Program'
"The pilots want this program, the flight attendants support the legislation, and the American people want additional means to be protected against future acts of terrorism," he said at a press conference Thursday.
"Our legislation is the best way to allow the voluntary implementation of programs, so that pilots can provide the first line of deterrence and the last line of defense," Smith added.
Patricia Friend, international president of the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), particularly likes the Smith bill, because it includes a training program in non-lethal self-defense techniques for flight attendants.
"Flight attendants and passengers in the cabins of the four hijacked aircraft were the first people to lose their lives on September 11," she said at the Thursday introduction of the proposal. "In any future hijacking attempt, the attackers will again start in the cabin, before they ever reach the cockpit."
Smith's bill is co-sponsored by Georgia Democrat Sen. Zell Miller and Republicans Jim Bunning (Ky.), Conrad Burns (Mont.), Frank Murkowski (Alaska) and Strom Thurmond (S.C.).
Copyright CNSNews.comhttp://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/28/53949.shtml
"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
Despite rule dating to '60s that allowed them to have guns onboard
Posted: May 29, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jon Dougherty
c 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
As early as 1987, the Federal Aviation Administration adopted a rule ensuring that commercial pilots could not board planes with guns, despite existing regulations that permitted pilots, under certain conditions, to be armed, according to an industry group.
The Airline Pilots' Security Alliance, or APSA, said in an e-mail memo sent to members last week that the FAA began "disarming pilots" more than 15 years ago by requiring them "to pass through screening checkpoints" after "a suicidal attacker broke into the cockpit of an airliner, murdered the pilots and crashed the airplane."
The screening process was enacted and enforced despite a 1960s-era FAA rule already on the books that permitted pilots to be armed as long as participating airlines adopted an agency-approved training program.
Additionally, the pilot-screening process was continued by the FAA throughout the latter 1990s and beyond, even as the agency was receiving intelligence information from government counterterrorism experts claiming that U.S. airlines were at increased risk of terrorist hijackings.
As WorldNetDaily reported earlier this month, FAA officials have admitted rescinding the armed-pilot rule ? initiated in response to the 1961 Cuban missile crisis ? in July 2001, just two months before the Sept. 11 hijackings.
In a separate story, WND reported that the FAA nixed the rule despite being briefed by the government's top counterterrorism expert the very same month that terrorist hijackings could be on the horizon.
The APSA memo claimed that the process to rescind the rule began in July 2001 and was scheduled to take effect in September ? around the time of the hijackings that saw terrorists commandeer flight decks and fly fully fueled airliners into both World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.
But John Mazor, a spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association, told WND the FAA directive rescinding the armed-pilot rule was issued July 17, 2001 and took effect much later ? on Nov. 14, 2001.
That means the FAA was not only actively working to prohibit pilots from carrying weapons despite increased hijacking risks to the airlines, but agency officials also consciously rescinded the only regulation that might have protected flight crews against terrorist hijackers.
When contacted for comment, FAA officials referred all questions surrounding the July 2001 intelligence briefings and the decision to rescind the armed-pilot rule to the agency's parent bureau, the Department of Transportation. But, as in the past, DOT officials refused to return repeated phone calls seeking explanation.
Meanwhile, Transportation Security Administration Under Secretary John Magaw yesterday said in testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee he would not implement a provision of law passed last fall that allows airline pilots to be armed.
The TSA chief gave no reason for his decision, but said a formal announcement would be made later this week. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge also have expressed opposition to arming pilots.
Magaw's testimony yesterday echoes similar statements made last week, when he told a separate Senate panel he would not allow pilots to be armed because he believes they should focus on "flying the plane."
Airline industry groups that have supported the armed-pilot concept were quick to respond to Magaw's decision.
"We are disappointed, but not surprised, by this announcement. The administration, under the influence of opposition by the airlines, has been telegraphing its intent for several months now," said Capt. Duane Woerth, president of ALPA.
"The government already has told us that if terrorists take control of one of our cockpits, they will send military aircraft to shoot down the airliner and all its crew and passengers," Woerth said. "In the face of such choices, we do not understand why these same government officials refuse to give pilots a last chance to prevent such a tragedy."
Under an airline security bill passed in the wake of Sept. 11, Magaw, as head of the TSA, was given discretion over whether to implement a provision of the measure allowing pilots to be armed, as long as airlines approved.
Gary Burns, a spokesman for Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., said his boss "disagrees wholeheartedly" with Magaw's decision, but he pointed out that Magaw has also stated that "if Congress would pass [armed pilot] legislation, he would 'salute and enforce it.'"
"We intend to move forward with that legislation," said Burns, noting that its progress has been temporarily postponed in deference to Democrats on the House committee so that they may try to work out some disagreements.
Mica, chairman of the House Transportation Committee's aviation subcommittee, has co-sponsored legislation with the full committee's chairman, Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, that would allow airline pilots be armed.
Despite his public pronouncements, a congressional aide told WND yesterday that Mineta, in private talks last week, has assured key lawmakers he too would "vigorously" enforce any new law that specifically called for arming pilots, should Congress and President Bush approve one.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27765
"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