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.
Options
Arming pilots steals hijackers' element of surpris
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Arming pilots steals hijackers' element of surprise
By George McEvoy, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 25, 2002
This was back in the 1950s. There had been a rash of taxicab robberies in New York City. A passenger would get in, sit behind the driver and give him a destination that turned out to be an empty lot somewhere. Then the bandit would press a knife or gun to the cabbie's neck and demand all his cash.
If memory serves me, at least one cab driver was killed, and several were injured.
It wasn't the work of one robber. These crimes were taking place in parts of Manhattan, the Bronx and Brooklyn, sometimes within minutes of each other.
Police didn't think it was gang activity, just a criminal fad. Drivers and cab-company owners demanded action. When it came, it was swift and deadly.
The police commissioner assigned a number of detectives and plainclothes officers to drive cabs. They dressed just like a regular hackie, even with the union button stuck on their cap. But one thing was different. On the seat next to each officer, hidden by a newspaper or magazine, was his service pistol.
The cop/cabbie would do as the passenger directed and drive to some lonely stretch. The moment the bad guy started the stickup, the officer would whip around with his pistol blazing.
After three or four would-be stickup artists were blasted to kingdom come, the robberies ceased as suddenly as they had begun. At a news conference, a police spokesman was asked whether the department would continue to have cops driving cabs.
"Maybe," he replied with a smile. "Let the criminals worry about it."
I thought about that the other day when I read that the Bush administration is opposed to allowing airline pilots to carry handguns as an added defense against terrorists.
Oh sure, the taxicabs were driven by police officers highly trained in the use of firearms. But many civilian airline pilots served in the military and received weapons training. Courses could be given to those with no military background.
John Magaw, President Bush's under secretary of transportation for security, testified before the Senate Commerce Committee the other day and cited his 40 years of law-enforcement experience. Shooting, he said, should be left to the air marshals.
The problem with that is the fact that there just aren't enough air marshals to go around, and the terrorists know it.
Mr. Magaw also said the pilot has enough to do flying the aircraft. If there is a highjacking attempt, he added, the pilot should try to land or maneuver the plane in a way to knock the terrorists off their feet.
Mr. Magaw and others noted that cockpit doors had been strengthened, and skyjackers would find it very difficult to gain access.
Also, the administration still is kicking around the possibility of arming the pilots with stun guns.
My views on those arguments:
Yes, the pilot has plenty to do just concentrating on flying the airliner. But there are two pilots in the cockpit. Certainly, one of them could be armed with a pistol.
As for being distracted, bomber pilots in World War II were distracted by anti-aircraft fire, enemy planes and who knows what else, but they all wore sidearms. My outfit was all fighter planes, P-47s, mostly, and a few P-51s. The pilots all carried.45-caliber semiautomatics or.38-caliber revolvers, in hip holsters or shoulder rigs.
Ah, but, you say, that was during a war. Well, aren't we supposed to be at war now?
http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost/epaper/editions/saturday/opinion_c3fe21b452b9e0a000b9.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
By George McEvoy, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 25, 2002
This was back in the 1950s. There had been a rash of taxicab robberies in New York City. A passenger would get in, sit behind the driver and give him a destination that turned out to be an empty lot somewhere. Then the bandit would press a knife or gun to the cabbie's neck and demand all his cash.
If memory serves me, at least one cab driver was killed, and several were injured.
It wasn't the work of one robber. These crimes were taking place in parts of Manhattan, the Bronx and Brooklyn, sometimes within minutes of each other.
Police didn't think it was gang activity, just a criminal fad. Drivers and cab-company owners demanded action. When it came, it was swift and deadly.
The police commissioner assigned a number of detectives and plainclothes officers to drive cabs. They dressed just like a regular hackie, even with the union button stuck on their cap. But one thing was different. On the seat next to each officer, hidden by a newspaper or magazine, was his service pistol.
The cop/cabbie would do as the passenger directed and drive to some lonely stretch. The moment the bad guy started the stickup, the officer would whip around with his pistol blazing.
After three or four would-be stickup artists were blasted to kingdom come, the robberies ceased as suddenly as they had begun. At a news conference, a police spokesman was asked whether the department would continue to have cops driving cabs.
"Maybe," he replied with a smile. "Let the criminals worry about it."
I thought about that the other day when I read that the Bush administration is opposed to allowing airline pilots to carry handguns as an added defense against terrorists.
Oh sure, the taxicabs were driven by police officers highly trained in the use of firearms. But many civilian airline pilots served in the military and received weapons training. Courses could be given to those with no military background.
John Magaw, President Bush's under secretary of transportation for security, testified before the Senate Commerce Committee the other day and cited his 40 years of law-enforcement experience. Shooting, he said, should be left to the air marshals.
The problem with that is the fact that there just aren't enough air marshals to go around, and the terrorists know it.
Mr. Magaw also said the pilot has enough to do flying the aircraft. If there is a highjacking attempt, he added, the pilot should try to land or maneuver the plane in a way to knock the terrorists off their feet.
Mr. Magaw and others noted that cockpit doors had been strengthened, and skyjackers would find it very difficult to gain access.
Also, the administration still is kicking around the possibility of arming the pilots with stun guns.
My views on those arguments:
Yes, the pilot has plenty to do just concentrating on flying the airliner. But there are two pilots in the cockpit. Certainly, one of them could be armed with a pistol.
As for being distracted, bomber pilots in World War II were distracted by anti-aircraft fire, enemy planes and who knows what else, but they all wore sidearms. My outfit was all fighter planes, P-47s, mostly, and a few P-51s. The pilots all carried.45-caliber semiautomatics or.38-caliber revolvers, in hip holsters or shoulder rigs.
Ah, but, you say, that was during a war. Well, aren't we supposed to be at war now?
http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost/epaper/editions/saturday/opinion_c3fe21b452b9e0a000b9.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
Comments
By George Will
washingtonpost.com
Thursday, May 30, 2002; Page A25
HOUSTON -- Three pilots of a major airline recently gathered here at George Bush Intercontinental Airport to discuss whether, as an anti-terrorism measure, pilots should be armed. The Transportation Department says guns will not be permitted in cockpits. Some in Congress will try to overturn this ban. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), which represents 62,000 pilots working for 42 airlines, adamantly favors arming them.
It is not only the Airline Pilots Association that favors arming pilots, but also the four other major pilot unions. All total these unions represent 114,000 thousand professional pilots. Three pilots meeting in an airport lounge to discuss an issue does not make a viable consensus.
These three pilots -- two trained in the military, one in civilian life -- are ALPA members. They have a cumulative 75 years of experience flying for commercial airlines. None has an aversion to guns. Says one, "I was raised around guns all my life." Says another, "I've not got any affinity for gun control." Says the third, "I love guns. Been a hunter all my life. I'm adamantly against gun control."
This is typical anti-gun rhetoric! No one really comes out and says that they are for gun control or against guns in general if they are trying to mask an anti-gun doctrine. The movement to arm pilots is not a gun control or a Second Amendment issue. This is an air safety issue. This is the only reason that ALPA supports the movement. It is indeed unfortunate that some people are making this issue something it is not in order to promote an agenda.
All three oppose arming pilots. Here is why.
They note that Sept. 11 triggered a reversal of assumptions. The policy for pilots regarding a hijacking had been: Don't deal with it. Before suicidal hijackers took over four planes, the procedure was for pilots to fly their aircraft to the destination the hijacker demanded.
And now the rules have been changed by the hijackers. The terrorists want control of the cockpit. How are the pilots going to stop them if there are insufficient numbers of passengers to keep them out of the flight deck? An armed pilot is the best defense against this action.
Now, these three pilots say, the overriding priority must be to guarantee that cockpits are sealed behind bulletproof doors, protecting the flight deck from intrusion while pilots get the plane on the ground as quickly as possible. Which can be 10 minutes -- as pilots know from training to deal with the problem of sudden decompression of an aircraft.
Even though Congress and the Department of Transportation has mandated 'bulletproof' doors, it will be years before such a door is approved for use on commercial aircraft and the fleets have been modified. In the meantime there is no adequate protection from a violent intrusion by a determined team of terrorists. In that event there will be no time available to get the aircraft on the ground. 10 minutes to touchdown from cruise altitude is a little optimistic. And that is assuming a suitable airport is close by. What about flights over water? It could be hours before landfall.
Prior to Sept. 11, if a passenger became unruly, the pilot might come back into the cabin to assert authority. No more. Says one of these three, "The flight attendants know they are on their own."
"You cannot fly an airplane and look over your shoulder, firing down the cabin," says one of these pilots. What you could do, he says, is look down the cabin by means of a closed-circuit television camera that would warn the flight deck of cabin disturbances requiring quick action to take the plane to the ground. Flight plans should show the nearest alternative airport at every stage of every flight.
A video camera is one of the most absurd suggestions so far! We need to concentrate our efforts on prevention of terror attacks, not watching a video screen. If a hijacking attempt is underway there probably won't be pandemonium in the cabin until after the hijackers are inside the flight deck. In that event it will be too late for anyone to do anything.
In no circumstance would I look over my shoulder and fire a gun down the cabin. Hopefully, the cabin crew and the passengers will attempt to prevent entry into the flight deck. If they fail, the hijackers should be met with an armed pilot who will fire point blank at the attacker, thereby stopping and preventing another American disaster.
Another potential problem with arming America's 120,000 commercial airline pilots is what one of the three pilots here calls, with no demurral from the other two, "cowboys or renegade pilots." Many commercial pilots began their flying careers as fighter pilots. Two of the three speaking here this day did. One of them says: There is some truth to the profile of fighter pilots as, well, live wires and risk-takers. Arming them might incite them to imprudent bravery. Armed pilots would be more inclined to go out into the cabin, whereas the primary goal should be getting the plane to the ground.
I don't care where a pilot got his start in aviation, whether it was the military, or civilian training, there is absolutely no evidence that any pilot would react in this manner. Statements such as these indicate that there is little understanding of the armed pilot program and how pilots will be selected and trained, and is an unfair indictment against all professional pilots. Not all pilots will be armed. Most pilots will not volunteer for the program and others will be weeded out of the program because they may have a "cowboy" attitude. Less than half of all commercial pilots will end up fully qualified and trained. Is there ever any guarantee that armed federal officers are less likely to behave recklessly? The difference would be in the training.
"The popularity of an idea does not make it a good idea," says one of these pilots, and all three, although members of ALPA, question whether the idea of arming pilots is as popular with pilots as ALPA suggests. One of these pilots was polled by phone by ALPA and considered the questions written so as to produce an expression of support for arming pilots.
There is in the airline industry the suspicion that the drive to arm pilots, to equip them for potential action back in the cabin, is for ALPA a new front in the organization's long-standing campaign to revive the requirement for a third pilot in the cockpit. The three pilots gathered here would prefer that ALPA concentrate on protecting existing jobs rather than creating new ones.
ALPA is not advocating arming pilots to deal with potential problems in the cabin area! The armed pilot program restricts the use of the firearm to protecting the flight deck only. These misrepresentations of the facts are designed to deflect interest and support to the program. 78% of the pilots polled by ALPA favor arming pilots as a last line of defense of the flight deck. No matter how the questions were worded, there would still be an overwhelming majority of pilots favoring this level of safety.
Many thoughtful pilots do favor guns as an additional layer of deterrence, and a last resort to restoring control over an aircraft before F-16s are scrambled to shoot it from the sky. Had armed pilots been flying the four planes hijacked on Sept. 11, box cutters would not have sufficed. And you do not want to know how many dangerous implements escape the detection of airport screeners while they are X-raying your shoes and frisking grandmothers to demonstrate innocence of racial or ethnic profiling.
There is no doubt that a certain degree of passenger profiling will help in identifying of potential risks, but an armed pilot must be the last line of defense when all other security measures fail, and they do fail.
However, the pilots of El Al, Israel's airline, are not armed, and the airline has not had a hijacking in 34 years. The three pilots consider this evidence for the argument that the deterrence effect of armed pilots is not essential. Furthermore, gunfire in the cockpit could easily shatter the windshield. In which case, says one of these pilots, "someone is going to be sucked out -- the terrorist, if he's not strapped in."
The El Al comparison is a poor one. El Al operates fewer aircraft and flights than do US carriers. El Al provides armed security on each of their flights and the flight deck is protected by two doors and both are never opened at the same time. For the US to provide armed security on each flight would require 90,000 sky marshals to cover the 35,000 daily flights in the US. The modifications to the US airline fleet to equal the protection available on El Al aircraft would take years and cost billions of dollars. The Boeing Corporation has said that the dangers of gun fire on their aircraft are overstated.
"There are," says one of the three, "a lot of what-ifs and don't knows" when you decide to arm pilots. These pilots know they are against that.
These pilots have the choice to not volunteer for the program. All of the "what-ifs and don't knows" also apply to the status quo. We may never have another hijacking attempt of a commercial airliner, but how do we know? If any of these three gentlemen are the next pilot to be hijacked, they may become a quick study in the benefits of armed pilots as a last line of deterrence to terror as they are choking on their own blood.
http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/archive.php?aid=486
"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
Posted: May 29, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Editor's note: Get Ann Coulter's scathing case against Bill Clinton. Autographed and non-autographed copies of 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' are now available from WorldNetDaily's online store!
By Ann Coulter
c 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
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.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27782
"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