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The Federal Aviation Administration rescinded a rule allowing commercial airline pilots to be armed the same month it received a classified briefing that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network may be planning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spokesman confirmed that its armed-pilot rule, which was adopted in 1961 in response to the Cuban missile crisis, was repealed in July 2001 ?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)
USA Today
May 20, 2002 05:00:00
WASHINGTON - Federal officials may create a toll-free emergency number that passengers could call from the telephones installed on commercial jets.
However, a "trusted travelers" program that would help speed frequent fliers through airport security seems no closer to reality today than it was months ago, according to a report by the new Transportation Security Administration.
The report, which the authority will deliver to Congress today, outlines the agency's progress in fulfilling the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which lawmakers passed six months ago. It also updates lawmakers on how the agency views many of the proposals raised by the airlines, pilots and others for enhancing security, an authority official said Sunday.
On Wednesday, authority head John Magaw is expected to announce that the agency opposes allowing pilots to have guns in the cockpits of commercial jets.
Letting pilots carry handguns aboard airliners is a step that pilots unions and some in Congress advocate as a security measure.
Authority officials still are discussing whether pilots should be allowed to carry stun guns or other non-lethal devices during flights, the agency official said.
Among the ideas discussed in the report:
The toll-free emergency hotline. Passengers would not need a credit card to activate the in-flight phone for such a call. The authority official said the calls, or data from them, would be forwarded to law enforcement agencies.
The trusted-travelers program. Despite support for such a program by airlines and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, the report reiterates Magaw's concerns. It says that authority officials are fearful of creating two levels of security for travelers and that trusted travelers could be duped into carrying a bomb or other dangerous items aboard a flight.
The report repeats Magaw's promise that all passengers will be screened at security checkpoints.
An identification card for federal, state and local law enforcement officers that would allow them to carry their guns aboard flights. Such a card would enable officers to provide protection on flights that do not have federal air marshals aboard. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0520airsecurity20.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 Charlton Heston President, National Rifle Association
Politicians thrive by selling cosmetic solutions to problems. But successfully solving those problems puts bureaucrats out of business. Nowhere are those two principles more clearly at work than in the delay, debate, deliberation and duplicity over the issue of whether to allow airline pilots the right to choose to carry firearms in the cockpit to deter and defeat terrorism in our nation's skies.
Even though the American public and our nation's pilots overwhelmingly support the idea, the anti-gun lobby, the ajrline industry and many federal officials oppose it. To me this is utterly incomprehensible. Those opposed to allowing pilots to be armed raise various alter- natives and objections, but their objections are absurd and their alternatives meaningless.
They say stun guns are enough to stop hijackers. But stun guns don't work much more than beyond arm's length-little more than the same effective range as hijackers' box cutters-and that's when the stun guns work at all. They say that improving airport screening is enough. But tell that to Richard C. Reid, who allegedly skated through airport security on sneakers packed with high explosives. Tell it to the Transportation Department's inspector general, who found that airport security personnel have missed dozens of hidden knives, firearms and simulated explosives since September 11.
Opponents say that reinforcing cockpit doors is enough to stop hijackers. But what good is a fortified door if that door isn't always closed? Pilots are only human, and when nature calls or hunger beckons, those cockpit doors are inevitably opened. We're told that we have enough air marshals to effectively police flights. Yet the Washington Post reported that, as of March 2002, there were only about 1,000 air marshals in the United States-just one for every 35 flights. In fact, an airline pilot interviewed by NRALive.com said that in 17 years on the job, not once had an air marshal boarded one of his flights.
"Pilots can't be trusted with guns," nervous naysayers cry. But taken as a group, airline pilots are some of the most carefully screened, intensively trained, intrusively monitored, most responsible, disciplined and cool-headed members of society. And let's face it: Once we step aboard an airliner, we're already putting our lives in their hands. If they can't be trusted to behave responsibly, what are we doing putting them behind the yoke of a 400-ton, 500 mile-per-hour, jet fuel-filled missile?
Some suggest that an errant bullet passing through a fuselage could cause cabin depres- surization, but that argument doesn't hold air, either. Ask anyone who knows anything about aircraft, and they'll tell you the huge compressors in an airliner make the threat of depres- surization due to a bullet hole a non-issue. What's more, the frangible bullets likely to be used would almost surely fragment before they ever pierced an airliner's skin.
So what's the bottom line behind air carriers' opposition to firearms in the cockpit? Apparently, they're leery of liability. To me this makes even less sense, whether you look at it from a moral or monetary standpoint. The airlines may be worried that if they allow pilots to arm themselves, they'll expose themselves to liability lawsuits if an accident or mishap ever occurs. But what about their liability if they refuse to allow pilots to secure their air- craft-and their refusal leads to another national tragedy like September 11?
What if six hijackers kill two unarmed pilots and aim a 747 at a nuclear power plant? Are the airlines really so fearful of liability lawsuits that they would rather have an F -16 shoot down that plane, killing everyone aboard, than allow pilots the right to protect themselves and their charges? And what if there were no time for an F-16 to intercept that airliner before it reached that nuclear reactor? What of the airline's liability then?
All we may be doing is whistling in the dark if we don't give pilots the ability-as well as the right-to defend themselves and us. It could save millions of dollars by effectively turning thousands of airline pilots into unpaid, volunteer air marshals. It could help deter future terrorist attacks in the same way the right to carry deters criminal attack in cities across America today. And it could save countless lives.
So let's get past the politics and bureaucratic maneuvering and give U.S. pilots the rights they deserve-and that our safety demands.
Republished without permission from June 2002 edition of the American Rifleman.
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=2562
"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