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.
Pilots who favor guns in the cockpit
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Pilots who favor guns in the cockpit
WASHINGTON--The next perpetrators of terrorism in America probably are already here, perhaps planning more hijackings. Post-Sept. 11 airport security measures may have made hijackings slightly more difficult, but the fact that these are America's most visible anti-terrorist measures vastly increases the terrorists' payoff in proving the measures incapable of keeping terrorists off airplanes. Recently this column presented, without endorsement, the views of three commercial airline pilots who oppose guns in cockpits. Today's column presents, and endorses, the views of three other commercial airline pilots--two trained as fighter pilots, one civilian-trained--who refute the other pilots' principal contentions, which were:
Proper policy regarding suicidal hijackers is to land as quickly as possible, which can be as quick as 10 minutes. So priority should be given to making cockpits impenetrable. Armed pilots might be tempted to imprudent bravery--particularly ``renegade'' pilots with fighter-pilot mentalities, who would leave the cockpit to battle terrorists in the main cabin. And arming pilots serves the pilots unions' objective of requiring a third pilot in each cockpit.
The three pilots who favor allowing pilots to choose whether to carry guns respond:
Passengers already entrust their lives to pilots' judgments. Landing a hijacked plane is indeed the first priority, but pilots need to be alive to do that. A cockpit impenetrably sealed from terrorists is an impossibility, in part because planes cannot be landed as quickly as the other three pilots say. An ignoble fear--of lawyers; of liability--explains why the airlines oppose arming pilots. But legislation could immunize airlines from liability resulting from harms suffered by passengers as a result of pilots resisting terrorists.
Landing a plane from 30,000 feet requires (BEG ITAL)at least 20 minutes, never just 10. A training flight, simulating a fire emergency on a flight just 4,000 feet up and 15 miles from Philadelphia's airport, takes about 12 minutes to land when done perfectly. Trans-Atlantic flights can be three hours from a suitable airport. Such airports are not abundant west of Iowa. Which means on most flights, terrorists would have time to penetrate the cockpit.
Bulletproof doors are not the answer: the Sept. 11 terrorists had no bullets. Well-trained terrorists can blow even a much-reinforced cockpit door off its hinges using a thin thread of malleable explosive that can pass undetected through passenger screening procedures when carried on a person rather than in luggage. Here is what else can be undetected by security screeners busy confiscating grandmothers' knitting needles:
The knife with the six-inch serrated blade that a passenger found, in a post-Sept. 11 flight, secreted under her seat. Two semiautomatic pistols that recently passed unnoticed through metal detectors and were discovered only when the owner's bags were selected for a random search at the gate. A mostly plastic .22-caliber gun that looks like a cell phone. An entirely plastic and razor-sharp knife. A ``bloodsucker''--it looks like a fountain pen but has a cylindrical blade that can inflict a neck wound that will not stop bleeding.
The idea that arming pilots is a means of justifying a third pilot is derisory: re-engineering cockpits for that would be impossibly complex. Equally implausible is the idea that a Taser (electric stun gun) is a satisfactory aid when locked in a plane, seven miles up, with a team of trained terrorists.
A pilot's gun would never leave the cockpit because the pilot never would. And shooting a terrorist standing in the cockpit door frame would not require a Marine sniper's skill. The powerful pressurization controls, as well as the location and redundancy of aircraft electronic, hydraulic and other systems, vastly reduces the probability that even multiple wayward gun shots--even of bullets that are not frangible--would * an aircraft.
About fear of ``fighter pilot mentality'': The military assiduously schools and screens pilot candidates to eliminate unstable or undisciplined candidates. Airlines, too, administer severe selection procedures for pilots, who are constantly scrutinized. Captains have two physical examinations a year (first officers, one) with psychological components. Everything said in the cockpit is recorded.
Besides, many (BEG ITAL)passengers fly armed--county sheriffs, FBI and Secret Service agents, postal inspectors, foreign bodyguards of foreign dignitaries. Why, then, must the people on whom all passengers' lives depend--pilots--be unarmed? Especially considering that the prudent law enforcement doctrine is that lethal force is warranted when menaced by more than one trained and armed opponent.
To thicken the layers of deterrence and security, in the air as well as on the ground, Congress should promptly enact legislation to empower pilots to choose to carry guns. Time flies. So do hijackers. And the next ones probably are already among us.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20020606.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
WASHINGTON--The next perpetrators of terrorism in America probably are already here, perhaps planning more hijackings. Post-Sept. 11 airport security measures may have made hijackings slightly more difficult, but the fact that these are America's most visible anti-terrorist measures vastly increases the terrorists' payoff in proving the measures incapable of keeping terrorists off airplanes. Recently this column presented, without endorsement, the views of three commercial airline pilots who oppose guns in cockpits. Today's column presents, and endorses, the views of three other commercial airline pilots--two trained as fighter pilots, one civilian-trained--who refute the other pilots' principal contentions, which were:
Proper policy regarding suicidal hijackers is to land as quickly as possible, which can be as quick as 10 minutes. So priority should be given to making cockpits impenetrable. Armed pilots might be tempted to imprudent bravery--particularly ``renegade'' pilots with fighter-pilot mentalities, who would leave the cockpit to battle terrorists in the main cabin. And arming pilots serves the pilots unions' objective of requiring a third pilot in each cockpit.
The three pilots who favor allowing pilots to choose whether to carry guns respond:
Passengers already entrust their lives to pilots' judgments. Landing a hijacked plane is indeed the first priority, but pilots need to be alive to do that. A cockpit impenetrably sealed from terrorists is an impossibility, in part because planes cannot be landed as quickly as the other three pilots say. An ignoble fear--of lawyers; of liability--explains why the airlines oppose arming pilots. But legislation could immunize airlines from liability resulting from harms suffered by passengers as a result of pilots resisting terrorists.
Landing a plane from 30,000 feet requires (BEG ITAL)at least 20 minutes, never just 10. A training flight, simulating a fire emergency on a flight just 4,000 feet up and 15 miles from Philadelphia's airport, takes about 12 minutes to land when done perfectly. Trans-Atlantic flights can be three hours from a suitable airport. Such airports are not abundant west of Iowa. Which means on most flights, terrorists would have time to penetrate the cockpit.
Bulletproof doors are not the answer: the Sept. 11 terrorists had no bullets. Well-trained terrorists can blow even a much-reinforced cockpit door off its hinges using a thin thread of malleable explosive that can pass undetected through passenger screening procedures when carried on a person rather than in luggage. Here is what else can be undetected by security screeners busy confiscating grandmothers' knitting needles:
The knife with the six-inch serrated blade that a passenger found, in a post-Sept. 11 flight, secreted under her seat. Two semiautomatic pistols that recently passed unnoticed through metal detectors and were discovered only when the owner's bags were selected for a random search at the gate. A mostly plastic .22-caliber gun that looks like a cell phone. An entirely plastic and razor-sharp knife. A ``bloodsucker''--it looks like a fountain pen but has a cylindrical blade that can inflict a neck wound that will not stop bleeding.
The idea that arming pilots is a means of justifying a third pilot is derisory: re-engineering cockpits for that would be impossibly complex. Equally implausible is the idea that a Taser (electric stun gun) is a satisfactory aid when locked in a plane, seven miles up, with a team of trained terrorists.
A pilot's gun would never leave the cockpit because the pilot never would. And shooting a terrorist standing in the cockpit door frame would not require a Marine sniper's skill. The powerful pressurization controls, as well as the location and redundancy of aircraft electronic, hydraulic and other systems, vastly reduces the probability that even multiple wayward gun shots--even of bullets that are not frangible--would * an aircraft.
About fear of ``fighter pilot mentality'': The military assiduously schools and screens pilot candidates to eliminate unstable or undisciplined candidates. Airlines, too, administer severe selection procedures for pilots, who are constantly scrutinized. Captains have two physical examinations a year (first officers, one) with psychological components. Everything said in the cockpit is recorded.
Besides, many (BEG ITAL)passengers fly armed--county sheriffs, FBI and Secret Service agents, postal inspectors, foreign bodyguards of foreign dignitaries. Why, then, must the people on whom all passengers' lives depend--pilots--be unarmed? Especially considering that the prudent law enforcement doctrine is that lethal force is warranted when menaced by more than one trained and armed opponent.
To thicken the layers of deterrence and security, in the air as well as on the ground, Congress should promptly enact legislation to empower pilots to choose to carry guns. Time flies. So do hijackers. And the next ones probably are already among us.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20020606.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
Comments
By AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION
ALPA Continues Push for Armed Flight Deck Crews
ALPA has vigorously responded to the recent syndicated column by George Will in which Will argued against arming pilots.
Understanding that the proposal to arm pilots will have dissidents, both inside and outside of the Association's membership, ALPA has always welcomed thoughtful debate and deliberation on this important subject. However, the false premises underlying Will's commentary, the uninformed conclusions, the gross mischaracterization of ALPA's specific proposals, and Will's absurd allegation of ulterior motives cannot go unanswered.
ALPA's response includes an open letter to Will providing a line-by-line deconstruction of Will's editorial, and a letter to the editors of major newspapers that ran Will's column.
During ALPA's 89th Regular Executive Board Meeting ending May 23, the Board, comprising the Master Executive Council chairmen from each ALPA-represented pilot group, voted unanimously to support a responsible program of arming pilots.
In a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee on Tuesday, May 21, John Magaw, undersecretary for transportation security, said he would not authorize the arming of volunteer airline pilots as a deterrent and defense against terrorist attacks involving the commandeering of airliners. "After a lot of consultation and realizing my experience in law enforcement, I will not authorize firearms in the cockpit," Magaw said. Magaw's statement conforms to the Bush administration's previous comments on arming pilots.
ALPA responded by reiterating its advocacy of a responsible program to arm pilots and its support of H.R. 4635, the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act, a bill that would mandate a federal program for selective training, deputizing, and arming of airline pilots. The response included the assertion that ALPA's specific proposals on arming pilots address -- and solve -- the concerns most often raised by opponents. (See ALPA's Q&A document for a summary of these issues and answers.)
ALPA Government Affairs staff and members of ALPA's Security Task Force worked closely with the bill's sponsors -- House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R-AK) and House Aviation Subcommittee Chairman John Mica (R-FL) -- to develop the proposed legislation. ALPA's advocacy of the proposal included testimony from Capt. Stephen Luckey, chairman of ALPA's Flight Security Committee, on Thursday, May 2 before the House Aviation Subcommittee, and a press release summarizing his remarks.
Unless and until H.R. 4635 becomes law, ALPA will continue to pursue the same goal through some existing legislation, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), signed into law on November 19, 2001. ATSA allows, but does not mandate, a reasonable, well-regulated program of training to permit selected volunteer pilots to have access to a firearm on the flight deck as a last line of defense. This law stipulates that such a program may proceed only with the approval of the Undersecretary for Transportation Security and the pilot's respective airline employer.
Because of that, pilots are urged to take action.
ALPA's president, Capt. Duane Woerth, has written to the Air Transport Association, the National Air Carrier Association, the Cargo Airline Association, and the Regional Airline Association, urging their support for such a program. The Association has already petitioned DOT for a rulemaking to implement the Act's provisions for arming pilots.
It's imperative that our individual employers also know that line pilots stand solidly behind this initiative. We're asking you to write to your airline management to support a program that will allow pilots to defend themselves and their passengers.
We have provided a sample letter for you to send to your airline management. Feel free to use that wording, or to draft your own letter in support of this initiative. A directory of air carrier addresses is also provided.
(Because of the serious nature of the issue, and to provide a tangible record of your support, we would encourage you to send your letter via regular mail rather than e-mail.)
We will be calling on you to let Congress know how we feel on this issue in the weeks ahead. But, until then, we must let airline managements know that we are serious about defending the cockpit.
Write to your airline TODAY http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/archive.php?aid=497
"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
6 Jun 17:00
Talk Radio Leader Launches National Crusade To Reverse President
Bush And Arm Airline Pilots In The Cockpit
To: Assignment Desk, Media Reporter
Contact: Andy Martin, 866-706-2639
NEW YORK, June 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Internet Broadcaster Andy
Martin will present a special radio/Internet news conference
edition of "Andy Martin's America" Friday, June 7 at 1 p.m. to
announce a national talk radio crusade aimed at reversing the Bush
Administration's decision to prevent airline pilots from being
armed in the cockpit.
"This is the national issue which unites almost every American,"
says Martin. "When you have gun control advocates such as Richard
Cohen in the Washington Post, and Second Amendment types, agreeing,
watch out President Bush. The American people are trying to tell
you something. Your administration is wrong to refuse arming pilots
in the cockpit," says the talk radio leader.
"In order for talk radio to influence national policy, there has
to be an issue where the American people are united and the
politicians are wrong," says Martin. "'Guns in the cockpit' is such
an issue. The people, liberals and conservatives, want armed
pilots. The politicians do not. June 7th, we launch a crusade to
reverse the politicians. "Every talk radio host is invited to join
this crusade," says Andy.
"I believe, based on my own flying experience, each Captain and
First Officer should carry a revolver and knife. The program should
be voluntary. No pilot should be compelled to carry a firearm. The
Bush Administration is being hypocritical to support the Second
Amendment in court filings, and then to refuse arming airline
pilots."
Martin's controversial program "Andy Martin's America" has
become a fulcrum of foreign policy, political analysis and
contemporary commentary on the Internet.
Martin has been involved in broadcasting for 34 years, as an
on-air personality, and in management, sales and consulting.
Martin has been an adjunct professor of law at the City
University of New York, is a Washington foreign policy consultant
in the areas of military security and intelligence and was an
assistant to U.S. Senator Paul H. Douglas.
Martin's radio program (WPBR-AM, West Palm Beach) covers Florida
issues from noon-1 P.M. and national/foreign policy from 1-2 P.M.
Radio call-in 561-641-8256, 800-810-9727. Internet radio website:
http://www.1340wpbr.com (click "on air"). E-mail
andy@andymartin.com.
http://www.usnewswire.com
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
06/06 17:00
Copyright 2002, U.S. Newswire http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/first/0606-151.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 F. Will
The next perpetrators of terrorism in America probably are already here, perhaps planning more hijackings. Post-Sept. 11 airport security measures may have made hijackings slightly more difficult, but the fact that these are America's most visible anti-terrorist measures vastly increases the terrorists' payoff in proving the measures incapable of keeping terrorists off airplanes.
Recently this column presented, without endorsement, the views of three commercial airline pilots who oppose guns in cockpits. Today's column presents, and endorses, the views of three other commercial airline pilots -- two trained as fighter pilots, one civilian-trained -- who refute the other pilots' principal contentions, which were:
Proper policy regarding suicidal hijackers is to land as quickly as possible, which can be as quick as 10 minutes. So priority should be given to making cockpits impenetrable. Armed pilots might be tempted to imprudent bravery -- particularly "renegade" pilots with fighter-pilot mentalities, who would leave the cockpit to battle terrorists in the main cabin. And arming pilots serves the pilots' union objective of requiring a third pilot in each cockpit.
The three pilots who favor allowing pilots to choose whether to carry guns respond:
Passengers already entrust their lives to pilots' judgments. Landing a hijacked plane is indeed the first priority, but pilots need to be alive to do that. A cockpit impenetrably sealed from terrorists is an impossibility, in part because planes cannot be landed as quickly as the other three pilots say. An ignoble fear -- of lawyers, of liability -- explains why the airlines oppose arming pilots. But legislation could immunize airlines from liability resulting from harms suffered by passengers as a result of pilots' resisting terrorists.
Landing a plane from 30,000 feet requires at least 20 minutes, never just 10. A training flight, simulating a fire emergency on a flight just 4,000 feet up and 15 miles from Philadelphia's airport, takes about 12 minutes to land when done perfectly. Transatlantic flights can be three hours from a suitable airport. Such airports are not abundant west of Iowa. Which means on most flights, terrorists would have time to penetrate the cockpit.
Bulletproof doors are not the answer: The Sept. 11 terrorists had no bullets. Well-trained terrorists can blow even a much-reinforced cockpit door off its hinges using a thin thread of malleable explosive that can pass undetected through passenger screening procedures when carried on a person rather than in luggage. Here is what else can be undetected by security screeners busy confiscating grandmothers' knitting needles:
The knife with the six-inch serrated blade that a passenger found, in a post-Sept. 11 flight, secreted under her seat. Two semiautomatic pistols that recently passed unnoticed through metal detectors and were discovered only when the owner's bags were selected for a random search at the gate. A mostly plastic .22-caliber gun that looks like a cell phone. An entirely plastic and razor-sharp knife. A "bloodsucker" -- it looks like a fountain pen but has a cylindrical blade that can inflict a neck wound that will not stop bleeding.
The idea that arming pilots is a means of justifying a third pilot is derisory: Reengineering cockpits for that would be impossibly complex. Equally implausible is the idea that a Taser (electric stun gun) is a satisfactory aid when locked in a plane, seven miles up, with a team of trained terrorists.
A pilot's gun would never leave the cockpit because the pilot never would. And shooting a terrorist standing in the cockpit door frame would not require a sniper's skill. The powerful pressurization controls, as well as the location and redundancy of aircraft electronic, hydraulic and other systems, vastly reduce the probability that even multiple wayward gun shots -- even of bullets that are not frangible -- would * an aircraft.
About fear of "fighter pilot mentality": The military assiduously schools and screens pilot candidates to eliminate unstable or undisciplined candidates. Airlines, too, administer severe selection procedures for pilots, who are constantly scrutinized. Captains have two physical examinations a year (first officers, one) with psychological components. Everything said in the cockpit is recorded.
Besides, many passengers fly armed -- county sheriffs, FBI and Secret Service agents, postal inspectors, foreign bodyguards of foreign dignitaries. Why, then, must the people on whom all passengers' lives depend -- pilots -- be unarmed? Especially considering that the prudent law enforcement doctrine is that lethal force is warranted when menaced by more than one trained and armed opponent.
To thicken the layers of deterrence and security, in the air as well as on the ground, Congress should promptly enact legislation to empower pilots to choose to carry guns. Time flies. So do hijackers. And the next ones probably are already among us.
http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/archive.php?aid=498
"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