pilots refuse to fly with gun loons onboard

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"pacplyer" wrote in message
om...
(Jim Austin) wrote in message
om...
nick wrote:

"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots'
union
called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."

"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the
British
Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."

"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our
advice
to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are
received,
flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are
carried."

It's apparent that the pilots' union prefers that British planes be
available to terrorists to crash into buildings and kill Americans,
and that "nick" shares the same sentiments.


Jim,

You can only have one Captain on a ship. Ever heard of "Mutiny on the
Bounty?" You arm some idiot in the back, who has very limited
knowledge of aviation, and let him think he is charge, you have a
recipe for disaster. (in the past they've fallen asleep, left their
guns in the lavatory, shot other officers by accident, and gotten
drunk on duty. They have a boring job and they have to be accountable
to the PIC. The Brit pilot's union is correct. They don't want our
dysfunctional skymarshal program on board.

2nd Rant:
It's really amazing to me that this anti-gun society accepts shooting
down a hundred people with an air-to-air missile as necessary to
protect buildings, but at the same time is appalled at the suggestion
of the Captain being issued a side-arm to prevent this.

The issue is one of where the decision making comes from. The decision to
shoot down a plane is made at the highest political level. They have to
accountable for it and we do have sanctions if we want to apply them.

Some loon on board a plane with a gun may succeed in defending the plane
but
he may not. even though I hate politicians I would rather them make the
decision that the loon who thinks he is the Lone Ranger. I think one
reason
for the politicians wanting to put the sky marshals on board is to have
someone to blame when a plane comes down.

Well, let's see. When given a chance between shooting the plane down and
killing everyone and risking the chance that they might not have to resort
to this.....you chose killing everyone.

Free hint. If the terrorists are in control of any plane near high
population it WILL be shot down. Now consider, where do you find airports?
Right. Near population centers.

It isn't a choice of whether they will decide to shoot the plane down or
not, but rather if the terrorists gain control making that decision
necessary.

As such, ANYTHING that will keep them from taking over is a benefit.

"Dave Whitmarsh" wrote in message
s.com...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 10:45:47 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 23:09:14 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:12:43 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...

You're claiming a locked bulletproof door gave way to ramming
from a
drink cart? Cite please.

Already provided.

Finally, by Mort.

No actually the message I refer to is by Jim Yanik. Which was posted
almost
24 hours before your reply. However, perhaps you hadn't gotten to that
message yet. I do note that you have chosen not to respond to his
message
to
date.

Never heard of Jim Yanik. Was it posted to alt.nuke.the.usa? If not,
I didn't see it. Mort took care of Jim's oversight.

Well, that sort of settles the issue whether you are a troll or not.

plonk


She's not a troll she's a sock. Do try to keep up.

Sock....troll.....still a waste of time, bandwidth, electricity, food, and
oxygen.

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 18:42:02 -0000, "nick"
wrote:


"Dave Whitmarsh" wrote in message

Snout has already spanked your Bogart sock, Sable, is your Kensock
feeling a little masochistic as well? Snout has always been lame, but
you, Sarah dear, are even lamer.

It's a sign of Sables desperation that she uses one of her socks to back up
another of her socks.


her paranoia is becoming more and more bizarre with each post. It's
still gratifying that two or three simple words in a response to her
can send her off on a frenzy. I'm still, of course, not reading her
ramblings, just entering stock responses as a reply - she goes
"nucular", as the chimp that is her leader might say.

--
The Wit and Wisdom of Mort Davis:

On his inability to come to terms with technology:
"I have it ("Dave") killfiled. Yet it keeps responding to me."

On Empathy:
"Nick is ignoirant."
On his sexual habits:
"Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina"

On American children rummaging through rubbish for food:
"True, ythey gewt the inbrads in Parliment to do it"

His neo-con solution for world peace:
"When Europe ****s itsself again, I suggest we drop nukes on it until no
human life remains."

Displaying that he's yet another lamer with a sticky
Caps Lock key who believes that anyone cares about the
contents of his killfile:
"Keep changing those fake idents, I have plenty more room in the old
killfile, ****TARD."

On 2 Jan 2004 17:08:39 -0800, (pacplyer)

(Jim Austin) wrote in message om...
nick wrote:

"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."

"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."

"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."

It's apparent that the pilots' union prefers that British planes be
available to terrorists to crash into buildings and kill Americans,
and that "nick" shares the same sentiments.


Jim,

You can only have one Captain on a ship.

But doesn't the Captain need a crew that will defend him?

Ever heard of "Mutiny on the
Bounty?"

It's unlikely the air marshall is going to tell the pilot how or where
to fly the plane if there is not an emergency situation.

I haven't heard of this happening on any El Al flights.


You arm some idiot in the back, who has very limited
knowledge of aviation, and let him think he is charge, you have a
recipe for disaster. (in the past they've fallen asleep, left their
guns in the lavatory, shot other officers by accident, and gotten
drunk on duty.

I've heard of pilots being drunk on duty, but never any of those applied
to air marshalls.

Do you have a cite?

They have a boring job and they have to be accountable
to the PIC. The Brit pilot's union is correct. They don't want our
dysfunctional skymarshal program on board.

2nd Rant:
It's really amazing to me that this anti-gun society accepts shooting
down a hundred people with an air-to-air missile as necessary to
protect buildings, but at the same time is appalled at the suggestion
of the Captain being issued a side-arm to prevent this.

pacplyer - out

"Mike Helm" wrote in message
...
On 2 Jan 2004 17:08:39 -0800, (pacplyer)

You arm some idiot in the back, who has very limited
knowledge of aviation, and let him think he is charge, you have a
recipe for disaster. (in the past they've fallen asleep, left their
guns in the lavatory, shot other officers by accident, and gotten
drunk on duty.

I've heard of pilots being drunk on duty, but never any of those applied
to air marshalls.

Do you have a cite?


I'm particularly interested in a CITE for air marshals leaving their guns in
lavatories and shooting other air marshalls by accident.

-*MORT*-

In article ,
"nick" wrote:

"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."

"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."

"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm


What do you expect, the Brits are cowards, look at how they handed over
the Sudentenland to Hitler. Nothing has changed, they've learned
nothing.

Bill Smith wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 10:38:54 GMT, Eddy_Down
wrote:



Bill Smith wrote:


On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:51:13 GMT, Dave Whitmarsh
wrote:



On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:01:03 -0800, Bill Smith
wrote:



On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
wrote:



"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."

"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."

"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm



LOL!. They want ONLY terrorists armed! This is, all at once, hilarious
and tragically stupid.
Bill Smith

Your inability to comprehend basic English is a huge concern, Bill old
chap.


"Written assurances". Of what? They want to be told that trained
personnel are going to be used rather than just passing guns out to
the passengers? They want to be told that if they lose control of
their aircraft it will be shot down and there might just be a few
remedies to try before then?


It's called X-ray machines at the airport check-in terminals, doofus.



Sure, all they have to do now is get enough of them and then actually
use them. All that deals with is weapons brought on by passengers, not
those stashed by aircraft "service" workers.


True... but an airline's first priority (or indeed anyone in public
transport) is safety. If schools go out of hteir way in the USA to
install metal detectors to stop firearms getting in then airports must
be able to do as well.


Bill Smith

" Bogart " wrote in message ws.com...
On 1 Jan 2004 20:44:46 -0800, (Teek) wrote:

" Bogart " wrote in message ws.com...

Let me guess, you're rap's resident nutcase? I didn't say SM's feel
they are more likely to be seen as a " threat than as an aid. ".
I'm telling you how they feel. It's from personal experience and
personal contact. Not every one is an amateur detective.

So what are you saying, then? That they feel like they are not needed
and feel like they aren't doing much good?

SM's I've talked with have expressed some genuine concerns about being
jumped by passengers in certain situations. That is all. They will
do their jobs and will do a good job, regardless of the fact _I_ don't
think they are necessary on domestic US flights.

Fair enough. No one can predict or imagine all possible situations
and scenarios, and I'm confident the air marshals can think of a few
that I can't. Many factors come in to play in the use of air
marshals; political, strategic, tactical, etc. Your sky marshals seem
to be concerned with the tactical aspect of *certain* situations that
either they don't want to tell you about, or you don't want to blab it
all over the internet. No matter. They are well-trained and come
from a diverse cross-section of society, with differing opinions and
beliefs. That comes with any organization or group that doesn't
discriminate based on race, color, creed, sex, religion, or political
beliefs. This is as it should be. It also means I can't rule out the
marshals you've talked to are in the minority in their concerns, or if
it is fairly common.

Though I don't know a lot of the details of their training, it lasts
for about three months and their firearms course is rather
challenging. I don't think they sit around very much playing cards
and drinking beer during this time. The concerns should be addressed
in training. And since I haven't been through it, I can't say for
sure what the curriculum is.

I think they are necessary on domestic flights, and on certain
overseas flights coming into the U.S. Perhaps they don't need to be
on every flight, but they need to be on enough of them to possibly
prevent another hijacking.

Teek

"Teek" wrote in message
m...
" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...
On 1 Jan 2004 20:44:46 -0800, (Teek) wrote:

" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...

Let me guess, you're rap's resident nutcase? I didn't say SM's feel
they are more likely to be seen as a " threat than as an aid. ".
I'm telling you how they feel. It's from personal experience and
personal contact. Not every one is an amateur detective.

So what are you saying, then? That they feel like they are not needed
and feel like they aren't doing much good?

SM's I've talked with have expressed some genuine concerns about being
jumped by passengers in certain situations. That is all. They will
do their jobs and will do a good job, regardless of the fact _I_ don't
think they are necessary on domestic US flights.

Fair enough. No one can predict or imagine all possible situations
and scenarios, and I'm confident the air marshals can think of a few
that I can't. Many factors come in to play in the use of air
marshals; political, strategic, tactical, etc. Your sky marshals seem
to be concerned with the tactical aspect of *certain* situations that
either they don't want to tell you about, or you don't want to blab it
all over the internet. No matter. They are well-trained and come
from a diverse cross-section of society, with differing opinions and
beliefs. That comes with any organization or group that doesn't
discriminate based on race, color, creed, sex, religion, or political
beliefs. This is as it should be. It also means I can't rule out the
marshals you've talked to are in the minority in their concerns, or if
it is fairly common.

Though I don't know a lot of the details of their training, it lasts
for about three months and their firearms course is rather
challenging. I don't think they sit around very much playing cards
and drinking beer during this time. The concerns should be addressed
in training. And since I haven't been through it, I can't say for
sure what the curriculum is.

I think they are necessary on domestic flights, and on certain
overseas flights coming into the U.S. Perhaps they don't need to be
on every flight, but they need to be on enough of them to possibly
prevent another hijacking.


They train for the eventualities brought up.

-*MORT*-

LIBassbug wrote:

Gregory Procter wrote:


LIBassbug wrote:


Gregory Procter wrote:


LIBassbug wrote:



Gregory Procter wrote:



LIBassbug wrote:




Gregory Procter wrote:




LIBassbug wrote:





Eddy_Down wrote:





Morton Davis wrote:





Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina ,


It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?

On our planet rectums and vaginas have small openings.


You have (5) very small fingers?

Is that a proposition?


No, it's a repeat of your pronouncement.

Is that when you told me you self fist?


No, when you told me you have a five finger arsehole.

Why do you care so much about how many fingers I can fit in my asshole?


You keep bringing the subject up - I'm waiting for some punch line.

There's always a line at my punch bowl. (my guest trust I didn't dip my
fingers in it).

You only have stupid friends?