Where are the armed pilots?

"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message link.net...

Let's
say that somebody notices that I am armed and calls the cops. In fact,
let's HOPE that somebody notices that I'm armed and calls the cops. That's
certainly what I would do if I saw someone who was carrying a gun on the
flight line.

Why in the world would you call the cops?

"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message link.net...

Let's
say that somebody notices that I am armed and calls the cops. In fact,
let's HOPE that somebody notices that I'm armed and calls the cops. That's
certainly what I would do if I saw someone who was carrying a gun on the
flight line.

Why in the world would you call the cops?

.... and I repeat, why in the world would you call the cops? I'd
really like to know the rationale behind this.

Let's
say that somebody notices that I am armed and calls the cops. In
fact,
let's HOPE that somebody notices that I'm armed and calls the cops.
That's
certainly what I would do if I saw someone who was carrying a gun on
the
flight line.

Why in the world would you call the cops?

Because, like what I hope is the majority of sensible pilots, I actively
participate in AOPA's Airport Watch program. A quick reading of any
material from Airport Watch (http://www.aopa.org/asn/watch.html) will tell
you that we are meant to be looking out for anything that we think is
"suspicious" when we are at the airport.

I could, of course, provide a dictionary definition of "suspicious" as
something that is, "out of the ordinary, especially when percieved to be
dangerous". I could then argue that since I have never seen any armed
pilots at any GA airport, seeing one would qualify as something "out of the
ordinary" in my experience, and that would be enough for me to regard it as
"suspicious".

I could also argue that if it is, as you assert, your right to carry a
weapon at all times, it is also my right to carry a cell phone and to call
the police whenever I feel that such a phone call is warranted.

But I won't make any of those arguments, because I would just get a bunch of
static about doing so. Instead, I will simply point you to the specific
items on AOPA's Airport Watch Security Checklist
(http://www.aopa.org/asn/watch.html#use), one of which is "Dangerous cargo
or loads - explosives, chemicals, openly displayed weapons - being loaded
into an airplane."

Go ahead mate, flame away to your heart's content. I'm just trying to do
what I think is right here, but I know that won't be good enough for you.

"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
link.net...
Let's
say that somebody notices that I am armed and calls the cops. In
fact,
let's HOPE that somebody notices that I'm armed and calls the cops.
That's
certainly what I would do if I saw someone who was carrying a gun on
the
flight line.

Why in the world would you call the cops?

Because, like what I hope is the majority of sensible pilots, I actively
participate in AOPA's Airport Watch program. A quick reading of any
material from Airport Watch (http://www.aopa.org/asn/watch.html) will tell
you that we are meant to be looking out for anything that we think is
"suspicious" when we are at the airport.

I could, of course, provide a dictionary definition of "suspicious" as
something that is, "out of the ordinary, especially when percieved to be
dangerous". I could then argue that since I have never seen any armed
pilots at any GA airport, seeing one would qualify as something "out of
the
ordinary" in my experience, and that would be enough for me to regard it
as
"suspicious".

I could also argue that if it is, as you assert, your right to carry a
weapon at all times, it is also my right to carry a cell phone and to call
the police whenever I feel that such a phone call is warranted.

But I won't make any of those arguments, because I would just get a bunch
of
static about doing so. Instead, I will simply point you to the specific
items on AOPA's Airport Watch Security Checklist
(http://www.aopa.org/asn/watch.html#use), one of which is "Dangerous cargo
or loads - explosives, chemicals, openly displayed weapons - being loaded
into an airplane."

Go ahead mate, flame away to your heart's content. I'm just trying to do
what I think is right here, but I know that won't be good enough for you.

The thought of all those armed pilots and sky marshals skulking around
airliners fills me with dread. The US authorities insisting that armed
guards should ride shotgun like on the old wild west stage coaches says it
all.

How long will we have to wait before we have the first aircraft brought down
by friendly fire.

The real answer is to stop planes taking off with terrorists on board not
shoot them when they try and hijack. To me sky marshals is a plan to fail.

Having return home from Florida today, I was appalled to see what the TSA
claims is heightened security.

The TSA at South West Florida Airport seems to be staffed with geriatrics
(seniors) who barely know what day it is let alone the job they are doing.
after a rather perfunctory pass through the security checkpoint that was
it - on to Atlanta and then onto London without another security check.
Pathetic!

Flying Delta, then the thought of some overgrown cowboy with a gun somewhere
in the plane compensating for the pathetic security on the ground was just
plain scary.

The post 911 security measures in the US are still the most hopeless I have
experienced anywhere in the world. Air travel has become a complete shambles
and I don't believe it is any safer now than before 911.

Dave

Dave wrote:

The real answer is to stop planes taking off with terrorists on board not
shoot them when they try and hijack. To me sky marshals is a plan to fail.

But you've no security experience.

Let's look at some examples. Even in so basic a realm as home security,
nobody just puts alarms on windows and doors. They also do motion sensors,
panic buttons, and so on. Why would you think so? After all, the
perimeter security is supposed to stop (or more realistically: detect) an
intruder. So the internal security is a waste of time.

Except: nothing is perfect. Adding internal security to perimiter security
makes security system failure that much less likely, as two subsystems need
to fail before the entire system fails.

Computer security is the same: companies are finally awakening to the fact
that firewalls are necessary but insufficient. As with door and window
alarms, they provide but one layer of security; additional layers (ie. IDSs
on both machines and networks) significantly improve the likelyhood of
detecting/stopping an "incident".

Why should securing an aircraft be different? We don't want just one layer,
as we'd have basically handed a blank check to anyone that can get through
that single layer. Instead, we need multiple layers, up to and including
internal security.

Sky Marshals are not the only possible solution to Internal Security, but
they are one that's worked in the past (in El Al's experience).

Having return home from Florida today, I was appalled to see what the TSA
claims is heightened security.

The TSA at South West Florida Airport seems to be staffed with geriatrics
(seniors) who barely know what day it is let alone the job they are doing.
after a rather perfunctory pass through the security checkpoint that was
it - on to Atlanta and then onto London without another security check.
Pathetic!

Yes, well, you're not the only one with no security experience.

The US administration is treating its citizens like idiots, assuming that
we'd blindly believe that it's "doing what it can". It can "talk security"
all it likes; as long as it's cutting the budget for screeners and other
security personnel, there's no honesty behind those claims.

What really irks, though, is that plenty of people are buying into the
farce.

- Andrew

"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message hlink.net...
Instead, I will simply point you to the specific
items on AOPA's Airport Watch Security Checklist
(http://www.aopa.org/asn/watch.html#use), one of which is "Dangerous cargo
or loads - explosives, chemicals, openly displayed weapons - being loaded
into an airplane."

.... and you're interpeting a legally carried holstered firearm as
"openly displayed weapons being loaded into an airplane"?

Not.

Right below that, it says, "Use your common sense." This is the
biggest part of vigilance.

Go ahead mate, flame away to your heart's content. I'm just trying to do
what I think is right here, but I know that won't be good enough for you.

That's because what you're trying to do is not right. It's wrong.
It's bad. It's unsafe. It's not good enough for me, or you, or any
of us.

As a purported handgun owner, you should be aware of the safety and
legal issues involved in carrying and using firearms. Everything
you've said has been a counter-indication of this - you're dangerously
undertrained and underinformed as a responsible firearm owner, and
seem to be adamant about remaining that way.

To this ignorance, you add the arrogance of your enthusiasm for misuse
of finite law enforcement resources, advocating frivolously calling
the police and reporting actions that you KNOW (or should know) are
legal and safe!

Well, what else can I say? Do what's wrong and try to make yourself
feel good about it. Get the armed pilots AND the police annoyed at
you. You can even shake your fists and stomp your feet, and proclaim
that THEY are the real danger, and the real terrorists.

One day, you may need their help. Guess what? They'll help.