pilots refuse to fly with gun loons onboard

"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.

either the sky marshal failed so we have to shoot it down or
they sky marshal must have cause the plane to come down by his actions in
frustrating the terrorists.

The result is the same 200 plus people dead but the politicians are clean.

"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" wrote in message
...

Some loon on board a plane with a gun may succeed in defending the plane
but
he may not.


And if the "loon", aka sky marshal, fails in defending the plane they are no
worse off than they would be if the "loon" had never been aboard.



either the sky marshal failed so we have to shoot it down or
they sky marshal must have cause the plane to come down by his actions in
frustrating the terrorists.

The result is the same 200 plus people dead but the politicians are clean.


Or the sky marshal succeeds in defending the airplane and 200 people that
otherwise would have been killed are still alive.