[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots?

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
I'm not opposed to pilots having the option of going armed as part of
the security system: I _am_ opposed to flight crew armament being the
entire security system.

Good point, but "being the entire security system" would entail stopping
airport gate security, stopping background checks on airline empolyees,
and tying all passengers into their seats so nobody could interfere with
possible hijackers.

So allowing pilots to be armed will completely and totally fix all
airline security issues?

Not only "no," but "nobody has claimed that."

For that matter, why can't _I_ have a handgun on an airliner? I've got
the demonstrated skills and experience, and clearance out of the ears.

That's something I've been wondering about, myself.

A minor scenario: If a law officer (or qualified agent of the
government) wants to fly on a plane, not only do they get to carry their
guns, they get a discount. A *big* discount. Maybe free. With perks.
All they have to do is show up sober, not drink on the flight, and be
ready to shoot someone in the right situation. A minor training course
on shooting people in planes (along with How to Recognize a Terrorist),
and you get a little card that makes all of this go smoothly.

Much cheaper than trying to hire a few thousand Air Marshalls to try and
cover all flights. Sure, you won't get 100% coverage, but you'd
certainly get a lot with that cheap/free ticket.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote:


A minor scenario: If a law officer (or qualified agent of the
government) wants to fly on a plane, not only do they get to carry their
guns, they get a discount. A *big* discount. Maybe free. With perks.
All they have to do is show up sober, not drink on the flight, and be
ready to shoot someone in the right situation. A minor training course
on shooting people in planes (along with How to Recognize a Terrorist),
and you get a little card that makes all of this go smoothly.

Much cheaper than trying to hire a few thousand Air Marshalls to try and
cover all flights. Sure, you won't get 100% coverage, but you'd
certainly get a lot with that cheap/free ticket.

Hell of a good idea...one other stipulation, they gotta fly in
civilian clothes, that way nobody can tell who is who. Then
advertise the opportunity all over the place, both to get
volunteers and to thwart would-be terrorists. Sounds like cheap
insurance for the airlines to me. Get your patent application in
there Chad.
--

-Gord.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
So allowing pilots to be armed will completely and totally fix all
airline security issues?

Not only "no," but "nobody has claimed that."

"Not arming pilots" has been claimed to condemn thousands of innocents
to agonised fiery deaths; while giving them handguns is claimed to
guarantee safety. After all, reinforced doors can be broken down,
security bypassed, et cetera, but the idea that a handgun in the cockpit
might fail to stop 100% of hijack attempts is purest heresy...

If the Bad Guys are able to overwhelm the passengers (who these days are
a lot less likely to believe that sitting still and quiet while avoiding
eye contact will help save their lives) sufficient to break into the
cockpit they've got aboard with numbers, organisation and weapons: while
the flight crew are limited in numbers, stuck in a small and crowded
space, and busy with the key job of Flying The Damn Plane: while George
may handle routine tasks, how well does the autopilot cope with the
cockpit becoming a warzone and who recovers the aircraft afterwards?


I'd rather keep the Bad Guys off the aircraft, have them board unarmed
if they board at all, make them face a solid and tough barrier if they
_do_ get to the door (with a planeful of frightened passengers behind
them, aware that if the hijack succeeds they'll be payload in an
oversized Kamikaze), and then have them worry whether the first man
struggling through that door will get a crash axe in the head or a
chestful of JHP bullets; rather than use "the pilot might be armed" to
justify skimping on the other measures.


Trouble is, improving ground security and keeping it improved costs
money (and time and hassle for passengers). Restricting cockpit access
costs money. Saying to pilots "If you've got a handgun, you can carry
it" is extremely cheap. And the airline business isn't exactly a
high-profit business at the moment; carriers who can find corners to
cut, will eagerly do so.

I'm not opposed to arming pilots; I'm arguing that the assumption should
be they will be unarmed (because many will be, regardless) and that it's
a bonus rather than a dependable layer.

For that matter, why can't _I_ have a handgun on an airliner? I've got
the demonstrated skills and experience, and clearance out of the ears.

That's something I've been wondering about, myself.

I've got the excuse that I had to hand mine in back in 1997... though
I'm willing to be issued one and sign for it as necessary.

A minor scenario: If a law officer (or qualified agent of the
government)

I might qualify for that

wants to fly on a plane, not only do they get to carry their
guns, they get a discount. A *big* discount. Maybe free. With perks.

Not only would _I_ like that, but my management would _love_ it if they
could get us analysts cheap/free air travel. I've had assorted
convolutions on overseas visits (when I went to the Canadian Maritime
Warfare Centre, I left on Saturday rather than Sunday because paying me
and the hotel for the extra day was cheaper, and I was flying economy
class[1])

All they have to do is show up sober, not drink on the flight, and be
ready to shoot someone in the right situation. A minor training course
on shooting people in planes (along with How to Recognize a Terrorist),
and you get a little card that makes all of this go smoothly.

We might quibble on how much a "minor training course" requires, but
probably not by too much.

Congratulations, Mr Irby, for once we seem to be agreeing with each
other!

Now stop this deviant behaviour at once and go back to arguing with
everything I say




[1] I'm apparently entitled to fly business class wherever I go.
However, with a finite travel budget, them as is willing to travel
cheaper are much more likely to get their travel requests approved.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

while giving them handguns is claimed to
guarantee safety.

Only by you.

And that's the thing. While other folks are saying things like "it
would help," or "it would give another line of defense," you're reading
those lines as "WE GUARANTEE safety," and arguing from that point.

Come back when you're ready to stop these silly strawman attempts.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
while giving them handguns is claimed to
guarantee safety.

Only by you.

No, Chad - I'm going from what I've read.

And that's the thing. While other folks are saying things like "it
would help," or "it would give another line of defense," you're reading
those lines as "WE GUARANTEE safety," and arguing from that point.

Maybe the proponents had got overheated, but they were quite genuinely
claiming that Unarmed Pilots = Certain Death while other measures were
useless and pointless.

I can only read what they wrote.


Back when I had the time and patience to read alt.disasters.aviation the
subject came up now and then, before Bertie the Bunyip and Ladypilot put
the S/N ratio beyond what I could bear.

Come back when you're ready to stop these silly strawman attempts.

I'm just going by what's claimed. You don't agree with the wilder
statements, fine, but the claims were made.

You're not going to see British or Japanese (to pick two nations with
draconian firearms controls) pilots carrying arms anytime soon; does
that not imply that the priority lies elsewhere?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote...

No, Chad - I'm going from what I've read.

Maybe the proponents had got overheated, but they were quite genuinely
claiming that Unarmed Pilots = Certain Death while other measures were
useless and pointless.

I can only read what they wrote.

Who is the "they" and what did "they" write? Please copy for us "what they
wrote" and "what [you]'ve read."

I haven't seen anything from any of the proponents of armed pilots that that
single measure is either the panacea or a replacement for all other measures (or
ANY other measures, for that matter)! All the credible posts I've read (and
you've been here long enough to know the "incredible" posters) see arming pilots
as a means of last defense when all the other measures have failed, and better
than the other credible alternative when a terrorist gains access to the cockpit
when airborne.

In message ciHKb.302864$_M.1726899@attbi_s54, John R Weiss
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote...
No, Chad - I'm going from what I've read.

Maybe the proponents had got overheated, but they were quite genuinely
claiming that Unarmed Pilots = Certain Death while other measures were
useless and pointless.

I can only read what they wrote.

Who is the "they" and what did "they" write? Please copy for us "what they
wrote" and "what [you]'ve read."

+++++
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Date: 2001-09-25 19:09:36 PST
From: John R Weiss )
Subject: PIlots want to carry guns

If you take a look at the multitude of airplane models in service, and
the variations in the doors, and the [lack of] space available for
double doors or other auxiliary installations, you may decide that all
that engineering, certification, fabrication, and installation is NOT
cheaper than arming pilots...

From: Viper56-FW )
Subject: Divided passenger planes?
Newsgroups: alt.aviation.safety, rec.aviation.military,
rec.aviation.piloting, rec.travel.air
Date: 2001-09-20 08:36:38 PST

Let's consider the money involved in posibly a major structural change
that would only create a different problem(s).

+++++
Only Guns Can Stop Terrorists
By John R. Lott Jr. Mr. Lott is a resident
scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "More
Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 2000).
....Strengthening cockpit doors is probably a good idea, but given
current airline design it may create dangerous differences in air
pressure between the cockpit and cabin.
+++++

From: Drew Johnson )
Subject: Divided passenger planes?
Newsgroups: alt.aviation.safety, rec.aviation.military,
rec.aviation.piloting, rec.travel.air
Date: 2001-09-21 15:04:03 PST

We have little confidence in any 'door solution' that the government and
airline executives might be able to come up with.

+++++
From: Drew Johnson )
Subject: Divided passenger planes?
Newsgroups: alt.aviation.safety, rec.aviation.military,
rec.aviation.piloting, rec.travel.air
Date: 2001-09-22 11:26:08 PST

If one secure door was important, it would have been done two decades
ago, my friend.

+++++

From: Drew Johnson )
Subject: Divided passenger planes?
Newsgroups: alt.aviation.safety, rec.aviation.military,
rec.aviation.piloting, rec.travel.air
Date: 2001-09-22 11:15:20 PST

I guess you just don't understand the mind-set of executive management.
You are talking about taking up "space" that a fare paying passenger
could be sitting. Or, on the other hand a MAJOR "reconfiguration" of
thousands of aircraft, which will cost airlines BILLIONS.

The reason we find ourselves in the position we are in today is that it
would "cost" more than the damn bean counters were willing to spend.
Whether it is/was in the form of actual cost or lost revenue.
+++++

From: Drew Johnson )
Subject: We Got Weapons !!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Date: 2001-10-16 13:35:05 PST

"In reality" . .This is the same, tired old "quick fix" mentality to
which the corporate bozos always revert -and is NOT going to thwart a
dedicated . . or strong individual from gaining access.

+++++
From: Garner Miller )
Subject: Trained Pilots Should Carry Firearms
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Date: 2002-05-03 20:21:33 PST

My point is that I don't care how impregnable you think you can make the
door, I guarantee there WILL be a way in. Another shoe bomber waiting
in line at the first-class lavatory while he casually slips his shoe off
is about all it would take.
++++++

I haven't seen anything from any of the proponents of armed pilots that that
single measure is either the panacea or a replacement for all other
measures (or
ANY other measures, for that matter)! All the credible posts I've read (and
you've been here long enough to know the "incredible" posters)
see arming pilots
as a means of last defense when all the other measures have failed, and better
than the other credible alternative when a terrorist gains access to
the cockpit
when airborne.

Whereas my concern remains that "arming the pilots" is a quick,
convenient and cheap (from the business' point of view) option, compared
to securing the cockpit from intrusion. After all, if you've got a belt,
do you _need_ an expensive pair of braces?

I'm not opposed to it as a last inner layer, just concerned that it not
be used to duck other measures.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

You're not going to see British or Japanese (to pick two nations with
draconian firearms controls) pilots carrying arms anytime soon; does
that not imply that the priority lies elsewhere?

Well, if they don't want to, they don't have to, but allowing pilots to
carry them seems like a fairly minor risk with a potentially huge
return. If you can't trust a pilot with a handgun, then why trust him
with a quarter-million kilogram plane and 400 lives?

And since the British have a Sky Marshal program already (one of their
airlines has already signed on), taking the decision of whether guns
will be on planes out of the pilots' hands seems like another choice.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

You're not going to see British or Japanese (to pick two nations with
draconian firearms controls) pilots carrying arms anytime soon; does
that not imply that the priority lies elsewhere?

Well, if they don't want to, they don't have to, but allowing pilots to
carry them seems like a fairly minor risk with a potentially huge
return. If you can't trust a pilot with a handgun, then why trust him
with a quarter-million kilogram plane and 400 lives?

What happens when "carrying a handgun" carries a five-year prison
sentence? I don't like the situation but that's the law of the land
here.

No argument about "trusting the pilot" either - but then think about the
odds of an unknown number of foes, armed in unknown fashion, attacking
at a time of their choosing... versus two men, strapped into seats
facing the wrong way.

One reason I'm not enthusiastic (though not opposed) about 'arming
pilots' is that the El Presidente shoot (which you start with your back
to the targets: draw, turn, fire) is very difficult even when standing
unconstrained and shooting at cardboard. From a "sitting, strapped down"
position with moving targets intent on slashing your throat with real
knives, I don't see it getting any easier.

Last line of defence? Sure, I can buy that. But plan and prepare on "the
pilots are unarmed", with an armed and skilled pilot being an unexpected
bonus for the Good Guys and a nagging worry for the foe.


Where does a UK pilot go to practice with a firearm? We haven't been
able to legally massacre paper targets with pistol fire since 1997.

And since the British have a Sky Marshal program already (one of their
airlines has already signed on),

And at least one more has explicitly rejected it, on the basis of "if
there's that sort of threat why fly?".

taking the decision of whether guns
will be on planes out of the pilots' hands seems like another choice.

It seems from anecdote that rather more US airline pilots are
ex-military than UK, so we don't have the "could at least pass USAF
firearms skills tests" to fall back on. British Army pistol APWT was not
demanding - I got a perfect score on my first try and (as I later
discovered) I was not a particularly fine shot, just taking an easy
test.

And to be quite honest, few UK citizens are experienced shooters with
_anything_, making it hard to find practiced shooters to carry weapons
in cockpits. (I wasn't a bad shot but nobody's trying to hire me).

I'm not opposed to the idea, just to careless or greedy implementations.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

Now stop this deviant behaviour at once and go back to arguing with
everything I say

See other post.



--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.