pilots refuse to fly with gun loons onboard

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

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:52:27 -0700, Little John
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity,
once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
"nick" two-fingered to all:

|"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

Bunch of pussies.

Well, now, wait a sec...
Nick's complaining that the British pilots aren't sure abou the
efficacy of having BRITISH marshals on board.
I can see that. They have so little actual experience with guns, you
know. There's no telling whether they actually know what to do with
them.

"We want to hear that the captain will be the one in command of the
aircraft at all times, we seek reassurances about the weapons to be
used and the training given."

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

In talk.politics.guns 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.

Sounds like the British Space Program.

"Scientists fear barkless Beagle 2 might be inside Mars crater"
http://tinyurl.com/2clgt

I can´t believe what I just read.
Didn´t you Americans learn anything from recent history (some school-events
just popped into my mind)?
It just does not work to make even more people carry guns in order to
protect them from potential terrorists.
What kind of logic is that?
You won´t stop terrorists from trying to hijack planes by simply having
armed sky marshalls on the aircraft.
You should increase airport security first and then try to figure out how an
unexperienced pilot can fly all over New York and make a sightseeing tour
around the Statue of Liberty without beeing noticed at all before you think
about arming sky marshalls.
And how impertinent are you to simply postulate a "law" like the above?
I really pay my tribute to the pilots making a statement like that.
It plays in the same league like the major of London who explicitly allowed
demonstrations against Bush in the vicinity of his whereabouts.
Without making the attacks less horrible, but America gets more and more
paranoic.

Thomas
Berlin, Germany

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.

--
The Wit and Wisdom of Mort Davis:

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."

In "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."

I wouldn't want to fly with armed Brits aboard either.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

"nick" wrote in message
...
"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

No problem.

I feel our response should be: "No armed air marshal, no entering/flying in
US airspace". The companies can then decide which is more important to their
continued existence.

"nick" wrote in message news:NQjIb.282

So...... When do you get to the part about the "gun loons" ?

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 whining.

Bill Smith

Thomas Heide wrote:

You should increase airport security first and then try to figure out how
an unexperienced pilot can fly all over New York and make a sightseeing
tour around the Statue of Liberty without beeing noticed at all before you
think about arming sky marshalls.

Since that's not what occurred, why should we try to figure that out?

The pilot was "noticed" very quickly. In fact, the "problem" was that he
flew into a tightly controlled airspace (class B, in case you're familiar
with this) w/o clearance from the controlling agency. By definition, he
was seen as soon as he did that.

Separate from that - actually, he was probably outside of the controlled
airspace at this point, but it depends upon his altitude - he circled the
statue. Scores of pilots, commercial and private, do this every [fair
weather] day. I did it myself a few hours after this fellow, in fact.

[In fact, I flew a route not too dissimilar to his. The difference: I did
it with approval from Laguardia Tower.]

I'm by no means excusing his incursion into the airspace w/o a clearance.
That's a "no no", and somewhat dangerous besides (there's a reason why this
airspace is more tightly controlled than other airspace). But he was
noticed, he was intercepted, and there's not a damned thing wrong with
circling the statue.

And how impertinent are you to simply postulate a "law" like the above?

Each nation is free to regulate its own airspace. This amendment isn't a
law that affects anything outside our airspace, so I'm not sure why you
think of this as "impertinent". Your country can mandate clowns on flights
through its airspace, should you wish.

I really pay my tribute to the pilots making a statement like that.

From what I've read, the pilots merely want to have established certain
protocols involving C&C. To my mind, that seems like a smart idea. I
assume that the nations already putting armed officers aboard aircraft
already have these established.

- Andrew