[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots?

In article , 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.

Trouble is, most (that's most) police officers are fairly lousy shots.

There was an incident in downtown L.A. a few years ago where 5
sheriffs deputys were chasing a perp down the street. He's shooting
over the shoulder at them, they're chasing him.
He makes the big mistake...runs down a driveway into an underground
parking lot, and ooops: the gate is down and he can't get out.
The cops are at the top, he's at the bottom, straight line of sight.
He starts shooting at them.
They shoot back. Cops shot something like 45 rounds at this guy in half
a minute and hit him exactly once. Winged him in the arm.
Spray and pray.

This is what the TSA with their Air Marshal program is intent on avoiding
and I say good for them.

I'm just glad MY car wasn't parked in that underground lot.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

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 article ,
(Harry Andreas) wrote:

In article , 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.

Trouble is, most (that's most) police officers are fairly lousy shots.

That's why you put them through the course - you reject the ones who
can't shoot.

This is what the TSA with their Air Marshal program is intent on avoiding
and I say good for them.

....and if adding a lot of other officers to the ranks of "people who can
shoot," it's better for everyone.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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 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 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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
I've proved I'm a half-decent shot with ... called
indirect fire; so where do I apply for some armament?

"Drop two seat rows and fire for effect !"



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[...]
There was a hi-jack in the 80s (?) where one of the military personnel
on the ground attempted to shoot a hi-jacker through the windshield on
a 747 (?) . Nothing happened of course, due to the thickness of the
material. My assumption had been that the round was most likely
7.62mm.

It might have been the hi-jack where hi-jackers threw one of the
wounded crew members onto the concrete apron and he broke his neck as
he hit the ground - but I could be mixing up two hi-jacks.

I have the impression the hi-jack to which I am referring was
somewhere like Teheran or Damascus.

"funkraum" wrote...

There was a hi-jack in the 80s (?) where one of the military personnel
on the ground attempted to shoot a hi-jacker through the windshield on
a 747 (?) . Nothing happened of course, due to the thickness of the
material. My assumption had been that the round was most likely
7.62mm.

If the shot was fired at a 747 windshield from the ground, the impact angle
would have as much to do with lack of penetration as the thickness of the
material. Also, if a rifle round from a SWAT team, it would just as likely be a
5.56mm (.223 cal) from an AR-15 or similar.