Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/25/2001 1:58:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/25/2001 3:53:15 PM EDT by fight4yourrights]
WTF is the deal with them wanting to deputize the pilots? 50,000 plus new Federal Troops -----------------addition----------------------- I fully support allowing Pilots to carry guns aboard. I fully support allowing crew to carry. I fully support allowing LEO's to carry. I fully support allowing CCW holders to carry. [size=4]I don't support Federally deputizing pilots. The last thing we need is another 50,000 Federal Troops.[/size=4]
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 2:06:28 PM EDT
So they can carry firearms.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 2:06:37 PM EDT
They can use there approach plates a weapons. [img]http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/aircraft/PlaneJumbo2.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 2:10:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LotBoy: They can use there approach plates a weapons.
View Quote
Is there an english translation for this?
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 2:12:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fight4yourrights: WTF is the deal with them wanting to deputize the pilots? 50,000 plus new Federal Troops
View Quote
Let's see... Legally deputize all pilots so they can legally carry at very little cost. or Hire 50,000 Sky Marshalls, requireing you to pay every one of them a hefty salary ($30-80k). Sounds like #1 is the winner to me. God Bless Texas
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 2:32:49 PM EDT
Any calls for flight attendants to be armed as well? Hmmm... wonder why not...
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 2:33:54 PM EDT
how about deputizing/training the ccw holders so that they can help, and are not potential victims when they reach their destination.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 2:42:01 PM EDT
We *are* the Home Guard. Why not allow us to be armed, as per the Constitution?
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 2:46:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FL_BOY: how about deputizing/training the ccw holders so that they can help, and are not potential victims when they reach their destination.
View Quote
Are you kidding? What if one of these people flew to California? The criminals are a legally protected minority there, they could be endangered by such widespread self defense. [:)]
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 2:48:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hielo: We *are* the Home Guard. Why not allow us to be armed, as per the Constitution?
View Quote
Because that would make sense.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 3:17:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fight4yourrights: WTF is the deal with them wanting to deputize the pilots? 50,000 plus new Federal Troops
View Quote
It's about time. For years Forest Rangers, prison guards (I'm sorry..."Corrections Officers" ha ha), or LEO's from any place could carry handguns on board. Most of them have no training in dealing with hijacking, discharching firearms on board aircraft, or carry special ammunition to use on pressurized aircraft. It made no sense that they could carry, but we could not. If properly executed, a program like this could make a dramatic improvement in aircraft security. Some people have mentioned tasers, but I don't know how wise it is to have something that can discharge 90,000 volts in the cockpit, especially with todays automation (especially on the Airbus). Probably worth looking in to, though. Arming Flight Attendants would be a bad idea, since they are in the cabin and could be easily disarmed. Pilots are in a somewhat secure cockpit, understand aircraft systems (knowing where NOT to shoot), and are the immediate target of the suicide terrorists. Randomly arming pilots and placing sky marshals would make a lot of sense. The only answer to violence is counter-violence. Otherwise, we are lambs for the slaughter. -Dave
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 3:24:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/25/2001 3:39:54 PM EDT by holes45]
Help me kill a local poll on a tv station in Cleveland, Ohio. [url]http://www.wkyc.com[/url] In the middle of the headlines is the poll. I'm an airline captain myself and think this may be one step in the right direction. Guns are still being snuck passed our great security people the last couple days. And these are passengers that accidently brought them through and discovered them later. Think if a terrorist wanted to do something like that and gave it an effort. Thanks for you help.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 3:41:27 PM EDT
btt
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 3:50:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/25/2001 3:51:36 PM EDT by fight4yourrights]
I fully support allowing Pilots to carry guns aboard. I fully support allowing crew to carry. I fully support allowing LEO's to carry. I fully support allowing CCW holders to carry. [size=5][red]I don't support Federally deputizing pilots. The LAST thing we need is another 50,000 Federal Troops.[/size=5][/red]
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 4:05:28 PM EDT
I don't support deputizing the pilots. What other "power" with they have as deputies? Will they arrest a passenger that has too much to drink? I don't want any of them to start acting like Rambo. I think they should be armed to defend themselves and the cockpit. If they are dead there would be nobody to land the plane.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 4:14:44 PM EDT
Well Fox News just reported five minutes ago at the hourly update, that the head of the Airline Pilots Union testified before the House Judiciary Comittee. He testified that the consensus of his members was that pilots should be armed with firearms to defend themselves. This was rejected out of hand by the comittee. Dick Gephart called for armored doors to the cockpit. And Majority Leader Arny would only conceed that pilots be given useless stun guns. So much for "deputising" aviators as leos. Far from it. Once again fear and ignorace is gripping the House of Representatives.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 4:24:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By holes45: Help me kill a local poll on a tv station in Cleveland, Ohio. [url]http://www.wkyc.com[/url] In the middle of the headlines is the poll.
View Quote
[url]http://www.wkyc.com[/url] 88% yes, 12% no. Aside from everything else, arming the pilots would send a message that handguns--and guns in general--have defensive value. For that reason, I don't think it is going to happen. The powers that fear individuals will not go for it.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 4:35:53 PM EDT
Saw more by switching over to MSNBC TV. The head of Flight Attendants Union spoke out strongly against firearms on aircraft. The head of the Airport Association spoke out against the arming of flight crew AND the federalization of airport security. It is quite clear that the Aviation industry is trying to forget Sept. 11th ever happend. They are adamently opposed to any security change on their part, with the sole exception of the Airline Pilots. Its time for a nation wide Airline Pilots strike untill security measures are changed.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 4:40:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/25/2001 4:39:56 PM EDT by X--Kill]
Originally Posted By mejames: I don't support deputizing the pilots. What other "power" with they have as deputies? Will they arrest a passenger that has too much to drink? I don't want any of them to start acting like Rambo. I think they should be armed to defend themselves and the cockpit. If they are dead there would be nobody to land the plane.
View Quote
Any power that big brother wishes to bestow upon them. I too agree.......we do not need 50k special agents flying around.....only pilots armed and trained to blow the fuck out of someone trying to start some shit
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 4:48:47 PM EDT
If the Gov. has to "deputize" pilots, to feel comfortable allowing them to be armed, then so be it. Nobody has to worry about them seizing power. The only power they desire comes from those big ole high bypass Turbofanz.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 4:50:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By X--Kill:
Originally Posted By mejames: I don't support deputizing the pilots. What other "power" with they have as deputies? Will they arrest a passenger that has too much to drink? I don't want any of them to start acting like Rambo. I think they should be armed to defend themselves and the cockpit. If they are dead there would be nobody to land the plane.
View Quote
Any power that big brother wishes to bestow upon them. I too agree.......we do not need 50k special agents flying around.....only pilots armed and trained to blow the fuck out of someone trying to start some shit
View Quote
Well rest easy, because from what I saw in congressional testamony NO ONE is going to get the right to carry weapons on aircraft. And the Air Marshals are only going to be a token cause no one wants to pay for them.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 4:57:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By schnacke:
Originally Posted By LotBoy: They can use there approach plates a weapons.
View Quote
Is there an english translation for this?
View Quote
I'll try to keep it simple. An approach plate is a thick catalog of airports divided up by certain regions. It's about five by seven in size and can have anywhere from 50 to 200 paper pages (give or take)of diagrams of airports. I think all of this is on CD ROM, but I don't know anyone who uses it yet. Those big brown and black briefcases you see pilots lugging around contain their approach plates and maps. Commercial pilots (and General Aviation pilots) use them to approach an airport in the correct manner. The "approach plate" gives the pilot all the approach information he or she needs to execute a proper landing at the desired airport and also if he or she needs to abort a landing. The approach plate contains such information as navigation and communication (radio) frequencies and airport/runway/taxiway layout. You may want to think of them as a very detailed map of the airport area. About the only thing you could do with it is give a terrorist a nasty paper cut. Hope this helps.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 6:31:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/25/2001 6:34:01 PM EDT by trickshot]
Yes, but deputizing them is the wrong thing to do. That makes them federal whipping boys, worse than they are now. Instead of just saying "okay, you can carry guns" the federal control freaks want to micro-manage them. There is not need for all this heavy-handedness. It only points to one thing: The feds want us all disarmed so that we can be their loyal subjects and really take it in the ass. Oh, I almost forgot. I talked to someone who got back from Chicago today. She sat next to a US Marshal. I guess he identified himself? They're on the planes now.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 7:14:14 PM EDT
Why does everything nowadays require a "Federal" solution? Are we living in the Forth Reicht?
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 7:19:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fight4yourrights: I fully support allowing Pilots to carry guns aboard. I fully support allowing crew to carry. I fully support allowing LEO's to carry. I fully support allowing CCW holders to carry. [size=5][red]I don't support Federally deputizing pilots. The LAST thing we need is another 50,000 Federal Troops.[/size=5][/red]
View Quote
... absolutely right
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 7:24:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/25/2001 7:26:00 PM EDT by LARRYG]
More typical anti-gun hysteria. Unfortunately, what happened did not wake these morons up (Gebhart, etc). [url]http://www.cleveland.com/poll/pollWKYCtwo.html?poll[/url] 91 percent for.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 7:25:20 PM EDT
Sure lettum carry. I still think they'd be too busy flying the plane than to deal with some psycho... but if they want one fine. We should get 'em as well.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 8:18:46 PM EDT
Hell YES! we ought to do this. Pilots with specialized training and proper weaponry is a great deterrent. Their area of expertise would hardly make them a [i]Federal Troop[/i]. I don't agree with the Civilian Carry option. I see the point, but, as someone else pointed out---the bad guys might get away with it here, too. The flight attendants put themselves at too much risk in this scenario to be armed. LEO's of any agency, active or retired, could be another option for allowable carry. Further enhances the "guess factor" of the perps. Air Marshals? Yes, and hire a lot more. New Game, folks. New rules.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 8:26:10 PM EDT
I'm an airline pilot, and believe me, we won't be too busy to take care of terrorists. Only on take off and landing will there need to be one pilot at the controls. We can all do it by ourselves easily. And the bigger the jet, the more likely it can be set up to do an approach into an airport, land smoothly, and stop on the runway all by itself. Of course it would be better if someone was up there but if push came to shove, it can do it easily. Not that hard to fly. The rules are the biggest part and they all go out the door if some guy comes a knockin with a flight attendant getting her throat slashed.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 9:03:40 PM EDT
There's probably no need to "deputize" pilots, but maybe there's no other way to do it legally. Anyway, I'm sure only a slight fraction would go through the trouble of actually doing. Don't worry about 50,000 armed deputized pilots, think more like a few thousand. And don't worry about any abuse of power, as we already have total control and authority over operation of the aircraft. If you're drunk and disorderly, you're going to jail, whether we're deputized or not. Plus, if there is any group that despises too much federal power, it's pilots. -Dave
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 9:24:47 PM EDT
Requiring deputization to allow carry is meant to send a message. That message is that only "law enforcement" agents need to have these type of weapons. You all weren't thinking our government has forgotten about their anti second ammendment agenda were you?
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 12:00:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By arex: I still think they'd be too busy flying the plane than to deal with some psycho...
View Quote
Only one person needs to be flying the plane at any given time. On short routes, that leaves at least one, and sometimes two, other cockpit crew members available to shoot terrorists. On longer routes, where multiple sets of pilots are required, that would leave quite a few more able-bodied armed good guys available.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 4:03:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2001 4:03:35 AM EDT by fight4yourrights]
Requiring deputization to allow carry is meant to send a message. That message is that only "law enforcement" agents need to have these type of weapons. You all weren't thinking our government has forgotten about their anti second ammendment agenda were you?
View Quote
[size=3]RIGHT ON! Why do people (including some here) believe that a badge makes a person trustworthy and more capable of ensuring your safety than someone without? Why are people so willing to delegate their safety to someone that is an "authority"? The Authorities FAILED to protect you!! They can't. You need to protect yourself. When we entrust someone else to protect us, we risk #1 - their failure, #2 - their abuse. Ask the guy they raped with a plunger in the NYC jail.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 4:04:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RejectAtV1: Plus, if there is any group that despises too much federal power, it's pilots. -Dave
View Quote
Boy Dave, that gets my vote as "understatement" of the year...LOL! Too all the non-pilot guys and gals out there, as a group, pilots have to jump through more hoops then a small dog with a red rubber ball. It's a paperwork and training nightmare. I think part of the reasoning behind making a pilot a federal agent with limited powers is the full weight of federal law would back his or her's actions and when it came to prosecute an offender, the law would have more teeth. Sadly, a federal agent is "worth" more the average Joe citizen. [:(]
Top Top