Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 3/4/2002 7:41:12 PM EDT
Somehow, I'm not surprised. The Gubment is so quick to take liberty away, and so reluctant to give it back. I was motivated when GWB got elected, now I'm feeling cynical again. The Air Line Pilots Association, which represents 64,000 pilots at 45 North American airlines, filed a formal petition with the Department of Transportation three weeks after a copilot on a United Airlines flight used an ax to subdue a cockpit intruder. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta on Friday told the Los Angeles Times that he opposes pilots' demands for firearms but would support the use of stun guns to temporarily incapacitate an attacker. There are 2 main pilot unions in this country, and both are overwhelmingly in favor of arming pilots. They are used to fighting for what they want and are the most successful unions in the world. I predict that they will ultimately prevail, but not without your help. Please continue to fight the good fight.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 3:59:18 AM EDT
In my opinion, we need to fight this harder and faster than we did the Dell Incident. This issue is far more important. Who has e-mail addresses for Mineta and Ridge? Merlin
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 4:03:12 AM EDT
I have often wondered why no one has asked the pilots themselves. Ridge, et al, are the last to have an informed, valid opinion. They are, after all, politicians, and are to be pitied and the drool wiped from their mouths every 5 minutes or so.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 4:10:30 AM EDT
Here's some of Minetas policies in reality [url]http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/195010.html[/url] FAA security sex scandal [url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26702[/url] firearms sneaked past check point results covered up
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 4:15:33 AM EDT
As an air traffic controller and as a pilot myself, arming airline pilots would be a huge mistake. Stick with the air marshal idea.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 4:32:38 AM EDT
As I've pointed out on this board before, Tom Ridge is no friend to the RKBA. When some of you get over the fallacious idea that Republicans are always on our side (and Democrats are always against us)we can start making some real progress. The GOP has coasted for twenty years on the idea that they are the only game in town for us.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 5:55:04 AM EDT
I like the "Air Marshal" idea as well, and I prefer it to arming pilots (hey, they have a "fire axe" - that will beat a box cutter any day!). That being said, IMPO I do NOT like Tom Ridge one bit. Just my .50 Tyler
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:02:44 AM EDT
As an air traffic controller and as a pilot myself, arming airline pilots would be a huge mistake.
View Quote
waterblade, Why not? Can you present some valid reasons?
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 7:22:20 AM EDT
Tom Ridge was, and always will be an asshole... He sucked as Governer here in PA, and will continue to suck in his newly appointed position... He's another John McCain...Democrat in Republican clothes...
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 9:28:54 AM EDT
Waterblade, WTFO???? [b]"As an air traffic controller and as a pilot myself, arming airline pilots would be a huge mistake. Stick with the air marshal idea."[/b] As an airline pilot, I totally support arming cockpit crews that wish to be armed and are willing to undergo extensive training and a background check. Why the f*ck not?? If its a good idea for Air marshals sitting in the back of the plane, why would it not be a better idea for the folks with the ultimate responsibility for the saftey of the aircraft to have the means to provide that saftey in the event that all other security measures fail? Which is not too unlikely an event given the current state of security in the air transportation system. If there are Air Marshals on 1/10 of 1% of the flights being flown I'd be suprised. And there are already and always have been LEO's flying in the cabin with firearms who have no specific training in the use of firearms on an aircraft and the FAA and the airlines have felt that that is perfectly safe. We have NG troops standing day and night at security checkpoints with automatic weapons and no one bats an eye and they perform NO useful function. Give me a break. This is all about politics and making the morons in this country that are too dense to think for themselves feel like something is being done when if fact very little has been done to increase the saftey of the flying publlic. And in fact the few things that would increase saftey are prohibited i.e. Profiling and arming the cockpit crews. The FAA took comments from the public on this matter and the public overwhelmingly supported the idea of arming the cockpit crews. Why are our elected and appointed officials so afraid of this concept?
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 9:49:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dragracer_Art: Tom Ridge was, and always will be an asshole... He sucked as Governer here in PA, and will continue to suck in his newly appointed position... He's another John McCain...Democrat in Republican clothes...
View Quote
There are quite a few things I didn't like and don't like about Ridge. But please keep in mind that PA does have some of the most freedom-oriented gun laws, (if you compare ours to other states around us like Maryland, New York, Jersey and Ohio). So, since you think the GOP has left you to rot in the cold are you going to vote for Bob Casey Jr. or Ed "i'm another bill klinton lackey" Rendell? Our choices might suck with the GOP, but they are far better than joining sides with the liberal scum from Pittsburg and Philly. The center of the state is the conservative core of the state. Liberals and people not willing to keep it that way need not apply. _____________________________________ PA: number one in NRA membership PA: number one in registered machine guns PA: one of the few states in the north east with CHL PA: where you can carry into a bar or establishment where alcohol is served by the drink
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 10:59:35 AM EDT
I don't think anyone was slamming PA, just it's ex Gov. With the anti gun attitude of Ridge, I highly doubt he had anything to do with your pro gun laws. I really cannot understand Republican's or Republican appointees having such anti gun, liberal positions on this issue.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 5:50:23 PM EDT
Waterblade, please elaborate. You must know that any pilot does not need a gun to cause a tragedy, if they were so inclined. So it's not that. You must also know that there were many incidents of insane American passengers who tried to crash aircraft even before September 11. You also must know that it would take over 50 .45 caliber holes to depressurize an aircraft. You must also know that military pilots carry all the time without incident, and that Airline pilots routinely carried prior to the 70's, also without incident. So why do you think that arming airline pilots would be a huge mistake? I'm genuinely interested, so please respond. BTW, with all due respect, being an ATC controller, and a part 91 pilot does not give you any insight into the rights, responsibilities, or risks of being a commercial Airline pilot. It's easy to feel safe when you are sitting 18" off the ground, IMHO.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:16:40 PM EDT
As an airline mechanic for a major airline I have to agree with Waterblade. In an emergency situation the pilot should be strapped into his seat, in control of his aircraft. I do think that an airmarshal should be on most flights and maybe some thought given to the idea of replacing one of the flt attendants with a "purser" as is done in many countries. A purser is an airmashal/flt attendant and is armed.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:46:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Fingers: I don't think anyone was slamming PA, just it's ex Gov. With the anti gun attitude of Ridge, I highly doubt he had anything to do with your pro gun laws. I really cannot understand Republican's or Republican appointees having such anti gun, liberal positions on this issue.
View Quote
Sorry I was pissed off this morning. I can't remember gun laws getting any worse with Ridge. Everything that changed while he was gov. was from the Federal level. If the democrats were running the state I may not be able to say that. The State Police do keep track of handgun sales, which is bullsh*t, but I don't remember the Gov. being able to write law or judge the laws/practices in affect. Ridge's current position does not give him the power to write laws. Congress still does that. If we want armed pilots, forget Ridge... bug your congresscritter. BTW, I shoot IDPA with a few pilots and the other week at practice they set up a drill to simulate a cockpit defense situation. You started sitting down in the "pilot's seat" and at the start signal you had to get up, turn around, present weapon and engage hostiles through a narror doorway. They mixed a few non-hostiles in too, just to make it interesting. It was a simple drill that even the most novice shooters could accomplish cleanly and quickly. They were all ready to carry on board. Before that happens we need nation-wide CHL so the pilots will be legal wherever they land. _____________________________________ [red]Domari Nolo: I will not be subjugated [/red]
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 7:44:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By paterpk: As an airline mechanic for a major airline I have to agree with Waterblade. In an emergency situation the pilot should be strapped into his seat, in control of his aircraft. I do think that an airmarshal should be on most flights and maybe some thought given to the idea of replacing one of the flt attendants with a "purser" as is done in many countries. A purser is an airmashal/flt attendant and is armed.
View Quote
An armed pilot would only be used to protect the cockpit. They could have the seatbelt on the whole time. There are two pilots up front. Either of which can fly the aircraft, while the other engages hostiles. You should now that the aircraft also have auto pilots and some inherent stability. So there is no danger of loosing control while shooting. What we are talking about is a last ditch defense of the aircraft. Something that might happen only once a decade. Why is it that people are comfortable with the idea of an armed fighter "escorts" but uncomfortable with armed pilots? You do know what those jet fighters are really there for don't you? The only possible argument against is that it would create a new breed of elitists that have rights not afforded the general public. Is that why you are against? Waterblade? paterpk? At least I could understand it if that were the case. BTW, I think your idea of a Purser (Bouncer) is a great idea, for everyday air rage incidents. He could not be armed though. It would be to easy for someone to take his weapon. Airmarshals are undercover.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 8:08:06 PM EDT
I have tried to do my part. I wrote to President Bush expressing my outrage at the government dragging their feet on this and pointed out one of the reasons Gwhore lost as well as daddy Bush. I responded to the call for comments on proposed rulemaking. I contacted all three of my congress critters when the bill was before them. Any other suggestions? As far as the risks of armed pilots, they DO exist, at least in theory. However, the risks of defenseless pilots are well proven - see Sept 11, 2001!! Odds of 3000 to 1 or even 3000 to 400 seems acceptable to me. None of us want to see an innocent passenger killed by a stray bullet. Is he less dead if killed by a madman? It would certainly be a freak thing to cause major damage, let alone catastophic damage to an aircraft by a stray bullet. Flying it into the ground or a building causes extremely serious damage, rendering it useless - not to mention the terminal injuries to all aboard and God only knows how many on the ground! Does ANYONE really belive "airport security" means diddly? So WTF is the problem here? Politicians with an agenda but no decency. More interested in control than security. Defense of their worthless careers. The will of the people, the security of our transportation or even of our nation DO NOT matter to these people!!
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 8:17:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By alive45acp:
Originally Posted By Dragracer_Art: Tom Ridge was, and always will be an asshole... He sucked as Governer here in PA, and will continue to suck in his newly appointed position... He's another John McCain...Democrat in Republican clothes...
View Quote
There are quite a few things I didn't like and don't like about Ridge. But please keep in mind that PA does have some of the most freedom-oriented gun laws, (if you compare ours to other states around us like Maryland, New York, Jersey and Ohio). So, since you think the GOP has left you to rot in the cold are you going to vote for Bob Casey Jr. or Ed "i'm another bill klinton lackey" Rendell? Our choices might suck with the GOP, but they are far better than joining sides with the liberal scum from Pittsburg and Philly. The center of the state is the conservative core of the state. Liberals and people not willing to keep it that way need not apply. _____________________________________ PA: number one in NRA membership PA: number one in registered machine guns PA: one of the few states in the north east with CHL PA: where you can carry into a bar or establishment where alcohol is served by the drink
View Quote
You need to re-read my reply... I directed my slam squarely at Ridge...NOT the GOP or OUR state of PA... You are getting a little carried away with your assumption of my thoughts... Our gun rights are protected by OUR state constitution as well as the US constitution...NOT our elected officials... Did you already forget about the increase in our vehicle registrations he introduced ??? My dually went from $36 a year to $152 a year... What about Ridge's support for the ILLEGAL PA State Police records on ALL handgun purchases ??? Nowhere in my reply did I slam the state, it's gun rights, or the GOP... I thought it was pretty obvious I was samming Ridge... Hmmm... Let's see... I'm an NRA member... I'm an owner of (1) Class3 weapon... I've had a Concealed carry permit for more than 13 years now... I love this state... AND... I vote... I hope that was clear....
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 9:51:22 PM EDT
Certainly there are risks involved in having firearms in the cockpit. There are risks involved in having firearms in your home, in a cop's holster, etc. etc. Life is full of risks but intelligent people weigh the risks and make intelligent decisions. As Mickey Mouse pointed out, whats worse, the extremely small chance of a negligent discharge on board an aircraft or the very real danger of another 9/11 type incident. I really like the idiotic argument about how the pilots need to be flying the airplane and not be distracted by having to defend the cockpit. First of all, the plane flies just fine without any input from either of the pilots for most of the flight. One guy monitoring it is all thats required at the most. What do you think happens on 2 man crews when one has to use the head? Secondly, what could possibly be more distracting to the crew than someone trying to break into the cockpit to kill the pilots and take control of the aircraft. The sooner they are able to remove this distraction permanently the better for everyone on board. I too have written to everyone I could think of and I hope you have too. With the spineless politicians we have in both parties I don't feel good about the chances of this happening unless there is a very high level of public pressure brought to bear on them.
Top Top