Obama quietly ending armed pilot program?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dave Siciliano

Dave Siciliano

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
6,434
Location
Dallas, Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Dave Siciliano
This according to a Washington Times editorial.

Best,

Dave

The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.

This looks like completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots. The 12,000 Federal Flight Deck Officers, the pilots who have been approved to carry guns, are reported to have the best behavior of any federal law enforcement agency. There are no cases where any of them has improperly brandished or used a gun. There are just a few cases where officers have improperly used their IDs.

http://tinyurl.com/c2hqgy
 
Less ability for pilots to defend themselves and their passengers? Check.

More unnecessary bureaucracy to hamper pilots and passengers? Check.

How could this NOT be true?
 
I'm seeing conclusions made, but I don't understand how that's possible without more information.

What's the current budget for training pilots? If it's $2M, then the training program is now unfunded. If it's $20M, then this is a small shifting of resources.

Is "more supervisory staff" unnecessary? If so, based on what information did you determine this?
-harry
 
RogerT said:
What about the one that shot a hole in the plane?
Click to expand...

Because the TSA maroons would only accept a pistol lock that was a conventional PADLOCK through the holster by the TRIGGER?
 
RogerT said:
What about the one that shot a hole in the plane?
Click to expand...

I believe that was traced back to two factors:
One - the pilot didn't pay adequate attention when stowing the weapon.
Two - the holster design significantly raises the chance of an accidental discharge due to it's mechanism for locking.
 
steingar said:
Last, the thought that arming people aboard a complex, pressurized, and highly flammable vehicle somehow increases safety is on a level of absurdity that could only come from our friends at the TSA.
Click to expand...

And a lead projectile causes said "flammable vehicle" what sort of problems?
 
mantakos said:
But besides presenting opinion, it also asserts certain facts. The standards for accuracy of factual information should be no lower on the editorial page than elsewhere in the paper.

This editorial says "Obama secretly ends program that lets pilots carry guns". That's not an opinion, that's an assertion of fact.
-harry
Click to expand...
No, it's an opinion, that the actions taken will end the FFDO program.
 
dmccormack said:
And a lead projectile causes said "flammable vehicle" what sort of problems?
Click to expand...

He's antigun, don't bother. You could show evidence of a pilot saving an entire city's worth of passengers by disabling a terrorist, and the gun still wouldn't be the hero in the story.
 
steingar said:
Last, the thought that arming people aboard a complex, pressurized, and highly flammable vehicle somehow increases safety is on a level of absurdity that could only come from our friends at the TSA.
Click to expand...
Really? So the whole Air Marshal program is a waste, too?

And I wasn't aware that airplanes were highly flammable.
 
steingar said:
Last, the thought that arming people aboard a complex, pressurized, and highly flammable vehicle somehow increases safety is on a level of absurdity that could only come from our friends at the TSA.
Click to expand...
Actually, the TSA fought it tooth and nail. Congress mandated it, in one of their more sensible moves: if nobody knows whether the captain and first officer will be able to defend themselves from hijackers effectively, then that will lower the likelihood of a hijacking.

As for being dangerous, that's just plain silly. In the absence of a particularly stupid holster design the TSA did mandate, it's perfectly safe, and much safer than allowing a hijacker to fly the aircraft into a building. I would also suggest you check out the episode of Mythbusters in which they examined what it took to cause a catastrophic depressurization (hint: it's a substantial amount of C4; pistol rounds had only a tiny effect).
 
We're here to talk about the Federal Flight Deck Officer program, not the political agendas of any particular news agencies. Offending posts deleted. Any more and the thread will be cut and individuals sanctioned.
 
Most highly trained soldiers and LEOs miss in the heat of the moment. Bullets can do really bad things to aircraft. And yes, most airliners burn like crazy when they crash. The aluminum from which they are made is inflammable (unless they are made from composite materials) but the fuel is wonderfully flammable, and, despite wishes to the contrary, so are their occupants.
 
jmaynard said:
Actually, the TSA fought it tooth and nail. Congress mandated it, in one of their more sensible moves: if nobody knows whether the captain and first officer will be able to defend themselves from hijackers effectively, then that will lower the likelihood of a hijacking.
Click to expand...
I prefer the British ALPA's statement: "We're trying to eliminate guns on our aeroplanes, not add more."
As for being dangerous, that's just plain silly. In the absence of a particularly stupid holster design the TSA did mandate, it's perfectly safe, and much safer than allowing a hijacker to fly the aircraft into a building. I would also suggest you check out the episode of Mythbusters in which they examined what it took to cause a catastrophic depressurization (hint: it's a substantial amount of C4; pistol rounds had only a tiny effect).
Click to expand...
I won't argue the holster issue, as I'm not familiar enough with the technicalities, but I can state, as one with 12 years of aircraft ballistic vulnerability engineering experience, that a single 9/10mm/.40cal pistol bullet can bring down an airliner if it hits the right thing, and there are a lot of "right things" to hit. Low probability, perhaps, but it's indeed possible, and orders of magnitude more likely than the failure mode tested by the Mythbusters.
 
mantakos said:
I'm seeing conclusions made, but I don't understand how that's possible without more information.

What's the current budget for training pilots? If it's $2M, then the training program is now unfunded. If it's $20M, then this is a small shifting of resources.

Is "more supervisory staff" unnecessary? If so, based on what information did you determine this?
-harry
Click to expand...

Good point.

For those interested in the facts of the matter, the total budget for the FFDO program was $27,530,000 in FY2008. The Washington Times' "some $2 million" figure (if accurate) would represent less than 10% of that total.

It's also important to note that the Times' article provides that "some $2 million" figure without direct citation, without any attribution to its source whatsoever, and no information I've been able to find to this point corroborates that or any amount of money undergoing such a reappropriation -- let alone any information whatsoever that even vaguely or loosely supports the op-ed's overall assertion. So drawing any conclusion about this program based on the linked opinion piece would be... premature, to put it lightly.
 
No, it's an opinion, that the actions taken will end the FFDO program.
Click to expand...
The subject of this thread is:
Obama quietly ending armed pilot program?
​
This isn't an assertion of fact. But the headline of the editorial was:
Obama secretly ends program that let pilots carry gun
​
This describes an event that has taken place in the past. It even describes the program in the past tense, as a program that "let" pilots carry a gun. It's an assertion of fact.
-harry
 
steingar said:
Most highly trained soldiers and LEOs miss in the heat of the moment. Bullets can do really bad things to aircraft. And yes, most airliners burn like crazy when they crash. The aluminum from which they are made is inflammable (unless they are made from composite materials) but the fuel is wonderfully flammable, and, despite wishes to the contrary, so are their occupants.
Click to expand...
Actually studies have shown that civilians with carry permits (a roughly comparable group) miss less often and shoot the wrong people less often than LEOs do. The difference is that LEOs, as a rule, don't practice shooting more than is strictly necessary to requalify however often they're required to. (Those that do are very much the exception, as a visit to your local pistol club will quickly confirm.)

As for soldiers, they engage at much greater distances than you'd be dealing with in the situation a FFDO is intended to deal with. If a soldier gets within a few feet of his target, he's already screwed up.

Ron Levy said:
I prefer the British ALPA's statement: "We're trying to eliminate guns on our aeroplanes, not add more."
Click to expand...
This is typical of the British, who don't understand that the bad guys will be armed anyway.

I won't argue the holster issue, as I'm not familiar enough with the technicalities, but I can state, as one with 12 years of aircraft ballistic vulnerability engineering experience, that a single 9/10mm/.40cal pistol bullet can bring down an airliner if it hits the right thing, and there are a lot of "right things" to hit. Low probability, perhaps, but it's indeed possible, and orders of magnitude more likely than the failure mode tested by the Mythbusters.
Click to expand...
Okkay, a similar question to the one Tim asked: Are you advocating disarming the Air Marshals, too? Bear in mind that there's no reason that the FFDOs can't get the same training in shooting aboard airliners as Air Marshals, and have a built-in advantage in that they know how their aircraft is built and therefore have some sense of what not to shoot. Further, a single 9mm or greater bullet won't bring down an airliner *immediately*, and pilots are trained extensively in how to deal with systems failures. It's still a better chance for everyone aboard than letting a hijacker fly it into a building.
 
Nobody has carried a gun onto an aircraft in the US in decades before the current idiocy. Armed pilots might not have even been able to prevent 911 (drop the gun or I slit the pretty stewardesses throat). As it is a gun will be useless to a terrorist. He or she might manage to kill as many people as he or she has bullets, but I doubt would survive very long once he or she ran out of ammo.

Arming citizens is not a panacea for everything that ails us.
 
steingar said:
Nobody has carried a gun onto an aircraft in the US in decades before the current idiocy.
Click to expand...
How do you know that?

Armed pilots might not have even been able to prevent 911 (drop the gun or I slit the pretty stewardesses throat).
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. It's changed since 9/11, however: before that day, the standard instructions were to comply with the hijackers' every demand, because that had been shown to be the most likely policy to save lives. Now, we know differently.

As it is a gun will be useless to a terrorist. He or she might manage to kill as many people as he or she has bullets, but I doubt would survive very long once he or she ran out of ammo.
Click to expand...
And this is the real lesson of United 93, the one that the TSA and others who think that all of the security theater actually does some good don't get: No airplane full of passengers will ever again meekly submit to a hijacker, lest their deaths become part of someone's special political statement. Understanding that lesson, and taking it to its logical conclusion, will do more for aviation security than all of the screeners at terminal entrances put together.

Arming citizens is not a panacea for everything that ails us.
Click to expand...
My roommate put it quite well: "The polio vaccine is only 90% effective, too." It might not be a panacea, but allowing ordinary citizens to carry firearms has a significant deterrent effect that far outweighs the costs. Just because you can't fix the entire problem doesn't mean you shouldn't fix a major portion of it.
 
jmaynard said:
My roommate put it quite well: "The polio vaccine is only 90% effective, too." It might not be a panacea, but allowing ordinary citizens to carry firearms has a significant deterrent effect that far outweighs the costs. Just because you can't fix the entire problem doesn't mean you shouldn't fix a major portion of it.
Click to expand...
Your roommate is a very smart guy.
 
steingar said:
(drop the gun or I slit the pretty stewardesses throat).
Click to expand...
You've seen too many movies (a pretty stewardess?). Anyone that disarms themselves per the request of an aggressor is a fool.

Disarm yourself, negotiate, and you will die along with everyone else.

ronlevy said:
but I can state, as one with 12 years of aircraft ballistic vulnerability engineering experience, that a single 9/10mm/.40cal pistol bullet can bring down an airliner if it hits the right thing, and there are a lot of "right things" to hit. Low probability, perhaps, but it's indeed possible, and orders of magnitude more likely than the failure mode tested by the Mythbusters.
Click to expand...

Beyond the rare exception--if the pilot has discharged his firearm it is because a terrorist was trying to take the airplane and likely kill everyone inside it and thousands on the ground. The risk from the firearm discharge is thousands of times less than the risk if the terrorist takes the cockpit. You need to end the threat fast. Whenever there is justifiable cause for lethal force there will be risk.

There was one discharge accident. It didn't crash the airliner and is mostly the fault of the TSA. Has armed pilots stopped any terrorist attacks? Well there haven't been any such attack since they've been armed. Is that the reason? Who knows.
 
Last edited:
jmaynard said:
My roommate put it quite well: "The polio vaccine is only 90% effective, too." It might not be a panacea, but allowing ordinary citizens to carry firearms has a significant deterrent effect that far outweighs the costs. Just because you can't fix the entire problem doesn't mean you shouldn't fix a major portion of it.
Click to expand...
In the context of a potential confrontation in an airliner, I absolutely agree.

But in wider society, that doesn't even pass the smell test.
 
Ron Levy said:
I prefer the British ALPA's statement: "We're trying to eliminate guns on our aeroplanes, not add more."
I won't argue the holster issue, as I'm not familiar enough with the technicalities, but I can state, as one with 12 years of aircraft ballistic vulnerability engineering experience, that a single 9/10mm/.40cal pistol bullet can bring down an airliner if it hits the right thing, and there are a lot of "right things" to hit. Low probability, perhaps, but it's indeed possible, and orders of magnitude more likely than the failure mode tested by the Mythbusters.
Click to expand...

Good thing they don't let the USSS carry on AF1, huh?

And I carried a gun (as did many other folks in law enforcement) on airliners before 9/11. Only AFTER 9/11 did they tighten restrictions on LEO's. The training given the FFDOs and the Air Marshals is pretty good.
 
ReverendSlappy said:
In the context of a potential confrontation in an airliner, I absolutely agree.

But in wider society, that doesn't even pass the smell test.
Click to expand...

You're from Chicago? What is the gun crime like there? How about the gun laws?

I'm sorry--but knowing the innocent can defend themselves does have an overall decrease in crime. For some reason Chicago just doesn't understand this, and as a result, is one of the most dangerous cities.
 
TMetzinger said:
Really? Look at violent crime statistics in right-to-carry states.
Click to expand...

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

A better consideration is the fact that the vast majority of violent crime is attached to drug and gang activity, environments in which the targets of said violence are already very likely to be armed.
 
jesse said:
You're from Chicago? What is the gun crime like there? How about the gun laws?

I'm sorry--but knowing the innocent can defend themselves does have an overall decrease in crime. For some reason Chicago just doesn't understand this, and as a result, is one of the most dangerous cities.
Click to expand...

Again: The vast majority of gun crime here occurs in situations in which the targets of the violence are very likely to be armed. Consequently, to draw the conclusion that more armed citizens here would act as a deterrent to gun crime is ludicrous.
 
ReverendSlappy said:
Again: The vast majority of gun crime here occurs in situations in which the targets of the violence are very likely to be armed. Consequently, to draw the conclusion that more armed citizens here would act as a deterrent to gun crime is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

How are they very likely to be armed when guns are practically outlawed there?
 
SkyHog said:
How are they very likely to be armed when guns are practically outlawed there?
Click to expand...

Obviously gun control laws don't eliminate the possibility of people possessing guns. But in contexts such as Chicago's, that's not really the underlying intent of those laws anyway.
 
ReverendSlappy said:
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

A better consideration is the fact that the vast majority of violent crime is attached to drug and gang activity, environments in which the targets of said violence are already very likely to be armed.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. and the fact that the citizens aren't armed has what effect on the growth and spread of those areas?

Or are you saying that in right-to-carry states the fact that the citizens are armed somehow shrinks those areas? That might be true, but I don't know.

What I do know is that in one occasion where I took a life I was unarmed. If I had been armed it's likely that I wouldn't have had to kill - merely pointing the gun would have stopped the situation, and if I had to shoot I would have been at less risk to myself.
 
ReverendSlappy said:
Again: The vast majority of gun crime here occurs in situations in which the targets of the violence are very likely to be armed. Consequently, to draw the conclusion that more armed citizens here would act as a deterrent to gun crime is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Oookay--if that is what you want to believe--so be it. Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable unarmed with a bunch of armed gangsters running around. They not only kill each other...they reach out and touch the innocent.
 
TMetzinger said:
Hmm.. and the fact that the citizens aren't armed has what effect on the growth and spread of those areas?

Or are you saying that in right-to-carry states the fact that the citizens are armed somehow shrinks those areas? That might be true, but I don't know.
Click to expand...

Really my feeling on the matter is that even the state level is too broad a jurisdiction to consider applying a singular, monolithic approach to gun laws.
 
ReverendSlappy said:
Really my feeling on the matter is that even the state level is too broad a jurisdiction to consider applying a singular, monolithic approach to gun laws.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Which is why the 2nd amendment is worded the way it is, saying that NO ONE can apply gun laws.
 
jesse said:
Oookay--if that is what you want to believe--so be it. Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable unarmed with a bunch of armed gangsters running around. They not only kill each other...they reach out and touch the innocent.
Click to expand...

That's understandable, and in examining my personal situation, I've drawn the opposite conclusion. As have law enforcement officials in Chicago.

That said, I don't claim to have the first clue about what would constitute reasonable, appropriate gun laws in your neck of the woods.
 
jesse said:
You've seen too many movies (a pretty stewardess?). Anyone that disarms themselves per the request of an aggressor is a fool.

Disarm yourself, negotiate, and you will die along with everyone else.
Click to expand...

Post 9/11 yes. Pre 9/11 was a different story.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Post 9/11 yes. Pre 9/11 was a different story.
Click to expand...
I agree Greg. Things used to be different on airliners.

The rule pretty much applies about anywhere now. You don't disarm per the request of an attacker.
 
jmaynard said:
This is typical of the British, who don't understand that the bad guys will be armed anyway.
Click to expand...
I have yet to see evidence of a firearm smuggled aboard a US air carrier aircraft since 9/11/2001. IOW, the Brits' idea was to make sure there were no firearms which "bad guys" could take and use rather than having to sneak them past virtually gun-proof security.
 
jesse said:
Has armed pilots stopped any terrorist attacks? Well there haven't been any such attack since they've been armed.
Click to expand...
Nobody's gotten into the cockpit since the doors were reinforced, and that happened before pilots started carrying guns. There is no evidence that FFDO's have accomplished anything other than shoot a hole in an airplane full of people in flight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top