Obama quietly ending armed pilot program?

[jmaynard]

I have yet to see evidence of a firearm smuggled aboard a US air carrier aircraft since 9/11/2001.

You must have missed the lady who was arrested after she reported the gun in her purse to the flight crew a few years ago (and definitely post-9/11).

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.

This is a red herring. Taking a gun away from a properly trained user is highly uncommon, and in the situation we're discussing, would require that the FFDO in question screw up rather badly. It's going to be pretty obvious that a hijacking is in progress and who's doing it, and the right answer is to shoot first and answer questions later.

 

[poadeleted20]

You must have missed the lady who was arrested after she reported the gun in her purse to the flight crew a few years ago (and definitely post-9/11).

I must have -- got a reference?

This is a red herring. Taking a gun away from a properly trained user is highly uncommon, and in the situation we're discussing, would require that the FFDO in question screw up rather badly. It's going to be pretty obvious that a hijacking is in progress and who's doing it, and the right answer is to shoot first and answer questions later.

Doesn't matter. If the door is breached, a gun in the pilot's hand isn't going to stop the hijacking by trained terrorists willing to die for their cause.

 

[jesse]

Doesn't matter. If the door is breached, a gun in the pilot's hand isn't going to stop the hijacking by trained terrorists willing to die for their cause.

That is a pretty strong statement Ron. Yes, the angles are very awkward, but stating that it absolutely won't help is a far reach. I'd sure the hell want a chance at stopping the terrorist. It isn't *that* hard to shoot at those angles and you'd have to make a LOT of noise to bust the door down. IOW, you'd be ready.

 

[ScottM]

You must have missed the lady who was arrested after she reported the gun in her purse to the flight crew a few years ago (and definitely post-9/11).

Was that in the US or UK?

This is a red herring. Taking a gun away from a properly trained user is highly uncommon, and in the situation we're discussing, would require that the FFDO in question screw up rather badly. It's going to be pretty obvious that a hijacking is in progress and who's doing it, and the right answer is to shoot first and answer questions later.

Happens to cops several times a year. If it can be that common with highly trained weapons users such as a policeman it is even more likely to occur with a lightly trained user such as a pilot.

How does one define "properly" trained these days? Police are properly trained and are at the range often, going through classes on dealing with bad guys all the time, plus that is their daily focus. What exactly is the initial and recurrent training for the FFDOs?

 

[poadeleted20]

That is a pretty strong statement Ron. Yes, the angles are very awkward, but stating that it absolutely won't help is a far reach. I'd sure the hell want a chance at stopping the terrorist. It isn't *that* hard to shoot at those angles and you'd have to make a LOT of noise to bust the door down. IOW, you'd be ready.

Doesn't matter if the first terrorist gets shot until the clip is empty if s/he takes the gun down and the second terrorist breaks the armed pilot's neck.

 

[jesse]

Happens to cops several times a year. If it can be that common with highly trained weapons users such as a policeman it is even more likely to occur with a lightly trained user such as a pilot.

It is by far the most common with police because they engage in hand-to-hand combat regularly and few of them have properly secured firearms.

In the civilian, C&C world..It doesn't really happen. The firearm is well secured and the location is unknown. You aren't engaging in fights with people on a nightly basis with a gun promptly displayed.

 

[jmaynard]

Was that in the US or UK?

In the US. I'll have to hunt for it, but it was not right after 9/11.

If it can be that common with highly trained weapons users such as a policeman

Bzzt. Cops only claim to be highly trained in firearms use. The reality is quite different.

How does one define "properly" trained these days? Police are properly trained and are at the range often, going through classes on dealing with bad guys all the time, plus that is their daily focus.

That's what they want you to think, but the average cop gets exactly zero weapons training once he leaves the academy.

What exactly is the initial and recurrent training for the FFDOs?

Good question. It's a state secret, like nearly everything else the TSA does. It's reasonable to assume that it closely resembles the firearms training given to air marshals.

 

[jesse]

Doesn't matter if the first terrorist gets shot until the clip is empty if s/he takes the gun down and the second terrorist breaks the armed pilot's neck.

Okay Ron.. That is a hell of a stretch.

It is very unlikely that a terrorist is going to take 12 (13 if they carry chambered) rounds of .40S&W hallow point to the chest, disarm the pilot, and then carefully step out of the way to give room for the 2nd terrorist to break the pilots neck.

The very notion that you would suggest the above happening is ridiculous. A lot could go wrong--but the terrorist taking 12-13 to the chest and disarming the pilot wouldn't be one of them. The real fix would require a redesign of all aircraft.

I do agree that shooting a handgun at a terrorist from a pilots seat would be awkward (VERY possible though). Knowing it is possible will decrease terrorist attacks. At this point, the terrorists are just going to take an easier attack vector anyways.

 

[ScottM]

A couple in flight gun issues that I found looking for the one that Jay mentioned. There are several incidents with guns past security but I only was looking for ones when they got on board

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]McCarran Int'l Airport, Las Vegas[/FONT] [FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]TSA said it was investigating a pilot's report that his gun was missing. The pilot, who was trained to carry a gun in the cockpit, had been traveling as a passenger. During that flight, the gun was placed in a lockbox and stored in the plane's cargo section. When the pilot arrived in Las Vegas, the lockbox could not be found. [FONT=verdana, arial, sans-serif][February 2004]
Source: The Washington Post[/FONT] [/FONT]

The one below is a STUN gun not a 'bullet' gun.
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]LaGuardia Airport, New York[/FONT] [FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]A woman reportedly passed through security with a stun gun and knife. The woman, traveling to Denver, said she discovered the items during the flight and notified a flight attendant. The pilot alerted officials in Denver, where police met the plane and took the woman into custody for questioning. She was released without charge. [FONT=verdana, arial, sans-serif][December 2003 or January 2004]
Source: Airline Industry Information (trade publication), New York Daily News[/FONT]

[/FONT]http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/airportinsecurity/breaches/

 

[jmaynard]

A couple in flight gun issues that I found looking for the one that Jay mentioned.

LaGuardia Airport, New York
A woman reportedly passed through security with a stun gun and knife. The woman, traveling to Denver, said she discovered the items during the flight and notified a flight attendant. The pilot alerted officials in Denver, where police met the plane and took the woman into custody for questioning. She was released without charge. [December 2003 or January 2004]
Source: Airline Industry Information (trade publication), New York Daily News

This is probably the one I was thinking of. Granted, not a gun, but the TSA is supposed to be protecting us from those nasty eeeeevil knives and stun guns, too...

 

[ScottM]

This is probably the one I was thinking of. Granted, not a gun, but the TSA is supposed to be protecting us from those nasty eeeeevil knives and stun guns, too...

I was wondering if that was the one. I went looking but could not find it....yet. Still point taken.

The thing I think is missing from airline security is that the FAs are not trained and armed appropriately to deal with a cockpit attack. I do not think guns would be appropriate for them since they are outside of the secure area and could mor eeasily be sneaken upon and have their sidearms taken. But it would be nice if they had some non-leathal defense training and equipment. Stun guns pepper spray or whatever were to work best in a cabin environment.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

But it would be nice if they had some non-leathal defense training and equipment. Stun guns pepper spray or whatever were to work best in a cabin environment.

At BEST all it would do is slow them down. Doubt it would stop them. But there is no way they can force their way through the cockpit door if it is closed.

 

[jesse]

I was wondering if that was the one. I went looking but could not find it....yet. Still point taken.

The thing I think is missing from airline security is that the FAs are not trained and armed appropriately to deal with a cockpit attack. I do not think guns would be appropriate for them since they are outside of the secure area and could mor eeasily be sneaken upon and have their sidearms taken. But it would be nice if they had some non-leathal defense training and equipment. Stun guns pepper spray or whatever were to work best in a cabin environment.

Why don't we just put everyone to sleep before flights? Or perhaps everyone rides in a cage.

Maybe I'll design the first cabin gas system. Install a big red panic button in the cockpit. Smash that with your fist and the entire cabin is knocked out.

 

[steingar]

My roommate put it quite well: "The polio vaccine is only 90% effective, too."

I'm glad your roommate is not involved in health care policy. The polio vaccine, while not 100%, is incredibly close to it. Ever seen a polio infection in this country?

 

[ScottM]

At BEST all it would do is slow them down. Doubt it would stop them. But there is no way they can force their way through the cockpit door if it is closed.

On a flight last year, it was an A319 I was entering the forward lav. As I opened the lav door the cockpit door swung open. If it can be that easy to get a cockpit door to open by not even touching it, I doubt that bad guys would have to force it very hard at all.

Also a post 9/11 cockpit door story. On an MD80 just prior to rotate the cockpit door swung open on it own accord. I was in the 2nd row of 1st class and enjoyed the forward view. I was very happy that neither pilot tried to close the door. They knew it had opened as the FO looked back, I waived BTW, they kept their focus on the take off. That wasa the right thing to do.

 

[ScottM]

Why don't we just put everyone to sleep before flights? Or perhaps everyone rides in a cage.

Maybe I'll design the first cabin gas system. Install a big red panic button in the cockpit. Smash that with your fist and the entire cabin is knocked out.

Didn't the TSA have a feeler out for some sort of seat restraint that we would all have to wear? Much easier and less risky to pax health.

But if we go your way the key would be to knock them out prior to boarding and then just stack everyone like cargo.

 

[jmaynard]

I'm glad your roommate is not involved in health care policy. The polio vaccine, while not 100%, is incredibly close to it. Ever seen a polio infection in this country?

It doesn't have to be 100% to knock out the disease. Even if it didn't knock out the disease, it would still be well worth doing. That was my point.

...and I saw a story not all that long ago that polio was returning...because people thought it had been eradicated and were no longer getting vaccinated.

 

[steingar]

The Israelis, who have security problems that make ours appear nonexistent in comparison, don't arm their airline pilots (though they do have armed air marshals, to be fair).

And once again we have the spectre of vicious criminals inflicting their mayhem on an innocent public when the reality is that most gun violence is committed either on oneself or one's familiars.

 

[steingar]

It doesn't have to be 100% to knock out the disease. Even if it didn't knock out the disease, it would still be well worth doing. That was my point.

...and I saw a story not all that long ago that polio was returning...because people thought it had been eradicated and were no longer getting vaccinated.

citation please.

 

[SkyHog]

At BEST all it would do is slow them down. Doubt it would stop them. But there is no way they can force their way through the cockpit door if it is closed.

I've seen cockpit doors from the side. I can't imagine they're THAT strong....as a matter of fact, IIRC, didn't some French pilot axe his way in?

 

[TMetzinger]

...and I saw a story not all that long ago that polio was returning...because people thought it had been eradicated and were no longer getting vaccinated.

Oh I hope not. I thought we declared Polio extinct, or was that just Smallpox.

 

[ScottM]

Oh I hope not. I thought we declared Polio extinct, or was that just Smallpox.

Smallpox is on the way back. It was thought to be eradicated but it appears to not be so.

I hav enot heard about the polio making a big come back. I know it never went away.

 

[jmaynard]

And once again we have the spectre of vicious criminals inflicting their mayhem on an innocent public when the reality is that most gun violence is committed either on oneself or one's familiars.

This is quite distorted: it counts as "familiars" such people as drug dealers shooting other dealers they casually know. The CDC routinely inflates numbers of so-called "gun violence" (it's not the gun that's violent) to make the problem look worse than it is.

 

[steingar]

Oh I hope not. I thought we declared Polio extinct, or was that just Smallpox.

it was my understanding that both occurred only in impoverished and isolated communities far from here and of course US weapons labs. However, Jay may know something about it that I do not.

 

[ScottM]

The Israelis, who have security problems that make ours appear nonexistent in comparison, don't arm their airline pilots (though they do have armed air marshals, to be fair).

And once again we have the spectre of vicious criminals inflicting their mayhem on an innocent public when the reality is that most gun violence is committed either on oneself or one's familiars.

Their ground security screening is incredible. I got "chosen" for special screening.

They had x-rayed my bags. I spent a lot of time with security people for reasons that I have stated here before. But what I thought was really neat was each time they scanned my luggage tag the x-rays showed up on their monitors.

Israel airprot security is nothing like the TSA. It is professional and not theater.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

The Israelis, who have security problems that make ours appear nonexistent in comparison, don't arm their airline pilots (though they do have armed air marshals, to be fair).

But just because that's an appropriate approach in Israel doesn't it's an appropriate approach here. They have a much more comprehensive system of (real, not just perceived) security there that likely wouldn't work here.

In my mind, if a pilot feels safer or more comfortable being armed in the cockpit, spending $xMM/yr to allow that happen is sensible. An approach that would generally be considered to be less restrictive vis a vis gun possession seems reasonable here.

And once again we have the spectre of vicious criminals inflicting their mayhem on an innocent public when the reality is that most gun violence is committed either on oneself or one's familiars.

Also true. And it's worth mentioning again that in cases outside those circumstances, a huge percentage of gun violence is perpetrated against people involved in drug and/or gang situations, circumstances that very likely wouldn't stand to benefit from a less restrictive approach.

What I think that all goes to show is that singular, ideologically monolithic approaches to the availability and application of firearms are overly simplistic at best or purposefully narrow at worst; in any case, they're almost always folly.

 

[steingar]

This is quite distorted: it counts as "familiars" such people as drug dealers shooting other dealers they casually know. The CDC routinely inflates numbers of so-called "gun violence" (it's not the gun that's violent) to make the problem look worse than it is.

Again, citation please (and not from the NRA if you please). I've seen this fact documented numerous times by numerous agencies. Moreover, the CDC does not have an axe to grind in this, they publish data. Sorry if you don't like the conclusions.

Criminals murdering their associates fits under the rubric of familiars, and is no concern of mine. Home invasions are sufficiently rare to still make the national news.

 

[jmaynard]

Again, citation please (and not from the NRA if you please).

If you won't accept that the NRA has considerable knowledge on gun policy, then I'm afraid there's not going to be much point in me discussing with you any more.

Moreover, the CDC does not have an axe to grind in this, they publish data. Sorry if you don't like the conclusions.

When they include deaths of people under 25 as "children killed by guns", that's naked massaging of the data. Why do that if they don't have an axe to grind?

Criminals murdering their associates fits under the rubric of familiars, and is no concern of mine.

However, when it's misused to imply that the average person is much more likely to kill a friend than a criminal intent on doing one harm, then it's at best intellectually dishonest, if not outright fraudulent.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I've seen cockpit doors from the side. I can't imagine they're THAT strong....as a matter of fact, IIRC, didn't some French pilot axe his way in?

Nick: I can't imagine any door looks THAT strong---to you . OTOH, might be a major deterrent to most folks!

Best,

Dave

 

[ReverendSlappy]

However, when it's misused to imply that the average person is much more likely to kill a friend than a criminal intent on doing one harm, then it's at best intellectually dishonest, if not outright fraudulent.

Regardless, only one conclusion can be drawn from it: That gun crime (similar to violent crime in general) is likely to be perpetrated against others who are engaged in activity that makes them likely to be armed. To take that and draw the conclusion that less restrictive gun laws are certain to have a vast or even statistically significant impact on gun crime or violent crime rates is also "at best intellectually dishonest, if not outright fraudulent."

 

[TMetzinger]

Regardless, only one conclusion can be drawn from it: That gun crime (similar to violent crime in general) is likely to be perpetrated against others who are engaged in activity that makes them likely to be armed. To take that and draw the conclusion that less restrictive gun laws are certain to have vast or even statistically significant impact on gun crime rates is also "at best intellectually dishonest, if not outright fraudulent."

So what's YOUR explanation for the drop in violent crime rates when a state passes right-to-carry?

 

[ReverendSlappy]

So what's YOUR explanation for the drop in violent crime rates when a state passes right-to-carry?

I reject the assertion that there's a statistically significant "drop" directly attributable to the passage of such a law.

Edit: And even if there were (which again, I reject), that doesn't mean that a similar law would have a similar effect in a different locale.

 

[TMetzinger]

Ah... so every statistic that agrees with your views is valid, and those that don't you reject.

In that case it's pointless having a discussion with you, because for you this is apparently a matter of faith or ideology, not something subject to change by external facts or opinions.

I'm happy agreeing to disagree with you, and hope you never find yourself in a situation which will radically alter your notions.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Ah... so every statistic that agrees with your views is valid, and those that don't you reject.

No, I reject the logical fallacy that correlation equals causation. For example, to offer an alternate theory of causation for the hypothetical correlation you presented (it's hypothetical as you offered it sans data): The circumstances (crime rate, etc.) leading up to the passage of a right-to-carry law would also likely lead to the passage of other crime-prevention laws, at both the state and local level, that could be at least as likely to lower the crime rate as the right-to-carry law.

In that case it's pointless having a discussion with you, because for you this is apparently a matter of faith or ideology, not something subject to change by external facts or opinions.

I'm happy agreeing to disagree with you, and hope you never find yourself in a situation which will radically alter your notions.

It is hardly "a matter of faith or ideology" for me; it's a matter of simple, basic logic.

 

[jesse]

No, I reject the logical fallacy that correlation equals causation. For example, to offer an alternate theory of causation for the hypothetical correlation you presented (it's hypothetical as you offered it sans data): The circumstances (crime rate, etc.) leading up to the passage of a right-to-carry law would also likely lead to the passage of other crime-prevention laws, at both the state and local level, that could be at least as likely to lower the crime rate as the right-to-carry law.


It is hardly "a matter of faith or ideology" for me; it's a matter of simple, basic logic.

Just because something is simple basic logic doesn't mean much. It'd be pretty easy to code what you do into the forum so you don't even have to login anymore!

$reverendSlappy=new User('ReverendSlappy');
if($userPost != $reverendSlappy->getOpinion()) {
   echo("I am right.  You are wrong.  Everything you say is invalid");
} else {
   //I don't like to agree so I won't reply. Trolling is way more fun
  $reverendSlappy->trollNextThread();
}

class User {
   var $username;
   public function User($username) {
      $this->username=$username;
   }
   public function getOpinion() {
      if($this->username=='reverendSlappy') {
         //Return a random true or false.  If the user is slappy 
         //just return a random.  Faster than a database query
         //with the same result
         $randomNumber=rand(1,100);
         if($randomNumber > 50) {
            return TRUE;
         } else {
            return FALSE;
         }
     }
  }
}

That was too much fun.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

The Israelis, who have security problems that make ours appear nonexistent in comparison, don't arm their airline pilots (though they do have armed air marshals, to be fair).

And once again we have the spectre of vicious criminals inflicting their mayhem on an innocent public when the reality is that most gun violence is committed either on oneself or one's familiars.

I thought Israel and Switzerland armed a fair number of their population with firearms for the militia- or is this an urban myth?

I doubt any of these firearms are taken on commercial aircraft.

If these countries do arm a portion of their population, what is the proportion of crime to other places that restrict firearm ownership?

 

[ReverendSlappy]

That was too much fun.

And fast!

Anyway, I'm sorry for the threadjack but I find the whole gun control debate fascinating... Both ends of the spectrum suffer from the same fatal flaw: They believe that their approach to gun laws is the only approach that will work in every circumstance. And I just can't get on board with that... I'm against the Assault Weapons Ban for the same kind of reason I'm against right-to-carry in Chicago: Just because the former makes sense in Place A doesn't mean it makes sense in all of the United States. Conversely, just because right-to-carry makes sense in right-to-carry states, doesn't mean it make sense everywhere.

And yet both sides make the same argument of "My idea works in your locale and yours doesn't work in mine!", get absolutely incensed at the precise, logical inverse, and they just don't see it. Like I said, it's fascinating.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

<SNIP> That was too much fun.

Funny! I wonder if it would pass the Turing Test!:smile:

 

[ScottM]

And fast!

Anyway, I'm sorry for the threadjack but I find the whole gun control debate fascinating... Both ends of the spectrum suffer from the same fatal flaw: They believe that their approach to gun laws is the only approach that will work in every circumstance.

But you are not allowed to hold that position.

You and I share that philosophy of local control and multiple solutions to complex problems and either side will accuse of being affiliated their opposition. Trying to have a reasoned debate on gun control is almost impossible due to the extreme position of both the pro and anti gun sides.

I am not convinced that the FFDO program will ever be a deterrent to terrorists. But I am also not convinced that it is doing harm and adversely affecting safety. With only one minor exception. That is the TSA holster policy. That is unsafe and will lead to a mishap.

 

[mantakos]

When they include deaths of people under 25 as "children killed by guns"...

You didn't provide any references, so I have no idea what you might be referring to, or if it exists or not, but the CDC does list those as old as 24 under "youth violence", which isn't quite the same term as "children":
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/youthviolence/index.html

However, when it's misused to imply that the average person is much more likely to kill a friend than a criminal intent on doing one harm, then it's at best intellectually dishonest, if not outright fraudulent.

60% of those killed by guns were either suicides or accidental discharge:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/lcod.htm
​

-harry