Airline pilots now DEPRIVED OF GUNS by Obama

[JB White]

One can correlate the armed pilot program to several retired Chicago policemen I know who never had to use their sidearm. Certainly if they didn't have one there would have been times they wished they had!

The Captain of an airliner has the same responsibilities as the Captain of a ship. If you think for a moment there aren't firearms aboard cruise ships you'd better think again.

[JGaynor]

As I remember, a lot of pilots did not want to be armed.

How many hijackers have they disabled?

Whole gun/cockpit program is nonesense anyway. I want a pilot who can drive an airplane when I fly, not a cowboy.

Have to disagree on that point. I distinctly remember the head of the pilots union begging for authority to carry firearms in a televised congressional hearing.

The sad thing is it would have been an effective countermeasure that could have been implimented very cheaply in almost no time while other progrmas such as hardening the cockpit doors were under way.

While I have no illusions about Obama and his minions the Bush Administration deserves no credit here. They larded so much bureaucratic BS on this program so as to make it all but unworkable.

The question of how many terrorists have the pilots killed is pure sophistry. The point is that if a cockpit is breached there is a 100% certainty that the plane will be lost, all of the passengers and crew will be killed and even more deaths may result on the ground.

I would not give piots the option of being armed. On the theory that there are no atheists in foxholes I think every commercial aircraft sohould have at least one gun in the cockpit - right along with the fireextinuisher oxygen bottle and other seldom used but vital emerency gear.

[Neal Myers]

Of course every pilot doesn't want to be armed.

The program was made so difficult when it was established during Dubya's administration that most pilots sat back, waiting for things to improve. It's a 2 week course, & they have to do it on their own time, without pay. Travel is at their expense. Any remark made during training could be recorded & used to document "psychological problems" that would result in the loss of their license. Even those that graduate have to carry the gun in a separate locked case, not concealed in a holster, making their armed status obvious to any potential hijacker.

There is no real difference in political parties or members of Congress. Until we recognize that & are able to make real changes, the only direction we are heading is DOWN!

[0311Shooter]

Have to beg to differ with my previous two distinguished friends who are railing on Bush. Try to see things from his perspective, I know it's hard.

With all the furor over 9/11, Bush could not just willy-nilly hand out guns to airline pilots as they marched into the cockpit. If guns were everywhere, and if just one pilot went off the deep end and shot up a plane (or a bar just before he headed to the airport), then Bush would have been raked over the coals even more than he was anyway.

Therefore, there had to be some checks and balances, a possibly deadly armed pilot had to undergo training, with some psychological screening thrown in. We didn't want a pilot mad at the world, having wife problems, or a gun hating democrat (I just threw that last part in) to be armed to the gills, with a bayonet in his teeth, flying a plane. Any such problems should come out in a several days training scenario.

So, the system worked, worked to perfection, there were no more hijackings, and we heard little about it.

Bush was happy, I was happy, and YOU should be too.

[Clark Howard]

As I remember, a lot of pilots did not want to be armed.

How many hijackers have they disabled?

Whole gun/cockpit program is nonesense anyway. I want a pilot who can drive an airplane when I fly, not a cowboy.

Hello 2571 - Your reservations concerning the Federal Flight Deck Officer are duly noted. Your "cowboy" characterization is wayyy off the mark, however. Every one of the sworn pilots in the program are accomplished pilots. The program is completely voluntary. Most of the armed pilots are former officers in the U.S. military. All of the pilots in the program have completed the extensive qualification and training required by the Feds. The only foolish part of the program is the weapon storage requirements dictated by an administration that wanted to discourage participation. Any other law enforcement officer would turn in his badge in disgust if he or she were required to jump through this hoop. The pilots who have made the FFDO concept a success have done so out of a sincere desire to protect their own lives and the lives of their passengers. Since you own a computer, I would recommend that you do a little research into "the cowboy way", before you so easily disparage both professional pilots and cowboys. Regards, Clark

[John Sukey (Deceased)]

A comment; I have smoke detectors, but I never had a house fire. I have fire extinguishers, but I never have had to use them, BUT if I did have a fire at least I could do something about it.
If you have never been in an automobile accident, then you could say seat belts are unnecessary as well.

[JGaynor]

Have to beg to differ with my previous two distinguished friends who are railing on Bush. Try to see things from his perspective, I know it's hard.

With all the furor over 9/11, Bush could not just willy-nilly hand out guns to airline pilots as they marched into the cockpit. If guns were everywhere, and if just one pilot went off the deep end and shot up a plane (or a bar just before he headed to the airport), then Bush would have been raked over the coals even more than he was anyway.

Therefore, there had to be some checks and balances, a possibly deadly armed pilot had to undergo training, with some psychological screening thrown in. We didn't want a pilot mad at the world, having wife problems, or a gun hating democrat (I just threw that last part in) to be armed to the gills, with a bayonet in his teeth, flying a plane. Any such problems should come out in a several days training scenario.

So, the system worked, worked to perfection, there were no more hijackings, and we heard little about it.

Bush was happy, I was happy, and YOU should be too.

Well Using the 767 ER for the sake of the argument the 'unstable' pilot is already at the controls of a 450,000 lb object carrying (at takeoff) 23,000 gallons of fuel and somewhere between 250 and 400 people.

Presumably by the time he or she has gotten to pilot or co-pilot status physical and mental stability and basic competence have been pretty well assured.

I don't see that providing the flight deck crew with access to a firearm to be used only if a breach of cockpit security is eminent is unreasonable. As I said before it was something that could have been done quickly, inexpensively and would have been effective if all the other measures such as airport screening failed or were somehow evaded.

The fact that there have been no further attempts in the interim is in part due to he more stringent screening and IMO in part due to the fact that the bad guys will choose the time and place of their next attack.

[REB13]

2571? You may want to look beyond the end of your nose and the logic of a deterrent verse a mandate. If you do not think pilots should be armed, do you also believe citizens should not be armed? If so you should move to the UK or down under where you can have your wish. Do not mean to offend but the truth is the truth......