Obama secretly ends program that let pilots carry guns

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Pretty dangerous program anyway:

One pilot starts jackin around with his pistol and shoots a hole and it's a dangerous program? One in seven years. hmmmmm, one guy hooked in the ground and died last month. Guess we should ban those also. Pretty dangerous move.

What if the bullet had hit a critical system? Didn't think about that, did you? I never heard of a hook turn taking down an airliner.

How about a B-52 doinga hook turn...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/FairchildB52Crash.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/B52_crash_overview.jpg

The buildings you see in the illustrated picture are the USAF Survival School

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E21byPXR1ek

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

Nice thing about editorial pieces - they don't need to have any facts, speculation will do nicely. The only "evidence" I read in that article was that the approval process for obtaining guns for pilots has slowed down, in the opinion of a few un-named people that were asked about it. I would think right-wingers would chalk this up to our grossly overpaid and inefficient government before labeling it as a left-wing agenda.

Right winger here ..... that's what I chalk it up to! I would not doubt that it would something Obama would want to do though. That being said I hate editorials!

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[billvon 3,070]

>You have more faith in the general public than I do. 99% of them are
>cowards that will do nothing. We see this all the time in news shows, how people
>witness someone in need, and walk away without helping.

Or they are afraid of being sued, or they don't know what to do, or they've been told that doing nothing is the best course of action (which is what people were told about hijacking pre-9/11.)

>When the terrorists take over another cabin, it won't be any different.

It took exactly 71 minutes for people to change their minds and fight back during the attacks on 9/11. And the outcome there was VERY different.

[JohnRich 4]

>> You have more faith in the general public than I do. 99% of them are
>> cowards that will do nothing.

> Or they are afraid of being sued, or they don't know what to do, or they've been told that doing
> nothing is the best course of action (which is what people were told about hijacking pre-9/11.)

These are all symptoms of cowardice. Any 'ol excuse will do, to avoid taking action, and putting yourself at risk. For examples, just watch the ABC TV show "What would you do?"

>> When the terrorists take over another cabin, it won't be any different.

> It took exactly 71 minutes for people to change their minds and fight back
> during the attacks on 9/11. And the outcome there was VERY different.

Flight 93 had a few brave men, for sure. But 71 minutes was too long. They all died anyway. The terrorists have to be taken down BEFORE they take control of the cockpit. That's why armed pilots are so important - they retain control of the airplane so that it's not intentionally crashed into the ground.

[billvon 3,070]

>These are all symptoms of cowardice.

No, it is in general what fools mistake for cowardice.

If you see a friend of yours hit the ground really, really hard, and you go out there, and he is moaning and moving around, the best thing to do is, generally, nothing. Don't help him sit up. Don't help him get his gear off. Don't take his helmet off. Indeed, telling him to lie still, and keeping other people from messing with him, is generally the best course of action.

Why? Does not helping mean you're a coward? Does it mean that you are afraid to take manly action and help him stagger off the field? Does it mean that you don't care about your friend? No, it means you are doing the best thing for him. It can be hard, because there are idiots out there who want to DO SOMETHING! ANYTHING! EVEN IF IT'S WRONG! But it might save him from permanent paralysis.

Or perhaps it's a new jumper who sees you wearing a Racer. Should he start prying up the poptop and pulling the fabric out of the reserve PC to try to find your reserve pins? Or should he admit that he doesn't know how to check a reserve on a racer, do nothing and let someone else handle it? Which would you prefer - the guy who really wants to help and pries your PC off your back, or the "coward?"

>But 71 minutes was too long.

71 minutes to completely change a paradigm that had been accurate since the 1960's? On a plane with almost no communication with the outside world? 71 minutes was a miraculously short time for a group of people to decide to risk their own lives, in contravention to everything they had been told about hijackings, to stop terrorists from carrying out their mission. They're heroes, not laggards.

>That's why armed pilots are so important - they retain control of the airplane
>so that it's not intentionally crashed into the ground.

Actually, doors work a _lot_ better. If, as you claim, 99% of people are cowards, only 1 in 100 will do anything with the gun anyway. The door works 100 times out of 100.

But in any case, if pilots want to carry guns, and are willing to go to whatever training course their airline has for those guns - then no problem.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

You have more faith in the general public than I do. 99% of them are cowards that will do nothing

Do armed assailants fall in the non-cowardly percentage of the population that is deserving of your respect?

- btw - loved you in grumpy old men.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Actually, doors work a _lot_ better. If, as you claim, 99% of people are cowards, only 1 in 100 will do anything with the gun anyway. The door works 100 times out of 100.

???

Doors fail all the time. They just stand there, and don't fight back, so it's always a matter of time with them.

Doors plus guns are much better than either by itself. If you only had one, I'd pick the door.

[billvon 3,070]

>Doors fail all the time.

Hmm. Do you have any indications that the new reinforced doors have failed to stop someone who tried to get into the cockpit? We did some certification tests with an MD-80 a while back and they seemed to be pretty effective.

>Doors plus guns are much better than either by itself.

If you amended that to "doors plus guns plus a competent gun user" I'd agree.

[kelpdiver 2]

Few people have tried to get past a door in flight since they were redone. But no door is 100 out of 100 effective, just as your door at home or a locked safe isn't. It could be an hour or 4 before a pilot can land the plane after the cabin is siezed, and that is a lot of time for someone to break through.

The training the pilots do is more than sufficient for the limited circumstances where they would use a weapon. It doesn't take that much competency. I'd be more concerned about them getting complacent and not securing the door.

[billvon 3,070]

>It could be an hour or 4 before a pilot can land the plane after the
>cabin is siezed, and that is a lot of time for someone to break through.

Right. However:

1) pilots have a lot of tools available to them to stop someone, including depressurization, G-loading and aircraft attitudes. In those cases all they need are a few minutes.

2) no one is going to have a drill or a crowbar. It may be possible to break through such a door with a plastic spoon, a nail file and a T-shirt, but my money would be on the door in that case.

3) if someone does somehow produce a rotary hammer and starts working on the door, there aren't too many places in the US where it would take more than half an hour to get to an airport. (Might not be an airport you'd normally want to land a 767 on, but if the choice is between putting it down and getting flown into a building, the door will probably give you the time to do that.)

[DanG 1]

Am I the only person here who is quite alarmed and deeply offended that the ultimate armchair stud is calling the heroes of Flight 93 a bunch of cowards?

WTF? I mean really, WTF?

- Dan G

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

2) no one is going to have a drill or a crowbar.

3) if someone does somehow produce a rotary hammer and starts working on the door, there aren't too many places in the US where it would take more than half an hour to get to an airport.

2- huge assumption there. People have unknowingly brought their guns on board, so I can't discount the possibility of a leverage tool. Nor can you, when you stated 100 of 100.

3) most westbound flights off our coast do not have landing options, esp those to Hawaii or the Southern Pacific. The great circle over Alaska to much of Asia does stay a bit closer to a coast for a good portion of the trip, but still more than an hour I'd expect.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>These are all symptoms of cowardice.

No, it is in general what fools mistake for cowardice.

So you're calling me a fool. And you're a moderator, in charge of enforcing the rules against personal insults. I see...

Did you get an Obama exemption to the rule here against personal insults?
You should be careful with that - he'll want to tax 90% of your income in exchange for that benefit.

If the threat of a lawsuit stops someone from doing what is obviously the right thing to do, then they're a coward.

Your examples don't change that - they're not representative of what I'm talking about.

Let's say one of your example's victims is bleeding profusely. You know that direct pressure will stop bleeding, but you're not a paramedic and you're worried about being sued. Do you let the victim bleed to death because you don't want to be sued for possibly incorrect first aid, or do you intervene and try and stop the bleeding? If you would let the victim bleed to death, you're a coward.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Am I the only person here who is quite alarmed and deeply offended that the ultimate armchair stud is calling the heroes of Flight 93 a bunch of cowards?

You're not reading carefully enough.

And that's a personal insult, forbidden by forum rules. Moderators?

Go read message #29 again, then come back here and apologize to me.

[billvon 3,070]

>So you're calling me a fool.

Nope. I am sure you are smarter than to equate inaction when you don't know what to do to cowardice, and that you simply did what many people here on SC do - posted before you read the entire post.

>Let's say one of your example's victims is bleeding profusely. You know
>that direct pressure will stop bleeding . . .

Let's say you don't know that, since I listed lack of knowledge as a good reason to do nothing. Let's say the only thing you've ever seen on TV that if someone is bleeding, you use a tourniquet. You're not sure if that's the right thing to do, but there sure is a lot of blood, although it seems to be slowing.

Should you use a tourniquet?

Or let's say that a paramedic told you that doing nothing is the best course of action, because he's not bleeding that badly. But then the paramedic leaves.

Should you use a tourniquet?

Or let's say that you know that direct pressure is the right thing to do. You do so. The manager of the store you work at comes up and says "Dave here is a trained paramedic, and he's qualified to deal with this guy - you're not. Let him take over. We've been sued for laymen trying to give medical help before." But you've never really trusted Dave.

Do you let Dave take over?

[DanG 1]

Not a personal insult at all. At least compared to what I wanted to say.

And I did re-read post #29. I still think you're full of shit.

- Dan G

[billvon 3,070]

> I still think you're full of shit.

That is definitely a personal attack. Your one warning.

[jerryzflies 0]

Press release from Air Line Pilots Association:
ALPA representatives met with TSA executives this afternoon and were told that TSA embraces the FFDO program, that there are no plans to reduce or restrict its growth, and that the agency fully intends to grow and expand the program.
Government representatives acknowledged that the program needs additional funding to achieve these goals, and that they are actively pursuing sources of additional funding. These funds will be used to enhance the program's management structure and oversight, which if implemented, will address an ALPA Board of Directors security priority.
TSA is currently training hundreds of pilots each year and plans to continue to train at least that number or more into the future.. The size of the FFDO cadre has grown so large that additional resources are needed to provide greater structure and oversight to this important program, which TSA referred to today as "an important layer of defense".
ALPA is very pleased that the TSA was so proactive in communicating its concerns to the Association and we are likewise pleased that we are able to report this good news to the membership, said ALPA President, Capt. John Prater. ALPA values its relationship with the TSA, and it is obvious from the way the agency handled this event that the feeling is mutual.


Looks like the righties got suckered by the Washington Times YET AGAIN.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Few people have tried to get past a door in flight since they were redone. But no door is 100 out of 100 effective, just as your door at home or a locked safe isn't. It could be an hour or 4 before a pilot can land the plane after the cabin is siezed, and that is a lot of time for someone to break through.

The training the pilots do is more than sufficient for the limited circumstances where they would use a weapon. It doesn't take that much competency. I'd be more concerned about them getting complacent and not securing the door.

I don't think pilots would be as highly trained in firearms tactics as police officers, and apparently that is not always sufficient.

www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gd2xGykkCnfLhKopnaeC8-qYjWEAD97398LO4

I hope all those optimists who think that having a gun makes them safe against an armed criminal take notice.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[n23x 0]

Time to post one of my favorite videos.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[quade 4]

Quote

Time to post one of my favorite videos.

.jim

Well, that doesn't seem to work, but this one does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3_vHUXsunE
"Oh shit!"

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The training the pilots do is more than sufficient for the limited circumstances where they would use a weapon. It doesn't take that much competency. I'd be more concerned about them getting complacent and not securing the door.

I don't think pilots would be as highly trained in firearms tactics as police officers, and apparently that is not always sufficient.

www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gd2xGykkCnfLhKopnaeC8-qYjWEAD97398LO4

I hope all those optimists who think that having a gun makes them safe against an armed criminal take notice.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Press release from Air Line Pilots Association:
ALPA representatives met with TSA executives this afternoon and were told that TSA embraces the FFDO program, that there are no plans to reduce or restrict its growth, and that the agency fully intends to grow and expand the program.
Government representatives acknowledged that the program needs additional funding to achieve these goals, and that they are actively pursuing sources of additional funding. These funds will be used to enhance the program's management structure and oversight, which if implemented, will address an ALPA Board of Directors security priority.
TSA is currently training hundreds of pilots each year and plans to continue to train at least that number or more into the future.. The size of the FFDO cadre has grown so large that additional resources are needed to provide greater structure and oversight to this important program, which TSA referred to today as "an important layer of defense".
ALPA is very pleased that the TSA was so proactive in communicating its concerns to the Association and we are likewise pleased that we are able to report this good news to the membership, said ALPA President, Capt. John Prater. ALPA values its relationship with the TSA, and it is obvious from the way the agency handled this event that the feeling is mutual.


Looks like the righties got suckered by the Washington Times YET AGAIN.

I see the Washington Times has now retracted the editorial, saying it was an "error".

I can't believe that anyone would believe anything in the WT without checking with a reputable source first. I suppose it all depends on what they WANT tp believe.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[Kool-Aid 0]

I am pro-gun....but I see no real need for the pilot to have a gun.

Oh Yea!!!!!!!!!!

[billvon 3,070]

>I am pro-gun....but I see no real need for the pilot to have a gun.

Nor do I, but let em carry them if they want (and they have the training.)