• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-Gun Extremists Seek to End Federal Flight Deck Officers Program

Should Airline Pilots Have The Option to Arm Themselves?


  • Total voters
    23

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Obama secretly ends program that let pilots carry gunsAfter the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.

Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.

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.

Fewer than one percent of the officers have any administrative actions brought against them and, we are told, virtually all of those cases “are trumped up.”

Take a case against one flight officer who had visited the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles within the last few weeks. While there, the pilot noticed that federal law enforcement officers can, with the approval of a superior, obtain a license plate that cannot be traced, a key safety feature for law enforcement personnel. So the pilot asked if, as a member of the federal program, he was eligible. The DMV staffer checked and said “no.” The next day administrative actions were brought against the pilot for “misrepresenting himself.” These are the kinds of cases that President Obama wants to investigate.

Since Mr. Obama's election, pilots have told us that the approval process for letting pilots carry guns on planes slowed significantly. Last week the problem went from bad to worse. Federal Flight Deck Officers - the pilots who have been approved to carry guns - indicate that the approval process has stalled out.

Pilots cannot openly speak about the changing policies for fear of retaliation from the Transportation Security Administration. Pilots who act in any way that causes a “loss of confidence” in the armed pilot program risk criminal prosecution as well as their removal from the program. Despite these threats, pilots in the Federal Flight Deck Officers program have raised real concerns in multiple interviews.

Arming pilots after Sept. 11 was nothing new. Until the early 1960s, American commercial passenger pilots on any flight carrying U.S. mail were required to carry handguns. Indeed, U.S. pilots were still allowed to carry guns until as recently as 1987. There are no records that any of these pilots (either military or commercial) ever causing any significant problems.

The Democrats want us to return to the fun old days of the 1990's and early 2000's, when islamic terrorists with razor blades could kill thousands of people.

The lunatics don't care about the people, they're ideologically terrified of the gun.

So, should pilots have the option of being armed, or not?

BTW, don't give me any guff about cabin-depressurization. That's an ignorant argument.
 
The Democrats want us to return to the fun old days of the 1990's and early 2000's, when islamic terrorists with razor blades could kill thousands of people.

The lunatics don't care about the people, they're ideologically terrified of the gun.

So, should pilots have the option of being armed, or not?

BTW, don't give me any guff about cabin-depressurization. That's an ignorant argument.

I vote Yes. armed pilots FTW.

YouTube - how pilots SHOULD talk!
 
The Obama kills funding for the training:

Washington Times - EDITORIAL: Guns on a plane

Question:

If someone, who could have been easily stopped by a pilot carrying a 45, takes over a plane and brings down another skyscreaper with it -- does The Obama get the blame?

(Of course not. It will be Bush's fault)

I simply do not understand the hatred of guns from the left.
 
Last edited:
There is no such thing as "terrorism" any more, just "Man-Caused Disasters" just ask the new Homeland security director. :roll:
 
Perhaps we should remove the security door to the cockpit also, as we all know it perpetuates discrimination against Muslims.

The guns that they carry are not off the shelf, they and the ammo they use have been tested by the FAA. I hear the ammo is the same as the ammo used by air marshals.
 
The Obama kills funding for the training:

(Of course not. It will be Bush's fault)

I simply do not understand the hatred of guns from the left.

They are against anything that take power out of the hands of government and returns it to the people.

Guns

Private accounts for social security

are just two examples
 
Federal Officials Deny Report That Obama Seeks to End Pilot Gun Program - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

Fail

Sterling Payne, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, denied the report and said the program that oversees a reported 12,000 federal flight deck officers (FFDO) is actually expanding.

"It's inaccurate, this program continues to grow," Payne told FOXNews.com of the editorial. "TSA continues to recruit and put new FFDOs on planes, and we continue to train them and do recurring training."

Payne said TSA officials have recently opened a training center for FFDOs in Atlantic City, N.J., with others planned to open in Texas and other states. She declined, citing security concerns, to say how many federal flight deck officers are authorized by the agency, citing security concerns.

"We have thousands of FFDOs right now and we add thousands each year," Payne said.
Representatives from The Washington Times did not return a request for comment. A White House spokesman declined to speak on the matter, saying it was being handled by TSA officials

In a statement issued Tuesday, the Airlines Pilots Association International -- the world's largest airline pilot union, representing nearly 52,250 pilots in the U.S. and Canada -- said the Times editorial "couldn't be further from the truth."

You should probably check stories like this against sources that aren't editorials and mouthpieces for the Moonies.
 
You should probably check stories like this against sources that aren't editorials and mouthpieces for the Moonies.

Is there some reason I should rely on the utterances of an establishment spokeshole?

Here's a position paper by the Airline Pilots Association, ALPA:

Federal Flight Deck Officer ProgramToday, more than 10,000 FFDOs protect the flight decks of our nation’s airliners and defend more than 100,000 flight segments per month. In spite of the program’s tremendous growth and value, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has relegated it to a “caretaker” status. TSA has supported the increase in FFDO ranks, but has not increased the funds necessary for logistical support and infrastructure. In essence, the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS), which administers the program, is provided only the minimal resources required to sustain it.

This lack of investment in and commitment to the FFDO program by its parent agency has resulted in significant deficiencies in the following areas:

...

- Dated 2-09.


hmmmmm...but you said the ALPA said something different....

....given that freedom is preserved by being skeptical of government, why should we believe the spokeshole and his trained forked tongued puppies in the ALPA?
 
Last edited:
Passengers aren't allowed to carry guns on the plane...why should the pilots be any different? They're trained to fly a plane, not kill hijackers. :confused:

I don't see why it would be a good idea for ANYONE on a plane to have access to a gun. If someone wanted to hijack a plane, it seems like it would be considerably easier to steal the pilot's gun than to get through security with one.
 
Passengers aren't allowed to carry guns on the plane...why should the pilots be any different? They're trained to fly a plane, not kill hijackers. :confused:

I don't see why it would be a good idea for ANYONE on a plane to have access to a gun. If someone wanted to hijack a plane, it seems like it would be considerably easier to steal the pilot's gun than to get through security with one.

You mean outside of the minor fact that if only one person on two airplanes one sunny September morn had each been armed with a teenie-tiny .22 pistol, islamic thugs with razor blades would be dead, and not three thousand Americans?

You don't see any benefit in that, huh?
 
You mean outside of the minor fact that if only one person on two airplanes one sunny September morn had each been armed with a teenie-tiny .22 pistol, islamic thugs with razor blades would be dead, and not three thousand Americans?

Unlikely.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You don't see any benefit in that, huh?

An exact repeat of the scenario is even less likely.


I have a question: Do you think random people should be allowed to carry weapons on the plane (provided they have the training and licenses and whatnot)? If not, what makes a pilot so special? Are pilots law enforcement officers now? :confused:
 
Unlikely.

stupid comment.

An exact repeat of the scenario is even less likely.

The original scenario was unlikey.

Best way to prevent a repeat is to restore the rights of citizenship to air passengers in the United States.

I have a question: Do you think random people should be allowed to carry weapons on the plane (provided they have the training and licenses and whatnot)? If not, what makes a pilot so special? Are pilots law enforcement officers now? :confused:

You mean outside of the fact that if the pilot wants to crash the airplane into the Atlantic Ocean, as that Egypt Air flight did in 1999, no one's going to stop him....but if he's got a gun it's harder to make him do it?

That kind of logic is a little advanced for some, isn't it?

Why shouldn't random law abiding citizens who already have gun permits not be allowed to carry their weapons onto an airplane? No good reason is visible, only pants-wetting reasons.
 
You mean outside of the fact that if the pilot wants to crash the airplane into the Atlantic Ocean, as that Egypt Air flight did in 1999, no one's going to stop him....but if he's got a gun it's harder to make him do it?

I'm not worried about the pilot using the gun. I'm worried about someone else getting ahold of it...as it's probably easier to do that than to sneak a gun through security.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Why shouldn't random law abiding citizens who already have gun permits not be allowed to carry their weapons onto an airplane? No good reason is visible, only pants-wetting reasons.

And why couldn't a random law abiding citizen with a gun permit hijack a plane and fly it into a skyscraper? :confused:
 
Passengers aren't allowed to carry guns on the plane...why should the pilots be any different? They're trained to fly a plane, not kill hijackers. :confused:

I don't see why it would be a good idea for ANYONE on a plane to have access to a gun. If someone wanted to hijack a plane, it seems like it would be considerably easier to steal the pilot's gun than to get through security with one.


For the same reason that, once upon a time at least, the officers aboard a seagoing vessel were allowed access to arms: to keep order and prevent hijacking/etc.

Incidentally, if it is so very easy to take someone's gun away from them as you make it sound, then the answer is simple: just take it back from them. After all, it's so easy to do that, right? (/irony)

I'm not entirely sure that passengers with valid concealed-carry permits, and suitable ammunition shouldn't be allowed to carry aboard, but one argument for allowing the pilots/crew to be armed regardless is: they're responsible for the plane and passengers.

After all, we entrust them with a multi-ton vehicle capable of flying at 500mph, filled with tons of highly-inflammable fuel, and dozens of passenger's lives... entrusting them with a pistol seems kind of minor in comparison, given a bit of reasonable training.

As I recall, a lot of pilots are ex-military anyway.

G.
 
I'm not worried about the pilot using the gun. I'm worried about someone else getting ahold of it...as it's probably easier to do that than to sneak a gun through security.

You mean bust into the locked cockpit without the pilot noticing it and picking his pocket unawares? Ya, that's certainly an incredibly plausible scenario.

Oh, wait...why does the pilot have the gun in the cockpit again? To stop people from breaking in and hijacking the airplane....hmmmm....looks like the cap'n's got the "sneaking into the cockpit to grab the gun" scenario covered.

He's got the gun.


And why couldn't a random law abiding citizen with a gun permit hijack a plane and fly it into a skyscraper? :confused:

The other random citizens who have their own guns who want to get to where they paid to go.

Well, some of us are rocket scientists, some of us are not.
 
Incidentally, if it is so very easy to take someone's gun away from them as you make it sound, then the answer is simple: just take it back from them. After all, it's so easy to do that, right? (/irony)

Hijackers would have the advantages of surprise, a plan, and more experience with violence. The pilots would not.

Goshin said:
I'm not entirely sure that passengers with valid concealed-carry permits, and suitable ammunition shouldn't be allowed to carry aboard,

So basically we'd go from a situation where no one can get a gun on a plane, to a situation where nearly everyone can get a gun on a plane. Which seems safer to you? Really?

Goshin said:
but one argument for allowing the pilots/crew to be armed regardless is: they're responsible for the plane and passengers.

The pilots and crew are responsible, respectively, for flying the plane and handing out the peanuts.

Goshin said:
After all, we entrust them with a multi-ton vehicle capable of flying at 500mph, filled with tons of highly-inflammable fuel, and dozens of passenger's lives... entrusting them with a pistol seems kind of minor in comparison, given a bit of reasonable training.

What kind of reasonable training? Who is going to be flying the plane while the pilot and co-pilot are going Harrison Ford on the hijackers?

Goshin said:
As I recall, a lot of pilots are ex-military anyway.

Irrelevant.
 
I'm not worried about the pilot using the gun. I'm worried about someone else getting ahold of it...as it's probably easier to do that than to sneak a gun through security.



And why couldn't a random law abiding citizen with a gun permit hijack a plane and fly it into a skyscraper? :confused:


There's that tendency I've noticed among most anti-gunners.

There's this strange assumption that an armed citizen would be unable to do anything effective in a crisis, despite tons of evidence to the contrary.

There's this further assumption that any armed citizen is likely to break out into full postal rage all the sudden and kill lots of people. Oddly enough, it is statistical fact that concealed-carry permit holders commit violent felonies so rarely that you might at well call the rate "zero".

Depending on who you want to believe, the number of defensive uses of firearms range from 2.5 million a year (granted, that figure comes from pro-gun sources) to a minimum of about 60,000 a year (that is a figure from a gov't bureau), in which approximately 99% of cases no shots are fired: the perp flees or surrenders when confronted with a determined armed citizen - who, showing admirable restraint, does not fire on the aforementioned fleeing or surrendering perp.

I have heard it speculated that the anti-gunner views armed citizens with suspicion and fear, because he is projecting his own fears of lack of self-control and ineffectiveness onto others. Seems reasonable.

G.
 
Last edited:
You mean bust into the locked cockpit without the pilot noticing it and picking his pocket unawares? Ya, that's certainly an incredibly plausible scenario.

Picking his pocket? What are you talking about?

Hijackers on four planes managed to bust into a locked cockpit without guns. It must not be that difficult.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Oh, wait...why does the pilot have the gun in the cockpit again? To stop people from breaking in and hijacking the airplane.

If there's a battle for the cockpit between a pilot with a gun and four hijackers without a gun, my money is on the hijackers.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
hmmmm....looks like the cap'n's got the "sneaking into the cockpit to grab the gun" scenario covered.

When you care to address the arguments I actually made, instead of the arguments you wish I made, this conversation might be more interesting. ;)

He's got the gun.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The other random citizens who have their own guns who want to get to where they paid to go.

I think you severely overestimate the number of John Wayne wannabes on the average commercial flight. My money would still be on the hijackers winning that battle. :roll:
 
There's that tendency I've noticed among most anti-gunners.

I have no problem with people owning guns.

Goshin said:
There's this strange assumption that an armed citizen would be unable to do anything effective in a crisis, despite tons of evidence to the contrary.

There's this further assumption that any armed citizen is likely to break out into full postal rage all the sudden and kill lots of people. Oddly enough, it is statistical fact that concealed-carry permit holders commit violent felonies so rarely that you might at well call the rate "zero".

I'm not worried about the average citizen with guns breaking into full postal rage. I'm worried that this would make it easier for terrorists to get guns onto planes as well, and/or steal them from someone who brought them on the plane legally.
 
I think that they should, it should be required. They should learn to shoot and to kill with them too...

I am not sure how they would get a gun away from the pilot Kandahar...
threaten to kill a kid by crushing their throat or something?

It is still better to have the kid die and shoolt the perp than to crash the plane...
 
Hijackers would have the advantages of surprise, a plan, and more experience with violence. The pilots would not.

Pilots with a firearm in the cockpit, trained by the TSA, don't have a plan?

What advantage of surprise? You mean the loud knock on the locked cockpit door? That surprise? Yeah, that'll rattle any experienced pilot trained to handle any imaginable in-flight catastrophe. You, it's frankly amazing what the parrots who've never been trained by the military or otherwise held any position of responsibilty will repeat.

What your argument is clearly saying is that we need to surrender because there's no hope.

Well, surrender already. But can you do it in a manner that doesn't obstruct the road?


So basically we'd go from a situation where no one can get a gun on a plane, to a situation where nearly everyone can get a gun on a plane. Which seems safer to you? Really?

The latter. I trust my fellow citizens. The security precautions enforced by the govenment allowed the attacks on September 11th, 2001, attacks that could not have happened if other passengers had been armed as the Constitution permits them to be.

The pilots and crew are responsible, respectively, for flying the plane and handing out the peanuts.

The pilots are responsible for getting the airplane from Airport A to Airport B safely. If that means they have to shoot a terrorist to make that happen, then it's what they have to do.

What kind of reasonable training?

Target practice.

When not to shoot.

When to shoot.

Where to shoot.

What the consequences of shooting are.

What the consequences of not shooting are.

How to be a man, not a liberal.

Who is going to be flying the plane while the pilot and co-pilot are going Harrison Ford on the hijackers?

Watch the movie Airplane. There are some informative scenes showing the proper operation of the Otto-Pilot when the pilots are incapacitated.
 
I have no problem with people owning guns.

If that is so, your general attitude hides it well. You do not appear to have much faith in the ability of the armed citizen to accomplish anything but making a gun available to a criminal.


I'm not worried about the average citizen with guns breaking into full postal rage. I'm worried that this would make it easier for terrorists to get guns onto planes as well, and/or steal them from someone who brought them on the plane legally.

Ah, yes, because it is so easy to take someone's gun away from them, and because foreign nationals with green cards can get concealed carry permits so readily.... um, no I forgot, you have to be a citizen and have Federal background checks and fingerprints and all that.

If there's a battle for the cockpit between a pilot with a gun and four hijackers without a gun, my money is on the hijackers.

I think you severely overestimate the number of John Wayne wannabes on the average commercial flight. My money would still be on the hijackers winning that battle. :roll:

Goshin said:
There's that tendency I've noticed among most anti-gunners.

There's this strange assumption that an armed citizen would be unable to do anything effective in a crisis, despite tons of evidence to the contrary.

I rest my case, your Honor. :mrgreen:


Kandahar said:
Hijackers would have the advantages of surprise, a plan, and more experience with violence. The pilots would not.

Kandahar said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goshin
As I recall, a lot of pilots are ex-military anyway
.


Irrelevant.

Self-contradictory. Ex-military pilots would likely be just a tad more able to deal with violence than otherwise.


Kandahar said:
I'm not worried about the average citizen with guns breaking into full postal rage. I'm worried that this would make it easier for terrorists to get guns onto planes as well, and/or steal them from someone who brought them on the plane legally.

Kandahar said:
And why couldn't a random law abiding citizen with a gun permit hijack a plane and fly it into a skyscraper?

Self-contradiction.

Your posts indicate a determined need to portray armed citizen pilots/crew on a plane as helpless patsies likely to inadvertenty aid the enemy by easily being disarmed, or otherwise ineffective, despite the fact that there is evidence in plenty of armed citizens effectively stopping violent crimes. This seems sufficiently irrational to cause me to doubt your statement that you have no problem with people owning guns.

G.
 
Last edited:
Picking his pocket? What are you talking about?

Damn if I know. It's your scenario, this imaginary play where the terrorist gets the gun. You haven't written that scene yet, so you don't know how it's done, either.

Hijackers on four planes managed to bust into a locked cockpit without guns. It must not be that difficult.

You mean the scenes where the big brave hero holds the razor blade to the lady's throat and KILLS HER LIKE THE INFIDEL PIG SHE IS? That'll shock the pilot ****less, I"m sure, but won't surprise them into the cockpit, not if he's got the gun.

And....if the pilot doesn't have the gun and the get into the cockpit anyway....the outcome is better? You're writing the play here, how do things get better for passengers and crew if the cockpit is breached and the pilot doesn't have a gun?

Oh, they don't get better, they wind up the same. Whereas a gun in the hands of the pilot can make the play end happily for the side you're opposed to, the passengers who aren't terrorists and the plane's crew.

If there's a battle for the cockpit between a pilot with a gun and four hijackers without a gun, my money is on the hijackers.

Yeah, while all that is going on, all the other passengers will be sitting around watching the in-flight movie and the rest of the flight crew will be smoking joints in the crew head.

Let's...a single 9mm semi-automatic holds what, ten shots in the clip, or is it fourteen? What if the pilot chooses to use a .45, are his odds better? I'm not really familiar with details like that.... I don't know, in close quarters like that....hard to miss....of course you'd put money on the terrorists....after all, they can't crowd into the cockpit in a gang, they have to pass through that skinny door one at a time....makes it really really hard for the pilot to pick a target, right?

But...if that's a problem, if the pistol isn't up to the task, I recommend the pilots get a pump-action shotgun with the barrel sawed off as short as possible, so they can't possibly miss. Then they're bound to get three, maybe four terrorists all at once.

You have no experience shooting...not even on a video game, I bet.

When you care to address the arguments I actually made, instead of the arguments you wish I made, this conversation might be more interesting. ;)

He's got the gun.

I have addressed them. You're assuming that by some magic the enemy can enter the stronghold without notice and get their hands on the gun. You can't provide any scenarios where the can happen, you can't present any scenarios in which the worst case outcome is made worse by the presence of the gun in the cockpit, and you can't address the fact that the gun in the cockpit can mitigate the hazards and thereby prevent the worst case scenarios from being realized.

You can only hold to your religious devotion that guns are bad, and like all religious devotions, you can't answer the questions that challenge your emotional belief.

You just hate guns with an irrational loathing.

That should not be the basis for public policy.

I think you severely overestimate the number of John Wayne wannabes on the average commercial flight. My money would still be on the hijackers winning that battle. :roll:

Most people seeking to legally own a gun are aware of the nature of the tool they're buying and train themselves appropriately. No, I'm not overestimating anything. Real Americans on Flight 93 died re-taking that plane rather than allowing it to become a tool for the deaths of others, and they took action without firearms.

It's not the gun that makes a man a hero, it's his decision to do what has to be done with what he has available to do it. Guns in the hands of the good guys makes their success more likely in combat situations.
 
First off, to be a pilot and carry a sidearm, you must go to the air Marshal training center. After being trained, you are tested.

Tests involve firearm safety, accuracy, shoot or no shoot tests, and live fire cockpit mock ups.

I am against citizens being able to carry a firearm aboard a plane. Though i trust my fellow gun owners .. it would be two easy for a terrorist to fake some documentation in order to be permitted to carry one on board.

I am completely for pilots being permitted to carry a weapon on board. It is the last line of defense.

I wish all new planes built would have a much stronger cockpit door.

Another way to solve the problem is to issue all passengers mini Louisville sluggers. So four throwbacks want to hijack a plane, you have 200+ passengers ready to beat them to death.

In the past terrorists generally just took over the plane, asked for money or hostages to be released. 9/11 changed that.
But in all reality, there will never be another hijack like 9/11, no passengers will allow them selves to be murdered like that again.
 
Back
Top Bottom