Pax absconds with FFDO carry piece

[hawk996]

Yes, He was wrong to place his pack on the ground and not watch over it. My issue is why did they release his name, what he was carrying and how many rounds. That was all SSI, which had to be released either by Jetblue, the TSA or Both.

The TSA is and above all the real problem.

 

[Ty Webb]

Two questions for the guys against the FFDO program:

1) Were you an airline pilot on 9/11?

2) Have you applied to the program?

I have no idea where you are coming from. I won't apply until they change the carry rules, but I support the program and am glad to fly with guys who are FFDO's.

 

[27 driver]

Okay Mr. Emotional,
Nothing he said was anti gun or anti gun nut. They were simple facts. The guy was inattentive, and lost his gun, period. Quit living in denial.

Just using a little common sense would tell you that it is extremely unlikely that an FFDO will ever have to use their weapon to defend the aircraft. He is more likely to shoot his eye out.


Strike 2 for the FFDO program. This program needed to be canceled yesterday. Guns don't belong in the cockpit.

The FFDO program is only for Junior G-Man Rambo wannabe's that want an excuse to carry a badge and a gun.

Take your knee-jerk reactionary comments somewhere else.

(BTW; I am a gun owning supporter of the second amendment)

If thats not the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[lumax]

In order for me to deduce your appellation, I had to gallop to the terminology folio in order to mandate an elucidation to your caption.

 

[RiddleRat]

If you are over 13, and carry a backpack, you need counseling.

I carry a backpack when flying w/ the military and so don't a lot of aircrew members... I guess all those guys and gals need counseling...Not arguing, just asking?

Mongo

 

[IBNAV8R]

Off body carry = bad.

Screwing with loaded weapon several times a day = bad.

Just because more incidents don't make the news doesn't mean they don't happen nor does it make this ludicrous carry method any safer.

 

[Captzaahlie]

If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat.

 

[Captzaahlie]

Yes,
The TSA is and above all the real problem.

Amen brother!

 

[Captzaahlie]

If you are over 13, and carry a backpack, you need counseling.

I'll pass on your shrink, cause apparently he's not fixin your problem. :nuts:

 

[Fubijaakr]

Listen, I'm FAR from being a gun nut. However, I think making FFDOs carry their sidearm in a bag is STUPID. These guys should be able to carry concealed like any Tom, Dick and Harry who goes down and gets a permit.

Let the FFDOs carry in a shoulder holster, ankle holster or someplace where they have direct control of their firearm AT ALL TIMES.

This poor FFDO is probably going to get bounced out of the program for not controlling his weapon. Too bad. Here's a guy who showed enough dedication to go through the training on his own time, not to mention the recurrent he has to accomplish. Let's treat these guys like any other certified LEO.

Rant over.

 

[waka]

1) It is also extremely unlikely that you would have a multitude of emergencies on today's modern aircraft. Yet, there exists the means to deal with them via procedures and aircraft back up systems.

Yes. But do airliners have ejection seats? There may be a chance that they might be useful, but like you said, unlikely. Your comparison does not wash. Aircraft system redundancy, procedures and safety equipment are much more likely to be used than an FFDO, IMHO.

That is how we roll, as proactive Americans. You must hate that. It's just so...unilateral, eh?

So, because one is anti FFDO program mean they're not a proactive American?? Yeah right! Strawman argument alert! (typical for those that have nothing of substance to say) You must have supported the Patriot Act.

I am as American as you.

2) His comment was no more emotional than the one that prompted it. In fact, it was a mirror image, which is apparent to those who are not infested with bias, such as yourself. Your post, on the other hand, was dripping with emotion. Pot, meet kettle.

Nope. The one he responded to only stated facts. Read it again....this time without being half-cocked with YOUR bias.

3) I loved your brilliant use of the Christmas Story argument against firearm implementation!

Thanks!

4) Your statist posts are very consistent. Your logic would suggest that your advice to rape victims is "sit back and enjoy it!"

Yet another strawman argument. Just because we disagree on a certain degree of government regulation doesn't make me a statist. It would be like me calling you an anarchist. If thinking in only extremities and the black and white helps you, go ahead. Just don't expect an intelligent debate. Furthermore, it's ironic that you're calling me a statist when you are the one supporting this government program

My logic does not suggest that at all. A rape victim should always fight back. My logic is more in line with, i.e. Mall cops don't need grenades.

You're way off.

 

[waka]

I am neither a Rambo wanna be or an agent wanna be, and never owned a gun. Personally, if TSA fails at screening and the FAMs fail, and the door fails, I want 37 opportunities to prevent the airplane from being used again as a WMD. Hopefully it will be a long uneventful career as an FFDO should I persue it.

That's why I am interested in the program and considering it.

OK, perhaps I went too far with the Rambo thing. I am sure most FFDO's and FFDO wannabees are well intentioned.

NEVERTHELESS, the FFDO program is unnecessary and creates more hazard than it prevents. Your example contains an unlikely sequence of failures...namely the door. Besides, after the 9-11 attacks, a takeover of the airplane by hijackers is all but impossible. It has been demonstrated that passengers will intervene.

 

[waka]

Two questions for the guys against the FFDO program:

1) Were you an airline pilot on 9/11?

Yes.

2) Have you applied to the program?

No

BTW; Why would one apply for a program that they're against?

 

[scoreboardII]

Okay Mr. Emotional,
Nothing he said was anti gun or anti gun nut. They were simple facts. The guy was inattentive, and lost his gun, period. Quit living in denial.

Just using a little common sense would tell you that it is extremely unlikely that an FFDO will ever have to use their weapon to defend the aircraft. He is more likely to shoot his eye out.


Strike 2 for the FFDO program. This program needed to be canceled yesterday. Guns don't belong in the cockpit.

The FFDO program is only for Junior G-Man Rambo wannabe's that want an excuse to carry a badge and a gun.

Take your knee-jerk reactionary comments somewhere else.

(BTW; I am a gun owning supporter of the second amendment)

Where do I start showing you he is anti gun, let me think, oh, how about when he said:

The Gun Nuts will be on here in 3...2...1...

not enough anti gun sentiment?
or maybe here then:

Just another example of why guns shouldn't be on aircraft

Or here:

On the bright side...at least he didn't shoot a hole thru the cockpit floor...

Thank you mister "I'll keep my guns as long as nobody else gets to have guns". Not very second ammendment now, is it?

"Junior G man wnna be", wow, what a well thought hyberbole, not.

I want to personnaly thank tweaker for doing a much finer job of ripping apart your baseless thoughts.

 

[crxpilot]

This article stated he lost the bag at the ticket counter. Does that mean the bag was brought thru security by the family unknowingly and the xray screener didnt pick up the gun?
On a side note, I say take away his 3 magazines of 37 rounds and give him just 1 bullet to keep in the future, just like Barney Fife.

 

[waka]

Where do I start showing you he is anti gun, let me think, oh, how about when he said:

not enough anti gun sentiment?
or maybe here then:



Or here:

Thank you mister "I'll keep my guns as long as nobody else gets to have guns". Not very second ammendment now, is it?

"Junior G man wnna be", wow, what a well thought hyberbole, not.

Are you drunk? Those boxed quotes in and of themselves do not imply that one is anti-gun. Being against "gun nuts" is not anti-gun. I am pro gun, but the typical extremist right wing wacko gun nuts do not speak for me or for my support of the 2nd amendment. Being against the FFDO program and opposing guns in the cockpit does not mean anti-gun. Try again, genius.

I want to personnaly thank tweaker for doing a much finer job of ripping apart your baseless thoughts.

On second thought, you're right. You're much better off when someone else does your thinking and talking for you.

 

[Flybywire44]

Yet another reason why I don't want to be an FFDO. Liability.

 

[nimtz]

Yet another reason why I don't want to be an FFDO. Liability.

Bingo! What's the override in pay you get for being a FFDO? Thought so. Too much aggreviation and liability for the perk of skipping security. But at least ALPA wasted years of PAC funds to get them sidearms. Going after something like say CREWPASS? Nah not so important...

 

[IBNAV8R]

NEVERTHELESS, the FFDO program is unnecessary and creates more hazard than it prevents. Your example contains an unlikely sequence of failures...namely the door. Besides, after the 9-11 attacks, a takeover of the airplane by hijackers is all but impossible. It has been demonstrated that passengers will intervene.

By this logic, you probably don't have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen because: 1) It would distract you from whatever you're cooking; 2) It probably wouldn't save your house anyway, and; 3) As has been demonstrated, your wife would most certainly smell something burning and intervene with a wet towel and save the day.

Call me a "nut" but, I STILL have a fire extinguisher.

 

[Raskal]

OK, perhaps I went too far with the Rambo thing. I am sure most FFDO's and FFDO wannabees are well intentioned.

NEVERTHELESS, the FFDO program is unnecessary and creates more hazard than it prevents. Your example contains an unlikely sequence of failures...namely the door. Besides, after the 9-11 attacks, a takeover of the airplane by hijackers is all but impossible. It has been demonstrated that passengers will intervene.

I agree, the Rambo thing was a little far. Thank you for saying so. There are always those who make a larger group look bad.

I don't agree with your opinion of the program, I'm a strong supporter, but I understand the misgivings. The implementation of the FFDO program leaves much to be desired.

Most importantly, however, the "pax will intervene" argument is simply NOT true IMHO. They will intervene when convenient or when there is VERY little risk (the SWA bar room brawl comes to mind), but I absolutely do not believe they will do a damn thing otherwise. My best example is the Virginia Tech incident. One by one people chose to die when only faced with one man and a handgun. It would've only taken one person to simply stand up. They chose to die like the proverbial lambs to slaughter. To count on pax is flat-out wrong, they will not intervene.

I would rather place my faith in a person with training and in a position of advantage (the flight deck with a gun) than in anything else, especially a crowd of unknowns.