Qualified to fly.....

[Loafman]

I guess what I should have said, is that I was worried someone would be able to pick out a pilot that was carrying a weapon and grab it in the terminal. With it hidden and locked it can't just be grabbed and used. That is what I liked about the rule.

Never mind the fact that every military and law enforcement firearm safety study conducted in the last 100 years found that the safest, most effective means of carrying a sidearm is concealed-on-person. Lock boxes are just ways of advertising "look at me, TSA made me carry this gun in a conspicuous container"

All this armed pilot crap becomes a moot point when the wacko's figure out that it is FAR easier to infiltrate a cargo ramp during the chaos of a package sort and stow away on a much larger aircraft without passengers, cabin crew, or in most cases without a cockpit door of ANY kind. If anyone needs guns, the freight guys do, due to the lack of other protections.

 

[PCL_128]

Not according to our resident member of ALPA's "firearms" committee. The FAA and TSA aren't going for the idea of pilots walking around with guns.

Here is a letter that ALPA's President sent to the TSA administrator about this subject: http://www.alpa.org/alpa/DesktopModules/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=2245

It states that ALPA's position is that it supports the screening requirements, but would prefer that pilots be able to carry the firearms at all times rather than use a lockbox. This was just posted on ALPA's website today.

The TSA is pushing for a program that requires pilots to carry their firearms in a locked box when not on the flight deck. Up until now ALPA had not shown any opposition to this. Thankfully they are now fighting for personal carry. Check out ALPA's website and APSA's website for details on all of this.

http://www.alpa.org
http://www.secure-skies.org

 

[Loafman]

Guns in the cockpit is still not as much of a priority as other more important issues. Odds of getting hijacked are less than being struck by lightning. Odds of getting furloghed if this industry can't get it's head out of it's collective a$$, are better than getting hit with a beer bottle in a bar fight. And THATS what this thread is about. ALPA's priorities.

 

[PCL_128]

Guns in the cockpit is still not as much of a priority as other more important issues. Odds of getting hijacked are less than being struck by lightning. Odds of getting furloghed if this industry can't get it's head out of it's collective a$$, are better than getting hit with a beer bottle in a bar fight. And THATS what this thread is about. ALPA's priorities.

Perhaps you haven't heard ALPA's motto. Here's a reminder: "Schedule with safety." ALPA's number one priority is safety, just as it should be. Everything else is secondary. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't worry about the other issues; it just means that ALPA cannot ignore that arming pilots is an important issue. The safety of the flying public is the most important issue.

You're right that the odds of getting hijacked right now are very low. The odds of an engine failure right at V1 in Cat II conditions with a 25 knot crosswind are very low also, but that doesn't mean that we don't train for it. No matter how low the odds are, there is still the possibility that a flight could be hijacked and we need to do everything we can to make sure that pilots will be armed to defend their flight decks. Doing otherwise is just reckless.

 

[Loafman]

If you want to play odds, once they implement this TSA bastardized program, what are the odds that a hijacked flight will even have one of these armed pilots on it, seeing that it is voluntary and half of us won't apply, and FAR less than the half that do will make it through the draconian screening process? I'm still betting on the huge a$$ security hole in the cargo ramp. Ask FedEx about hijackers...

 

[mackinhoes]

This thread is about ALPA's priorities. ALPA's schedule with safety motto arose from management making pilot's fly shoddy equipment that was poorly maintained when they had not slept for days. It had nothing to do with terrorists. (That is government's job.)

The next coordinated terrorist attack (if/when there is one) will not be airplane related. It will be in some other high-profile, high-shock value area of American society. Someplace where people have let their guard down - whether complacency, or simply because it has been so long since 9-11.

The unfunded security mandate is a big millstone around the necks of the already weak airlines.

How is it that GBush can find $10 billion to help Turkey in exchange for us staging troops there, but he can't help the airlines stay in business with the $6 billion that congress earmarked for the airlines? WTF?

Anyone besides me going to vote for someone else besides Bush? (sorry, that is not what this thread is about)

 

[PCL_128]

Originally posted by Loafman I'm still betting on the huge a$$ security hole in the cargo ramp. Ask FedEx about hijackers... [/B]

ALPA and APSA are working hard on this loophole. There is legislation currently pending in the House of Reps that would close the cargo loophole so that cargo pilots could also carry.

 

[PCL_128]

The next coordinated terrorist attack (if/when there is one) will not be airplane related. It will be in some other high-profile, high-shock value area of American society.

You state that like it is fact. That is only your opinion on where the next attack will be. We can't be sure about that. I for one am not willing to take the risk. The American people aren't either. The last poll showed that 75% of the public is in favor of arming pilots. They don't seem to be so sure that the skies are completely safe.

 

[Singlecoil]

How is it that GBush can find $10 billion to help Turkey in exchange for us staging troops there, but he can't help the airlines stay in business with the $6 billion that congress earmarked for the airlines? WTF?

Let's not forget $7.8 billion for a ballistic missle defense system. The system that won't stop dirty bombs, nuclear weapons brought into the country via container ships, biological attacks, or cruise missiles.

 

[Cardinal]

Let's not forget $7.8 billion for a ballistic missle defense system. The system that won't stop dirty bombs, nuclear weapons brought into the country via container ships, biological attacks, or cruise missiles.

I believe that is why they refer to it as a Ballistic Missile Defense System. But I hear the Container Ship Defense Torpedo System may be fully funded next fiscal year.

 

[Singlecoil]

I believe that is why they refer to it as a Ballistic Missile Defense System. But I hear the Container Ship Defense Torpedo System may be fully funded next fiscal year.

Actually I was simplifying it. The government now calls it Ground-Based Midcourse Defense and has classified all further tests to disarm their growing critics.
Like these guys.

 

[Loafman]

But what about the common liberal belief that "Guns 'r bad, M'kay?"

 

[Typhoon1244]

I don't recall the exact number, but something like 90% of the police officers who have been shot were attacked with their own weapon. And these are guys (and gals, I suppose) who are trained to be constantly alert to the possibility of someone snatching their weapon away from them.

I have enough to focus on while doing my job without worrying about a gun. I know what you're going to say: "well, Typhoon, I wouldn't let someone take my gun away from me!" I'm sure that's what those cops said too.

I'm confident my cockpit is safe (from hijackers) without guns in it for four reasons:

(1) As much as we make fun of TSA security techniques, it'd still be difficult for someone to get through with weapons or the tools necessary to breech...

(2) ...the new cockpit door. And even if someone does get a weapon or tools aboard...

(3) ...today's passengers aren't going to let it get that far. And even if they do...

(4) ...I'll bet you $100 I can maneuver an RJ hard enough to keep the bastards off their feet...or knock 'em cold. (I'm sure my F/O's wonder why I never take my shoulder harness off. I'm doing like Tom Ridge says: I'm being prepared.)

We hear a lot about the "layers" of security. As corny as it sounds, I believe in it.

If our government would get off its collective fat behind and take some realistic steps to protect us from terrorists (profiling, real airport security, etc.) pilots wouldn't need to carry guns.

 

[Loafman]

Yeppers.

 

[Stiffler]

She likes my poll

You state that like it is fact. That is only your opinion on where the next attack will be. We can't be sure about that. I for one am not willing to take the risk. The American people aren't either. The last poll showed that 75% of the public is in favor of arming pilots. They don't seem to be so sure that the skies are completely safe.

You can prove anything with polls. I'll bet I could have a poll to show that at least 51% of Americans would prefer to have naked Playboy Playmates as their flight attendants, serving steak and lobster, while the beer flows like wine. I mean, I'd vote yes in that poll. I'll bet most Americans favor free airtravel too.

The big questions I have:
Are pilots still going to have to go through the metal dectectors if we're packing?
Will they take my Leatherman away from me again? (Probably, because I could actually use my Leatherman one heck of a lot more than I'll use the old Desert Eagle.)
Am I still going to have to take my shoes off because they set off the metal detector hand wand? Meanwhile my firearm sits on the table and Cletus the screener wants to see what's inside. So I show him the firearm. He says okie-doke. Then he says that my Leatherman has a blade on it so he'll have to confiscate it.