I also have doubts about the wisdom behind this policy but for very different reasons. The current test being proposed by TSA/Administration and the probable act before congress set up a program requirement styled like Air Marshall. That is a waste of money and time. Any policy of arming pilots will have many problems including international law and tons of simple ones. The firearm can't be permanently stationed in the plane because not all pilots will want it and so how and where are they transported/stored. Are the individual pilots issued them and then you have carry problems like with any police force. These problems can be solved but I really think that the current plans are being set up to destroy any advantages possible or cause a backlash at some point.

The stupidity of the current plan is that these weapons are only as a last resort but then we want to train the pilots to the point that they will feel obliged to defend passengers/FAs from actions in the back. Not logical. Very limited training needed if the firearm is last recourse use only. I am not even going to search again the estimated costs of the plan now proposed. Someone else can, but it is out of control. It will be illogical for a pilot to try and pay the fees, the airlines can not afford the direct training costs or even indirect cost of pilot time and if the government starts paying we will eat it in higher security costs at some point.

Now to answer the comments posted above. None of these will be good enough for those of you that have a visceral fear of firearms. You will only be happy when they are all destroyed including those of law enforcement. Hopefully those of you that think this way will never be assaulted, robbed or killed or have family or friends killed as well.

Now the most easy thing to answer is that now pilots will have to worry about each other going postal. As your own comments and history have proved it has happened without firearms already. The silk air flight and just recently the egypt air flight. If a pilot wants to commit suicide he can use blunt force weapons or just wait for someone to go to the rest room. Do you really think that a pistol will infect someones soul to do something he would not do otherwise?

Next the fact that the general public and even terrorists will know that pilots will have firearms in the cockpit and a policy of no compliance with their demands hardens the target and decreases significantly the chance that a group will make the attempt. Look at EL Al, for all the naive belief that their prescreening catches weapons they have not had a successful hijacking against them since the introduction of armed security. While a terrorist might get weapons on board he has not felt it worthwile to try because even if he gets them on board he has a very limited chance of final success. Since 9-11 El Al has even admitted to allowing someone to carry a loaded firearm on a flight to NY. The passenger turned it in to the embassey on arrival. It has also allowed someone to take flares onto a flight to South Africa. There have probably been more but the Isrealis are smarter about letting this info out because it helps terrorist planning. the idea that the weapon in the cockpit will be easily gotten ahold of by terrorists is also naive. The cockpit is still being reinforced and if anything the availability of a firearm reduces the chance of a successful bum rush style attack. If you use your logic then a criminal who wants a gun will attack a police officer because he has one. While police are sometimes disarmed and killed with their weapons it is the exception. the normal situation is that the firearm is used to prevent a criminal from harming innocents.

Aloft as I said above the current plans are stupid but the ability to keep a hijacker off the plane will not be effected by any money saved. Yet he will probably be much less inclined to try it if he has to deal with the unknown of ared pilots.

Ocn Vw 1K, I still have not heard a good description of exactly what the passenger did but the comments of the passengers about the hijacker aiming his pistol at the passengers shows a serious lack of understanding of firearms. Air Marshall are well trained in shoot/no shoot situations. So he was not wild eyed and waving the pistol around with his finger on the trigger, I can assure you. In a cabin with people packed in and close, the LEO will have to have his weapon out and ready. If the person they detained is part of a team they don't have time later on to draw and pay attention to the enviroment around them. One covered the offender and the other stood up and faced any potential threats. this gave him a good line of sight and standing with a drawn firearm would most likely intimidate any other hostile actions. Actually from the comments it seemed to do just what it was supposed to do. These comments are exactly like comments from law abiding citizens when they get pulled over by the police at night or when driving a vehicle similar to one being broadcast. Yet the other option is for either the police officer to not have his weapon at the ready and be shot dead which happens to often. Or for someone to try and draw his pistol from his ankle or other holster and also keep everything going on around him in view at the same time. People might not be happy but I would bet 100 dollars that they acted exactly to training once they felt something was wrong. Second guess them all you want but if it was another Reid like incident you would probably scream their praises.

UALOneKPlus, do you have any idea why planes have not been falling out of the sky from bombings over the last 20 years? There are many reasons but the major one is that it is just not that easy to do it. Making a bomb go off when you want it is not as easy as people think. Even the IRA and the Palestinians with some off the best nongovernmental bomb makers around have bombs that don't work, that go off while they are making them, that go off but not at the right time or as expected. Then add that it has to be small, very powerful in TNT equiv, extremely sturdy to survive the handling, must explode at altitude even with all of the problems in aircraft meeting schedules. Next terrorists have limited resources that can be easily be rolled up after both unsuccessful and succeessful ops. Then you get to impact. Planes crash yearly and so a plane blowing up is not that important in the long run. It does not generate constant coverage or even have the visual impact of a Munich. Read about terrorists, they want to leverage limited resources through the media to make the impact greater. If there was not the footage of the burning buildings and people jumping would the trade towers have been the same. History teaches us probably not. The Pentagon and the Penn crash site lose impact because there are fewer dead but also because it is not possible to show powerful video. Just look at the crash of the flight in NY after 9-11. The impact was very small because there are no visual keys to make it a great story. Most people do not even realize that the Libyans also blew up a french plane or that there have been a couple of other bombings. This does not even include the chance even under the old system for a bag to be profiled and the bomb discovered. Part of the reason why domestic flights were never screened like international is that the time at altitude was considered so hard to predict that it would make any attempt too hard to be desireable. None of this has changed. Another proof of what I am saying is that even the bombers themselves figured their best chance was to sneek the items on board as passengers on connecting flights and the set them as they exited. This is basically impossible with the greater awareness among other passengers.

That leads me to the final comment. I think that most people are very naive. I hope that I could react even if it meant my life and from my training can feel pretty confident that I would. I can tell you though that the ability of the people to react in the plane they attempted to take back was directly because of the incompetence of the hijackers. If they had not been left back alone and aloud to discuss and make plans they would have not known about the other planes. they would not have been able to get psyched up and boil water etc. I agree that today is different. Even a group of terrorists will not attempt to take control with box cutters. If it happens again it will be with firearms that somehow are snuck onboard. Unless these guys are stupid they will take control through violence of action which will cower the people initially. It happens during home invasions, armed robberies and in military assaults. The most well trained people are controlled in many instances so don't just assume that the passengers can retake control. It is a very false hope.

Again non of this will ever make someone afraid of firearms to accept the idea and I doubt if most will even listen to the comments. A firearm in the cockpit has many problems that would need to be solved but if planned as a last resort it is good and could eliminate the need for finding every small knife. If you want to talk specifics, I will answer your arguements or questions but don't just repeat 30 second sound bites about bombs or passengers.

------------------
Robert

[This message has been edited by robvberg (edited 09-06-2002).]