CHiPs To Carry Guns and Protect Flights in CA
 

Even though I'm very "pro-gun", I'm not comfortable with the idea of firearms in the sky. To me, that's just a problem waiting to happen. Cant' we just have a bunch of Jet Li types in the cabin? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politi...-1665503c.html

Feds OK Armed CHP Officers on Flights
Bee Staff Report and Associated Press
Published 1:25 p.m. PST Wednesday, Feb. 6, 2002

Armed California Highway Patrol officers in plainclothes and uniform will soon be flying aboard thousands of in-state commercial flights to help bolster the federal government's air marshal program, Gov. Gray Davis announced Wednesday.

This is the first time in the nation that regular police officers will be used to protect passengers and crew while planes are in the air.

Under the proposal, the FAA will help CHP train its officers so they can meet the agency's regulatory requirements to fly armed on commercial flights, Davis said....

------------------
Ken in Sacramento

[This message has been edited by TravelManKen (edited 02-07-2002).]

On the show CHiPs, they actually never fired a shot. I don't think that I can remember them deholstering their weapons, actually.

You learn a lot from that show, though. Like how any minor confusion on the freeway will invariably lead to a car hitting another one and rolling over. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Hopefully the CHiPs on the flights will wear longer shorts and looser pants. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif


------------------
daniel baker -- [email protected]
Reliable, fast, and unmoderated forums at ITYT.

-deleted because it's the right thing to do-

[This message has been edited by tom911 (edited 02-07-2002).]

a close friend of mine is CHP (has been for over 20 years) and i know what they do and how hard they work. not to say there aren't any incompetents (as there are in every agency/company) but by and large i think their work goes unappreciated.

[This message has been edited by ender83 (edited 02-07-2002).]

I agree that most state troopers (including California Highway Patrol) are competent, hardworking, etc.

What I don't understand is why a police job and some goofy FAA training (I've seen the film) suddenly qualifies a person to carry a deadly weapon on a plane when we're wasting countless millions of hours searching everyone else (including the pilots) for knitting needles and cuticle scissors. The newly-arrived gun on board seems to be the much larger risk.

If you don't agree with me, check out the story just reported on CNN where a Philly cop shot a 10 year old today at an elementary school during show and tell. Unbelievable.

Moron Philly Cop Shoots 10 year old at School During Show and Tell

Unfortunately, this sort of thing happens far too often. Didn't a National Guardsman shoot himself in the rear recently at an airport?

With the rise in power of the anti-gun soccer mom in this country, it's odd that more people haven't spoken out about this dramatic arming of the skies. Police accidently shoot themselves and others with frigtening regularity.

I'm a gun owner and not afraid of guns or people carrying them, with one exception: the newly trained sky marshal who's just itching to catch the next terrorist.

Remember Jewel at the Atlanta Olympics who was sure he'd get to be a hero, and then he was (well, maybe he was, if he didn't plant the bomb)?

And what about the sick cops (Louima's tormentors or Diallo's killers)? What if guys like these become sky marshals?

Will all the Barney Fifes be eliminated by the wonderful federal government screening? Better hope so.

Even well-trained, competent individuals screw-up sometimes with weapons. Just wait til a sky marshall pops some little kid (intentionally or by mistake).

I'm not convinced that vastly increasing the number of armed cops on planes is a good idea. Instead, I think it's just about the worst idea to come down the pike. I'd rather suffer the miniscule chance of another September 11 (since it is highly unlikely to succeed, armed sky marshal or not) before arming thousands of heretofore infrequent fliers. Arming the pilots so they have a last ditch means of defending the cockpit makes much more sense to me. They're a known quantity, since they have always been trusted not to crash the plane. Newly minted sky marshals, well, they're not a known quantity. Just my .02

[This message has been edited by FWAAA (edited 02-06-2002).]

Wait, Wait, Wait - Hold Everything. The AAA reference was just an old joke that I've used many, many times with my Highway Patrol friends. I grew up next to the old CHP training facility in south Sacramento (and currently live near the new facility in West Sac) and had the opportunity to get to know many officers. Also, my neighbor of many years as a child is in the leadership of the CHP and we probably talk about every 3-4 months. We also had a program at our restaurant that we just recently sold where all law enforcement officials received 30% off if they were in uniform. As a result we had an average of 6-10 CHP officers, among others, visit the cafe on a daily basis - they told me the joke.

Now I'm sorry if someone was offended over the AAA reference, but for God's sake relax.

[This message has been edited by TravelManKen (edited 02-06-2002).]

This whole thing is just another stunt by our glorious wimp of a governor, Gray Davis, to get his name in the press as he faces a hotly contested election.

Why do we need armed guards on a plane?

Think about it.

The cockpit is locked and will NOT be opened.

I could go on about all the other "security" we have on the ground, but that is a waste of time.

FWAAA: i disagree, but especially about arming pilots. stun guns i fully support, but you are talking about people who have no training in firearms being given an instrument that can bring down a plane. not a good idea.

TravelManKen: not offened, just encouraging respect for our men and women in uniform who risk a lot for us. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Always Flyin: couldn't agree more. grey-out davis will do ANYTHING for publicity.

NoStressHere: i could kick down one of those flimsy cockpit doors with one shot. as for the armed guards, if someone somehow gets a gun on a plane it may well take another gun to deal with the problem.

There are various types of ammunition that is appropriate for this sort of use, that isn't of a high enough velocity to penetrate the plane's fuselage, IIRC.

The aircraft and passengers are not at risk if a bullet creates a hole in the aircraft.

------------------
daniel baker -- [email protected]
Reliable, fast, and unmoderated forums at ITYT.

not true. if the plane is high enough, explosive decompression could occur which, if the plane is old or structurally less than perfect, could result in whole chunks being ripped off (like the roof coming off that flight over hawaii a couple years ago). not to mention if bullets are sprayed downward and penetrate the a fuel line.

and yes, air marshals carry bullets that disintegrate on impact (yet can still do lethal damage to the target).

edited to correct stupid spelling mistakes.

[This message has been edited by ender83 (edited 02-06-2002).]

Even without directing you to the movie Goldfinger, I'd have to disagree. The pressure difference between the cabin and the outside can be enormous and once a path of pressure leak of just about any magnitude can cause a catastrophe. A small neat bullet hole might be plugged in time to descend and restore a pressure equilibrium, however how many of these guys carry .22s? You're looking a huge hole that could quickly become bigger if anything else in the cabin (anything not secured can and will be drawn to the hole at a very high velocity) impacts it.

Also, I do not want to be inside any aircraft where there are usable firearms. All they're doing is solving the problem of how to get a weapon on board for terrorists.

I'll be skipping as many intra-California flights as possible.



------------------
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither." - Ben Franklin

ender83: OK, train the pilots. Give them firearms training. One needn't be a full-time police officer to be proficient with firearms. And I'm friends with lots of cops, too. I can assure everyone that there's nothing about guns that only cops can master.

Don't forget that the pilots have already been given an instrument that could bring down the plane: their mind. We trust them not to crash the plane on purpose. Since we already trust their judgment, I can trust (without taking any great leaps of faith) that they wouldn't fire their weapons except as the defense of last resort. Not so sure I trust "highly trained cops" whose training appears to focus on accurate shooting and learning how to scream a lot. Sort of like an airborne SWAT team. Those guys never make mistakes. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

On the possibility of bringing the plane down with a wayward bullet: I'm willing to take that chance to help prevent a repeat of September 11 (shoot terrorist breaking into cockpit, plane goes down in a field, DOESN't crash into skyscraper -- seems like a relative victory and in result, not much different from UA93).

My reluctance to embrace widespread use of sky marshals is because it looks like a very expensive deterrent compared to a couple of weapons on the flight deck (lethal or non-lethal).

By "expense" I don't just mean the direct costs of that program; I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that sooner or later an innocent passenger (who isn't a terrorist) will be shot for violating the 30 minute rules or for retrieving items from the bins in defiance of the shouted orders from the sky marshal.

Not to mention the lost revenue from the sky marshals' seats since some flights will carry two or three each.

I'll bet one or more of the poor souls on board the four ill-fated airliners (or among the victims on the ground) would have taken the same chance as I'm willing to take and would have appreciated some form of defensive weaponry on board, even if it were just a gun in the cockpit.

People opposed to arming the flight crew assume that those guns WILL be used. I'm not so sure that pilots would ever have to fire a shot - a lot of the deterrent value is that the terrorists know the pilots COULD shoot back if they had to. Of course, my beliefs assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the events of September 11 are not likely to recur.

Our obsession with a "sterile environment" at the airport and on board airplanes didn't CAUSE the tragedy of September 11, but it certainly helped guarantee that the plans would succeed.

(Note that the filthy terrorists didn't commandeer any US military refuling tankers - those planes don't operate in a "sterile" environment; everyone around them is armed - it's the military after all.)

Maybe pilots shouldn't have .44s with which to defend the plane. I think they should have more than the crash axe.

I did not know that... aircraft trivia

------------------
daniel baker -- [email protected]
Reliable, fast, and unmoderated forums at ITYT.