Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Pilot, Sep 21, 2004.
do you have a link to the bill, or its summary?
Supposedly this was going to commitee yesterday, any updates? C-span junkies?
Hopefully, they get the FFDO fix through. The FFDO program as it is a joke.
The selection process is outlandish. Many, many highly qualified indiviuals are rejected from the program, and no reason is ever given.
Pilots are required to put their gun back in the lock box, if they have to leave the cockpit to go to the lavatory. The cockpit is most vulnerable to attack any time the door is opened.
The TSA is against the FFDO program, and has been dragging their feet on it from the get go. Less than 2% of our pilots have been trained to date.
for details and a portal to fax or email your congressman re: the FFDO fix.
Too true. I know 2 guys that got downed on the psych exam. One sees fairies. They talk to him too. One is an ex-SEAL, SR-71 pilot, and has a 2 space shuttle flights. No idea why they downed him. ;Q You may wonder why they're flying airplanes, the rest of us sure do, but a lot of people slip through the cracks. Once they're hired it's almost impossible to fire them.
I think this displays a general lack of understanding of the whole reason guns are in the cockpit.
Why do aircraft have two engines and not just one big one?
Why does a 737 have two hydraulic systems and a third backup?
Why are there two sets of instruments?
The reason for all these things is redundancy and having a second or third course of action, in other words as a "backup". There are several last-resort systems in an aircraft. I had the "pleasure" (luckily this is not all that I did) of flying a level D B-737 simulator at Continental's pilot training center in Houston this past weekend with no hydraulics. It's not easy to control the aircraft with no hydraulics, but due to servo tabs it is possible (abiet just barely). Last resort backups are something that pilots are used to, and a gun in the cockpit is a last resort backup for a hijacking. It's not something that would be taken out at the first sign of trouble, and it's not something that is guarenteed to eliminate any threat. Just as flying with servo tabs and no hydraulics is no gaurentee that you'll be able to land the plane. There are simply too many variables, but despite all of this, these systems are there and they can and have worked before.
The threat isn't "so bad" that it requires guns in the cockpit. Out of all the airliners in the last 5 years, how many have been hijacked? An almost infintely small number right? But that is not how aviation works, even though thousands of planes fly every day, the elimination of risk and failures is an ongoing process that never sits idle. Having a gun in the cockpit now gives a backup to the passengers and flight attendants in the cabin, if the aircraft should be hijacked. It's no gaurentee and it may not work, but to focus on the "threat" and "what-if" senarios doesn't really define or describe the problem and solution accurately.
I agree that the 6 day training program is outstanding.
Having the few pilots that have gone through the program [ even with its admistrative and operational shortcomings] is better than nothing, but it is not the program as envisioned by congress when the program was created.
That being said the FFDO selection process is a joke and the way the program is administered is a joke. And there are a lot of senators and representatives that agree with me - that is why they are trying to get the FFdo Fix Bill S.2268 and HS 4126 through congress.
If the Cockpit Security Technical Corrections and Improvements Act is passed, then the FFDO program will what it was originally intended to be, and it will be no longer a joke, but a strong viable program.
How could you know the reason someone got turned down? The TSA does not give any reason for not accepting an applicant. They only state that the candidate does not meet TSA established criteria.
process of elimination? perhaps they could safely rule out any other possible reason?
Yep, and the pilots might have to shoot through the flight attendant. If it comes to that, saving 180 passengers is going to be better than trying to save one flight attendant and ending up with 185 dead persons.
As a pilot for a major airline with over 25 years experience and 9 years prior to that as an USAF fighter pilot , I will do what ever is necessary to save the airplane, as many people on the airplane and as many on the ground as possible............
...........think about it.
The scenario you mention is trained for by FFDOs. Hiflyer51 and CaptainOveur are correct in that as a FFDO you are the last thing to prevent the aircraft from becoming a cruise missle. If the threat is not stopped at the cockpit, the Air Force will take out the aircraft, or worse the terrorist will use it against a target. I will not go into more detail due to a souvenir Artesia, NM tee shirt. Grades for instructors A, grades for TSA managers D. TSA managers seem more concerned that creditials might be used to get out of speeding tickets. I believe Homeland Security has bigger things to worry about than a pilot speeding ticket. I support the legislation to improve the FFDO program as do most pilots. The original law was satisfactory, but the TSA interpretation and implementation have been dismal. It is a shame that another law needs to be passed to get a goverment agency to comply with the intent of the law.