Obama secretly ends program that let pilots carry guns


On November 19, 2002, the Federal Flight Deck Officers program was approved in the Senate, by a vote of 90 to 9, as part of H.R. 5005, “A bill to establish the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes.” While Senators Akaka, Byrd, Feingold, Hollings, Inouye, Jeffords, Kennedy, Levin, and Sarbanes all vote against the DHS bill, the Federal Flight Deck Officers portion of the measure had overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle. Three days later, the House passed the final bill without objection and it became Public Law No: 107-296.

The vast majority of those who voted to arm commercial pilots are still Members of Congress so where is the outrage now from them over this?

Washington Times
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
EDITORIAL: Guns on a plane

After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.

Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.

The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.

This looks like completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots. The 12,000 Federal Flight Deck Officers, the pilots who have been approved to carry guns, are reported to have the best behavior of any federal law enforcement agency. There are no cases where any of them has improperly brandished or used a gun. There are just a few cases where officers have improperly used their IDs. Fewer than one percent of the officers have any administrative actions brought against them and, we are told, virtually all of those cases “are trumped up.”

Since Mr. Obama’s election, pilots have told us that the approval process for letting pilots carry guns on planes slowed significantly. Last week the problem went from bad to worse. Federal Flight Deck Officers — the pilots who have been approved to carry guns — indicate that the approval process has stalled out.

Pilots cannot openly speak about the changing policies for fear of retaliation from the Transportation Security Administration. Pilots who act in any way that causes a “loss of confidence” in the armed pilot program risk criminal prosecution as well as their removal from the program. Despite these threats, pilots in the Federal Flight Deck Officers program have raised real concerns in multiple interviews.

The editorial continues after the image below.



Click on image to view the online 9/11 Flight Crew Memorial.

Arming pilots after Sept. 11 was nothing new. Until the early 1960s, American commercial passenger pilots on any flight carrying U.S. mail were required to carry handguns. Indeed, U.S. pilots were still allowed to carry guns until as recently as 1987. There are no records that any of these pilots (either military or commercial) ever causing any significant problems.

Screening of airplane passengers is hardly perfect. While armed marshals are helpful, the program covers less than 3 percent of the flights out of Washington D.C.’s three airports and even fewer across the country. Sky marshals are costly and quit more often than other law-enforcement officers.

Armed pilots are a cost-effective backup layer of security. Terrorists can only enter the cockpit through one narrow entrance, and armed pilots have some time to prepare themselves as hijackers penetrate the strengthened cockpit doors. With pilots, we have people who are willing to take on the burden of protecting the planes for free. About 70 percent of the pilots at major American carriers have military backgrounds.

Frankly, as a matter of pure politics, we cannot understand what the administration is thinking. Nearly 40 House Democrats are in districts were the NRA is more popular than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. We can’t find any independent poll in which the public is demanding that pilots disarm. Why does this move make sense?

Only anti-gun extremists and terrorist recruits are worried about armed pilots. So why is the Obama administration catering to this tiny lobby at the expense of public safety?

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

——

Update, 1:40 PM: You need to know a little bit more about what is going on at the Transportation Security Administration:

This site’s post, April 25, 2008
TSA: Airline pilots sane to fly; too crazy to be armed

At Pajamas Media, Annie Jacobsen writes that an Oklahoma doctor contracted by the Transportation Security Administration is disqualifying airline pilots from flying armed under the Federal Flight Deck Officer’s program.

I asked Dr. Hogan to speak about subjecting pilots — who are routinely drug-tested, by the way — to the Hogan Test. “There is a distinction between technical talent and emotional maturity. You can fly a plane and be crazy — or at least be a complete hot-head — which is what we find all the time,” Hogan said.

Captain Mackett cited an example from the written part of the psyche test — since changed — that asked: “Would you like to be a fighter pilot?” Considering that many commercial pilots are and have been fighter pilots it’s natural that many would answer that question with a “Yes.” According to Mackett, the TSA concluded that these pilots “had overly aggressive personalities and disqualified them from the program.”

Thanks to this doctor and the loony leadership at the TSA, otherwise qualified pilots — who are licensed, trained, and willing to carry firearms — are allowed to fly yet denied the means to aggressively defend their passengers and planes.

Plus this post:

This site’s post, April 22, 2008
Inexperienced airport screeners becoming air marshals

Not long ago, The Aviation Nation’s Annie Jacobsen reported the Transportation Security Administration had experienced an 120% turnover in personnel in a mere five years of existence. Not all was lost, however; some of those disgruntled employees are now protecting passengers in-flight:

CNN’s Drew Griffen interviewed air marshals who said screeners with “no college, no law-enforcement no military background” are becoming air marshals. “It’s an embarrassment. I know I wouldn’t want them on my flight, I wouldn’t want them as my partner,” one air marshal said.

further …

“Trust me, you do not want to mess with those guys,” [TSA chief Kip] Hawley said. “Anybody who messes with a flight having a TSO on it who is now an air marshal will be dead.”

Trust him? He has to be kidding.
 

rockwerks

New member
This was proven as bogus last month, the facts are that money has been taken from the overseeing authority but the program is still going strong. This surfaced in February the first time I will track down the info today
 

DarrellM5

New member
Well, I'm glad it turned out to be false. I did email the White House about it though. Oh well, didn't expect a reply anyhow.
 

rockwerks

New member
Well, I'm glad it turned out to be false. I did email the White House about it though. Oh well, didn't expect a reply anyhow.
Thats a good call, when in doubt write a letter or 2.

It is much more effective at helping things than some who post 1,000,000 old videos on here and junk up the threads so no one wants to read them.
 

Bohemian

New member
Thats a good call, when in doubt write a letter or 2.

It is much more effective at helping things than some who post 1,000,000 old videos on here and junk up the threads so no one wants to read them.

Ahem! not proven false, story changed by the Obama USURPER Administration again!

Yes gun bans in England, Australia and Canada, and similar measures, being actively discussed by by all the major media & former Clinton Gun Ban Supporters that are now members of the Obama USURPER Administration and influential members of the House & Senate are so passe'
 

Scarecrow

New member
I really wouldn't put it past this administration to do such a thing.. that's all they need is another 911 then they can pretty much take as much control as they want. martial law anyone?
 
W

wolfhunter

Guest
The trend concerning this program has not been to do away with it. The trend is to make it harder for the pilots to get and keep their certification. Little things like requiring training be done in the pilot's off hours and on their own dime, limiting the places and days that training can be done. The action in the original article involved putting more supervision into the program.
 

Bohemian

New member
can you link to the previous story to confirm the change?

Sure, I will do your work for you again...

This is the cached link of the Original post that has been removed due to a request by the Messiah's c.y.a. police... (fortunately, I have downloaded a copy, before this one disappears too, I encourage others to start downloading questionable things as soon as they see them as well)
Washington Times - EDITORIAL: Guns on a plane

EDITORIAL: Guns on a plane
Obama secretly ends program that let pilots carry guns

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 (Washington Times, the same that are now back peddling as fast as they can)

After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.

Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.

The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.

This looks like completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots. The 12,000 Federal Flight Deck Officers, the pilots who have been approved to carry guns, are reported to have the best behavior of any federal law enforcement agency. There are no cases where any of them has improperly brandished or used a gun. There are just a few cases where officers have improperly used their IDs.

Fewer than one percent of the officers have any administrative actions brought against them and, we are told, virtually all of those cases “are trumped up.”

Take a case against one flight officer who had visited the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles within the last few weeks. While there, the pilot noticed that federal law enforcement officers can, with the approval of a superior, obtain a license plate that cannot be traced, a key safety feature for law enforcement personnel. So the pilot asked if, as a member of the federal program, he was eligible. The DMV staffer checked and said “no.” The next day administrative actions were brought against the pilot for “misrepresenting himself.” These are the kinds of cases that President Obama wants to investigate.

Since Mr. Obama's election, pilots have told us that the approval process for letting pilots carry guns on planes slowed significantly. Last week the problem went from bad to worse. Federal Flight Deck Officers - the pilots who have been approved to carry guns - indicate that the approval process has stalled out.

Pilots cannot openly speak about the changing policies for fear of retaliation from the Transportation Security Administration. Pilots who act in any way that causes a “loss of confidence” in the armed pilot program risk criminal prosecution as well as their removal from the program. Despite these threats, pilots in the Federal Flight Deck Officers program have raised real concerns in multiple interviews.

Arming pilots after Sept. 11 was nothing new. Until the early 1960s, American commercial passenger pilots on any flight carrying U.S. mail were required to carry handguns. Indeed, U.S. pilots were still allowed to carry guns until as recently as 1987. There are no records that any of these pilots (either military or commercial) ever causing any significant problems.

Screening of airplane passengers is hardly perfect. While armed marshals are helpful, the program covers less than 3 percent of the flights out of Washington D.C.'s three airports and even fewer across the country. Sky marshals are costly and quit more often than other law-enforcement officers.

Armed pilots are a cost-effective backup layer of security. Terrorists can only enter the cockpit through one narrow entrance, and armed pilots have some time to prepare themselves as hijackers penetrate the strengthened cockpit doors. With pilots, we have people who are willing to take on the burden of protecting the planes for free. About 70 percent of the pilots at major American carriers have military backgrounds.

Frankly, as a matter of pure politics, we cannot understand what the administration is thinking. Nearly 40 House Democrats are in districts were the NRA is more popular than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. We can't find any independent poll in which the public is demanding that pilots disarm. Why does this move make sense?

Only anti-gun extremists and terrorist recruits are worried about armed pilots. So why is the Obama administration catering to this tiny lobby at the expense of public safety?
 

rockwerks

New member
Remember one thing, an EDITORIAL is not news, it is one persons view. So you are using Editorial page as confirmation?

ed⋅i⋅to⋅ri⋅al
   /ˌɛdɪˈtɔriəl, -ˈtoʊr-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ed-i-tawr-ee-uhl, -tohr-] Show IPA
–noun
1. an article in a newspaper or other periodical presenting the opinion of the publisher, editor, or editors.
2. a statement broadcast on radio or television that presents the opinion of the owner, manager, or the like, of the station or channel.
3. something regarded as resembling such an article or statement, as a lengthy, dogmatic utterance.

an editorial is not news but expresses one persons view.
 

joewildblue

New member
The trend concerning this program has not been to do away with it. The trend is to make it harder for the pilots to get and keep their certification. Little things like requiring training be done in the pilot's off hours and on their own dime, limiting the places and days that training can be done. The action in the original article involved putting more supervision into the program.
On target!
They took 2 millions from a budget of something like 11 millions (The pilots pay for everything )to get the TSA additional money for jobs increasing their bureaucracy. Truly demoralizing!
 

Bohemian

New member
Remember one thing, an EDITORIAL is not news, it is one persons view. So you are using Editorial page as confirmation?



an editorial is not news but expresses one persons view.

Generally speaking yes, although, this one was based on sound investigative reporting as was clearly itemized in the editorial that you either did not read or could not comprehend...

Do a little comparison between the Washington Times initial Editorial and their follow up editorial, and see if you can see the political pressure & influence at work...

Do you not find it the least bit interesting that many things the Usurper Obama Administration openly disagrees with, after public outrage suddenly seem to disappear, like they never happened? I am not the only one who has been taking note and making copies of things that seem to vanish off of Obama's and other web sites casting him in a unflattering manner...

You are either really naive and obtuse, or you are not doing a very good job of convincing true Second Amendment supporters that you are not a forum infiltrator from the dailykos....

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/hk-coxe.htm

The Unabridged Second Amendment

Here is some more evidence of the Usurper Obama Administration's attempt to control the media...
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Will bill give Obama control of Internet?
Proposed new powers called 'drastic federal intervention'
Posted: April 04, 2009
10:35 pm Eastern

A pair of bills introduced in the U.S. Senate would grant the White House sweeping new powers to access private online data, regulate the cybersecurity industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a declared "cyber emergency."

Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., are both part of what's being called the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which would create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, reportable directly to the president and charged with defending the country from cyber attack.

A working draft of the legislation obtained by an Internet privacy group also spells out plans to grant the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation's infrastructure "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93966
 

New Threads

Staff online

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,153
Messages
621,728
Members
74,111
Latest member
ucf4
Top