Obama Still Looking to Kill the FFDO Program?
 

Last info was him quietly killing it by stopping financing and diverting funds. Anything more?

Here's a copy of an email I received from ALPA addressing this very issue...

In stark contrast to an op-ed article in today’s edition (March 17, 2009) of the Washington Times, that claims “…President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology,” TSA officials reassured ALPA they are committed to the FFDO program and have plans for its expansion.

TSA’s leadership immediately contacted ALPA and requested a meeting to discuss this news report. ALPA representatives met with TSA executives this afternoon and were told that TSA embraces the FFDO program, that there are no plans to reduce or restrict its growth, and that the agency fully intends to grow and expand the program.

Government representatives acknowledged that the program needs additional funding to achieve these goals, and that they are actively pursuing sources of additional funding. These funds will be used to enhance the program’s management structure and oversight, which if implemented, will address an ALPA Board of Directors security priority.

TSA is currently training hundreds of pilots each year and plans to continue to train at least that number or more into the future. The size of the FFDO cadre has grown so large that additional resources are needed to provide greater structure and oversight to this important program, which TSA referred to today as “an important layer of defense.”

“ALPA is very pleased that the TSA was so proactive in communicating its concerns to the Association and we are likewise pleased that we are able to report this good news to the membership,” said ALPA President, Capt. John Prater. “ALPA values its relationship with the TSA, and it is obvious from the way the agency handled this event that the feeling is mutual.”

Stay tuned.

You are tripping! Show me some hard facts of this happening! Doesn't seem likely to me.

Boy, Democrats really hate guns, don't they?

"As reported in the Washington Times".......

The Washington Times is owned by Sun Myung Moon. Here's a little blip from Wikipedia about the good Reverend.



Sun Myung Moon was born in 1920 in rural Korea. His official biography states that at the age of 16, Jesus appeared to Moon and asked him to continue the work he had started 2000 years earlier.[1] In 1945, Moon released a book of his organized teachings entitled The Divine Principle and in the ensuing years began to lay the ground work for his Unification Church which he officially founded in 1954. [2][3] In the early 1970s, Moon began a concerted effort to bring his teachings to America. [4] Since that time, the Unification Church has grown exponentially worldwide, and is now a financially powerful organization.

Who's tripping? Me or the OP?

I love it...one guy makes something up and publishes it in the the Washington Times and now "Democrats hate guns"!

It seems to me that there is a bit of a disconnect between what the op-ed piece in the Times said and what the TSA said in response. The gist of the original article was that 2 million dollars of the program's funding had been diverted to something else indicating that this may in fact be the beginning of the FFDO program drawdown. When one considers the general anti-gun stance we see from the Obama administration this is not an unreasonable conclusion.

The TSA response simply states that THEY intend to increase the program-emphasis on "they". This is precisely what one would expect from this agency. There is nothing in the TSA statement that addresses the reduction in funding that occurred.

TSA wants the program to grow. What TSA WANTS and what the Obama admin GIVES may in fact be 2 completely different things. This bears close watching.

Along similar lines, research IL state rep Durkin (D) and Illinois bill HR687 and what that means for the future of firearm ownership in Illinois. It is not good.

Democrats dont hate guns...we hate it when some nutjob gets a machine gun (legally) and mows down a bunch of people. I still dont understand the need for that type of weapon in the hands of the average joe....

Well, they got to have some way to kill them dang critters.;)

Here's some irony for you. The Bush administration was against creating the FFDO program, while Barbra Boxer from California sponsored legislation that helped the program.

Crazy country we live in.

To prevent one of those nutjobs from slicing the throat of the average joe; you or me. We are naturally at a disadvantage because we are concentrating on flying the aircraft and can't foresee when an attack will occur. Also, the majority of pilots have no significant training in protecting their selves. The attacker will always be motivated, with one thing in mind, to kill you. We need everything we can get to make a slight advantage or to give us a second more to help defend the cockpit.

I'm pretty sure he's not against the FFDO program. He is against some average joe being able to legally own a automatic machine gun, or a 50 cal rifle. There is just no need for that.

I agree. The problem as I see it is that the "right to bear arms" folks have 60 or 70 guns in their "collection" for protection. When some goofball kid gets ahold of them, nothing good ever seems to come of it. Protection is one thing, but how many guns do you REALLY need to protect yourself, and better yet, does it really need to be an uzi? :confused:

TSA spokeswoman Gaches says she does not know what the basis could be for the assertion that $2 million was diverted from training. "In the past fiscal year, no funds have been transferred from operational program areas to fund additional administration employees" under the program, she says.


Interview with Lauren Gaches, spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, 19 March 2009


We have contacted ALPA to receive our own copy of the statement. We also contacted the White House, which put us in touch with the Department of Homeland Security. DHS Deputy Press Secretary Amy Kudwa echoed the TSA's statements, saying: "The transfer of funds is, in fact, inaccurate, and there is no move to end the program."

Interview with Amy Kudwa, deputy press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, 20 March 2009

Hopefully Rush got ahold of this so he could do some serious bashing (although inaccurate, it'll appease his followers) before the truth came out. ;)

The mind boggles.

The "average joe" can't head down to Wal-mart and pick up a machine gun. Their ownership is highly regulated.

I am all for the FFDO program, and while I am not an FFDO, I am pretty confident that the pilots are not carrying AK-47s. And yes, Bush was opposed to the program, so I think that means that Republicans hate guns. This whole argument has been twisted by the right wing to scare people. I know of very few Democrats who want to limit responsible gun ownership. I know of many Democrats who want to limit irresponsible gun ownership. If you are a true gun owner and sportsman, you should feel the same way.

That pompous windbag is nothing but a hypocrite. Going on and on about how people don't need anti-depressant medication, and then it comes out that he's addicted to pain killers. :rolleyes:

I'd love to see him run for president. I need some good laughs.

Gun program for pilots set for expansion, officials insist

Backers take exception to inaccurate editorial

Audrey Hudson THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Tuesday, March 24, 2009


The Obama administration has no plans to end a program that trains commercial airline pilots to carry guns and thwart terrorist attacks, and in fact is seeking to expand resources for oversight and training, government officials and pilots organizations say.
"We're looking for new resources and more money to bring in for next year. The benefits of the program are obvious. The pilots are an intrinsic part of our whole aviation-security strategy and one of our layers of security," said Robert Bray, director of the Federal Air Marshal Service, which oversees the program.
The Federal Flight Deck Officers (FFDO) program was created after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and has since trained 12,000 pilots on how to carry weapons and defend their aircraft against an attack. Among the planned expansions, Mr. Bray said, is the construction of a new center in Dallas, where armed pilots can receive recurring training.
Mr. Bray and the pilots groups disputed a March 17 editorial in The Washington Times entitled "Guns on a plane: Obama secretly ends program that let pilots carry guns," which suggested that recent discussions about spending some of the program's money for supervisory jobs amounted to killing the program.
"That is completely false," said Capt. John Prater, president of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the largest pilots union in the U.S. and Canada, with 53,000 members.
After the editorial appeared, Capt. Prater said, his group called a meeting with Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials and were reassured the new administration supports the program.
"We're not seeing anything other than cooperation, and certainly the fact that as soon as this opinion piece came out, ALPA and TSA met immediately, and from what we've determined, there is no truth to the fears that were put forth in that opinion piece," Capt. Prater said.

The Times' editorial pages recently were brought under new management and operate separately from the newsroom. Editorial writers produce content that is not reported or overseen by newsroom employees.
"The Editorial Department has been in transition these last few weeks. We're aware of the error and are investigating what happened so we can learn from the mistake and not repeat it," Associate Publisher Richard Amberg Jr. said.
Homeland Security officials and pilots say that the program has proven to be an important security layer and that they are interested in making the program more efficient.
"We look forward to working with the Obama administration to improve the management and funding of the program to make it what Congress originally intended it would be," said David Mackett, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance, an organization that lobbies Congress on behalf of the program.
The editorial cited information from pilots it did not name, claiming that the approval process for letting pilots carry guns on planes has "slowed significantly" and that the "approval process has stalled out."
Mr. Mackett said the approval process did slow last fall during the final days of the Bush administration, but it was before the election and possibly a result of dwindling funds at the end of the 2008 fiscal year.
The editorial also said the Obama administration recently "diverted some $2 million from the pilot-training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots."
However, pilots are supervised by the airlines, not Homeland Security, and Mr. Bray added that no funds were diverted; rather, he said, additional money is being sought to manage gun-training programs.



NOTE: This article is from the newspaper that printed the editorial!

I'm a Democrat. I love guns. No place better to learn how to use 'em than U.S. Army Infantry school I might add...

This is true about your average Democrat. However, the average democrats are not running this government right now.

As a pilot, not as a Democrat or a Republican, I hate it when people can't or refuse to read. Here is the first 4-5 paragraphs of the editorial....

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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......


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The most important part of the editorial is what I have hilighted. To paraphrase, it says that money has been diverted from the training program to hire more supervisory staff FOR THE SAME PROGRAM!!!

The guy is diverting money from your training as FFDO's to hire supervisors. He said he was trying to create jobs, right? You have a job with or without the FFDO training, right? The economy is shedding jobs at a clip of 500,000 per month, right? Maybe a few furloughed pilots can get off the street and supervise for the FFDO program. Are you guys really that dense about everything, or is it just certain topics?

We as pilots are trained to trust but verify. Think. Use your head. Don't just simply react. If you are at cruise at FL 350 and your N1 gague drips to 0 do you shut the engine down right away? Or, do you check to see if the other engine instruments look normal?

Some of you guys need to use the same skills you use as a professional pilot when you read the newspaper. Relax, no one hates guns. No one said anything about taking your gun away from you. And quite frankly, we and he (Obama) have got bigger fish to fry. Get over yourselves and stop being so paranoid. Such paranoia make me wonder if you really are suited to carry a gun. :confused: (Not that I have any say in it, or have the desire to do so.)


Now with that being said, I am sure the thread is closed. Either because the moderators choose to close it, or no one has the cahonas to respond. (Even though I don't have a gun.) I'm sorry moderators. :D


New K Now

Got that right...we finally have above average Democrats (at least in the White house, I dont much like Pelosi...but I suppose that is a different thread).

Gun program for pilots set for expansion, officials insist

Backers take exception to inaccurate editorial

Audrey Hudson THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Tuesday, March 24, 2009


The Obama administration has no plans to end a program that trains commercial airline pilots to carry guns and thwart terrorist attacks, and in fact is seeking to expand resources for oversight and training, government officials and pilots organizations say.
"We're looking for new resources and more money to bring in for next year. The benefits of the program are obvious. The pilots are an intrinsic part of our whole aviation-security strategy and one of our layers of security," said Robert Bray, director of the Federal Air Marshal Service, which oversees the program.
The Federal Flight Deck Officers (FFDO) program was created after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and has since trained 12,000 pilots on how to carry weapons and defend their aircraft against an attack. Among the planned expansions, Mr. Bray said, is the construction of a new center in Dallas, where armed pilots can receive recurring training.
Mr. Bray and the pilots groups disputed a March 17 editorial in The Washington Times entitled "Guns on a plane: Obama secretly ends program that let pilots carry guns," which suggested that recent discussions about spending some of the program's money for supervisory jobs amounted to killing the program.
"That is completely false," said Capt. John Prater, president of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the largest pilots union in the U.S. and Canada, with 53,000 members.
After the editorial appeared, Capt. Prater said, his group called a meeting with Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials and were reassured the new administration supports the program.
"We're not seeing anything other than cooperation, and certainly the fact that as soon as this opinion piece came out, ALPA and TSA met immediately, and from what we've determined, there is no truth to the fears that were put forth in that opinion piece," Capt. Prater said.
ASSOCIATED PRESS A Transportation Security Administration instructor trains a pilot to disarm a potential hijacker during a weapon-retention class at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, in Brunswick, Ga.

The Times' editorial pages recently were brought under new management and operate separately from the newsroom. Editorial writers produce content that is not reported or overseen by newsroom employees.
"The Editorial Department has been in transition these last few weeks. We're aware of the error and are investigating what happened so we can learn from the mistake and not repeat it," Associate Publisher Richard Amberg Jr. said.
Homeland Security officials and pilots say that the program has proven to be an important security layer and that they are interested in making the program more efficient.
"We look forward to working with the Obama administration to improve the management and funding of the program to make it what Congress originally intended it would be," said David Mackett, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance, an organization that lobbies Congress on behalf of the program.
The editorial cited information from pilots it did not name, claiming that the approval process for letting pilots carry guns on planes has "slowed significantly" and that the "approval process has stalled out."
Mr. Mackett said the approval process did slow last fall during the final days of the Bush administration, but it was before the election and possibly a result of dwindling funds at the end of the 2008 fiscal year.
The editorial also said the Obama administration recently "diverted some $2 million from the pilot-training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots."
However, pilots are supervised by the airlines, not Homeland Security, and Mr. Bray added that no funds were diverted; rather, he said, additional money is being sought to manage gun-training programs.
__________________

Wow!
 

Didn't think all the anti gun rhetoric would come out. If the line of thought is that guns, including uzi's and 50 cals, are dangerous and are used to kill people, then, in the name of parity, ban hatchets, like the one used in the Northeast to kill someone a few weeks ago. And if the argument comes to the "Axe's are useful and not dangerous in the hands of criminals like guns", ask that poor dead SOB who wore one in his skull. Guns, including uzi's, are only as dangerous as the hands they are in. And I would rather have one in my hand when the first robber breaks thru the front door than the axe.

Hey "OntheMissed"!...whats up?

...are you flying yet?

Ummm, I can use a hatchet to many useful things. The same cannot be said for an automatic machine gun or 50 cal rifle. By your logic we would have to ban kitchen knives, box cutters, tire irons, hammers, baseball bats, meat hooks, pillows, cellaphane, & the list go's on and on. Why? Because all of these things can be used to kill. Bad argument.

Considering it's already illegal for felons, the insane, and minors to own guns, I don't really know what additional regulation is necessary for "responsible" gun ownership.

Hell, it were about "saving lives", you'd be better served lowering the speed limit to 40mph, enforce it with a mechanical engine governor, and have mandatory jail time for anyone caught texting or using a cell phone while driving. Easier too, because driving ISN"T a constitutional right.

You're apparently missing the most obvious link in "new logic" - If it's in print (or an the Internet), it must be true!

:D

What, I can't have any fun in my own back yard even if I have enough facility to prevent any collateral damage? BS

There is no need to give out condoms to minors but thats what this admistration wants to do. His idea of "sensible gun laws" and yours and mine differ quite a bit. Go to Australia and ask if they own a weopon. Oh right the government took them all away. Question everything.

And I can use my gun for hunting &protection
 

Aren't those useful things? And target shooting? Sorry. Good argument. What is the difference in your "list" of things that can kill? Your logic seems to plead that guns are the only things that can kill. Ask a knifing victim if he considers knives bad. An automatic firearm is heavily regulated and are almost never found to be used in crimes, and a 50 cal is fine for some time at the range. Please compare the stats in regards to violent deaths for guns vs cars and drunk drivers. Gonna ban cars? Booze? It is all in the hands of the people who perpetrate. So, if it were up to you, you would take away my right to protect my family as I see fit and the ability to, if it ever came to it, put food on my table in the event of an emergency? Sorry. You have the bad argument.

Ok...I will try again. I dont understand why someone needs a AK-47 type weapon. However, if you are able to obtain it legally and use it responsibly, I really dont have an issue with that. However, if that weapon EVER (unless you legally sell it) gets in the hands of a criminal and gets used to kill a bunch of people then I (and I think the law should as well) hold YOU personally responsible for that crime.
The main problem I have with these type of weapons is the amount of destruction they can bring in a very short period of time.

so can dynamite. Let's get rid of it and stop mining for anything all together. Even better, let's shut down all nuke power plants.

Ok.
 

And what about shotguns? Great for hunting, right? And hold a good number of shells. And hunting rifles. Some utilize magazines that hold a good number of cartridges, some even the 7.62 round that an AK holds. See my point. Because it looks like an evil weapon doesn't necessarily make it any different from the rifle that gramps blasted deer with. And if your home is robbed, how can you possibly be held responsible for crimes committed by a rifle that was in the loot taken? If they used your car as a get away car and careened thru a wad of kids coming home from a girl scout rally, would you still want you to be held responsible for that cars actions? Give away the 2nd Amendment and start the slow but steady erosion of rights. Ask the peeps in the UK, who only now are rallying in the streets to get the right to own a hunting rifle back after having restrictive gun laws take their gun rights away. Or the Aussies, who were forced to give up their guns. And crime soared in the months after. Basic right, those guns. Like speech. Used constructively, a helluve way to fight. In the wrong hands, evil. But still both protected.

Yes, those things are useful. Much more useful then a gun. That was my point. A gun is designed to do one thing, kill.

I never said I wanted to take guns away. I'm not against gun ownership. You want to have a rifle, shotgun, or handgun in your house I'm all for it. It's our right as citizens of the USA. I just think your argument is flawed. A automatic rifle or machine gun have only one use, & are FAR more dangerous then a hatchet. Like I said, bad argument.

i agree with johnso....I never said i was against gun ownership, just that I dont understand the average joe owning a certain type of gun. ( and notice that i said "type" of gun, not a particular model) And because I dont see a reason for that type of gun, yes I am going to hold you responsible if it gets stolen and used in a crime. Of course there are other things that can cause destruction, but in general, they are primarily designed to serve other, non violent, purposes. Guns, specifically AK-47 "type" guns are designed to kill large amounts of people quickly. In my view, rights come with responsibility, you want to own an AK-47, you are responsible for it until you legally get rid of it, and if it gets stolen, any crimes committed are on your head.

the right kind of guns?
 

Johnso...

So it's ok to have a handgun or rifle or shotgun, but you draw the line at automatic weapons? Do you know what hoops one has to jump through to get approval to buy and own an automatic weapon? Please give me one (just one!!) example of a legally owned automatic weapon being used in a crime.

Where do you draw the line as to what kind of gun citizens are allowed to own? DC government, even after Heller, defines a semiautomatic (like the colt 1911 or military issued beretta) as an automatic weapon? So when they can misname the weapon and restrict its ownership, you see no problem with that?

Let's keep guns out of the hands of criminals and let law abiding citizens arm themselves in accordance with the second amendment.

JMO

Pilot7576

Fine with me. Only problem.....the current system clearly isn't working. ;)