Packrat

Again, you're convoluted "logic" has led you to an incorrect conclusion. I have no gripe with people who legally own weapons. Neither do I have a problem with people who legally have concealed carry permits.

My sole issue is with the whole FFDO program, a concept born of the fevered dreaming of a few airline pilot gun nuts who saw 9-11 as a opportunity to get unlimited concealed carry authorization based on nothing more than wearing an airline uniform.

If the program is solely to prevent another 9-11, why do cargo pilots need to be FFDOs? I'm quite sure there are plenty of FedEx/UPS guys strapping on the .40 cal in case the boxes decide to take down the Sears Tower.

And let's not even begin to examine why your average American needs to own an arsenal of military grade weapons using the 2nd Amendment as a rationale? You want a hunting rifle and a handgun for personal protection (LOL!). Fine. Have at it.

Just be careful that the boogey man you shoot some dark night isn't a local teenager pranking you with your doorbell and a flaming bag of dog turds.

jungle

The Second amendment is not based on the principle of personal defense.

Tell us who wrote the FFDO law. Not pilots.

I can't change your opinion with facts or reason, but I can tell you it doesn't matter at all what your opinion is, it serves only as a source of amusement.

jungle

Firearms authority and writer Jeff Cooper said that he coined the word in 1962 to denigrate and anger proponents of gun control by claiming that their thoughts were "aberrant" and unreasoning:

"I coined the term "hoplophobia" in 1962 in response to a perceived need for a word to describe a mental aberration consisting of an unreasoning terror of gadgetry, specifically, weapons. The most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user. This is not a reasoned position, but when you point this out to a hoplophobe he is not impressed because his is an unreasonable position. To convince a man that he is not making sense is not to change his viewpoint but rather to make an enemy. Thus hoplophobia is a useful word, but as with all words, it should be used correctly."[1]
The term was constructed from the Greek ὅπλον - hoplon, meaning, amongst other things, "arms," and φόβος - phobos, meaning "fear."[7] Cooper employed the term as just another alternative to other slang terms, stating: "We read of 'gun grabbers' and 'anti-gun nuts' but these slang terms do not [explain this behavior]." Cooper attributed this behavior to an irrational fear of firearms and other forms of weaponry, with no evidence for this attribution. Cooper's conjecture was that "the most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user."[1] Writing in an opinion piece, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist Dimitri Vassilaros said that the term was intended by Cooper as tongue-in-cheek to mock those who think guns have free will.[2]

B727DRVR

Packrat,

I am shocked and dismayed about your lack of reverence for the volunteer pilots that protect America's skies as FFDO's. Normally, your post are insightful and well-thought, but your posts regarding America's FFDO's do not jibe with someone with your Military, Union, and Airline experience: It's like they are from a different Packrat, or like someone who dislikes a particular FFDO has blamed the whole FFDO program and has hijacked your Packrat username.

The reason that I say all this is that I was there lobbying in DC in 2002 as one of Kitty Hawk Aircargo's representatives to CAPA (back when we were in-house before our ALPA merger). CAPA, by the way, is pretty much everyone that isn't ALPA.. IPA, APA, SWAPA, IBT, etc. Our first concern then was getting back cockpit access after jumpseating was shut down after September 11, 2001. The FFDO program was one of the many security ideas being discussed at the time.

Background Disclaimer: I am not a gun owner, nor have I ever owned a gun (I'm sure I will someday), but I am interested in guns, and obviously support the FFDO program as I lobbied for it in 2002-2003. Nor have I, unfortunately, been an FFDO. Therefore, I'm not the right-wing, gun nut pilot that you spoke of lobbying for the FFDO program. I am what used to be known as a "moderate Republican" that was purged from the party when the right-wing nutjobs took over my beloved party of Lincoln. I volunteered on two Presidential campaigns in college, and was honored to fly one of those former Vise-Presidents. On my liberal side, like many pilots, I am a strong union supporter (but I actually support more unions than just my own), and served as organizing Committee Chairman & Vice Chairman, Jumpseat Committee Chairman, ALPA Merger Committee Chairman, MEC Vice Chairman, etc. I believe in what the NRA said about common sense background checks before they became a Barrett-in-every-household association. So, I don't think that I would be very welcome at a Tea Party Rally or an NRA one, either. I love politics and drama, so I watch CNN for my news, and watch Fox "News" and MSNBC for my comedy; Therefore, I don't think that there is any way that I way that I could be accused of being right wing or a gun nut (I was considered right-wing in the 1980's, but now I'm not "conservative enough", LOL).

Your assertions regarding the Genesis of the FFDO program are WAY off. You are assuming that pilots had all this power to get the program going, and that would have been a laugh in 2002. The Genesis of the FFDO program was the lack of confidence that Americans had in airline security, and rightly so. After September 11, America needed more security and confidence in the Airlines, so where did we look to as a shining example of airline security? El Al, of course.

Who better than El Al would know more about maintaining high security standards? So then ALPA Security Chairman, Captain Steve Luckey, NWA-Ret., started working with El Al Security and Israeli private contractors (former El Al) to help provide suggestions on improving overall security and regaining cockpit access for jumpseaters (eventually CASS from AIRINC, not the Israeli program first discussed). With El Al being the zeinith of airline security, Congress also jumped on the bandwagon to have a security system more like Israel. While they realized that Americans would never allow the intrusive security procedures and interviews that El Al passengers must endure prior to flight, they did like the idea of having more Federal Air Marshalls and, eventually, FFDO's. This resulted in the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism (FFDO), part of the Homeland Security Act.

Again, your post seems to infer that we pilots had all this lobbying power to push the FFDO program through, but the truth is that neither the Bush administration nor the TSA supported the program initially, or maybe ever. I know, you would thing that the Bush administration would be pro-gun, pro-NRA, but they turned out to be more pro-big Business, pro-ATA. The Airline Transport Association, never a big fan of the pilot, it turns out, didn't like the idea of more pilot authority or armed pilots. Therefore, the Bush administration via the TSA hamstrung the program every way they could.

First off, the pilots had to volunteer with their own time off for the program. Then, instead of being able to train at Quantico, VA, or Glynco, GA (where the first batch of FFDO's was trained), etc., the mandated training place for FFDO's was Artesia, NM. You had to fly into Roswell, and then take a 90 minute bus ride to even get there. You would have REALLY wanted to become an FFDO to go through all the background checks, Psych profiles, and initial and recurrent trips to the party town of Artesia. Finally, there were the absurd carry rules and even holster design that caused FFDO's headaches and made the news a few times. Getting the FFDO Program was a fight that was worth fighting, but it wasn't just cavalierly pushed ahead through Congress, and around a disapproving Bush Administration and TSA, by a bunch of gun nuts as you assert.

As far as the need for Cargo pilot FFDO's, that need became apparent on Saturday, September 6, 2003, when a regular guy decided to ship himself on a cargo airplane, flown by a friend of mine: USATODAY.com - Air cargo stowaway shows security lapse. Prior to this, there was the cargo cut-out for FFDO safety net. As always, Cargo don't get no respect... If a clueless guy can ship himself on a flight, why not determined terrorists? Sure, maybe they would have to attempt shipping terrorists hundreds of times to get into Position 1 of a bird with cargo cans or even position 1 of a palletized cargo load bird, but it would only take one time. And the shock value of blowing up a freighter mid-air would be nothing compared to that of it hitting a building, stadium, etc. It would hardly make page 2 in the newspaper being a cargo bird blown up midair, but hitting the Super Bowl, Disney Land? It would only take one time for terrorists to get lucky enough to ship someone, have them cut out the can, box, ropes, etc. and access the freighter's cockpit.

Packrat, you question whether to FFDO program is worth it because no terrorist, nor a yak, has ever been stopped by an FFDO's weapon. To that I pose a question to you: Were the Titan and Minuteman programs worth it? How about B29, B47, B58, B52, F111, B1, B2 programs worth it? After all, they never had to fire a nuclear shot in anger, much as the FFDO's have never had fire a shot to protect their aircraft. With your logic, these deterrent programs are a waste of time and money.

Finally, the FFDO's are humans and a shockingly small number of them statistically have screwed up by discharging, losing, etc. their duty weapon. And a few have been arrested for other things, just like other LEO's, they are still human. But some of those discharges go back to that hamstringing by the TSA that I was describing above. When an FFDO has to put on and take off their gun multiple times a day, it is a recipe for disaster: "The pilot was trying to lock his gun and remove the holster in an airplane going 300 miles per hour in preparation for landing and the padlock depressed the trigger," said a federal flight deck officer who declined to be identified. "TSA knew this could happen but didn't get rid of the requirement."

The FFDO Program is an effective deterrent that all pilots hope to never need, but it's comforting for me to know that they are out there. It is also a cost effective program: "The federal cost to have a deputized FFDO on board is approximately $17; the cost incurred for each Federal Air Marshall onboard is approximately $3,000." This is cheap insurance to combat a threat that only needs to succeed once.

I know several FFDO's that never owned a gun, and don't technically own one now as FFDO's. They are not gun nuts, as you assert or pilots looking to take a shortcut through security. They are volunteers who have taken their own personal time away from their families and their lives. And while not military service, they are in their own way defending our Country from even the remotest possibility of another September 11. They deserve more respect than I see in the content of your usually informative posts.

Unfortunately, I never took the opportunity (when I had it) to serve as an FFDO. At the time, I had a new family and eventually a young child, so I didn't want to take that time away from them to spend in Artesia. I waited too late, though, as my airline shut down and I was no longer a Part 121 Crewmember. After that, unless they approve an FFDO Program for Fractional or Part 91 pilots, I guess my ship has sailed as I am over chasing the 121 dream.

So who ever has kidnapped Packrat's APC account and dissed FFDO's, please give it back and quit busting on your fellow pilot volunteers who are trying to make flying, and America, safer.

jungle

Excellent post. The mistake many make is trying to sort this into a left or right issue. The issue is safety and the record of the TSA has been dismal. The FFDO program has been the cheapest layer of safety in the entire security program.

I have never had to use a fire extinguisher, life raft, parachute , fire axe, ejection seat, pistol or oxygen mask in over 36 years of flying, that does not mean I want to leave those items of safety equipment behind on any flight. (121/military)

BMEP100

You must be pretty young. Otherwise you would know that at one time, going back to the 60's and 70's pilots did carry guns in their flight bags, if they wanted to. No one objected and there weren't any crazy incidents.

As for the pilot who had an AD with his .40 in the cockpit; that was the result of a defective designed holster that the TSA required to have a padlock shackle inserted THROUGH THE TRIGGER GUARD, of a loaded and cocked pistol. They had been warned about it months before including a letter from the TSA inspector general warning it was likely to produce accidental discharges. Yet the FFDO program management insisted on staying with it- that is until the third AD- that time in a cockpit.

If the pilots had been allowed to do as we always had in decades before all this fake security we wouldn't even be talking about this.

The advent of the FFDO program was not from any pilot. It came from some members of Congress post 911. I could give you names of congressmen calling for pilots to be armed, but I doubt you would really care about the truth- considering the invective you have posted so far.

Captain Nemo

Moron. Must have a Hillary blow up doll and fondles it often.