You are right, I pulled the 95% figure out of my posterior.

I did qualify it with "probably".

But in the interest of being more factually accurate, perhaps I should have said "many" instead of putting a percentage on it.

That line was less intended toward you, and more toward others in this thread (and elsewhere) that have a false sense of security about the prowess of LEOs with their duty weapons due to their "training".

I too spent some time on Google researching, and while I didn't find any specific round counts for NYPD I did see some pretty damning info about how little folks shoot to be considered "qualified" (5 rounds qualifies you with an M4?!?).

Reading these two paragraphs, I think you and I are far more in agreement than out of it...

...but I *do* consider FFDOs to be "highly trained", perhaps not in the sense of total round count or hours of classroom training, but in using their weapons in a highly confined space...which is the whole point of the FFDO program in the first place.

Based on the action of one individual who is no longer a FFDO, which took place outside the cockpit and not in connection with the cockpit at all, you make an assumption about the entire program?

To further extrapolate a pilot who goes hunting outside the cockpit in contravention of the program, you've run far afield into straw man territory again. Wildly so. You're almost knocking on the door of James Brake's cockpit bear.

Zimmerman is irrelevant. He wasn't an FFDO, his case is yet to be decided, it's in trial presently, it didn't take place on a flight deck, and zimmerman had a history of aggressive behavior far outside his role as "neighborhood watch captain" prior to the event.

Vilcus might have had somewhat of a leg to stand on if Zimmerman had been trained as a FFDO, had been in a cockpit, didn't have an extended history of inappropriate, aggressive behavior, and wasn't using his private weapon to chase down an innocent passerby after having been specifically instructed not to do so by law enforcement.

The FFDO, of course, operates within the cockpit, doesn't go outside to go hunting, keeps the door locked, exists not to patrol a neighborhood but to fly the airplane and defend it if needed, and uses a government-issued weapon after receiving federal law enforcement training in it's use and application.

Not really any basis for comparison there, but thanks for playing.

APA Statement on FFDO Funding Amendment to Homeland Security Appropriations Bill

Washington, DC -- (June 7, 2013). The Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations (CAPA) is pleased that a House amendment to fully fund the Federal Flight Deck Officers Program (FFDO) has passed as part of HR 2217, the "Homeland Security Funding Bill". CAPA, along with other organizations, has been an active proponent and sponsor of this program. Over the past several weeks we have been meeting with both the House and Senate to reverse the Administration's attempt to eliminate funding for this critical additional layer of security.

The FFDO program provides an unequaled, cost effective, and efficient way to insure that our flights are protected. A vigorous campaign, to reverse this proposed cut in funding for this important program, was initiated by CAPA as soon as the Administration’s budget was sent to Congress.

CAPA is confident that a careful contemplation of the ramifications of this decision will lead our Legislators to renew this important level of our security infrastructure. In the coming weeks CAPA will be working tirelessly to continue bringing this message to our elected representatives.

The Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations is trade association which represents over 22,000 professional airline pilots at carriers including American Airlines, US Airways, UPS Airlines, ABX Air, Horizon Airlines, Southern Air, Silver Airways, Allegiant Air, Kalitta Air, Miami Air, Cape Air, Omni Air and Atlas Air.

Have to cut somewhere and this program however critical some think it is has not actually been tested in practice. This is a layer of security no one knows if we need. Lets save the money and focus on layers that are proven to be effective.

Such as?

What programs are more effective, and equally as cost effective?

That same "it hasn't been used, so we don't need it" argument could be made for the nuclear triad.

John, I appreciate you cherry picking statements and taking them out of the context of the post that was being made. Had you taken the time to actually read what I posted, you would realize that you and I are more in agreement than you may think in this regards.

I was simply explaining the point that I felt vilcas was making. It is a valid point that he makes, you disregarded because he used a non-FFDO example, even though he was talking more towards human nature in general, which FFDOs are susceptible to, unless of course you believe FFDOs are immune to the failings of human nature. The issue of human nature is not a straw man argument.

Using similar logic, that since it is not an FFDO it does not apply, I could truthfully state that the whole FFDO program is based on theoretical tactics that have never been used to prevent a hijacking and therefore conclude the whole training program is useless as it has not been demonstrated to be effective in a real world hijacking. We both know that the program is not worthless, as we both know that FFDOs are not above human nature.

However, when an FFDO example was brought up, showing that FFDOs are not immune to folly (i.e. going outside their jurisdiction) you simply dismiss it because it is contrary to policy.

The purpose and policy of the FFDO program and how it is carried out by individual FFDOs is not necessarily the same. Granted, the FFDO in question was dismissed from the program, but he was an FFDO at the time. Had he not pulled that vehicle over, who is to say he wouldn't be the one to open the cockpit door? It is not unrealistic that there will be individuals in any organization who go against policy, in fact it has been proven time and time again that it happens. The FFDO program is not immune to rogue members and that has already been proven.

I will quote and highlight the last part of my post that I made:
This is the obvious part that you ignored, I am in agreement with you in regards to FFDOs as a whole. The point against the program is still valid though, there are and will always be rogue members of any organization. To blissfully ignore that fact as you do, instead of recognizing it and working towards a solution to mitigate the impact of said members, simply allows for those members to flourish.

Then I suggest you save money by not having an alarm on your house or car. You can also save money by having the locks removed. After all, we don't know yet if you actually need those layers of security, right? After all, there are no bad guys in the world that would break the rules/ laws. :rolleyes:

If the locks are already there, how does one save money by removing them? :p

I know, just trying to prove the point about it not being necessary because an FFDO has never shot and killed a terrorist. That's like saying the locks and alarm on your house are useless because no one has broken in, set the alarm off, and triggered a call to the police. So since it's never happened its time to get rid of that stupid extra level of security.

Yeah, I know, I just couldn't resist. I do agree with your point.