Actually, I copied what you wrote, put it in quotation marks, and responded to that. If you meant to say something else, you should probably have done that. I didn't cherry pick a thing.

He can't speak for himself? Ah, right. I've read his comments. He really can't.

Whether FFDO certified pilots are human was never part of the argument, but humanity does not mean a parallel between George Zimmerman and the pilot in the cockpit. There are many human frailties. To suggest that the FFDO is susceptible to any or all of them because he is a homo sapien is an idiotic argument that by inference also means that all pilots will die of cancer, or that all pilots will do this or that...because they're all human and other humans experience those things. The ultimate fallacy, and the ultimate straw man argument. It's nonsense, and yes, it's easily dismissed, because it's junk thinking, junk logic, and has no place in this discussion. All FFDO's are susceptible to what Zimmerman did? All of society doesn't go out and do what Zimmerman did...that's why he's on trial and we're not, you see.

Zimmerman is as logical an argument as JLBs introduction into the discussion of bears attacking cockpits, and his arguments about .22 long rifle cartridges being used to dispatch them by shooting them through the eye. Bunk. Irrelevant. No place nor relation to the conversation. What Zimmerman did in his own time, untrained and armed with his own weapon, contrary to direction by law enforcement in real time, is entirely irrelevant to a FFDO carrying a weapon issued by law enforcement, trained by law enforcement in a federally recognized and mandated program, inside the confines of a flight deck as an authorized, credentialed, background-checked crew member. Zimmerman's use is, no matter how you try to justify it, a straw-man argument.

It is when it has no bearing on the conversation.

The conversation is the funding of the federal flight deck officer program. It has been suggested that the program should continue, but be funded privately by the participants. Efforts have been introduced thus far to discredit the program and it's efficacy by using bears attacking cockpits, terrorists prying their way in with dull knives, George Zimmerman shooting an unarmed boy in his neighborhood, and presently, your use of "human nature." In so doing, your argument (and that of others) is that the FFDO will exit the cockpit and go hunting terrorists based on human nature. No examples of this have been given, of course, other than imaginary bears and Zimmerman (and of course the gentleman who was dismissed from the program, who pulled someone over outside of the airport [not close to a cockpit or aircraft] and who subsequently lost his certification).

Do a few "bad apples" mean that the program shouldn't be funded, or that participants should fund themselves? No such evidence has been presented, or exists, so the only available arguments have been used; all of them straw man efforts at making points that don't actually exist.

In human nature is good and bad, but we're not having a philosophical discussion about human nature. We could opine that because some humans are given to extremism and irrational violence, we could expect the same from the cockpit crew, but then if we truly believed that, we'd need to ground all aircraft and lock up all cockpit crews. We could opine that because sexual deviancy is common to human nature throughout many societies and many nations, it's certainly reasonable to expect it in the cockpit. Who is to say but that the crew might burst out of the cockpit at any given moment and run down the aisle slapping people upside the head with rubber dildoes? Not really relevant and some wildly speculative thinking, but it holds about as much application and logic and introducing Zimmerman into the conversation.

I don't dismiss it because it's contrary to policy. Of course it's contrary to policy. I dismiss it because it's an aberration, and because it has no relevancy here. If the FFDO had left the cockpit and used his weapon to attack a passenger (or a terrorist) it would be relevant.

People get dismissed from all kinds of organizations for inappropriate behavior. I know a pilot who was fired because he sat down in the lobby and began masturbating. I know police officers who were fired for lying on documentation or for brutality. I know doctors who were fired for cheating on their income taxes and who went to prison. I know all kinds of people who did things that were wrong in view of the law or society, and it's not shock at all that a pilot may have erred, or an FFDO for that matter. What he didn't do was leave the cockpit and go searching the aircraft for bad guys, which is the context in which the matter was introduced. If you could show cause and effect in context with the conversation it might not warrant dismissal, but it was entirely irrelevant, and therefore easily dismissed.

The violation of policy was the reason the pilot was dismissed from the program, not from the conversation. When I was in law enforcement long ago, we dismissed a jailer for doing the same thing. He pulled people over on his own time without the authority to do so, and in so doing, embarrassed the department and violated the law. I certainly wouldn't use his example to illustrate a need for FFDO's, or an argument against them, as it's as irrelelvant as bears attacking the flight deck, or George Zimmerman.

You're putting the man on trial for what he didn't do? That's the causal example?

Who's to say he wouldn't have sprouted wings out of his back and flown into an aircraft intentionally? Who's to say he wouldn't have attacked a traveling group of Kindergartners with a flame thrower in First Class, or poisoned all the bean sprouts in the catering? Who's to say anything, other than what happened, and how is such foolish speculation about what did NOT happen in any way relevant to the conversation? Again, straw man arguments, this inference of what didn't take place, as some how relevant to the fact and substance of the matter. You're using as an argument now speculation about what *might* have happened, but didn't, to support a point?

Irrelevant. That's why your argument was dismissed, and rightfully so.

Alarms on houses and cars are also kind of silly since trained criminals bypass them with ease. People make that choice individually, they don't have the government paying for it. This is not a great analogy since if everyone remembers, I said I am fine with FFDO's as long as they foot the bill. Another way to go about it, if this is so critical impose on the airlines. Make every 121 carrier train and obligate pilots to carry pistols while working. Maybe also give some martial arts training to the flight attendants and make them train and meet certain standards. This will be a perfect layer of security. They have immediate access to the terrorist since they are in the cabin. Not great news for the senior staff out there that can't even walk up some stairs without great pains but this is better security than the pilots and their guns.

Well, it HAS been used though. They have fired shots in the cockpit.

Another layer of security is to separate the flight deck from the rest of the aircraft. Just include a lavatory and some bag storage. Then you could be totally isolated from passengers( potential tangos ). Then the only thing you have to worry about is if the pilot next too you is unstable.

Sounds like a simple and low cost suggestion. :rolleyes:

If you believe that some 55 year old grandma attempting to use, insert martial art here, in the aisle of an airliner is better than an armed pilot, your lack of reality is simply mind boggling. If you believe that spending an average of $15/flight to have an armed pilot in the cockpit is too much, once again, mind boggling... I challenge you to get off your soapbox, where you have stated you know nothing about the program(which is painfully obvious), and volunteer for the training. When(IF) you get selected, and if you complete training(not everyone does), then feel free to come back and share your opinions at that time... Of course we know you won't do that...

If you believe that there are no longer threats to the U.S. and U.S. airliners, you may be due for a good wool clipping... Enjoy your blissfully ignorant life...

"Tangos?" Have you been reading too much Dick Marcinko?

Yeah, your average criminal is highly trained to bypass security, pick locks and use a stethlescope to open up safes. Just like in the movies!:rolleyes:

So I have a hypthetical question for the FFDO opponents. You are almost 4 hours into a flight from Hawaii to San Francisco when you suddenly hear a commotion in the cabin behind you. You get a call from the rear flight attendant that there appear to be eight or ten attackers going after the cockpit. Some passengers are trying to stop them, but others are pannicked and submissive. She sees lots of blood, and the attackers seem to be doing a good job holding them off with knives they snuck through security. You look through the peephole and see a few attackers trying to pry the reinforced cockpit door off the bulkhead with a crowbar. Suddenly you see light between the door and the frame as the crowbar begins to do its job.

The thought going through your head will be:

A) Thank God the other pilot doesn't have a gun, that would be a waste of my tax dollars.

B) Thank God the other pilot has a gun, at least we have a fighting chance.

C) That's odd, I always figured a Grizzly Bear would be the biggest threat to my safety in an airliner.

Or the cockpit fire extinguishers, crash axe, etc.:rolleyes: