You copied parts of what I wrote, and then proceeded to take them out context, that is cherry picking.


What I gathered from the rest of your post is that you are opposed to the theoretical discussion of realistic hypothetical situations. If it does not deal directly with an FFDO in the cockpit then it is irrelevant.

If that is the way you wish to have this discussion, then so be it.

The FFDO program as a whole is theory based on a hypothetical situation. As such, it is surprising that you would support a program that has not been proven and is based solely on hypothetical situations, considering your strong opposition to it here in this discussion. Pre 9/11 discussion is irrelevant to this topic as various other policies have been put into place since 9/11 (i.e. how hijackings are treated, cockpit access, etc.) Since there are no real world examples of the cockpit door being breached, only speculation in regards to it happening, it is irrelevant to consider that the cockpit door would be breached. How can we base a policy on what *might* happen, but hasn't happened? According to you John, we cannot, we can only base our actions on what has happened.

We can now safely assume that the only way the cockpit would be accessed by hijackers is through the crew opening door. The policy is not to open the door, and since it is written so it shall be. No crewmember will open the cockpit door for a hijacker. The FFDO can only use his firearm in the case of a breach of the cockpit. Since the cockpit cannot be breached and since no crewmember will open the cockpit door for a hijacker, there is no need for a firearm.

You have zero real life evidence of hijackers breaching the cockpit. Zero real life evidence of the FFDO program being effective in stopping a hijacking. Lastly, you have zero real life evidence that the training given to FFDOs actually works. Therefore, using your own methodology John, how can you support the continued wasteful misuse of taxpayer dollars for a program that *might* work? We can opine all day about theoretical hijackings, but it does not amount to much. The FFDO program is a waste of taxpayer money. If someone feels like they would be "safer" or might succumb to those irrelevant hypothetical situations about hijackers magically breaching a cockpit door (which both you and I know can't be possible since there are no real cases were the door has been breached by terrorists) then they should pay for it out of pocket.

I am sure you cannot find fault with this, since it follows your belief that hypothetical situations are irrelevant.

Lastly, can you please quote the post made by JNB were he stated the cockpit would come under attack by bears? If you cannot, then you're simply a troll.

 

There's a saying, "Locks are only meant to keep the 99% of people that are honest, honest." The 1% will get by the lock or the alarm. Much like a lock, the FFDO program is a deterrent. It may or may not prevent the 1% from taking down an airliner (hell they could just blow the damn plane up without ever going near the cockpit), but it definitely acts as a deterrent for those would-be terrorists.

Just as we would still buy locks for our valuables, we should continue to fund the FFDO program. They are both inexpensive and cost effective.

 

Very true. I've never had to use my oxygen mask because of a depressurization, so I guess we could get rid of those, too.

 

The cockpit most certainly can be breached, and no, the only way is NOT by opening the door. Not in the least.

Within your last two posts, you stated that "The FFDO program is a waste of taxpayer money," and then went on to say "Just as we would still buy locks for our valuables, we should continue to fund the FFDO program. They are both inexpensive and cost effective."

On the one hand you assert that the program is a waste of money, but on the other you say that it's cost effective, inexpensive, and that we should continue to fund the program. Do you bother to read what you write, or hear what you say?

I've addressed it repeatedly within the last 13 pages of this thread. You appear to have trouble understanding what you write, let alone what anyone else writes, but if you're able, perhaps you can look it up yourself.

 

And you try to make a point out of obvious sarcasm in the user's post which you cherry pick a quote from. It is clear to the rest of the forum members what NE Pilot's stance is but you are too busy hyping your point that you other contributions to the discussion.
Maybe you are the poster who should do less talking and more reading?

 

I could have quoted both his posts in their entirety, but when he states on the one hand that the program is a waste and shouldn't be funded, then turns around and states that it should, that's fairly self-explanatory.

The original poster believes the program shouldn't be funded. Some posters are adamant that it should, and others that it should not.

NE Pilot seems to think both.

 

No, he made a sarcastic post and you missed the sarcasm.

 

I guess that sophisticated writing software that he uses is only helpful in forming responses, not comprehending what has been written by others.

In any case, to make sure that I am not sidetracking the thread too far with some of the ridiculous postings made, I'll add my support to the thread for the FFDO program and take this opportunity to thank those who participate. Deterrence seems to be a word that many do not understand and look for proof positive of it's value when the very fact that there is none is the best proof available.

 

Irony? We don't do that.

 

What would be more effective, depressurizing the cabin or firing off a bunch of rounds at those 10 attackers? Probably unlikely you'll get them all by shooting.