Why does alpa want ffdo
05-30-2013, 09:13 AM
#31
Get's Every Day Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
No trained or truly determined ones, yet. We have data on that, too.
A couple of years ago I was on an indoor range with several HK weapons, and the person in lane next to me was shooting a USP Compact .40. He couldn't hit the broad side of a B10 target, let alone come close to his point of aim. Much of his shooting missed the target completely. We spoke, and he explained that there was something wrong with his handgun.
I shot it at his request. It cycled and grouped just fine, as one would expect from that handgun. I thought he was a real novice, never having fired a handgun, perhaps just bought it and was trying to teach himself to shoot. It wasn't until we talked for a little while that he said he was an airline pilot, a FFDO. I was amazed. We shot for a while, and I let him try several other weapons. He shocked himself when he was able to get tight groups with a HK USC...because its easy to shoot. We began working with trigger control, front sight use, breathing, and moving the target in.
He was really, really bad at all ranges, but delighted to learn that he could do better. And he did. My concern was the poor standard with which he was shooting at the outset, yet fully comfortable carrying in his capacity as a FFDO. I've no doubt that he's doing much better now, and hopefully was inspired to see a little more training.
A couple of years ago I was on an indoor range with several HK weapons, and the person in lane next to me was shooting a USP Compact .40. He couldn't hit the broad side of a B10 target, let alone come close to his point of aim. Much of his shooting missed the target completely. We spoke, and he explained that there was something wrong with his handgun.
I shot it at his request. It cycled and grouped just fine, as one would expect from that handgun. I thought he was a real novice, never having fired a handgun, perhaps just bought it and was trying to teach himself to shoot. It wasn't until we talked for a little while that he said he was an airline pilot, a FFDO. I was amazed. We shot for a while, and I let him try several other weapons. He shocked himself when he was able to get tight groups with a HK USC...because its easy to shoot. We began working with trigger control, front sight use, breathing, and moving the target in.
He was really, really bad at all ranges, but delighted to learn that he could do better. And he did. My concern was the poor standard with which he was shooting at the outset, yet fully comfortable carrying in his capacity as a FFDO. I've no doubt that he's doing much better now, and hopefully was inspired to see a little more training.
As long as he can get his weapon out of the holster and pointed in the general direction of the door, I think he would probably be "good enough" to get the job done.
05-30-2013, 09:19 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Posts: 389
Close quarter combat against a trained opponent is difficult. FFDO makes the pilots feel good, I am sure, but is not sufficiently useful to require funding by taxpayers.
05-30-2013, 09:37 AM
#33
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: Pilot
Posts: 2,625
Originally Posted by vilcas
Close quarter combat against a trained opponent is difficult. FFDO makes the pilots feel good, I am sure, but is not sufficiently useful to require funding by taxpayers.
05-30-2013, 10:00 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Seat 0B
Posts: 2,300
Kudos to the pax and crew who took down the guy that attempted to open the cabin door in flight. Seems like operation "Passenger 57" is working.
05-30-2013, 05:34 PM
#35
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,076
How competent does a FFDO have to be to hit a target at a distance of "his seat to the cockpit door."
As long as he can get his weapon out of the holster and pointed in the general direction of the door, I think he would probably be "good enough" to get the job done.
05-30-2013, 05:43 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
We'll need to equip them with at least S&W .500 magnums to shoot through the door.
05-30-2013, 07:22 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Posts: 389
Don't justify one example of wasteful spending by citing another. This thread is about the FFDO program only. If we were a country flush with cash and no deficit maybe this would be a moot point but we aren't. We are a country in crisis and the FFDO Program since its inception has done nothing useful.
05-31-2013, 04:28 AM
#38
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: Pilot
Posts: 2,625
Originally Posted by vilcas
Don't justify one example of wasteful spending by citing another. This thread is about the FFDO program only. If we were a country flush with cash and no deficit maybe this would be a moot point but we aren't. We are a country in crisis and the FFDO Program since its inception has done nothing useful.
05-31-2013, 06:16 AM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by Red Forman
Since you can't tell me how many attacks it has prevented you cannot say the program has done nothing useful.
You realize this type of program is the epitome of "big government"?
05-31-2013, 09:43 AM
#40
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,076
The FFDO program is the opposite of big government. Big government would be taking the same number of FFDO volunteers and placing that number of paid skymarshalls on each aircraft. Instead, the cost is a fraction of what would be involved to have full time armed personnel on each flight.
Given what it would cost otherwise, the program more than pays for itself in savings.
Much like nuclear weapons, the weapon only fails the first time it gets used; its true success is largely measured in the number of times it does NOT get used.
Like many uses of a firearm, it's far better to have and not need, than the other way around.
Given what it would cost otherwise, the program more than pays for itself in savings.
Much like nuclear weapons, the weapon only fails the first time it gets used; its true success is largely measured in the number of times it does NOT get used.
Like many uses of a firearm, it's far better to have and not need, than the other way around.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
