Why does alpa want ffdo
05-28-2013 | 02:35 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Why does alpa want ffdo
I read that ALPA is fighting for more government funding of FFDO program. This is a waste of limited resources. If you could go back to 9-11 and arm the pilots of the affected aircraft it might have been effective but now it's just most untrained pilots with weapons who will never get a chance to use them. I believe in the program but it should be funded by the pilots otherwise it should go away.
05-28-2013 | 02:45 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
In addition to volunteering, training, and maintaining currency as an FFDO (all without pay). You believe that the FFDO corps should also pass the hat to fund federal training facilities and federal salaries for the bureaucrats that administer the program?
05-28-2013 | 03:04 PM
#3
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 673
Likes: 13
From: B767 Captain
Vilcas, I assume this is some sort of joke or something? I can't see how any rational person would say that. One thing you said that I agree with - hopefully no FFDO will ever get the "chance" to use their weapon.
05-28-2013 | 04:03 PM
#4
Works harder not smarter
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
From: A320 CA
Ignorance is bliss, isn't it Vilcas... 
05-28-2013 | 07:40 PM
#5
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
I guess but I was serious I think this program should not be a taxpayer burden. If pilots want to carry weapons then they should foot the bill. There is no need for a weapon in the flight deck. If people tried to take over a airliner today the passengers are more than adequate to take care of the threat. This is like the opposition to the pen knives by the flight attendants, purely emotional.
05-28-2013 | 09:29 PM
#6
Nice lookin' tree, there!
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 14
From: Tool-Box, old man
I guess but I was serious I think this program should not be a taxpayer burden. If pilots want to carry weapons then they should foot the bill. There is no need for a weapon in the flight deck. If people tried to take over a airliner today the passengers are more than adequate to take care of the threat. This is like the opposition to the pen knives by the flight attendants, purely emotional.
fbh
05-28-2013 | 09:36 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,170
Likes: 97
From: Volleyball Player
The pre-911 mindset of "let the hijacker do what he wants and it will all turn out ok" vs. "lets rush this guy and take him out no matter what kind of weapon he has, whether or not it's a real threat" is the biggest difference IMO. Spending millions of dollars to train and equip certain people is throwing crap on the wall and hoping that it meets just the right situation, in terms of having an armed crew + the opportunity to use it + a real threat.
05-29-2013 | 12:05 AM
#8
Disinterested Third Party
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,758
Likes: 74
I'm very much in favor of the FFDO program. In terms of putting armed personnel on commercial aircraft, it's very cost-effective.
I have, however, shot alongside some FFDO's who couldn't hardly put rounds on paper, let along hit anything, and I found that particularly disturbing.
The notion that untrained passengers can and will subdue a trained and determined attacker is fantasy. Thus far, notable takedowns of disturbed persons on board various flights have occurred, but in most cases, the persons taken down were cartoonish in nature compared to a truly determined and truly trained (and prepared) assailant.
HK works.
I have, however, shot alongside some FFDO's who couldn't hardly put rounds on paper, let along hit anything, and I found that particularly disturbing.
The notion that untrained passengers can and will subdue a trained and determined attacker is fantasy. Thus far, notable takedowns of disturbed persons on board various flights have occurred, but in most cases, the persons taken down were cartoonish in nature compared to a truly determined and truly trained (and prepared) assailant.
HK works.
05-29-2013 | 12:13 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 0
I guess but I was serious I think this program should not be a taxpayer burden. If pilots want to carry weapons then they should foot the bill. There is no need for a weapon in the flight deck. If people tried to take over a airliner today the passengers are more than adequate to take care of the threat. This is like the opposition to the pen knives by the flight attendants, purely emotional.
The FFDO program is Cheap compared to other government programs.
05-29-2013 | 04:35 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,843
Likes: 1
From: FAA 'Flight Check'
How do you relate the two bolded sentences above?
Sort of like - I believe in women having the right to vote, as long as no women are allowed to vote.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
