PDA

View Full Version : Trained, armed, baricaded, pilots?



WARPIG
12-23-2003, 10:15 AM
Can you say cruise missle?
Authorities raised the terrorist threat assessment over the weekend after new intelligence indicated that operatives of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida terror network, possibly trained and licensed to fly passenger jets, may now be pilots for some foreign airlines, ideally positioning them to carry out suicide attacks, U.S. officials told NBC News on Monday.

Reinforced cockpit doors intended to thwart hijackers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks would now protect any terrorist pilot at the controls, the officials said on condition of anonymity.

Authorities would not describe the terror threats in detail publicly, but the U.S. officials told NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski that the threat alert would remain at “orange,” or high, through the end of January, which they said was an indication of its seriousness.

Al-Qaida may have dirty bomb
New intelligence indicates that al-Qaida remains intent on attacking large gatherings of people with chemical or biological weapons, official said. They said law enforcement agencies were looking closely at two rural locations — one in the East and the other in the Southwest — that were believed to be high on the terrorist target list.

Most troubling, the officials said, were indications that al-Qaida may already possess a radiological weapon, or so-called “dirty bomb.” They did not elaborate.

Experts said a potent dirty bomb could spread radioactive material for a half-mile in all directions. People in the fallout zone would be bombarded with radiation levels that they would not otherwise be exposed to from natural sources for a full year.

While it may not particularly deadly, the psychological impact of a dirty bomb could be devastating, experts said.

"The point of a dirty bomb is not mass casualties,” terrorism specialist Roger Cressey, chief of staff for President Bush’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Board from November 2001 to September 2002, said in an interview. “It's much more to instill fear and panic into the general population."

Bush, Ridge: Be vigilant
Bush nonetheless urged people Monday to “go about their lives.”

“Our government is doing everything it can to protect our country,” the president said at a ceremony marking the Jewish celebration of Hanukkah. “American citizens need to go about their lives, but as they do so, they need to know that governments at all levels are working as hard as we possibly can to protect the American citizens.”

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge made the rounds of the nationally broadcast news shows Monday morning as most Americans returned to work a day after the government raised the warning.


“I think it’s very, very important to send a message to the terrorists of goodwill and resolve,” said Ridge, who said the Bush administration wanted people to “be vigilant and have a good communications plan under way.”

The upgrade from “yellow,” or “elevated,” followed warnings that al-Qaida could be plotting attacks against the United States during the holidays.

“The information we have indicates that extremists abroad are anticipating near-term attacks that they believe will either rival or exceed” the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Ridge had said in announcing the upgraded alert status Sunday.

Some of the intelligence information indicated that al-Qaida was seeking to use planes as weapons again, he said. Ridge said the terrorists were “constantly evaluating procedures ... to find gaps in our security posture that could be exploited.”

For instance, U.S. officials have been discreetly working with their counterparts in Canada and Mexico on improved security measures after intelligence indicated al-Qaida might use in an attack an international airliner that simply passes over U.S. soil, U.S. officials familiar with recent intelligence said.

“The information clearly shows they care about getting a hold of airplanes with large fuel supplies in areas with lots of people, and to do it in a way that comes in below our radar screen,” said one senior U.S. official, speaking to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

In Miami, a man was arrested Monday at the main airport with a hacksaw and a razor blade in his shoe.

Information comes from ‘many sources’
Ridge said Monday that the alert was changed because of information the United States received from “many sources,” although he said he could not be more specific. “I think over the course of my two-plus years [as head of Homeland Security], there has probably been some reference to just about every major metropolitan area,” he said.

A U.S. official said on condition of anonymity Sunday that some of the intercepted communications and other intelligence mentioned New York, Washington and unspecified cities on the West Coast. Authorities also are concerned about dams, bridges, nuclear plants, chemical facilities and other public works.

Thousands of state and local law enforcement agencies have received an FBI advisory urging special notice of potential security upgrades and of sites that could be targets, the official said. Ridge contacted his counterparts in Canada and Mexico about increasing border security.

Ridge said Monday of intelligence reports on CBS’s “Early Show": “The volume is up. The quality of the reporting is up. The credibility is there.”

No connection to Saddam arrest seen
At a news conference Sunday, Ridge said credible intelligence sources “suggest the possibility of attacks against the homeland around the holiday season and beyond.”

Shortly thereafter, the State Department issued a worldwide caution warning U.S. citizens overseas that they could be terrorist targets. Echoing Ridge, the caution said officials “expect al-Qaida will strive for new attacks designed to be more devastating” than the Sept. 11 attacks.

Ridge said officials did not see a connection between the recent capture of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the heightened security alert. L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, backed that up Monday, telling NBC News that he saw no connection.

“No, I think as Secretary Ridge pointed out, there’s been a suggestion of high terror threats certainly in Iraq, where we are on the front of the war on terror over the last weeks, unrelated to Saddam’s capture,” Bremer said.

Ridge tried to reassure Americans traveling by plane for the holidays. “Make no mistake about it: Aviation is far more secure than it’s ever been in the history of the country,” he said. At the same time, Ridge said, security at airports could be ramped up a bit more.

As a result of the change in threat level, all federal departments and agencies were putting action plans in place and stepping up security at airports, border crossings and ports, Ridge said.

“Extensive and considerable protections have been or soon will be in place all across the country,” Ridge said. “Your government will stand at the ready 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to stop terrorism during the holiday season and beyond.”

And he urged Americans not to disrupt holiday plans. “If you’ve got travel plans, travel,” he said.

But despite such marked improvements in security, some in Congress still see holes that could be exploited.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, on Monday called for the Bush administration to step up screening of cargo that is transported on commercial jets, calling it “the most obvious remaining hole in our aviation security system.”

“As a routine matter, commercial cargo is not physically screened by anyone, even when it is carried on passenger planes,” he said.
The color-coded system was last raised to orange May 5. Authorities at the time reported receiving general intelligence that pointed to possible terror attacks in the United States related to bombings in Saudi Arabia and Morocco that killed dozens of people. The threat level was returned to yellow 11 days later.

The lowest two levels of the alert system — “green” and “blue” — and the highest — “red,” indicating an imminent threat — have not been used since the system was put in place in March 2002.

U.S. officials by the end of last week were telling holiday travelers to be vigilant about the threat of terrorist attacks.

U.S. officials have told NBC News that in the recent “chatter” al-Qaida operatives have used the word “big” and that they have also expressed a wish to hit the United States with a “WMD attack.”

However, one official cautioned that “there is so much stuff out there now, it’s hard to tell what’s real and what’s not.”

CIA Director George “Tenet has been pushing for this for two weeks,” a third official told NBC News. “But Ridge has been resisting, fearing a ‘cry-wolf’ effect. In the most recent discussion, however, [Attorney General John] Ashcroft went along as well.”

NBC's Jim Miklaszewski in Washington and Robert Windrem in New York, MSNBC.com's Alex Johnson and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
I always believed that arming airline pilots was a stupid move. Many pilots are easily qualified and capable of responsibly carrying a firearm. That is probably due to the high number of former or retired servicemen. Many others are arrogant pricks with no sense of security nor common sense. The problem is that the TSA is the governing body on the arming of these pilots. They have been blundering the airport security for decades as the FAA and are in no way qualified or prepared to deal with this.

Deuterium
12-23-2003, 10:43 AM
Many pilots are easily qualified and capable of responsibly carrying a firearm. That is probably due to the high number of former or retired servicemen.

I agree with your overall point but I have to disagree on this one. With few exceptions just being in the military and as a pilot doesn't give you any special training on pistol use. Qualifying twice a year doesn't give me any confidence on "Slims" ability to effectively and safely engage a hostile target in a confined area. If that were true then we wouldn't need a training program for Air Marshals. I'm kinda torn though on this issue. I realize the deterrence of armed pilots but I just don't buy into the "magic" abilities of giving guns to pilots. Give them more simulator time on emergency procedures and put more Air Marshals on the flights. Not cost effective but If we truly want a level of safety then that's were I want my money to go.

Saranof
12-23-2003, 11:00 AM
Many pilots are easily qualified and capable of responsibly carrying a firearm. That is probably due to the high number of former or retired servicemen.

I agree with your overall point but I have to disagree on this one. With few exceptions just being in the military and as a pilot doesn't give you any special training on pistol use. Qualifying twice a year doesn't give me any confidence on "Slims" ability to effectively and safely engage a hostile target in a confined area. If that were true then we wouldn't need a training program for Air Marshals. I'm kinda torn though on this issue. I realize the deterrence of armed pilots but I just don't buy into the "magic" abilities of giving guns to pilots. Give them more simulator time on emergency procedures and put more Air Marshals on the flights. Not cost effective but If we truly want a level of safety then that's were I want my money to go.

Yeah, that sounds better. Pilots have to concentrate on the flight, and learning firearms takes alot of time away from that concentration. Air Marshals could just concentrate on potential troublemakers.

Argyll
12-23-2003, 11:03 AM
A frightening concept there!
Was there not an Egyptian Pilot who flew his plane and passengers into the deck a few years ago cause he had some "social"problems,and a greivance with the airline?

WARPIG
12-23-2003, 12:30 PM
I guess qualified was a little generous. Not to take away from those pilots that are competant enough to handle a firearm.. but having it in a plane all together is idiotic.
Just starting a ruckus so the co-pilot will come out of the cockpit to play John Wayne is an easy way to get my partner access to the cockpit while I aquire myself a pistol.
I agree..
Having an Air Marshall is where the safety is. Keep the pilots piloting and the Air Marshall awake. This "arming pilots" is a liability.

By the way.. many pilots are pissed 'cause the TSA is making them take a Psych eval before they are granted permission or training. A lot of ex AF and Navy officers are getting their feathers ruffled.

IDFM203
12-23-2003, 12:45 PM
Well Ill says that Israel’s El Al which is considered one of the most secure air lines in the world, they never have pilots with weapons. I remember seeing a interview one time with the head of El Al security and he said that the pilots job is to fly the plane and that is it, and it is best that the pilot solely focus on that and in his opinion it is wrong to give the pilots guns so as to have them concentrate on something other then flying and that is not something that he feels should happen

Anyway’s there is no need for a El Al pilot to carry a weapon because for years besides the stringent (intrusive) security measures at the air port which almost guarantee that no hijacker is getting on board, the plane itself always had two steel cockpit doors and always one or even two air marshals on board.


Now with that said, I think in the U.S. arming of the pilots isn’t such a terrible idea. I say that because the size and scope of the U.S. air market and the sheer volume of planes and passengers far out weighs tiny Israel’s scope and as such I don’t think the U.S. has the budget (well as by far the richest nation in the world, it does have the budget but its unwilling to spend it) nor the manpower to put a air marshal on every flight nor does it have the qualified airport security and more important the qualified air port security screeners (not the machines but the human aspect) on a large scale (yes it has it in a few cases but not in very air port or not in every plane) and a such as arming the pilots isn’t a terrible idea


Now of course if they implant the same type of security as El Al on every plane and in every airport, then I say no way you give them guns for there is simply no need.

Just my .02

Shalom :D

Uncle Chô
12-23-2003, 12:48 PM
Having an Air Marshall is where the safety is. Keep the pilots piloting and the Air Marshall awake. This "arming pilots" is a liability.

Air Marshall is the best solution unless they are properly recruited, trained and paid. In the wake of the 9/11 events, the authorities (FAA ?) rushed to put armed guards aboard airliners, no matter if they where well trained. Like the people screening boarding passengers at the airport terminal, the quality level is not what it should be. Luckily, no "serious" incident occured up until now...

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/TPC/Funny_Pictures/0001-1000/0301-0400/0328/0328.jpg

;)

96B
12-23-2003, 01:21 PM
rofl

Uncle Chô
12-23-2003, 01:36 PM
http://www.heightsprinting.com/AirMarshall.gif

morlick
12-23-2003, 02:31 PM
WARPIG"]Having an Air Marshall is where
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/TPC/Funny_Pictures/0001-1000/0301-0400/0328/0328.jpg

;)

:D Nice toy

Andyman
12-23-2003, 03:25 PM
The only thing about firing that thing on a plane is that even if you manage to hit your target the 50. cal round would likely take the entire plane down with the hijacker. A funny pic indeed rofl

Falco
12-23-2003, 07:22 PM
I talk with an Air Canada pilot about this issue. He said that he wouldn't mind having a weapon in the flightdeck but it would mean that if someone wanted to have a gun during te flight, that person would know where to find it.

Durandal
12-23-2003, 08:42 PM
I have no problem with a gun being in the cockpit. I even participated in several campaigns to make sure my State Rep and Senator knew that was the way I felt.

The cockpit door is a choke point. No one bu thte pilot is going to get a fun. There are always two pilots. Having spoken with MANY pilots including my cousin (who woks with a subline within Delta out of Washington), I have the feeling that most of them want a gun within reach as well just as a backup. Of course this is not PROOF, but my perception of the environment. Several who did not want to carry did not care because no one was forcing them to carry.

The problem with relying on Airmarshals, is that they are ONLY a deterrent, nothing else. There are FAR too few to ride every flight, even if the focused on large birds only. Training studies proved that a single Air Marshal can do little against multiple terrorists and are zero effective when dealing with a group that ALSO has a sleeper terrorist among the passengers (an individual that does not act unless there is a cop or agent that that reveals themselves).

While I support armed pilots, I do think that the ultimate safeguard are the passengers. I know many folks, myself included, that would take down anyone trying to get into the cockpit. We have seen evidence of this on at least three flights since 9/11.

usa320
12-23-2003, 10:11 PM
http://ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc5.jpg

Sorry, Couldnt resist...that picture of the pilot with the M82 is hilarious.

WARPIG
12-24-2003, 07:56 AM
I agree with the point that if a terrorist wants a firearm.. he knows where to get one. Also, those pilots make themselves targets when they are armed.
What do you think is easier. Getting several armed terrorists to overpower an Air Marshall or to figure out which pilot is armed, get on his flight, and slip some laxative in the coffee? When he comes out.. the terrorist gets in.
I worked the airports with the military during Op Noble Eagle. There are still a ton of things that get on planes that are really harmful and could be used as weapons.
For instance cigarettes and a book of matches or a single lighter is authorized to carry. A bottle of really good liquor is not banned either.. as long as it is not an open container.
What could a coctail napkin, a bottle of 100 proof or better rum, and a lighter do?
No matter if the pilot is armed or not.. terrorists can get a plane if they want it. The security lies in makeing it harder... deterring them .. and having someone who is trained in counter-terror to handle it when things go bad. Having an Air Marshals working is an anti-terrorism measure.. haveing them trained well is a counter-terrorism measure. We already have started cross training other Feds to back fill the Air Marshals in times of need. That will increase the number of shooters in the air. Let the pilots concentrate on flying.

Durandal
12-24-2003, 11:23 AM
Pilots are already targets. Giving them a gun does not make them any more of a target. It also gives them an edge over someone with a boxcutter, especially when they have the breakdown a door to get to them. It is a natural choke point and no one else would be trying to break the door down, so no suprise there...

2Sheds_Jackson
12-24-2003, 12:20 PM
I really don't see a downside to arming the pilots.

Let's face it - if the pilot wants to crash the jet, he can do it whether he's armed or barricaded behind the door. Turn off fuel pumps. Engage thurst reverser at altitude. Or just a good 'ol EgyptAir 990 nosedive into the sea while muttering "I rely on God:.

It doesn't cost taxpayers any more to arm the pilots. Air Marshals are expensive - we simply can't afford one on every flight.

If a T was able to overpower a pilot & get his gun...we'll then he's already overpowered the pilot. He wouldn't need the gun at that point.

usa320
12-24-2003, 12:49 PM
indeed...if a terrorist can get the poilots gun, then the pilot is probably already dead.

WARPIG
12-24-2003, 01:03 PM
Negative. If a pilot has a gun and a terrorist gets to it.. he can ward off any passenger heros or the Air Marshall long enough to pick where he wants to crash. All he needs to do is give some cocky pilot a reason to open the cockpit. Lock boxes are being used to safeguard these firearms but the pilots are already complaining.
Taxpayers have already shelled out money to psychologists and the TSA to screen pilot applications to carry on the planes.
Bottom line is that the pilot will already have his hands full flying. A gun in the airplane is just a liability no matter who has it. Even Air Marshalls are training with "less than lethal" options.
Arming pilots has just as many liabilities as it does protection. We gain nothing by it and complicate things.

Durandal
12-24-2003, 04:14 PM
Negative. If a pilot has a gun and a terrorist gets to it.. he can ward off any passenger heros or the Air Marshall long enough to pick where he wants to crash. All he needs to do is give some cocky pilot a reason to open the cockpit. Lock boxes are being used to safeguard these firearms but the pilots are already complaining.
Taxpayers have already shelled out money to psychologists and the TSA to screen pilot applications to carry on the planes.
Bottom line is that the pilot will already have his hands full flying. A gun in the airplane is just a liability no matter who has it. Even Air Marshalls are training with "less than lethal" options.
Arming pilots has just as many liabilities as it does protection. We gain nothing by it and complicate things.

There is more than one person in a cockpit.

If the gun is not out and in the box the terrorist is not going to be able to get it.

Not to make a strawman argument, but your argument could be used for police officers too, or guards, or any offical that needs to carry a gun.

I simply do not buy it.

If a terrorist tries to take over the plan you f*cking kill and/or beat the snot of him/her/them, having more than two options (passengers and/or Air Marshals) is a good thing. I a terrorist(s) are in a position to take the gun they are in a position to pilot the plane...then they have a bigger weapon...who cares then about 10 rounds of pistol ammo.

I am going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Normally I agree with most of your posts. I do not, however, on this one. Which is cool.

Have a good holiday man!

Andyman
12-27-2003, 05:56 AM
I know the likelyhood is low but what if a Pilot snapped one day. I mean what do airlines do already to prevent their Pilots from "say" losing it on the job?

Also does anyone know if its happened before other than the one mentioned earlier in the post?

Ballistic
12-27-2003, 09:03 AM
Best way in my opinion to preventing a hijack is to have more secure cockpits and 1 or 2 air marshalls on board. I dont believe pilots should be given access to weapons.

Durandal
12-27-2003, 10:22 AM
Best way in my opinion to preventing a hijack is to have more secure cockpits and 1 or 2 air marshalls on board. I dont believe pilots should be given access to weapons.

1 or 2 PER plane is a rediculous cost with almost no return.

Durandal
12-27-2003, 10:23 AM
I know the likelyhood is low but what if a Pilot snapped one day. I mean what do airlines do already to prevent their Pilots from "say" losing it on the job?

Also does anyone know if its happened before other than the one mentioned earlier in the post?

I know, persoanlly, I am no woried about a pilot snapping when dealing with guns. I mean come on, he is piloting a fuel bomb, what would a gun matter.