Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: Obama’s Plan To Kill Armed Pilot Program

  1. #1
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476

    Obama’s Plan To Kill Armed Pilot Program

    The President wants to end the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program (FFDO), also known as the armed pilots program.

    http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2012...pilot-program/

    The program trains pilots for one week and arms them with .40-caliber semiautomatic pistols.

    To be selected for Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) training by TSA you must:
    Be available to attend the FFDO training program in its entirety on your own time and at your own expense within one year from your acceptance in the program (the cost of the training and equipment are covered by TSA and the Federal Air Marshal Service; volunteers are responsible for their own travel, lodging, and daily expenses).
    All trainees must participate and successfully pass required bi-annual firearms re-qualification activities on their own time and at their own expense.


    Federal Flight Deck Officers Association

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by oldbanger View Post
    The President wants to end the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program (FFDO), also known as the armed pilots program.

    http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2012...pilot-program/

    The program trains pilots for one week and arms them with .40-caliber semiautomatic pistols.

    To be selected for Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) training by TSA you must:
    Be available to attend the FFDO training program in its entirety on your own time and at your own expense within one year from your acceptance in the program (the cost of the training and equipment are covered by TSA and the Federal Air Marshal Service; volunteers are responsible for their own travel, lodging, and daily expenses).
    All trainees must participate and successfully pass required bi-annual firearms re-qualification activities on their own time and at their own expense.


    Federal Flight Deck Officers Association
    So ridiculous, first it's a private enterprise they should choose how to arm or not arm pilots.

    And how deluded do you have to be to that you can trust the person with the lives of hundreds of people when he flies a huge metal can miles of the ground, but better not arm him against threats to himself or other passenger?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    I agree with SVG.

    What is the worst that can happen if a pilot is defending himself against a hijacking attempt and gets killed? The plane gets hijacked, the result is the same as if he had not been armed. If the pilot is armed he has a significantly higher chance of stopping any hijacking attempt. If Obama thinks the pilots are safe enough that they don't need to be armed then he should disband the Air Marshals as well.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  4. #4
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476
    Rep. Cravaack – Is a Federal Flight Deck Officer the last line of defense for our travelling public?

    Sec. Napolitano – I think the armed cockpit door actually is.[sic]

    When further asked if it was Sec. Napolitano’s intention to phase out armed pilots, the Secretary said “I think as the budget request shows, it is our intention to reduce it. Yes.”
    The Secretary admitted that they want to reduce it and wind down the program.

    video

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    The real reason they don't want armed pilots is that they are afraid a pilot might shoot one of their false-flag perpetrating employees...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  6. #6
    Regular Member ThatOneChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
    Posts
    118
    The government likes to keep us all feeling scared by announcing all these plots and terrorist attacks and what not then they want to pull a stunt like this? Really?
    It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. --Douglas Adams

    Unless cited, any comments are my personal opinion and may not hold any weight or be correct.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by oldbanger View Post
    SNIP The program trains pilots for one week and arms them with .40-caliber semiautomatic pistols.

    To be selected for Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) training by TSA you must:
    Be available to attend the FFDO training program in its entirety on your own time and at your own expense within one year from your acceptance in the program (the cost of the training and equipment are covered by TSA and the Federal Air Marshal Service; volunteers are responsible for their own travel, lodging, and daily expenses).
    All trainees must participate and successfully pass required bi-annual firearms re-qualification activities on their own time and at their own expense.


    Federal Flight Deck Officers Association

    Meanwhile, the fedgov is spending millions militarizing our local police with military surplus.

    I wonder how many pilots could be trained and refresher-ed for the cost of one armored vehicle to a little town in New Hampshire?

    http://www.theagitator.com/2012/02/12/thunderstruck/

    http://keene-equinox.com/2012/02/bearcat-causes-uproar/
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-18-2012 at 05:00 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Meanwhile, the fedgov is spending millions militarizing our local police with military surplus.

    I wonder how many pilots could be trained and refresher-ed for the cost of one armored vehicle to a little town in New Hampshire?

    http://www.theagitator.com/2012/02/12/thunderstruck/

    http://keene-equinox.com/2012/02/bearcat-causes-uproar/
    I know of one pilot who is willing to pay for his own training and his own weapons. So I am going to assume others would be too, it's just more government rationalization.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 02-18-2012 at 09:17 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    So ridiculous, first it's a private enterprise they should choose how to arm or not arm pilots.

    And how deluded do you have to be to that you can trust the person with the lives of hundreds of people when he flies a huge metal can miles of the ground, but better not arm him against threats to himself or other passenger?
    Dude, we're talking about OBAMA here. It would take the sort of math that has mostly letters and symbols to figure out just how vast the depth of that fascist pig's delusions are.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    The real reason they don't want armed pilots is that they are afraid a pilot might shoot one of their false-flag perpetrating employees...
    Yes, that's EXACTLY why...


    No facepalm picture on the net was sufficient.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    If the pilot is armed he has a significantly higher chance of stopping any hijacking attempt.
    Bingo! That's not only the whole point of the program, it's also one of the principle reasons reason all USAF aircrew are armed in combat. It's NOT (only) because we might be shot down. It's mainly to defend U.S. territory. All U.S. Military vessels, both sea and air, are considered sovereign U.S. Territory, same as our embassies. Marines protect our embassies. We aircrew protected our aircraft against unlawful boarders.

    If Obama thinks the pilots are safe enough that they don't need to be armed then he should disband the Air Marshals as well.
    To be fair, Napolitano was asking for a small cut to the FDDO budget, not its elimination. She asked for a small cut to the Air Marshals budget, too:

    Total Budget: $59 Billion
    Discretionary Budget: $49 Billion

    Federal Air Marshals Service .................................................. ....................-$36.5M (0 FTE)
    The request includes a reduction of $36.5 million relative to FY 2012. It reflects efficiencies
    and program changes that leverage other aviation security system enhancements, allowing for
    more efficient mission deployments focused on high-risk flights.

    o Federal Flight Deck Officer and Flight Crew Training.............................-$12.6M (0 FTE)
    TSA’s request includes a reduction of $12.6 million for the Federal Flight Deck Officer and
    Flight Crew Training program. As TSA focuses its aviation security activities on programs
    that mitigate the highest amount of risk at the lowest cost, TSA has prioritized funding in the
    same manner. Funds will be redirected from this voluntary program to other high-priority,
    risk-based operational initiatives. Since 2001, many enhancements to aviation security have
    been made, such as 100 percent screening of all passengers and their carry-on items, the
    installation of reinforced and locking cockpit doors on aircraft that operate in U.S. airspace,
    and increased passenger and flight crew awareness to address security risks. Combined,
    these improvements have greatly lowered the risk of unauthorized cockpit access and
    represent a comprehensive and redundant risk mitigation strategy that begins before
    passengers board the aircraft. The program reductions will be accomplished through a
    variety of actions intended to focus on volunteers providing the highest potential security
    benefit, gaining efficiencies in training facility consolidation and training contract
    restructuring.

    Source: DHS FY 2013 Budget in Brief, page 110. I'd attach it, but this "brief" budget is 196 pages long and so riddled with 24-bit hi-res graphics that the file is 17.5 MB, nearly twice the size of my first hard drive!

    Now I know where the money's going: To graphic designers and others who'll make the department look good while helping them build their empire.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    The real reason they don't want armed pilots is that they are afraid a pilot might shoot one of their false-flag perpetrating employees...
    Every airline pilot is already armed. Look what happened to the World Trade Center towers.

    Oh, yes, of course, those were the terrorist pilots...

    Seriously, though - how much did that cost our nation? And Napolitano wants to reduce funding the ONLY program that directly deters such activity?

    I think she looked a little uncomfortable answering questions because the Representative grilling her NAILED IT.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  13. #13
    Regular Member ThatOneChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Now I know where the money's going: To graphic designers and others who'll make the department look good while helping them build their empire.
    Maybe they're trying to set it up for another attack then, later, Big Brother will come in with his big open arms and spout off about how "more security is needed", "more funding is needed", "you guys don't need your 2A because the government is here to protect you" rhetoric. Blech. I just made myself sick.
    It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. --Douglas Adams

    Unless cited, any comments are my personal opinion and may not hold any weight or be correct.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    Yes, that's EXACTLY why... No facepalm picture on the net was sufficient.
    You'll find Dreamer wasn't making up his reference to false-flag employees on an air-liner. We already know the Underwear Bomber was very likely a false-flag:


    http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/haskell2.1.1.html

    Or, you can read it in the original here (post dated 2/15/12): http://haskellfamily.blogspot.com/

  15. #15
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    You'll find Dreamer wasn't making up his reference to false-flag employees on an air-liner. We already know the Underwear Bomber was very likely a false-flag:


    http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/haskell2.1.1.html

    Or, you can read it in the original here (post dated 2/15/12): http://haskellfamily.blogspot.com/

    Thank you, kind sir...

    But the fact remains that mushrooms like PfW would rather survive on the diet of BS fed to them by the media than see the bright sunshine of facts. Don't confuse him with the truth. Citable references to the truth have become the SURE proof that something is a "conspiracy theory" in the New American Century...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    Thank you, kind sir...
    You're welcome.

    I had actually forgotten about the tan-suit fellow. And, had never really thought through on all the implications. I'm glad I found that post.

    You know, I'm starting to see a pattern here.

    We've got the FBI arresting, what?, three or five individuals or groups? who the FBI supplied or instigated or entrapped?

    Then there is the Underwear Bomber.

    Then, we have Fast and Furious, the justification for which is almost facially absurd. The story is they hoped to connect the guns to drug cartels. Yet, they had no way to track them after they crossed the border. Wait a minute. That is something that would come up in early planning. "Umm, great idea, Agent Moe. But, we ain't got no way to track the gun after it crosses the border." It is such a plan stopper; if you can't actually accomplish your plan, there is just no way you would go ahead with it.

    Which suggests an alternative question. They did go ahead with the scheme; thus, they clearly expected to accomplish some goal. So, what was the real goal? I'm betting it was to manufacture justification for more restrictions and reporting as suggested in that government e-mail.

    We seem to have a pattern here of government facilitating illegality so it can increase its power--more legislation, more restrictions on rights, more government power, bigger budgets. Manufactured justifications.
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-19-2012 at 06:54 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Sig229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    You're welcome.

    I had actually forgotten about the tan-suit fellow. And, had never really thought through on all the implications. I'm glad I found that post.

    You know, I'm starting to see a pattern here.

    We've got the FBI arresting, what?, three or five individuals or groups? who the FBI supplied or instigated or entrapped?

    Then there is the Underwear Bomber.

    Then, we have Fast and Furious, the justification for which is almost facially absurd. The story is they hoped to connect the guns to drug cartels. Yet, they had no way to track them after they crossed the border. Wait a minute. That is something that would come up in early planning. "Umm, great idea, Agent Moe. But, we ain't got no way to track the gun after it crosses the border." It is such a plan stopper; if you can't actually accomplish your plan, there is just no way you would go ahead with it.

    Which suggests an alternative question. They did go ahead with the scheme; thus, they clearly expected to accomplish some goal. So, what was the real goal? I'm betting it was to manufacture justification for more restrictions and reporting as suggested in that government e-mail.

    We seem to have a pattern here of government facilitating illegality so it can increase its power--more legislation, more restrictions on rights, more government power, bigger budgets. Manufactured justifications.

    Well said. I think we have reached the point in our nations history where the federal government has secretly set a mandate to disarm, misinform and completely control every aspect of our lives.
    All under the guise of "protecting freedom" of course.

    R.I.P. Constitution.
    "Let your gun be your constant companion during your walks" ~Thomas Jefferson

  18. #18
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    We seem to have a pattern here of government facilitating illegality so it can increase its power--more legislation, more restrictions on rights, more government power, bigger budgets. Manufactured justifications.

    Gee, where have we seen this sort of modus operandi before in the history of Western governments?

    Wonder where this weird idea that the government can commit crimes, then blame them on an imaginary enemy to clamp down on the population came from, in recent history?

    My theory is that these ideas were "paperclipped" onto the Constitution in 1945 and have been festering and growing in the halls of government, industry, and academia in the US ever since...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig229 View Post
    Well said. I think we have reached the point in our nations history where the federal government has secretly set a mandate to disarm, misinform and completely control every aspect of our lives.
    All under the guise of "protecting freedom" of course.

    R.I.P. Constitution.
    Yep every action is policed but somehow we are not a "police state".....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476
    Back on topic.

    Cam Edwards of NRA News interviewed Mike Karn of the Federal Flight Deck Officers Association and Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations on Monday about the budget cuts for the FFDO program.


  21. #21
    Regular Member HighFlyingA380's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    West St. Louis County (Ellisville)
    Posts
    301
    I'm a pilot, and I'm all for them getting rid of the program. Only, of course, because I think everybody should be able to carry a gun on planes.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by HighFlyingA380 View Post
    I'm a pilot, and I'm all for them getting rid of the program. Only, of course, because I think everybody should be able to carry a gun on planes.
    Since we can't, let's keep the program. Ok by you?
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Since we can't, let's keep the program. Ok by you?
    While I see a value in security on flights, I would prefer the pilot be flying the plane, a heavy duty metal door will suffice to keep the pilot flying the plane.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  24. #24
    Regular Member yz9890's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    While I see a value in security on flights, I would prefer the pilot be flying the plane, a heavy duty metal door will suffice to keep the pilot flying the plane.
    I fly those planes and have yet to see a "heavy duty metal door" in any of them. Yes, they lock and are bullet resistant. That in no way means a determined person or people can't gain entry in a short time.

    There are other design and procedural shortcomings in that environment that aren't appropriate to talk about publicly that can be at least addressed by an armed person on the flight deck.
    Last edited by yz9890; 02-29-2012 at 08:18 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by yz9890 View Post
    I fly those planes and have yet to see a "heavy duty metal door" in any of them. Yes, they lock and are bullet resistant. That in no way means a determined person or people can't gain entry in a short time.

    There are other design and procedural shortcomings in that environment that aren't appropriate to talk about publicly that can be at least addressed by an armed person on the flight deck.
    Planes are cramped areas, and discharging a firearm at close range has a host of issues, one is over-penetration. I am not sure about anyone else but I don't want some pilot carrying a firearm firing it--not to mention a pilot who may not be trained to retain the firearm, and loses it to some terrorist or nut-job during a fight for control. It cramped areas like that, hand to hand combat is the best option. The pilot wants to carry something, a knife that he is trained to use proficiently; not that a knife fight doesn't have it's downsides.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •