Wild, Wild West
Mr. West, not every situation requires your patented approach of shoot first, shoot later, shoot some more and then when everybody's dead try to ask a question or two.
--the character of President Grant, from The Wild Wild West
--the character of President Grant, from The Wild Wild West
The U.S. government is petitioning foreign countries to allow pilots to carry guns in the cockpit when flying internationally ("U.S. Asks to Arm Pilots"). Gun-slingin' pilots are the obvious solution to a martial government's view of the threat posed by terrorism. Somehow, the idea of a shootout in the cockpit is not my idea of security. The threat should have been dealt with several steps back.
Previously, we mentioned the inappropriate arming and utilization of medical assets as riflemen; now, it's pilots, who I would think have a demanding enough job on their hands maneuvering planes through the sky. How incredibly ill-conceived and stupid! One must ask: Do we really pay people in Homeland Security to come up with these ideas?
Why is this stupid? Let me count the ways.
[1] Psychology - Pilots are not gunfighters or killers. Air marshals should fulfill this function.
The flight deck will always be penetrated by adversaries with a supply of hostages. How many pilots are wiling, able or cold enough to sacrifice hostage lives? This must be an air marshal prerogative. In fact, the airlines could and should place armed personnel on board responsible for the aircraft if such a threat should arise. This program should/could supplement federal air marshals.
[2] Pilots should be isolated, locked and protected from hijacker entry to the flight deck. Levels of security is the key. If the deck is penetrated, what good is a gunfight going to do? Who's flying the aircraft while this gunfight's going on?
[3] Preventive police and intelligence should be a level of protection that disallows hijackers from even flying on the aircraft. This policy could be well-covered in a book rather than a blog.
Suffice to say that aircraft security measures should be aimed at the threat, rather than at law-abiding U.S. citizens flying on the aircraft.
Arming pilots is a meaningless feel-good measure that does not address the threat to U.S. air carriers. Obviously 9-11 has taught that hijackers are going to fly the aircraft into targeted areas, if they gain control of the aircraft. The key is to override control of the aircraft from the control tower or the ground. This technology exists.
Gunfights in the cockpit are wonderful in James Bond movies, but the concept is far-removed from reality. The time is passed for Marshal Matt Dillon with a six-shooter on his hip to save the day, especially one who's also in charge of flying a plane.
It appears the new 21st century security is a retrograde 20th-century vision of a pilot packing heat.
posted by rangeragainstwar at 3:33 PM
8 Comments:
Lurch,
I'm sure that just showing "Dirty Harry" on all flights would be a deterrent in itself.
In fact, maybe just showing your picture or mine alone, on a big billboard, would do it. It would certainly make them protect their goats and sheep better, thereby keeping them off our airplanes.
I'm the only person who has ever suggested having Schwarzenegger as Homeland Security Chief. That would make them march in step.
Law Dawg Fed,
Glad to have you in the dialog.
A pilot is not a policeman; he is charged with flying an airship. We cannot militarize our entire society. Why do we endure 4-hour waits at the airport if not to ensure no unsafe materials come on board?
Let us hope with the giant expenditure on Homeland Security and every other measure enacted to make us safe from the great, unrepeated terrorist menace, that we will not see the attempt of 9-11 again.
Our learning curve was steep; by the third plane, word was out, and passengers took action. The concept of a pilot launching into a gunfight from the control panel is absurd.
Why not arm and train stewardesses and stewards in close arms combat, I mean, they're only pushing around coffee dollies?
In truth, if you suspect Homeland security is all a farce, then the airlines should be charged with hiring private security for each flight, as we suggested.
If a hijacker has managed to breach all defenses at that point in the game, all is lost already.
Law Dawg,
I believe we're getting bogged down on the micro level. I do not believe the almost 200-yr-old Alamo provides a valid comparison to the scenario of a modern plane hijacking. The men or women on the flight deck are not garrisoned up for a battle.
Let's wait to hear what Jim says tomorrow,
Lisa
Law Dawg,
Jim here: were you a Marine, by any chance?
I didn't say "natural born killer," I said, pilots are not gunfighters or killers, nor do they want to be.
Killing is a state of mind, and not necessarily a state of training. Training increases the likelihood of effective violence.
If there are fights in a cockpit, then the entire system is incorrectly configured.
Yes, I am for resistance, but the aircraft must be controlled from the ground if it is breached.
I agree about layers of security.
I'm glad you disagree with some of my arguments, but at least we're both making good faith efforts to think.
Thanks for writing.
Law Dawg,
Haven't you been reading the latest on the deconstruction of SLA Marshall, to the effect that much of his stuff is fabricated?
This may be sad news, but I don't advocate making anyone a killer unless they have to be. And a pilot flies planes.
If you read my posts, I say the war on terror is phony, and certainly battle plans have no place on commercial aircraft. This is a criminal scenario, not a military one. If it were military, I would sandbag the cockpit and set up an M 60 on a tripod.
I'm not advocating blowing up the aircraft, but manually diverting to an area where it cannot cause a significant event.
Law Dawg,
Historically, aircraft have been threatened since J. D. Cooper hijacked a commercial aircraft in 1970. Black September and PFLP in the early 70's were an extremely viable threat to civilian aviation.
This problem didn't just appear in civilian aviation worldwide 1985. I hate to discuss the following b/c it is an opsec issue, but I think the greatest danger to civil aviation is the carriers similar to FedEx and UPS.
The hijackers do not have passengers or crew members to control, and gaining control of the aircraft can be done b/f it even leaves the ground.
There should be no coordinated attempts on aircraft b/c we should not be allowing threat groups onto flights. Yet we do. We should profile better, as the Israelis do.
Per controlling it from the ground, I do believe we're the ones who put the man on the moon 38 years ago. I'm not an engineer, but ECM measures and overriding of the aircraft could be accomplished via the autopilot systems once the aircraft is compromised. This is w/in our engineering capabilities.
Law Dawg,
My comments are not made from readings, but from personal observations, so I was unaware that the Fed-ex linkage had already been put out there.
In my past, we were always taught that you had to think like a terrorist to counter them, but I believe this is virtually impossible b/c we hire nothing but bureaucrats who think only about their pensions.
Every time I pass the Tallahassee airport I see the Fed-ex a/c in an unsecured area that could be easily breached; therefore, my mind wanders/wonders.
It takes a truly sick mind to be able to think like a terrorist, but I feel I've developed the skill.
Somehow I get the feeling that you're interested in 1985. You cannot discount the Black September and PFLP hijackings as anything other than acts of terrorist theatrics aimed at an audience beyond the target.
Previously, I've stated that I would not allow more than two Arabs to fly on any one flight. If Islamic extremists are the threat, then aim your countermeasures at Islamists. The next generation of threat will be the Western converts.
I take a lot of criticism for not cross-fertilizing my mind with current practices, but it allows me to present a personal, uncontaminated viewpoint on the topic.
I enjoy your comments,
Jim
Law Dawg,
As I say, interview all suspect populations as El Al does. you are correct in that our total number of fliers is too great to interview everyone. But I am not speaking of internment, except for members of the present administration.
You can keep people off of flights.
Post a Comment
<< Home