• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

why do people still think there will be planes hijacked and rammed into buildings

holden j caufield

Diamond Member
that phase is over. Basically all the planes used a missles, the hijackers probably told everyone that they would just land and then negotiate and everything would be a ok for them so don't resist. That's the only reason the first three planes did what they did. Once the people on the 4th plane knew what was up then they just took over the plane but probably had no one to fly it. That same s@#$ won't work again, so why do pilots have guns now. It's going to be something different and unique but that same MO won't work any planes now.
 
Originally posted by: holden j caufield
that phase is over. Basically all the planes used a missles, the hijackers probably told everyone that they would just land and then negotiate and everything would be a ok for them so don't resist. That's the only reason the first three planes did what they did. Once the people on the 4th plane knew what was up then they just took over the plane but probably had no one to fly it. That same s@#$ won't work again, so why do pilots have guns now. It's going to be something different and unique but that same MO won't work any planes now.

IMHO, it's the same "it's not gonna/can't happen" mentality that that left us bare assed in the first place.

 
Originally posted by: holden j caufield
that phase is over. Basically all the planes used a missles, the hijackers probably told everyone that they would just land and then negotiate and everything would be a ok for them so don't resist. That's the only reason the first three planes did what they did. Once the people on the 4th plane knew what was up then they just took over the plane but probably had no one to fly it. That same s@#$ won't work again, so why do pilots have guns now. It's going to be something different and unique but that same MO won't work any planes now.

If nobody's going to hijack a plane then why are you worried? Don't you think it's better that they have an active defense?
 
President Bush has said that he would order F16's to shoot down a hijacked airliner before it could be crashed into a major city.
This being the case, whats the harm in arming pilots as a 2nd to last line of defense?
 
Originally posted by: holden j caufield
that phase is over. Basically all the planes used a missles, the hijackers probably told everyone that they would just land and then negotiate and everything would be a ok for them so don't resist. That's the only reason the first three planes did what they did. Once the people on the 4th plane knew what was up then they just took over the plane but probably had no one to fly it. That same s@#$ won't work again, so why do pilots have guns now. It's going to be something different and unique but that same MO won't work any planes now.
ENGLISH, MOTHERLOVER, DO YOU SPEAK IT? Does punctuation, capitalization, and sentence cohesion mean anything to you?

And when the hell did pilots have guns?
 
Originally posted by: Mister T
President Bush has said that he would order F16's to shoot down a hijacked airliner before it could be crashed into a major city.
This being the case, whats the harm in arming pilots as a 2nd to last line of defense?
Sir, you are not allowed to ask those questions. You must come with us now.
 
House OKs Bill to Arm Airline Pilots

By JONATHAN D. SALANT
Associated Press Writer
AP/Dennis Cook [19K]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WASHINGTON (AP) ? Pilots could carry guns in the cockpit to defend their planes against terrorists under a bill the House passed overwhelmingly Wednesday despite opposition from the White House and airlines.

The legislation, approved by a vote of 310-113, would allow guns for more than 70,000 pilots if they agreed to undergo training. Lawmakers stripped out provisions that would have limited the program to some 1,400 pilots, about 2 percent of those flying.

Despite the strong House support, prospects in the Senate were not good for the legislation. Besides the White House, those opposing it include Ernest Hollings, a South Carolina Democrat who heads the Senate Commerce Committee.

The guns-in-cockpits question is among a host of aviation security issues that arose after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In this case, House GOP leaders have been at odds with the Bush administration, which has repeatedly argued that cockpit crews should focus on flying planes and let air marshals worry about security.

``We believe that aviation security has been improved in several ways, including strengthened cockpit doors and additional federal air marshals on airlines,'' White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said after the vote. ``It is not necessary to arm pilots. Their primary responsibility is to fly the airplane.''

Though Republican and Democratic leaders of the House Transportation Committee agreed to arm only a fraction of the pilots, rank-and-file lawmakers voted to expand the program to any pilot who volunteers.

``If there is a credible threat that requires arming pilots, why would you restrict yourself?'' said an amendment sponsor, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. ``Having that minuscule number of pilots trained and armed would not make any sense. If the pilots should be armed, there should be some significant number.''

The measure also would require more self-defense training for flight attendants and give the Transportation Security Administration 90 days to act on an airline's request to equip pilots with non-lethal weapons such as stun guns.

``Today, armed F-16s are prepared to shoot down any commercial jet that is hijacked by terrorists,'' said Transportation Committee chairman Don Young, R-Alaska. ``It is imperative that under these new circumstances, we must allow trained and qualified pilots to serve as the last line of defense against such a potential disaster.''

The training requirement led the Association of Flight Attendants to support the final bill, spokesman Jeff Zack said. The union had opposed earlier versions.

Pilot unions have lobbied for the right to carry guns, but the airline industry has opposed the idea, saying stronger cockpit doors and the presence of air marshals provide protection against hijackings.

The industry also is concerned about what would happen if a passenger or crew member was hit by an errant bullet, or what kind of damage could be done to the airplane and its systems, said Michael Wascom, a spokesman for the Air Transport Association.

TSA head John Magaw, who announced the administration's position against guns in cockpits, has said that a pilot should give undivided attention to flying his plane, landing it as quickly as possible and conducting in-flight maneuvers to keep hijackers off balance.

Rep. John Mica, chairman of the House aviation subcommittee, dismissed the administration's objections.

``Bureaucrats set the rules. We set the policy and the laws,'' said Mica, R-Fla.

Pilot unions said their members needed the guns to prevent terrorists from breaking into cockpits and commandeering airplanes, as happened last September.

``Voluntary arming of airline pilots is another necessary layer in our overall efforts to provide a robust and effective defense against terrorism,'' said Capt. Duane Woerth, president of the Air Line Pilots Association.

That association has contributed $764,000 to federal candidates since Jan. 1, 2001. That's more in donations than was given to candidates by any individual airline, with 85 percent of the money going to Democrats, many of whom joined the majority House Republicans in supporting the legislation.

Before the vote, the Allied Pilots Association, which represents American Airlines pilots, urged its members to call lawmakers and ask them to increase the number of pilots who could carry guns.

Although passage in the House had been predicted, the legislation faced difficult obstacles on the other side of the Capitol.

Congressional aides have suggested that the measure may be offered as an amendment to a bill providing money for the Transportation Department, because Hollings' opposition is enough under Senate rules to keep the armed-pilots bill from coming up for a vote.

``A freestanding bill is not the only way to pass something in the Senate,'' said Sen. Robert Smith, R-N.H.

????

The bills are H.R. 4635 and S. 2554.

 
I'm not worried if a couple of guys can overpower a hundred plus people then I don't know what to say but that won't happen. That same scenario I'm not worried about but the other ones might concern others. Me if/when my time comes be a huge perfect storm type wave or some terriost crap then it comes. I'm just saying these guys think "outside the box" and the lawmakers well they ...
 
Originally posted by: holden j caufield
I'm not worried if a couple of guys can overpower a hundred plus people then I don't know what to say but that won't happen. That same scenario I'm not worried about but the other ones might concern others. Me if/when my time comes be a huge perfect storm type wave or some terriost crap then it comes. I'm just saying these guys think "outside the box" and the lawmakers well they ...
So you don't actually have a reason why pilots shouldn't be armed? Do you just not like guns?
 
PsychoAndy another computer puss huh. I love guys who mouth off behind the computer. Are you my english teacher and are we in class. Dumbass. If you can't read move on. If you die be it preventing a plane from crashing and killing others then it's a great honor like they did in Penn. and of course there is no greater honor for a surfer then to meet is maker on tidal like wave. To me it just seems like bad news to have anything other than trained officers to have guns aboard plans and like I said that same thing might be tried but it won't work.
 
Originally posted by: holden j caufield
PsychoAndy another computer puss huh. I love guys who mouth off behind the computer. Are you my english teacher and are we in class. Dumbass. If you can't read move on. If you die be it preventing a plane from crashing and killing others then it's a great honor like they did in Penn. and of course there is no greater honor for a surfer then to meet is maker on tidal like wave. To me it just seems like bad news to have anything other than trained officers to have guns aboard plans and like I said that same thing might be tried but it won't work.
You do understand that pilots are no longer allowed to leave the cockpit during flight and that the door must be locked. If they ever need to use a gun it will be against someone who has forced an entry into the cockpit. Furthermore, they will undergo training and a good 80% of them are already more than qualified to use handguns since they were military officers.
 
nothing against guns but I've been hunting with guys who have done it for most of their lives and hell I wouldn't trust them to hit a hijacker aboard a plane. No biggie if you go, you go but they should be thinking about preventing something different.
 
the last flight I took was about 12 hours one way and yes the pilots did leave the cockpit on the way there and on the way back. Once they asked everyone to be seatbelted and remained seated but going back they didn't ask anyone to do anything. On the trip back those guys walked in and out more than once. Granted it was an international flight but it still departed and return to LAX, a domestic destination.
 
You're absolutely right. I think we should eliminate all precautions since hijackers *obviously* won't *ever* be able to steal one of our planes and crash into a building in *this* country.
rolleye.gif
 
OK :0. Yes maybe empty planes can be hijacked and maybe our fighters will be able to intercept those, but if 5, or even 10 guys try to hijack a plane with box cutters, knives or even guns and a hundred plus passengers can't take them, then you really are a puss. Some will go but if they want to kill a couple of dozen people there are different methods. This is something that can be subdued. Now if someone parks a big moving van filled with explosives or hijacks a gasoline tanker and rams it into a building well then we're screwed and honestly there is nothing that can be done about. I don't know if this will happen again. Nothing is for sure but reasonably this is no longer an effective plan and as with everything there is an opportunity cost. The time and research taken to pass this new law might have been more effective in some other prevention method.
 
Back
Top