JamesNoBrakes

I'm going to be the hero, just like in Die Hard II!

CaptainCarl

Amen brotha.

Preach! She might hurl a soda can at the threat's head

Piloteh

The article indicates that US pilots were armed prior to 1988 - is that true? What was the change that occurred in 1988?

jungle

Actually it was 1968, at that time security checks came online and guns were prohibited for pilots, this was in a time of numerous hijackings to Cuba and the FAA instituted a don't fight back, do whatever they want policy. It was also a time of rising terror attacks in Europe.

rickair7777

You are completely ignorant as to how anti-terrorism actually works.

There are never enough resources to create an "airtight" security solution, not even close. Anti-terrorism is not about "stopping" terrorism (that's counter-terrorism, which I won't get into here) but rather throwing up enough roadblocks and confusion in the eyes of the bad guys so as to...

a) Deter/delay them from wasting their limited resources where much operational uncertainty exists. Instead they'll keep planning, churning, running fundraisers, etc which is better than operations (from our perspective).

b) Worst case, force them into operational compromises due to their fear/uncertainty of protective measures. Underwear and shoe bombs are about 1000 times less operationally effective than a full-size roll-a-board full of semtex.

The bad guys have limited resources and MUST satisfy their popular (and in some cases government) base which provides all their funding. They'll take risks but they certainly won't throw hail marys...spectacular failure is very bad for the cause, their message, and their funding.

Even the tools at TSA serve a purpose..I'm confused about their rules and procedures, so the bad guys probably are as well.

FFDOs are another layer of uncertainty in bad guy planning (and very cheap compared to typical federal measures). You don't need a lot of them, just enough so that there's a realistic chance of meeting one. I suspect that the FFDO program is probably the straw that broke the camels back as far as deterrence of hijacking attempts.


I have VERY extensive military experience with firearms (about as good as it gets really). I own a couple small hunting weapons from my childhood, but haven't used or touched them in many years. I consider them tools to do a job, not some projection of my manhood. I'm not an FFDO because of personal logistics (ie commute, trip schedules, international flying). But I wholeheartedly support the program for the reasons I mentioned above.

Next time maybe get educated before you project some emotional/political knee-jerk on a whole bunch of people.

That said I do support reasonable personality screening for FFDO's...there have been a couple cases of wanna-be G-men pilots getting waaaaay out of their box. That sort of publicity is bad for the program.

CaptainCarl

You know, when you put it that way, maybe those clowns do serve a purpose... an ignorance-fueled, annoying purpose, but a purpose nonetheless

Packrat

One of them happened to be one of the original formulators of the program. Not only did he bust out of the first FFDO class, but when they let him reapply he ended up getting fired because he left his gun in a public lavatory.

Until and unless they put a gun port in the flight deck door, FFDOs are as useless as nipples on a boar hog.

RhinoPherret

Maybe. Toilet plungers serve a purpose also. Doesn’t mean they don’t suck!

jungle

Darwin eventually sorts out the weak sisters and the useless, in the meantime they provide great comedy.

Rant on missy, it is wonderful to see you expose exactly what you are made from, now tell us how you would handle it, given the clue of 3,000 dead in one day. Perhaps you would disarm with charm?