pilots refuse to fly with gun loons onboard

In article ,
Cub Driver wrote:

It just does not work to make even more people carry guns in order to
protect them from potential terrorists.
What kind of logic is that?

There's only one kind of logic, and arming the police when the
criminals are armed certainly fits the framework.

Note that no one is "making" more people carry guns. The European
airlines can always detour around the continental U.S. It is up to
them whether they want to follow American regulations or not.

Do you also believe that if sky marshals had been a regular thing on
American airliners in 2001 that the 9/11 terrorists would have still
have tried to hijack those planes?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

I believe that the airlines' (and FAA's) policy of acquiescense to
hijackers' demands lies at the root of the 9/11 problem.

If there had been a policy of active resistance to hijackers, 9/11 would
never have happened, as the goons would never have gotten to the cockpit.

The first one who came through the door would have gotten a splitting
headache (via fire axe) and that would have been the end of that.

If there had been a policy of active resistance to hijackers, 9/11 would
never have happened, as the goons would never have gotten to the cockpit.

This is no doubt true, but it likely would have led to unnecessary
deaths. Until 9/11, hijackers weren't interested in killing
themselves, but had other agendas. So I think that the pre 9/11
protocol was the correct one.

I also think that most of the changes following 9/11 were also
correct, including the use of armed sky marshals.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

In article ,
Cub Driver wrote:

If there had been a policy of active resistance to hijackers, 9/11 would
never have happened, as the goons would never have gotten to the cockpit.

This is no doubt true, but it likely would have led to unnecessary
deaths. Until 9/11, hijackers weren't interested in killing
themselves, but had other agendas. So I think that the pre 9/11
protocol was the correct one.


No, I don't think so! If only one of the pre-911 hijackers had
encountered a splitting headache, the whole hijacking nonsense from ca
1965 on would have stopped cold. It was the policy of acquiesense that
emboldened the 9/11 hijackers. Had they known that the penalty for
storming the flight deck was sudden death, the problem would never have
occurred.




I also think that most of the changes following 9/11 were also
correct, including the use of armed sky marshals.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 at 17:22:56 in message
,
Orval Fairbairn wrote:

I believe that the airlines' (and FAA's) policy of acquiescense to
hijackers' demands lies at the root of the 9/11 problem.

If there had been a policy of active resistance to hijackers, 9/11 would
never have happened, as the goons would never have gotten to the cockpit.

The first one who came through the door would have gotten a splitting
headache (via fire axe) and that would have been the end of that.

I tend to agree with that, but the root of the problem goes back a long
way. It began when we at first almost welcomed those who hijacked
aircraft to escape form East Berlin and made jokes about people ordering
airline crews to 'Take me to Cuba' or away from it - same things apply.
9/11 brought an abrupt end to 'peaceful hijacking'.
--
David CL Francis

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 at 22:46:28 in message
, Thomas Heide
wrote:

I am British and live in the UK but I have spent time in the USA.

I can´t believe what I just read.
Didn´t you Americans learn anything from recent history (some school-events
just popped into my mind)?

Irrelevant and objectionable.

It just does not work to make even more people carry guns in order to
protect them from potential terrorists.

On what evidence do you base that statement? The Israeli's have been
doing this for years. Seems to me a terrorist might well think twice if
he thought there was a high chance of unknown numbers of armed law
enforcement agents on board. Are all the armed police in UK major
airports a waste of time then?

What kind of logic is that?

A reasonable hypothesis I would say.

You won´t stop terrorists from trying to hijack planes by simply having
armed sky marshalls on the aircraft.

Again on what do you base that wild statement?

You should increase airport security first and then try to figure out how an
unexperienced pilot can fly all over New York and make a sightseeing tour
around the Statue of Liberty without beeing noticed at all before you think
about arming sky marshalls.

Nothing wrong with good security as a first line defence, but the rest
of the above is just nonsense.

And how impertinent are you to simply postulate a "law" like the above?
I really pay my tribute to the pilots making a statement like that.

I can understand they might have reservations about the powers of
marshals over their own authority, but if we have them I don't want them
to have to ask the captain before they act! However I do want them to be
trained and to understand the risks.

It plays in the same league like the major of London who explicitly allowed
demonstrations against Bush in the vicinity of his whereabouts.

Nothing what ever to do with it as far as I can see. The right to
protest is not connected to the rights of terrorists to kill people.

Without making the attacks less horrible, but America gets more and more
paranoic.

A few people in America may be paranoid about being criticised for not
doing something but your generalisation is not justified by the
American's I know that I respect and count as my friends.

--
David CL Francis

In "nick"
wrote:

"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."

I wouldn't want to fly with armed Brits aboard either.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

"nick" wrote in message
...
"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."

"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."

"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are
received,
flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm

No problem.

I feel our response should be: "No armed air marshal, no entering/flying in
US airspace". The companies can then decide which is more important to their
continued existence.

"nick" wrote in message news:NQjIb.282

So...... When do you get to the part about the "gun loons" ?

John Gaquin wrote:

"nick" wrote in message news:NQjIb.282

So...... When do you get to the part about the "gun loons" ?

Those are Nick's imaginary pet birds.

--
Chris.
http://****france.com/

Vengeance is a hamburger that is eaten cold, writes Georges Dupuy in
Liberation.

No wonder the French military is a band of sissies, look at where they
get their stock from. (800k mpeg file.)
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/frenchfighters.mpeg

funny mp3
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/horserace.mp3

The new Three Stooge's
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/happyfamily.jpg

Two clowns.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/groggyclown.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nickclown.jpg

Groggy No-cite on the job site.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/gregatnicks.jpg

"LIBassbug" wrote in message

So...... When do you get to the part about the "gun loons" ?

Those are Nick's imaginary pet birds.

They do tweet alot...