Well, not really. Despite the idiocy and ineffectiveness of the current airline security procedures, I don't worry about hijackers any more, because I simply don't believe that the passengers will let it happen again. But instead of allowing qualified people to arm and protect themselves and their fellow passengers, the TSA puts up a politically and bureaucratically correct show.

What I do worry about is bombs, particularly in checked luggage. Airline security is just one more area in which I both believe that the Bush administration has been a disaster, and that the Democrats would be even worse, since they are unwilling to even discourage terrorists from suing vigilant citizens who rat on them.

I'd be really interested to see the results of a survey of actual airline pax (at an airport, where you're likely to get diverse, "gut-check" responses) as to whether or not they would be more comfortable with allowing "qualified people to arm and protect themselves and their fellow pax."

Too many people go psycho on aircraft as it is. Seemingly normal, reasonable people. Too much alcohol, too little nicotine, whatever.

I personally would not be; I'm proficient enough with my fists to know that all things being equal (i.e. no one has a firearm), I and the likes of me onboard could manage any threat.

A couple of beat up pax is survivable. I couple of bullet holes through the pressure hull or into the avionics bay is less likely so.

Come to think of it, they DO allow qualified people to arm and protect themselves and their fellow pax. They're called air marshals. I hope it remains limited to them.

They're called air marshals.

And only one in twenty flights has one. And the idiots at TSA require them to wear suits and ties, to make sure that the terrorists can easily identify them. Didn't you read the article?

Your other concerns have been debunked multiple times.

Yeah, I read it. Funny thing is, I sure didn't see any support, implied or otherwise, for arming pax.

"And the idiots at TSA require them to wear suits and ties, to make sure that the terrorists can easily identify them. Didn't you read the article?"

That particular "factoid" wasn't in the article you cited. Even if true, they would have to be the ONLY people to ever wear suit and tie on an aircraft for your claim have any relevance. Or, perhaps, potential terrorists would just try to overwhelm everyone in business/first, just to be sure they took care of the FAMs?

No, that was my proposal. Of course, the administration has been doing everything possible to prevent the pilots from arming themselves, and they're the last line of defense.

Even if true, they would have to be the ONLY people to ever wear suit and tie on an aircraft for your claim have any relevance.

Actually, they may have finally fired the idiot who was enforcing that. But no, all one need to do is stand out. No that that many people wear suits and ties, and are completely clean shaven on airplanes, particularly on tourist-heavy flights.

Or, perhaps, potential terrorists would just try to overwhelm everyone in business/first, just to be sure they took care of the FAMs?

No, air marshals don't just sit in First/Business. But that's where the action is (near the cockpit), and they might do so in that hope, and again, it's an idiotic policy.

What I do worry about is bombs...

Not a new concern. I worked as an aircraft loader (baggage & freight) at JFK from '69 - '74. An independent operation, our customers were mostly most of the foreign airlines, including El Al. Security seemed non-existent but planes weren't blowing up.

I worked as an aircraft loader (baggage & freight) at JFK from '69 - '74.

That was a long time ago. Technology advances. As does ideology...

That was a long time ago. Technology advances. As does ideology...

The El Al folk might demur. I believe that they did and do rely more on trained eyes than on procedure or technology for their security.

Bomb tech was sufficiently advanced at that time to take down any bird.

1) If they can lose a bag, a foreign bag can be introduced into the system. Bags get lost all the time. It therefore follows that security with respect to bombs in baggage is, for all practical purposes, nonexistent.

2)There's a Christopher Stasheff book in which the protag is knighted -- and magically acquires "knightly skills" such as swordfighting, use of the warhorse, etc. There are 'way too many people around who appear to think that somehow being anointed "Law Enforcement Officer" means the equivalent.

If you collected ten Air Marshals and ten CCFL possessors at random, I've got $50 that says the second group has better firearms handling skills, more knowledge about firearms including their effect on aircraft, and a better grasp of the applicable laws and regulations.

Regards,
Ric

There are far more CCW holders flying that there are air marshals. Since a CCW who's there is more useful than an air marshal who isn't....

I realize this isn't a sound logical argument, but I'm not sure I'd like CCW permit to carry on airplanes. However, I've never understood disarming the pilots. There is a long history in the United States of arming those who were responsible for transporting people and valuables cross country. From the "shotgun" riders on the stage coach to the armed pilots of the early air mail service, there is a history that supports protecting goods and people from intended harm.

The guys upfront, even unarmed, have all the power they need to hurt every person onboard the plane. We trust them not to do so. If pilots have firearms, and everyone else does not, then you end up with a small population of plausible scenarios for hijackings.

Then you are left with the bombs in the cargo compartment for which firearms are meaningless...

Leland: "I realize this isn't a sound logical argument, but I'm not sure I'd like CCW permit to carry on airplanes."

You are correct, it isn't logical.

CWP holders across the country every day carry in the supermarket, Walmart, on the bus, in a taxi, in the movie theater, ball park and/or stadium and many other crowded and/or public places. Why is an airliner any different?

It's just like the Virginia Tech tragedy; a "gun free zone" in a concealed carry state becomes the deadliest place in the state.

So, Andy, how do you feel about driving the freeway? All those hundreds of people around you, some of them not paying attention, some having fights with their spouse on the cell phone -- some of them drunk or overtired -- and all of them packing two to four thousand pound weapons of death. Do you worry about the minimum-wage meat packer letting a little dementia-causing infected brain material slip into your ground beef? What about the gasoline tanker driver, who might forget to ground his rig before pumping out 9000 gallons of fuel next to you in the gas station and blow you to sooty shreds? The 19-year-old grease monkey working on his GED at Tires-R-Us who forgets to torque down the bolts holding your back wheels on?

Thing is, when you begin any analysis with the proposition that most of your fellow men can't be trusted with the means to do you harm, your only logical conclusion is deciding you need to move to a desert isle and eat roots and grubs. Otherwise, there's just no safety from the rest of us. We hold your life in our palsied incompetent hands in so many ways, every day.

By contrast, those of us who believe most ordinary adults can be trusted with the means to do us harm -- that most people are, in fact, sensible and decent -- are in good shape. We don't need to worry about the holders of weapons being properly trained and certified and bebadged and uniformed and all that magical incantation stuff that some folks thinks transforms people like princesses kissing frogs.

I'd be pretty comfortable if the stewardesses handed a .45 to any random six passengers in the cabin over age 25 who looked like decent and sober men. They may not be able to do calculus and they may laugh at jokes I find offensive, but I'd trust them to shoot the right people and avoid shooting the wrong people. It's not exactly rocket science.

Cecil... Virginia Tech is hardly the counter example.

What Carl Pham says is the logical argument. My point is that by only arming pilots/crew, then the people, who already have the ability to kill everyone on board, have the right to carry firearms. I happen to agree with Andy on the point that many people have problems rationalizing flying, and thus have serious anxiety problems associated with flying. I rather not arm those people.

I accept that threats to life exist in other means, but using Carl's various examples... there are laws against driving drunk and talking on the cellphones. We don't allow pilots to fly if they haven't had enough rest. All these threats are regulated. Carl, Cecil... Do you think we should repeal DWI laws, because other drivers have the ability to steer away from such people?

To be clear, I'm not 100% against allowing CCW permits on planes. I'm just not all for it either. My major point is that there is no rational for having pilots disarmed.

BTW, the APSA President's arguments are not very good either. Do we really want to have National Guard troops roaming airport terminals as a means of a security? Maybe good for a specific threat, but is this what we really want to have for long term security?

Here's a question for Dave Mackett: Should the Federal Government be responsible for the security of RON aircraft, or should the owner/operator of the RON aircraft be responsible for security of that aircraft?

the irony was those National Guard Troops had no ammo with their rifles.

A terrorist with a small pistol and 6 thirty round M-16 magazines could have walked up to the first NG troop, taken his rifle and went to town.

When an event is very rare, getting worked up about it is only going to drive your anxiety level up which will wind up killing you in quite a different way.

I'd be pretty comfortable if the stewardesses handed a .45 to any random six passengers in the cabin over age 25 who looked like decent and sober men. They may not be able to do calculus and they may laugh at jokes I find offensive, but I'd trust them to shoot the right people and avoid shooting the wrong people. It's not exactly rocket science.

And what should the other passengers watching this prelude to terror get, a megadose of Diazepam?

And no one here mentions where the bullet that missed went. Oh, no worries, the random six have obviously trained for this event in their spare time. Every bullet will find its mark and the cabin is obviously all bullet proof.

I guess we don't need terrorists to be terrorized. We can just do it ourselves, thank you.

Very well. Let's go back to the proposal I made on 12 September 2001: volunteer air marshals.

There is a school for air marshals. It covers threat identification, proper/safe weapons use, and a number of other salient points. Open that school to any holder of a valid CCFL, at their expense, and require periodic refreshers. People who completed marshal school would be deputized as air marshals, and when they showed up at the airport would be treated the same way the full-time marshals are, including getting passed through security without inspection.

When I first proposed that it was on a site that has a fairly large number of CCFL owners, and a huge proportion indicated themselves willing to spend up to $3-5,000 for such status. They were also among the most frequent fliers in the bunch. I don't think it would take a year to have more deputies than active ones, and after a few years there would be thousands of citizens fully trained in both procedure and the law prepared to assist in the defense of air travel.

It provides the Sacred Anointment that apparently allows some people to grant "Law Enforcement Officers" privileges the normal citizen doesn't have -- a point of view that goes directly counter to the Founders' views, but so much does nowadays. It also provides the defense in depth that we don't have and badly need. Perimeter security is bad security.

Would there be people who abused that status? Of course. There are people who abuse any status. But they would be counterbalanced by a majority who were not only ready and willing to take on terrorists, but able and willing to discipline abusers.

Regards,
Ric

Offside: "the cabin is obviously all bullet proof"

No, but so what? Do you really think one (or even six) bullet holes causes Hollywood style decompression with everyone getting sucked out of the aircraft? If you do, nothing else you say can be taken seriously.

Ric, you wrote:

1) If they can lose a bag, a foreign bag can be introduced into the system. Bags get lost all the time. It therefore follows that security with respect to bombs in baggage is, for all practical purposes, nonexistent.

There's a difference between nonexistent security and security with weaknesses. The point of security here is to increase the difficulty of terrorist attacks to the point that terrorists look for easier targets. In the above example, you ignore that a terrorist needs to get into a position where they can do this sort of luggage swap and they need to bring in a luggage bomb in order to exploit. It's a lot of work with a number of places where things can go wrong.

And what should the other passengers watching this prelude to terror get, a megadose of Diazepam?

For those who need, it sure. I believe in treating people who have disabling phobias with kindness.