simonov jr
New member
Here is the letter I just sent. I see no reason why we shouldn't blast them with similar emails of indignation, cc'd in the thousands to Reps and Senators. I don't normally say this, but lets blast 'em. Her is their email address: 9-AWA-TELLFAA@faa.gov
To: Office of the Secretary
Transportation Security Administration
Dear Secretary:
I was dismayed to see your Undersecretary, John Magaw, giving false testimony before Congress regarding the arming of pilots in the cockpit. He stated that pilots couldn't use firearms to protect the cockpit from an intruder as they "have to concentrate on flying the plane". Several months ago a pilot used a fire axe to stop just such an intrusion while his co-pilot "concentrated on flying". The very fact that pilots, both civilian and military, are issued fire axes and extinguishers is itself an admission that pilots may fly and chew gum at the same time if their safety and that of their aircraft are at stake. Do you now maintain that this brave pilot, who stopped the intrusion with swift counter-violence, should not have taken this action? It has been widely credited with saving the lives of everyone on the flight but now it is disregarded by Mr. Magaw. He has told Congress that locked cockpit doors solve the problem, but pilots acknowledge that they must use the bathroom from time to time. I would like to know exactly how the pilot is supposed to "concentrate" when his throat has been slit. We are told that guns are "not the answer" in the hands of anyone but "trained sky marshalls". However, the same training apparently does not allow pilots to responsibly wield firearms in the eyes of your Department. It seems like the present danger and body count from this failed policy dictates against such turf wars. Incongruously, stewardesses may be allowed to carry stun guns, though that is being "studied", which somehow can incapacitate a terrorist but not a pilot. If "non-lethal" weapons are the answer, then why do you continue to issue sky marshalls lethal weapons? Finally I understand that there is a new emergency number people should dial if they are hijacked, which will notify the "appropriate law enforcement authorities". Unfortunately for the caller, at 35,000 feet that will be in the form of an F-16, sent to blast them out of the sky. And for what? To avoid the "risk" that "someone could be hurt" by the same armed cockpits that have helped keep El Al hijack-free the last 30 years. I submit that you and your agency are irresponsibly endangering the American public and I ask you to immediately allow our pilots to use lethal force in defense of the cockpit. Otherwise, you might want to change the Second word of your name to better reflect the IN-security you are helping to enforce.
Sincerely, Sim Jr, Indianapolis, IN
cc: Rep. Dan Burton, IN
Sen. Richard Luger, IN
Per this story: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...21/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cockpit_guns_5&printer=1
From which I quote: John Magaw, undersecretary for transportation security, said: . "Pilots need to concentrate on flying the plane," Magaw said later in the hearing. Specially trained air marshals should be the only armed officers on board, he added.
To: Office of the Secretary
Transportation Security Administration
Dear Secretary:
I was dismayed to see your Undersecretary, John Magaw, giving false testimony before Congress regarding the arming of pilots in the cockpit. He stated that pilots couldn't use firearms to protect the cockpit from an intruder as they "have to concentrate on flying the plane". Several months ago a pilot used a fire axe to stop just such an intrusion while his co-pilot "concentrated on flying". The very fact that pilots, both civilian and military, are issued fire axes and extinguishers is itself an admission that pilots may fly and chew gum at the same time if their safety and that of their aircraft are at stake. Do you now maintain that this brave pilot, who stopped the intrusion with swift counter-violence, should not have taken this action? It has been widely credited with saving the lives of everyone on the flight but now it is disregarded by Mr. Magaw. He has told Congress that locked cockpit doors solve the problem, but pilots acknowledge that they must use the bathroom from time to time. I would like to know exactly how the pilot is supposed to "concentrate" when his throat has been slit. We are told that guns are "not the answer" in the hands of anyone but "trained sky marshalls". However, the same training apparently does not allow pilots to responsibly wield firearms in the eyes of your Department. It seems like the present danger and body count from this failed policy dictates against such turf wars. Incongruously, stewardesses may be allowed to carry stun guns, though that is being "studied", which somehow can incapacitate a terrorist but not a pilot. If "non-lethal" weapons are the answer, then why do you continue to issue sky marshalls lethal weapons? Finally I understand that there is a new emergency number people should dial if they are hijacked, which will notify the "appropriate law enforcement authorities". Unfortunately for the caller, at 35,000 feet that will be in the form of an F-16, sent to blast them out of the sky. And for what? To avoid the "risk" that "someone could be hurt" by the same armed cockpits that have helped keep El Al hijack-free the last 30 years. I submit that you and your agency are irresponsibly endangering the American public and I ask you to immediately allow our pilots to use lethal force in defense of the cockpit. Otherwise, you might want to change the Second word of your name to better reflect the IN-security you are helping to enforce.
Sincerely, Sim Jr, Indianapolis, IN
cc: Rep. Dan Burton, IN
Sen. Richard Luger, IN
Per this story: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...21/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cockpit_guns_5&printer=1
From which I quote: John Magaw, undersecretary for transportation security, said: . "Pilots need to concentrate on flying the plane," Magaw said later in the hearing. Specially trained air marshals should be the only armed officers on board, he added.
Last edited: