Mad Dad Gets Mad!
From: Richard Dimery <Richard.E.Dimery@lmco.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 08:54:07 -0600
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
Subject: Armed Response - Necessary
Its almost two months after
the terrorist attacks, and has anyone seen reinforced cockpit doors? Air marshals?
Pilots with stronger bladders? Everyday the Airlines ask the Customers to fly
where all the peaceable citizens are guaranteed to be unarmed, where the bad
guys only job is to gain the upper hand through force. And, oh yes, have
you ever heard of BARE HANDS as a deadly weapon? The Airlines have blown through
the BAILOUT MONEY, but has consumer confidence been assuaged?
Bush is wrong on this one. The Airlines
are wrong. The gun control advocates are wrong. The terrorists ultimate
target must be assumed to be the flight deck. I just read the BBC public feedback
on arming pilots. The number one fear, it seems, is based on the fantasy that
a bullet could cause a destructive decompression. This is followed by the two
most frequently suggested fixes: ground security improvements, and
sealed cockpits. Is it fair to passengers, pilot, or crew, that their only alternative
is to bet the farm" that NO ONE in the ground security chain ever
be inattentive, negligible, incompetent, or worse? Must pilots give up the notion
of relieving themselves? If faced with a forceful takeover, is it fair, or rational,
that pilots must defend their plane barehanded or with a clumsy axe?
All the security measures being
proposed, in lieu of arming pilots, will take finite time to be implemented.
Political Correctness does not, or should not be allowed to, trump the commonsense
reality that the Pilot is the LAST LINE OF DEFENSE of his cockpit, his command,
and many lives. This is a deadly serious responsibility, and worthy of a lethal
force response option.
To Get Your Letters Printed Here
Click here and read submission guidelines.