FFDO Budget Cut

A Life Aloft

Well-Known Member
Seriously? More reliability on the very flawed TSA program. Good grief!

"The President’s wants to end the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program (FFDO), also known as the armed pilots program. If Congress were to follow President Obama’s recommendation contained in his $3.8 trillion FY2013 budget proposal, they would be making a huge mistake. This anti-terrorism program has been a success and a cost effective means to protect the cockpits of commercial aviation from 9-11 style terrorism.

The President’s budget lists the FFDO program as one of the few “cuts” to federal spending. They have reduced the program from the $25 million they received this year to $12 million for FY2013. This massive cut to the program would destroy it. Consider this evidence that the Obama Administration would be more happy to rely on intrusive screening procedures being applied to toddlers, the elderly, and Senators, rather than pilots with guns to provide a last line of defense to aviation terrorism.

There is a saying in sports that the best referees are the ones you don’t even notice. Not many Americans understand the breadth and effectiveness of the armed pilots program, because the program has been scandal free. Our nation has not experienced another 9-11 style terrorist attack thanks in no small part to armed pilots in the cockpits of commercial aircraft to stop terrorists intent on using planes as weapons of mass destruction.
According to the Obama Administration’s budget proposal the goal of security at airports is to ”mitigate the highest amount of risk at the lowest cost.”

The voluntary FFDO program was created as a “last defense” layer of security at a time when comprehensive aviation screening and other physical security measures were not fully developed or deployed on a system-wide basis.​
This claim is false. The Obama Administration is arguing that the FFDO program was to be a band aid until the federal government could set up screening to prevent another incident of aviation hijacking and terrorism. They are wrong, because a rational screening and security regime would include a last line of defense for pilots if other security measures fail.
Look at the history of the program if you need more evidence of the fallacy of this claim. On September 5, 2002, Senators Bob Smith (R-NH) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) teamed up on an amendment to the bill that created the Department of Homeland security. The amendment passed overwhelmingly and created the armed pilots program while increasing anti-terrorism training for flight attendants. These ideas were supposed to be permanent programs to provide a last line of defense to terrorism for flight attendants and pilots.

This program is large. The numbers of pilots in the program is considered secret, yet USA Today reported in 2008 that one in ten pilots were armed and cleared to carry a firearm while flying.

More than one in 10 of the nation’s airline pilots are cleared to carry a handgun while flying, and the number will continue to grow, according to a Transportation Security Administration projection. The TSA, which has declined to disclose the number of armed pilots, revealed in a recent budget document that 10.8% of airline crew members were authorized to carry guns.​
The fact that a large number of pilots are in the program today is evidence that it is working quietly to protect passengers and the public. A bipartisan majority in the House and Senate supported the creation of this program in both 2001 and 2002, yet both the Bush Administration and now the Obama Administration have been hostile to this program. This idea by the Obama Administration will put Americans in harms way and it should be opposed.

According to the Obama Administration in the justification to cut FFDO the following:
Since 2001, however, there have been a number of enhancements to aviation security. TSA now conducts 100 percent screening of all passengers and their carry on items, has overseen installation of reinforced and locking cockpit doors on aircraft that operate in U.S. airspace, and has increased passenger and flight crew awareness to address security risks. Combined, these improvements have greatly lowered the chances of unauthorized cockpit access and represent a comprehensive and redundant risk-mitigation strategy that begins well before passengers board the aircraft.​
For a President who proposes $3.8 trillion in spending next year, it is odd that he has targeted the one program in the TSA that is scandal free and providing a quiet deterrent to terrorists planning future attacks. If President Obama is successful in killing this program and winding it down, he will be to blame if a pilot is attacked in the cockpit of a commercial aircraft. This is a terrible idea and one hopes that Members of Congress do not follow the Obama Administration’s recommendations on this very important national security issue."
 
You act as if Obama is personally involved in this.

Do you really think the president has the time to target a line item the size of a gnat in this budget?

The group responsible for doing this is the TSA. They're the ones that advise the president's staff, who likely made this decision. The TSA has wanted to ditch the program since its inception, and now they're finally getting their chance.
 
You act as if Obama is personally involved in this.

Do you really think the president has the time to target a line item the size of a gnat in this budget?

The group responsible for doing this is the TSA. They're the ones that advise the president's staff, who likely made this decision. The TSA has wanted to ditch the program since its inception, and now they're finally getting their chance.
So what you are saying is that Mr. Obama is unaware of this and completely unaware of what his "administration" is saying and doing and that he reviews nothing in regards to the country's budget, makes no recommendations, zip, nada and has no input, even when it concerns National Security and/or terrorism?

The federal government spends about $15 a flight for FFDOs, compared to $3,000 per flight for Federal Air Marshals. As recently as last March, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano voiced support for the program, agreeing with Rep. Chip Cravaack, R-Minnesota, a former airline pilot and FFDO, that it was a vital part of the country's layer defenses. Yet, the proposed budget only cuts Federal Air Marshal Service funds almost less than 4% to $927 million and cuts the FFDO program by 50%. Good call. lol
 
I think train is saying that the President probably develops a general framework for the budget and his staff and others work within that framework. My guess is beyond certain high profile budget items the president is not involved in item by item cuts or additions.
 
So what you are saying is that Mr. Obama is unaware of this and completely unaware of what his "administration" is saying and doing and that he reviews nothing in regards to the country's budget, makes no recommendations, zip, nada and has no input, even when it concerns National Security and/or terrorism?

He is probably aware, but he is not an expert on aviation security or a number of other things, so he listens to his advisers and department heads on the issue. It's like you listening to your doctor about your health, your not an expert on the issue so you take his advice and recommendations.

I'm not sure what part of the budget the FFDO program comes from. I assume it is the TSA or DHS or something like that and I'm sure they will advise him to cut FFDO funding to keep their own organizations funding from being cut.

People need to stop acting like this is some vendetta. No one wants anything important to them cut, I get it. The truth is we overspent like a college kid with a credit card for the past decade and we are going to have to slice stuff and since this is not a highly visible program it is an easy target
 
So what you are saying is that Mr. Obama is unaware of this and completely unaware of what his "administration" is saying and doing and that he reviews nothing in regards to the country's budget, makes no recommendations, zip, nada and has no input, even when it concerns National Security and/or terrorism?

The federal government spends about $15 a flight for FFDOs, compared to $3,000 per flight for Federal Air Marshals. As recently as last March, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano voiced support for the program, agreeing with Rep. Chip Cravaack, R-Minnesota, a former airline pilot and FFDO, that it was a vital part of the country's layer defenses. Yet, the proposed budget only cuts Federal Air Marshal Service funds almost less than 4% to $927 million and cuts the FFDO program by 50%. Good call. lol

Cav hit the nail on the head.
 
I think train is saying that the President probably develops a general framework for the budget and his staff and others work within that framework. My guess is beyond certain high profile budget items the president is not involved in item by item cuts or additions.
And air travel safety and terrorism preventive measures would not be considered "high profile"?
 
I thought I was talking about it and asking pertinent questions. I posted an article. I did not write the article. No soapbox here, just the facts and some questions. Overly sensitive are we? Did I personally slam the President, go off on a tangent about him, make any ridiculous statements about him or did I just ask some worthwhile questions for clarity?

Terrorists are still interested in using aircraft for their means. Just last November, Homeland security officials received information indicating that Al Qaeda may be planning to hijack non-passenger planes, (cargo aircraft) which would be crashed into domestic targets in simultaneous attacks. This was three short months ago.
 
And air travel safety and terrorism preventive measures would not be considered "high profile"?

Air travel, safety, and terrorism prevention are high profile. The FFDO program is but or piece of a larger pie so no the FFDO program is not high profile.
 
I thought I was talking about it and asking pertinent questions. I posted an article. I did not write the article. No soapbox here, just the facts and some questions. Overly sensitive are we? Did I personally slam the President, go off on a tangent about him, make any ridiculous statements about him or did I just ask some worthwhile questions for clarity?

Terrorists are still interested in using aircraft for their means. Just last November, Homeland security officials received information indicating that Al Qaeda may be planning to hijack non-passenger planes, (cargo aircraft) which would be crashed into domestic targets in simultaneous attacks. This was three short months ago.

You're not asking pertinent questions, you're making loaded statements that are, by design, introduced to state the implicit, if not outright explicit, idea that the president is inept and by the very nature of the type of ineptitude that you're discussing here, is unable to run the country effectively. Here, let me help.

"My GOD! Can't HE see that this is a SMALL allocation of resources that brings about a huge gain for us against THE WAR ON TERROR!? If HE knew what he was doing, then HE wouldn't have done such a stupid thing! RON PAUL 2012!!!!!"

So don't try to act like you're interested in discourse, because you're not, you're interested in raging. I can appreciate that, done it a lot myself, but call it what it is and don't try to hide behind some fog of respectability when you are interested in nothing of the sort.
 
Why on earth does it even cost $12 million a year for the program? Out of curiosity, how much training is involved? Presumably, they've already done quite the background check on all of us, now just something akin to a CCW course to ensure the holder knows what they're doing, and done. Like $50 per person or so.
Last time I checked, it cost me $0 to bring my pistol with me for the day.
 
Why on earth does it even cost $12 million a year for the program? Out of curiosity, how much training is involved? Presumably, they've already done quite the background check on all of us, now just something akin to a CCW course to ensure the holder knows what they're doing, and done. Like $50 per person or so.
Last time I checked, it cost me $0 to bring my pistol with me for the day.

There is much much more to it than just a CCW course.
 
He may not have ordered it directly, but you be sure that Obama is on board for this. The man will never pass up a chance to grow government, particularly if he can place even more limits on the citizens at the same time.
 
He may not have ordered it directly, but you be sure that Obama is on board for this. The man will never pass up a chance to grow government, particularly if he can place even more limits on the citizens at the same time.

LIke restricting the right to choose, making harsher drug laws, protecting us from SteveC marrying MikeD, wait.... what president again? :)


(sorry, cheap shot. I'm all hopped up on vitamin C and chicken noodle soup)
 
He may not have ordered it directly, but you be sure that Obama is on board for this. The man will never pass up a chance to grow government, particularly if he can place even more limits on the citizens at the same time.

Wait a minute... He's (if he is directly involved) cutting a government program. How the hell is that trying to grow government?
 
He may not have ordered it directly, but you be sure that Obama is on board for this. The man will never pass up a chance to grow government, particularly if he can place even more limits on the citizens at the same time.

How is this growing government?

I'll play along, who was at the helm for the creation of DHS and TSA?

Both parties do that same crap.
 
You're not asking pertinent questions, you're making loaded statements that are, by design, introduced to state the implicit, if not outright explicit, idea that the president is inept and by the very nature of the type of ineptitude that you're discussing here, is unable to run the country effectively. Here, let me help.

"My GOD! Can't HE see that this is a SMALL allocation of resources that brings about a huge gain for us against THE WAR ON TERROR!? If HE knew what he was doing, then HE wouldn't have done such a stupid thing! RON PAUL 2012!!!!!"

So don't try to act like you're interested in discourse, because you're not, you're interested in raging. I can appreciate that, done it a lot myself, but call it what it is and don't try to hide behind some fog of respectability when you are interested in nothing of the sort.
Do you always exaggerate, hyperbole and read into everyone's statements things that are just not there???

Do you actually have an opinion or any thoughts on the FFDO program and it's value and importance? Any thoughts or ideas about the cutting of it's budget by more than 50%?

Or did you just pop in to defend the President and his Administration and slam my ass? I did not have a little melt down nor a rant here at all, but it seems that you have. Wow, you seem to be having a really bad day or something. I was completely civil. Too bad, the same cannot be said for your reactions and statements. Seriously, take a step back and look at what I posted and your (over) reactions. The only "raging" I have seen in this entire thread thus far, is coming directly from you.
 
Back
Top