German Wings A320 crashed

My best friend in college killed himself.
I'm really sorry about that, man.

Everything you say is valid, but I can see some dark and messed up connection in a persons head(again, not that this is typical of depressed people) where they just resign to the point of not caring who they take with them as a side consequence of wanting to go out in the airplane.

I like the program. I just don't like the people who tend to join it.
From the stories I heard as a gate agent from some of those guys, the training seems like a pretty awesome time.
 
I think it serves a deterrent role, perhaps. But really we don't know if the reward is greater than the risk. It's inexpensive in terms of federal dollars spent per mission flown, so that's good.

And then "along came KCM". And I'm sure we all know what I'm getting at.

"Hey, aren't you a… wait, where is your… aww nevermind"
 
And then "along came KCM". And I'm sure we all know what I'm getting at.

"Hey, aren't you a… wait, where is your… aww nevermind"

Whatever do you mean? ;)

FWIW, if I were a member, and if I were to fly a domestic trip, I would participate as often as I could. What's the point of going through the BS if you aren't going to participate when possible?
 
IMO, and I'm sure I'll get flak for it, the FFDO program is completely unnecessary and a waste of resources.
I wholeheartedly agree.

There are very few situations to which the addition of a firearm on board is a great idea. (etc., etc., etc., redacted etc.)
 
There are times when it could be useful. There are probably more times when it could be an unnecessary risk. Meh. It is what it is.
Begging your pardon, sir, but I am all about reducing or eliminating unnecessary risk, to the extent practical, hence my feelings on the topic.

(there's an episode of M*A*S*H in which Hawkeye is handed a firearm...)
 
Begging your pardon, sir, but I am all about reducing or eliminating unnecessary risk, to the extent practical, hence my feelings on the topic.

(there's an episode of M*A*S*H in which Hawkeye is handed a firearm...)

I hear you. I don't think it's a large risk, and the downside to not having it when needed is pretty big. If it goes away, I'll understand it. If it stays, I'll understand that too. I'm really on the fence about the program.
 
I was coming through LAX a few years ago, and there was guy with a sign that said 'Free hugs'.

I took him up on the offer, and it was nice.

The species needs more of that.

-Fox

I think it depends on who is holding the sign. If it is a young, nice looking lady with large, natural breasts then I am likely to take her up on the offer. If it is an old, homeless man who hasn't showered for several months then I would be less likely to take him up on the offer.
 
IMO, and I'm sure I'll get flak for it, the FFDO program is completely unnecessary and a waste of resources.

I personally think that the cockpit crew's best weapons they have are the comm radio and the flight controls. Turning an air emergency such as an attempted hijacking, into a ground emergency as quickly and efficiently as possible, is the best thing they can do. To include descent/landing at secondary suitable airports if the situation is sufficiently out of control in the cabin. Keep that plane from being taken over and becoming a potential weapon.

From my end, I've encountered the full weird range of FFDOs when I've been flying, from ones who just quietly advise their status, to ones who want to formulate CQB plans. :)
 
Everybody handles problems differently, the outcomes are different, and the path is unpredictable. My brother and I both faced divorce at different times, and both of us temporarily used anti-depressants. Mine were a good combination that got me through the problem. His were a bad combination that turned him psychotic: He bought a gun and killed himself in his bed.
 
Well, yes, there's that. I'm also a (legal) handgun owner too.

I oppose the program as a questionable use of federal monies. The same problem I have with many other federal programs.
In the 135 world we have 135.119b. Followed by our GOM that states ~ all crew members are authorized to carry firearms at the PICs discretion.
 
Flying isn't routine. No two flights are ever the same. Flying seems routine thanks to the dedication of thousands of professionals that strive to make it as routine as it is for our passengers and cargo entrusted for us to fly. Flying is extremely safe for what it is. There is a big difference between routine and safe. Your fellow 'contributor' misses this point. The reason why it may seem routine to him is that after a complex tragedy like the German Wings flight, the aviation community, led by Pilots, come together and challenge each other to make the system safer and enact changes in an attempt to guarantee that the system that the pilot is in with the airplane are operating in is the safest possible. The pilot is devoted to the passenger's and cargo's safety for more reasons than that they are 'simply in the airplane with you'. Pilot's want this industry to succeed. Many have livelihoods that depend on it and they want nothing more than a safe and vibrant system for themselves and their counterparts at other airlines.

What I am asking the Flying Magazine writer on here to do is bring back these thoughts to the other 'contributor' and other's thoughts on here towards what he wrote. He missed the mark completely in his attempt at an op-ed. I would personally characterize it as a sensationalism journalism.

I am sure others would also love for the poster on here to bring back their thoughts about what Les Asbend is saying as well...

I think as an industry we are devoted to passenger's safety. There are individuals among us though who I think are selfish.
 
Back
Top