Nearly 50% of men who have never flown or landed an airplane think they could safely land a passenger airplane

[stormgol]

my niece boyfriend has been a pilot for westjet and air canada for more than 10 years. i know enough about his job to know that i would not be able to land any of these planes. not by a long shot.

 

[Mainia]

One isn't supposed to, but I've been to military bases for public events or even where the general public could enter. The Presidio of San Francisco was well known for entry without controlled entry when it was Sixth Army HQ. I think I went to a few base museums without being searched. And thousands of people at public air shows where metal detectors would have been difficult to set up. But at an airport they're obviously checking for weapons. Heck - I got caught with a Swiss Army knife when I was helping my in laws entering on a gate pass. In the 90s I had no issue taking a small blade past security.

Military base security has been lax at times, like that guy on meth who managed to drive into an F/A-18 at NAS Lemoore. California Highway Patrol still managed to drive onto the base in pursuit and a CHP helicopter flew over the base even though they contacted base security that advised them to not enter. So armed civilian law enforcement managed to end up on the base.

My God, who are the buffoons running this army base. ZERO security. ZERO.

 

[y_p_w]

My God, who are the buffoons running this army base. ZERO security. ZERO.

Uh - Navy. Kind of weird having a large US Navy installation that far inland, but NAS Fallon is even further inland.

I was surprised that they managed to get in - almost like Maverick in Top Gun: Maverick just riding into NAWS China Lake on his Kawasaki Ninja without anyone asking to see his ID. The guy who eventually died just blew right past security and none of the on-base security was alerted. If you watch the video, there's actually a Super Hornet landing during this whole thing. The California Highway Patrol radio chatter was that they weren't going to drive any patrol vehicles onto the base and they couldn't get in contact with base security. But they apparently had free reign to fly a civilian law enforcement helicopter otherwise since base security didn't care to chase after them nor stop the CHP.

Police calls to NAS Lemoore failed on the night a Jeep collided with an F-18

The NAS Lemoore contact number was out of date.

www.navytimes.com

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/r...errorism-vulnerabilities-at-us-military-bases​

THE MIL & AERO COMMENTARY, 5 April 2016. A major security breach last week at the U.S. Navy's newest and largest jet aircraft base may have far-reaching implications in the vulnerability of the nation's military bases to the threat of terrorism.​

​

A high-speed police car chase early last Thursday resulted in the penetration of two security checkpoints, serious damage to a $61 million F/A-18E Super Hornet jet fighter-bomber, and the deaths of two people at Lemoore Naval Air Station in Central California.​

​

Lemoore NAS is home to the Pacific Fleet's strike fighter wing, and will be the future base for Pacific Fleet F-35C Lightning II joint strike fighter aircraft. With the expected transfer of two Super Hornet squadrons to Lemoore later this year, 60 percent of the Navy's carrier-based strike fighter capability will be based there.​

​

The two occupants of the vehicle that led law enforcement on a high-speed chase suffered fatal injuries when their Jeep Grand Cherokee crashed into the tail of a Super Hornet parked on the Lemoore flight line. Suffice it to say that this incident, which ended up to be a local law-enforcement matter, could have been worse ... a whole lot worse.​

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

How hard could it be, looks pretty simple and straightforward!

You know what’s funny - is we have a shortage, are willing to train people, and we start pilots at about $100,000/year.

So, why aren’t more of these folks, who are convinced they could do it already, applying?

Their vision isn't good enough in many cases. That's what stopped me 40 years ago.

They tried to stop me too but I fought it and won.

Was just an arbitrary eye sight standard that had no medical justification so they lost.

All you need is 20/20 corrected in the real world.

 

[Al]

You’re missing the most important part of being an Air Marshall - it’s not about marksmanship, it’s about when to shoot.

You might be able to pass the linked marksmanship test, so what?

Honestly, what you posted is much easier than what they actually do, and the judgment part is taught in simulators to which you don’t have access.

What they actually shoot, and what you can’t practice, involves moving targets. So, their marksmanship greatly exceeds that course, and their training greatly exceeds that to which you have access.

My main opposition to your comments was this "That’s not nearly enough training, they’re going to hit innocent bystanders. The plane is crowded. Check out the marksmanship and training of FAMs."
I proceeded to prove to you that the actual pistol training is not beyond what a skilled NRA instructor or student who has had all of the NRA SD courses. And you ignored it. Of course they take the 14 weak course that covers other things. Moving targets are a part of training.

I realize this is the internet and we on here (you and I) are faceless characters of extreme ability (not always). I have done many thousands of dollars of training, including private training at Harrisburg police training at HACC. I know what I am talking about. You talk as if you know everything. You don't- and you are absolutely wrong in the area of FAM pistol training.

 

[Astro14]

My main opposition to your comments was this "That’s not nearly enough training, they’re going to hit innocent bystanders. The plane is crowded. Check out the marksmanship and training of FAMs."
I proceeded to prove to you that the actual pistol training is not beyond what a skilled NRA instructor or student who has had all of the NRA SD courses. And you ignored it. Of course they take the 14 weak course that covers other things. Moving targets are a part of training.

I realize this is the internet and we on here (you and I) are faceless characters of extreme ability (not always). I have done many thousands of dollars of training, including private training at Harrisburg police training at HACC. I know what I am talking about. You talk as if you know everything. You don't- and you are absolutely wrong in the area of FAM pistol training.

You’ve done lots of training. No argument there.

But we are talking about my environment - commercial airplanes. Airline operations. I talk about it airline security because I know about it.

I live it. I work in it. This is my world we are discussing, one with which most people, including you and the Harrisburg PD, are unfamiliar. It is a different world than the one in which you, and the PD, operate.

Additionally, I’ve done lots of training with FAMs. For nearly 20 years now. So, I do know this subject.

Your pistol training, and the training you propose, falls short of the training the FAMs get. Training in weapon retention, in judgement shooting, in the operational environment of an airliner, against a terrorist, not criminal, threat, with updated threat assessment and intelligence to which you don’t have access.

A different context, and threat, than the one against which you have trained.

I am not arguing that you are untrained, I’m arguing that your training is not appropriate to the different threat and environment.

I am arguing that allowing CCW, even trained CCW, will allow a new threat vector from operatives who use that to get armed terrorists on the airplane.

A legitimate concern that your proposal has failed to address.

Your internet search has convinced you that you know the environment and FAM training, but you don’t. It’s clear from your posts. I can’t correct some of specific points you make because what I know is, in fact, not public information and therefore, I cannot disclose it.

As a member of the general public you don’t, nor should you, know about security procedures, threat analysis and intelligence, equipment, people, and training that are currently in place.

Measures that, together, have prevented another successful terrorist attack in the 20+ years since 9-11.

Absent that information, your proposals exist in isolation; disconnected and uninformed by the reality, the real world context, of airline security.

 

[LDB]

You’ve done lots of training. No argument there.

But we are talking about my environment - commercial airplanes. Airline operations. I talk about it airline security because I know about it.

I live it. I work in it. This is my world we are discussing, one with which most people, including you and the Harrisburg PD, are unfamiliar. It is a different world than the one in which you, and the PD, operate.

Additionally, I’ve done lots of training with FAMs. For nearly 20 years now. So, I do know this subject.

Your pistol training, and the training you propose, falls short of the training the FAMs get. Training in weapon retention, in judgement shooting, in the operational environment of an airliner, against a terrorist, not criminal, threat, with updated threat assessment and intelligence to which you don’t have access.

A different context, and threat, than the one against which you have trained.

I am not arguing that you are untrained, I’m arguing that your training is not appropriate to the different threat and environment.

I am arguing that allowing CCW, even trained CCW, will allow a new threat vector from operatives who use that to get armed terrorists on the airplane.

A legitimate concern that your proposal has failed to address.

Your internet search has convinced you that you know the environment and FAM training, but you don’t. It’s clear from your posts. I can’t correct some of specific points you make because what I know is, in fact, not public information and therefore, I cannot disclose it.

As a member of the general public you don’t, nor should you, know about security procedures, threat analysis and intelligence, equipment, people, and training that are currently in place.

Measures that, together, have prevented another successful terrorist attack in the 20+ years since 9-11.

Absent that information, your proposals exist in isolation; disconnected and uninformed by the reality, the real world context, of airline security.

Again, all this firearm training could be given to anyone. And that's my position, anyone considered for this qualification must be given identical firearm training and pass with identical score requirements as the AM. That eliminates any legitimate argument over their being armed on an airplane if they've had identical training and passed with the required scores.

And what's to stop the bad guys from putting someone into the AM program and getting them on a plane? Again, my requirement would be everyone selected would have and pass the same background checks as an AM candidate. So any terrorist getting aboard might just as easily be the AM.

You bring up legitimate points but none of them preclude the program. They are all just things that would have to be spelled out in the expanded program directive. Maybe you just don't want to accept and acknowledge your kingdom could be legitimately expanded and in so doing made safer so it's easier to be 100% negative and pass on a good thing.

 

[Greasymechtech]

Most consumers are overwhelmed with driving their automatic transmission equipped self driving cars with autobraking, lane keep assist, stability control, traction control, blindspot warning, cruise control.....

Most consumers barely function beyond a farcebook cellphone scrolling level, and that is with tons of meds just to function.

So, anyone stating zero ziltch has my vote.

Gotta go. Wifey picked up a pack of bubblegum for the long dog walks. Walking/chewing at the same time is the ultimate test for most.

Landing an airplane? hahahahahahaha survey says.... not a chance.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Most consumers are overwhelmed with driving their automatic transmission equipped self driving cars with autobraking, lane keep assist, stability control, traction control, blindspot warning, cruise control.....

Most consumers barely function beyond a farcebook cellphone scrolling level, and that is with tons of meds just to function.

So, anyone stating zero ziltch has my vote.

Gotta go. Wifey picked up a pack of bubblegum for the long dog walks. Walking/chewing at the same time is the ultimate test for most.

Landing an airplane? hahahahahahaha survey says.... not a chance.

Mark Twain….

Never argue with ( foolish ) people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

 

[y_p_w]

Landing an airplane? hahahahahahaha survey says.... not a chance.

Flying an airplane? Maybe. I remember my HS aviation club sponsor, who had a single engine commercial pilot license. He said the most he might do for pay was transport a prisoner. But he took students on rides and only charged gas money. I never went on a ride (my parents were terrified) but the teacher said that he would hand over the controls. That part is actually pretty easy. Now landing it?

 

[Astro14]

Again, all this firearm training could be given to anyone. And that's my position, anyone considered for this qualification must be given identical firearm training and pass with identical score requirements as the AM. That eliminates any legitimate argument over their being armed on an airplane if they've had identical training and passed with the required scores.

And what's to stop the bad guys from putting someone into the AM program and getting them on a plane? Again, my requirement would be everyone selected would have and pass the same background checks as an AM candidate. So any terrorist getting aboard might just as easily be the AM.

You bring up legitimate points but none of them preclude the program. They are all just things that would have to be spelled out in the expanded program directive. Maybe you just don't want to accept and acknowledge your kingdom could be legitimately expanded and in so doing made safer so it's easier to be 100% negative and pass on a good thing.

It’s more than firearms training. We
could get more people with requisite shooting skills. That’s actually the easy part.

Aviation security includes all the things I mentioned in another post above. Procedures, screening, threat assessment, armed individuals, etc.

If we were to expand the armed individuals, we would have to grant security clearance, do comprehensive background checks, psych screens, and spend millions on legal and use of force training, etc. like we do for FFDOs.

To what end?

You guys are making the argument that CCW will make it “safer.”

But the whole system has been safe since we restructured it post 9-11. There have been zero hijackings since then.

It is already safe.

You’re offering a solution to a problem that, frankly, no longer exists.

An expensive solution. One with potential weakness.

One that doesn’t improve safety.

Lots of cost, some risk, no reward.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

That's OK. You probably won't be home all that much once you become a pilot.

Home 22 days a month.

I work 8 , long, days a month.

 

[Leo99]

Home 22 days a month.

I work 8 , long, days a month.

Do you start that way as a new hire or do you need to work your way up for that? I mean that's not too bad.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Do you start that way as a new hire or do you need to work your way up for that? I mean that's not too bad.

Well, to be accurate, it’s a combination of seniority and priorities.

If I flew wide bodies, I would work a MINIMUM of 16 days, double.

Despite being senior enough to fly the B777/787 CA ( not on reserve, half way up ) , I choose to stay super senior narrow body and work as little as possible number of days wise. I would be pretty high up on the A330 CA list though.

A new hire would be on reserve and they would be on call about 16 days a month and might fly a lot or very little.

A junior block holder ( not on reserve ) would fly a min of 15 days on the narrow body.

So, why would a pilot want to fly a WB and work more?

Combination of more money plus maybe the want to see more of the world and do layovers.

Individual preferences if you have good seniority.

I am very happy where I am but would I like to try something different like different routes, nice layovers , more pay , fly another type?

Yes, but it’s like a happy marriage.

I have it too good, for now ( marriage AND flying ).

Edit: I need max time off for family reasons plus I am very happily married ( me anyways, lol …..wife is currently down in Cancun for vacation with her GF…..what’s going on done there wife? ) despite joking in the past my wife likes me going to work.

My wife takes an annual trip with her GF ( both married to husbands who hate hanging out at the beach all day ) and we take a family trip twice a year ( first cruise coming up in July ).

 

[Jetronic]

I find this to be stunning that anyone who has never flown or landed an airplane, thinks they have ANY chance of landing a passenger airplane. The chance is 0%, nobody from the survey group could possibly do it, ever, but 50% of the men think they can.... Just wow.

How can this possibly be?

I would die trying, just like those 50% that think they can, and be just as dead as the 50% that didn't try. Actually, at best I'd fly into the ground, I have no illusions of landing.

Well, the answer to your first question is: BECAUSE they have never flown or landed an airplane.

 

[Jetronic]

Well, to be accurate, it’s a combination of seniority and priorities.

If I flew wide bodies, I would work a MINIMUM of 16 days, double.

Despite being senior enough to fly the B777/787 CA ( not on reserve, half way up ) , I choose to stay super senior narrow body and work as little as possible number of days wise. I would be pretty high up on the A330 CA list though.

A new hire would be on reserve and they would be on call about 16 days a month and might fly a lot or very little.

A junior block holder ( not on reserve ) would fly a min of 15 days on the narrow body.

So, why would a pilot want to fly a WB and work more?

Combination of more money plus maybe the want to see more of the world and do layovers.

Individual preferences if you have good seniority.

I am very happy where I am but would I like to try something different like different routes, nice layovers , more pay , fly another type?

Yes, but it’s like a happy marriage.

I have it too good, for now ( marriage AND flying ).

So you're saying the stewardesses aren't good looking enough to make layovers worth it?

 

[wwillson]

So you're saying the stewardesses aren't good looking enough to make layovers worth it?

There are people who don't cheat on their wives...

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

So you're saying the stewardesses aren't good looking enough to make layovers worth it?

No, the problem is, I am very good looking and get tired of them hitting on me

Thats also why I do not put my picture on BITOG.

I do not like making people jealous.

Life isn’t always fair……for me.

I am o.k.

 

[Jetronic]

There are people who don't cheat on their wives...

Other than me you mean? it was a tongue in cheeck comment, I totally get the not cheating

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

There are people who don't cheat on their wives...

I am very loyal.