Six disastrous consequences of fighting flight attendants

The Association of Flight Attendants has been leaning on Congress to amp up counter-terrorism measures in the cabin. After all, the security teams in the airports haven’t exactly impressed over the past few years. So, what happens to the passengers and crew when some scumbag finds a way to tote a gun, knife or oversized bottle of shampoo on board? The flight attendants’ union believes it has the answer: hand-to-hand combat. Whether it’s a killer choke hold or a beverage cart to the ‘nads, they’re ready to take charge.

Well, the Association of Flight Attendants, which represents more than 55,000 employees at 20 airlines, actually has a four-point plan to increase cabin safety, but most of it is pretty boring. The group proposes communications devices to help them speak directly to the pilots when an emergency breaks out, standardized carry-on luggage size (to make it easier to spot the suspicious people with oversized bags) and the terminating of in-flight wifi during periods of peak terror risk.

And, the grappling, kicking and boxing.

Someday, this will probably be remembered as one of those “What the hell were they thinking?” moments – if it’s remembered at all. But, for now, it’s something that the flight attendants’ group has plopped on the table, and it strikes me as unlikely to make a difference. Why?

Here are six reasons to get you started:1. It hasn’t made a difference so far
According to Corey Caldwell, a spokeswoman for the association, combat training is currently optional for flight attendants, and those who pursue it have to do so on their own time. If this train is so important, I’d think that making it mandatory would be unnecessary, as such skills would already be common. If I thought there were a substantial threat to my safety every day at work, I’d commit to staying safe. Also, I haven’t seen any reports lately of a flight attendant, trained in the ways of the warrior, rescuing passengers from evil clutches. I applaud those who pursue it on their own but don’t see a whole lot of reasons for passengers (or taxpayers) to pick up the tab on this one.

2. It isn’t as simple as it sounds
Basic hand-to-hand combat may not equip a flight attendant to take on a wizened warrior who’s spent time in a terrorist training camp or battled the Soviets for a decade. It may work; it may not. But, this is hardly a silver bullet. Further, an overzealous flight attendant combatant could make a bad situation worse (e.g., a hostage situation that is not destined to end in a mix of suicide and homicide). If I have a chance of getting out alive, I’m not sure I’d welcome some sort of flying drop kick from the FA.

3. Why not go straight to guns?
If the point is to neutralize or eliminate a threat, why screw around with fisticuffs? Let’s bring some heat to bear on the situation. Flight attendants could board strapped and ready to rumble. If this sounds absurd, it’s a matter of degree. Mandatory and-to-hand combat training entails equipping flight attendants to use force to solve a problem. Any weapon, from fists to firearms, brings with it a certain set of risks (e.g., being overpowered, misuse of training). So, if we don’t trust flight attendants to don shoulder holsters, we should probably think about other forms of violence, however justified.

4. Terrorists have been stopped without this training
We saw this only a few months ago, with the Christmas bomber’s unsuccessful attempt. Also, the “shoe bomber” didn’t get far. Both incidents do raise the issue of whether better screening, observation and identification measures are needed on board (ummm, yeah), but these are the scenarios in which fists would fly, and ninja flight attendants weren’t necessary.

5. There’s a role for judgment
This one worries the hell out of me. Thinking back to the orange juice debacle on American Airlines, I’m not sure I’d issue rules of engagement that involve ass-kicking. What ultimately led to an FAA warning for the passenger (and PR disaster for American) could have been a bloody mess. Well, that’s assuming the other FAs didn’t come to the passenger’s aid, triggering a fight to the death in the first class cabin. “Hold my Blackberry and pass me the nunchucks.”

6. Who makes the call?
Violence for the sake of safety, I believe, is best left to trained killer. I choose that expression carefully, referring to people who know how to apply force and in what amounts to remove a threat. Military personnel, police officers, Blackwater consultants – these folks don’t just learn how to execute a hold or squeeze the trigger. They learn about situations and conditions in which it’s appropriate. As early as basic training (now a long time ago for me), I remember having rules of engagement drilled into me. Ultimately, a lot of people would have had to make a lot of decisions in order for me to send a round down range. On a plane, would it be any flight attendant’s decision? The most senior? Or, would it have to come from the cockpit? If we can’t trust a soldier to inflict violence without a hefty amount of forethought, I’m not crazy about an FA having that sort of power.

What’s truly disconcerting about the scheme is a remark by Caldwell: “We are not taking on more responsibility.” Really? She continues, “We just want more tools to make the plane safer,” but it seems like that isn’t possible without taking on – you guessed it – more responsibility. If you’re going to clock a passenger in the jaw, you need to be ready to own the decision. If it’s truly justified, there’s nothing to worry about.

You’re now free to carry guns in U.S. national parks

For nearly 95 years visitors to U.S. national parks have been prohibited from carrying firearms. In fact, the ban even extended to Teddy Roosevelt, who was once refused entry to Yellowstone while carrying a shotgun. But that ban was lifted yesterday when a new law went into effect allowing visitors to bring their guns along with them the next time they decide to visit Old Faithful or climb Half Dome.

The new law was passed as a rider bill to a credit card reform act that cleared Congress last May and was later signed by President Obama. It specifies that people who can legally own guns, and have completed the proper permitting process, can now bring their firearms with them to national parks. The law is superseded by the state laws in which the park falls however, meaning that some of the national parks will continue to have a ban on firearms.

The passage of the new law does not change the prohibition of the usage of firearms within the park, nor does it impact the ban on hunting within most parks. The Park Service also wisely points out that the ban on carrying the weapons still extends to “federal facilities,” which in this context includes visitor centers, offices, and maintenance buildings.

For their part, the NPS doesn’t believe this new law will have much of an impact on the vast majority of visitors to the parks. But just in case, they’ve updated their website providing all the specific information on each park and how the gun laws apply to that location.

Tallinn is more than a winter wonderland

Yeah, on first glance, Tallinn looks like it was lifted out of EPCOT. The walls around the capital of Estonia, the look and feel of the architecture … the “old city” seems almost staged. But, that changes quickly when you walk the streets, get a feel for the people and scarf down a meal in one of the restaurants. To call it charming is an understatement, with cobblestone roads that date back centuries, reminding you that history is underfoot as much as around you as you trace the winding roads.

I arrived in Tallinn by ferry from Helsinki, which makes it a great side-trip from Finland, though the New York Daily News reports the time to the old city from the local airport is a mere 15 minutes – which is almost impossible to imagine for anyone who has sought Manhattan after landing in JFK.

When I climbed the walls of Tallinn a year and a half ago, I had no sense for the town as a winter wonderland, but looking back, I can see it as a Christmas village waiting to happen. The UNESCO world heritage site (since 1997) is among the best-preserved medieval villages in the world and takes advantage of its unusual look to host a Christmas market that began last year on November 29 and is set to close this week (on January 7).

If Santa isn’t really your scene – or if you wait for warmer weather before visiting – make it a priority to visit the indoor shooting range. Ask for Instructor Tonu to show you the ropes with an AK-47, and have a blast sending rounds downrange. Top it off with a meal at Olde Hansa, and you’re good to go.

[Photo by Tom Johansmeyer]

New law demands that some Amtrak passengers be locked in boxes

Back in September, Tom wrote about an upcoming Senate vote which planned to allow passengers to carry guns on Amtrak trains. The whole idea meant that Amtrak would need to install gun safes on all their trains, or risk losing their multi-billion Dollar funding.

Well, the proposal reached President Obama on Wednesday, and he signed it into law.

Only, he actually signed for a law forcing Amtrak to lock passengers in a box if they carry guns on the train. That’s right – a simple error has now created a law that (at least on paper) may prove to be unenforceable.

When trying to determine who screwed up, nobody was really able to take the blame, and it may all come down to a simple printing error. Either way, the law is the law.

Thankfully for gun owners, it can be fixed, and Amtrak was given six months to implement the new gun rules, giving lawmakers plenty of time to fix the error before Amtrak needs to invest in people size safes.

Once the law is corrected, and Amtrak has gun safes installed on their trains, passengers will indeed be permitted to travel with their firearm – and the theory behind the entire scheme is that they may be able to prevent terror attacks. To me, it all sounds like a huge hassle – and sooner or later, someone is going to get off the train, and forget their gun. Just wait and see.

Gun-toting pilot gets gig back

A gun was fired in the cockpit and so was the pilot. In March 2008, on a flight from Denver to Charlotte, US Airways pilot Jim Langenhahn’s gun discharged, an action taken by his employer shortly after. Now that his 18-month disciplinary suspension is over, he’s back in training and getting ready to take to the friendly skies. The Associated Press didn’t mention whether the current program involves targets.

A federal arbitrator’s decision is what’s leading to Langenhahn’s reinstatement, but he won’t be allowed to pack heat on board. He was strapped in 2008 because of a 2002 federal law that permits pilots to carry handguns onto the plane – as long as they complete a Transportation Security Administration program that includes a week of weapons training. The law was passed following the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

Support from the US Airways pilots’ union helped, along with a Department of Homeland Security position that found the holsters pilots used to be faulty. The holsters, DHS found, increased the likelihood of an accidental discharge.