Monday, October 23, 2006

War thoughts of an airline pilot

I received the following in a forwarded email tonight. My response is included below.

- adspar

email forward:
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 4:38 PM
Subject: Captain's Blog

Subject:
Pilot's blog
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:31:32 +0000

This is from a retired Delta pilot in response to questions about whether he was planning to see "United 93."

I haven't seen the movie, yet, but I intend to when I get the chance. Retirement has made me busier than ever, and I haven't had the chance to see many movies lately.

As a Delta B-767 captain myself at the time of the attacks on 9/11 I was in crew rest in Orlando that morning. I had just turned on the TV in my hotel room only to see the World Trade Center tower on fire, and then saw the second airplane hit the other tower. My immediate reaction was "Terrorists...we're at war", followed by the realization that we airline crew-members had all dodged a bullet; it could have been any one of us flying those planes. As soon as the news stations flashed the first pictures of the terrorists I knew just how close and personal the bullet I dodged was. There, on the screen for all to see, was a man who had sat in my jump seat the previous July. His name was Mohammad Atta, the leader of the terrorist hijackers.

Atta had boarded my flight from Baltimore to Atlanta on July 26, 2001 wearing an American Airlines first officer uniform. He had the corresponding AA company ID identifying him as a pilot, not to mention the required FAA pilot license and medical certificate that he was required to show me as proof of his aircrew status for access to my jumpseat.

An airline pilot riding a cockpit jumpseat is a long established protocol among the airlines of the world, a courtesy extended by the management and captains of one airline to pilots and flight attendants of other airlines in recognition of their aircrew status. My admission of Mohammad Atta to my cockpit jumpseat that day was merely a routine exercise of this protocol.

Something seemed a bit different about this jumpseat rider, though, because in my usual course of conversation with him as we reached cruise altitude he avoided all my questions about his personal life and focused very intently upon the cockpit instruments and our operation of the aircraft. I asked him what he flew at American and he said, "These", but he asked incessant questions about how we did this or why we did that. I said, "This is a 767. They all operate the same way." But he said, "No, we operate them differently at American." That seemed very strange, because I knew better. I asked him about his background, and he admitted he was from Saudi Arabia. I asked him when he came over to this country and he said "A couple of years ago." to which I asked, "Are you a US citizen?" He said no. I also found that very strange because I know that in order to have an Airline Transport Pilot rating, the rating required to be an airline captain, one has to be a US citizen, and knowing the US airlines and their hiring processes as I do, I found it hard to believe that American Airlines would hire a non-US citizen who couldn't upgrade to captain when the time came. He said, "The rules have changed." which I also knew to be untrue. Besides, he was just, shall I say, "Creepy"? My copilot and I were both glad to get rid of this guy when we got to Atlanta.

There was nothing to indicate, though, that he was anything other than who or what he said he was, because he had the documentation to prove who he was. In retrospect, we now know his uniform was stolen and his documents were forged. Information later came to light as to how this was done.

It seems that Mohammad Atta and his cronies had possibly stolen pilot uniforms and credentials from hotel rooms during the previous year. We had many security alerts at the airline to watch out for our personal items in hotel rooms because these were mysteriously disappearing, but nobody knew why. Atta and his men used these to make dry runs prior to their actual hijackings on 9/11. How do I know? I called the FBI as soon as I saw his face on the TV that day, and the agent on the other end of the line took my information and told me I'd hear back from them when all the dust settled. A few weeks later I got a letter from the Bureau saying that my call was one of at least half a dozen calls that day from other pilots who had had the same experience. Flights were being selected at random to make test runs for accessing the cockpit. It seems we had all dodged bullets.

Over the years my attitude towards the War Against Terrorism and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been known to be on the red neck, warmongering, rah-rah-shoot-em-up side of things. I've been known to lose my patience with those who say the war in Iraq or anywhere else in the Muslim world is wrong, or who say we shouldn't become involved in that area of the world for political correctness reasons. Maybe it's because I dodged the bullet so closely back in 2001 that I feel this way. I have very little patience for political rhetoric or debate against this war because for a couple of hours back in July 2001, when I was engaged in conversation with a major perpetrator in this war, I came so close to being one of its victims that I can think in no other terms.

I don't mind admitting that one of the reasons I retired early from Delta last May, other than to protect my disappearing company retirement, was because it became harder and harder for me to go to work every day knowing that the war wasn't being taken seriously by the general public. The worst offenders were the Liberal detractors to the present administration, and right or wrong, this administration is at least taking the bull by the horns and fighting our enemies, which is something concrete that I can appreciate. Nobody was taking this war seriously, and it seems everyone found fault with the US government rather than with those who attacked us. I found that incomprehensible.

I also found myself being scrutinized by TSA screeners more and more every day when I went to work, and suffered the humiliating indignity of being identified about half the time for body searches in front of the general flying public who looked at the entire process as being ludicrous. "They don't even trust their own pilots!" accompanied by an unbelieving snicker was the usual response. Here I was, a retired USAF officer who had been entrusted to fly nuclear weapons around the world, who had been granted a Top Secret clearance and had been on missions over the course of 21 years in the military that I still can't talk about without fear of prosecution by the DoD, who was being scanned by a flunky TSA screener looking for any sign of a pen knife or nail file on my person.

It wasn't until six months after my retirement when my wife and I flew to Key West, FL last November that I was finally able to rid myself of the visage of Mohammad Atta sitting behind me on my jumpseat, watching my every action in the cockpit and willing to slit my throat at the slightest provocation. I missed being a headline by a mere 47 days, and could very well have been among the aircrew casualties on 9/11 had one of my flights on my monthly schedule been a transcontinental flight from Boston or New York to the west coast on the 11th of September. Very few people know that, while only four airliners crashed that day, four more were targeted, and two of them were Delta flights. The only reason these four weren't involved is because they either had minor maintenance problems which delayed them at the gate or they were scheduled to depart after the FAA decided to ground all flights. Theirs are the pilots and flight attendants who REALLY dodged the bullet that day, and my faith in a higher power is restored as a result.

I will see United 93 when I get the chance, and I will probably enjoy the movie for its realness and historical significance, but forgive me if I do not embrace the Muslim world for the rest of my life. The Islamic world is no friend of the West, and although we may be able to get along with their governments in the future, the stated goal of Islam is world conquest through Jihad and it is the extremist Jihadists, backed and funded by "friendly" Muslim governments, whom we have to fear the most. We must have a presence in the Middle East, and we must have friends in the Middle East, even if we have to fight wars to get them. Only someone who has dodged a bullet can fully appreciate that fact.

Best to all,
Pat Gilmore

Editor's Note: For some reason which is beyond me, some people do not want to believe this. Perhaps they do not want to believe that Jihadist terrorism actually exists, because if someone doesn't believe it yet, they never will. Capt. Gilmore himself posted this comment, in our comments below, but I will put it here for all to see:

I assure you this letter is true. As to the fact that I wrote that a holder of an Airline Transport Pilot rating (ATP) must be a US citizen, I admit that I was mistaken here. I had always assumed so, because that's what I had heard, so I looked up the requirements for an ATP just now. There is nothing that says that US citizenship is required. Okay, I'll bite the bullet on that one. I received my ATP back in 1975 and now that I think of it I do not remember having to prove my citizenship. However, the rest of the story is true. As for my airline career, I worked for Western Airlines (who merged with Delta in 1987), Jet America Airlines (who was bought by Alaska Airlines in 1988), and Delta Airlines, as well as a few "fly by night" cargo airlines during my furlough period from Western from 1981 - 1985. I also flew in Vietnam as a transport pilot and retired from the USAF Reserve in 1991 after the Gulf War. I have 21,500+ flight hours in T-41, T-37, T-38, C-141/L-300, CE-500, CV-440, MD-80/82, B-727, B-737, B-757, and B-767 aircraft, all logged between 1970 and 2005 when I retired from Delta.

Trust me, folks, this was real. I must admit I am quite surprised that my letter made it this far on the internet. The letter was nothing more than an innocent reply to a group of friends, one of whom sent me a similar letter from another Delta pilot who had been flying the morning of 9/11 and who had experienced the flying that day for himself. His letter had detailed his thoughts as he viewed the movie "United 93", and he also told in detail how he had been diverted to Knoxville when the FAA shut down the airspace. My friend had asked me if I had known of any other similar experiences, so I wrote him what I had encountered myself a few months before. This was my letter to him.

Another retired Delta captain contacted me yesterday after reading this blog and related an experience his wife had on a flight from Portland, OR to Atlanta in August 2001, just a week or so after my experience with Atta. She was riding on a company pass and seated in First Class. A person of "Middle Eastern" descent had sought permission to sit on the cockpit jump seat, but was denied access by the captain because he did not have an FAA Medical certificate. She said he ranted and raved because he couldn't ride the cockpit jump seat, even though there were three empty seats in First Class, which the captain offered him. What pilot in his right mind would refuse a First Class seat over a cramped cockpit jump seat? He stormed off the aircraft and they left him at the gate. You see, mine wasn't the only experience leading up to 9/11.

Delta Airlines Corporate Security even contacted me a few days ago to ask if I had, indeed written this letter. I wrote them back that I had. They were worried that someone was using my name without my knowledge. I assured them I was the author.

Keep the faith, and don't let the bastards get you down.
Pat Gilmore

adspar response:

I had never heard about the 9/11 hijackers doing these kinds of dry runs. Interesting stuff, thanks for forwarding it!

I want to respond though to the political points this pilot discusses. This was an emotional story even just for me reading it, so I can't even begin to imagine the emotion the pilot must feel about the situation he's been through, and terrorism in general. He has his feelings and his opinions, and he's entitled to them.

But I can't help but notice that nothing in what he writes is actually an evidence-based argument in favor of the Iraq war as the most appropriate strategy for combating terrorism. The pilot simply writes that because of his traumatic experience, he has taken a "rah-rah-shoot-em-up" approach and that he appreciates that the "administration is at least taking the bull by the horns and fighting our enemies, which is something concrete that I can appreciate." He even acknowledges that maybe its because of how he dodged a bullet that he has no tolerance for debate of the issues.

In other words, he says that he's angry about how he could have been the one killed, angry at having to be humiliated, and he wants to hit someone back. I certainly understand that emotion, and I think we all can understand it.

But hopefully we also understand that reasonable foreign policy shouldn't be formulated by someone in a state of anger wishing to hit back. Making decisions about how to use our military, how to risk the lives of our soldiers, shouldn't be made in a state of anger, in a thirst for revenge. Calm, rational minds are needed to make difficult decisions.

Interestingly, the pilot even writes "right or wrong, this administration is at least taking the bull by the horns and fighting our enemies." Right or wrong? He seems to be saying that even if what they're doing is wrong, he's just happy they're doing something concrete. While I respect the man for what he's been through, I can't respect an attitude that doing something wrong is preferable to doing nothing at all.

He makes the point that "political correctness" is no reason to oppose a war, and I strongly agree. But there are many other reasons to oppose the war, and there aren't any serious politicians, pundits, or other commentators who would genuinely argue that a reason not to be at war is because we should respect Islam or because we shouldn't unfairly target Middle Eastern people, or any of those kinds of sensitivities we usually call political correctness. I don't know if this pilot thinks that political correctness is the only reason people oppose war, but if he does, he's wrong. And those other reasons for opposing war need to be strongly considered, not just dismissed because we're (understandably) angry about what happened.

Please note that nothing I've said here is voicing support for, or opposition to, the Iraq (or Afghanistan for that matter) war. I'm simply pointing out that ____'s email is simply an interesting story about one man's experience. It is in no way is a reasoned argument in favor of war, nor is it a reasoned rebuttal of any serious anti-war arguments.

3 comments:

The Monitors said...

This engineer I met through one of our committees had an interesting story relating to this. I heard it back in August after a few glasses of wine so my memory is tested on details.

In short, he had traveled from the Southwest, where he lives, to Boston on business for the day. And planned to fly back home that evening. He got a call from a tech firm out in the LA area that he consults for telling him that they needed him out there as soon as possible. So, he changed his itinerary and booked a flight from Boston Logan -> LAX.

His flight to Boston ended up getting in very late, and so he didn't have time to meet with who he intended to. The firm in LA insisted that he finish his business in Boston, and eventually persuaded him to stay in Boston an extra day and then fly out the evening of the 11th; they would cover the flight change fee.

It turns out that the flight on which he was booked was one of the two flights from Logan -> LAX that was flown into the twin towers on Sept 11. So in other words, he was really, really, really, really lucky.

He told me he couldn't sleep for several days, and would just lie in bed completely mindfucked (my words, not his).

Aside from that intriguing anecdote, I agree with you that analyzing this big bowl of shit going on in the Middle East scientifically--that is, calmly and rationally--would be great and ideal. As one of those science-minded people, I understand where you're coming from. What you need to understand is that there is not always the luxury of time to seek a rational and calm approach to complex issues. If every time somebody needed to make any decision they were to sit down with a big committee and go through every single detail ad infinitum then nothing would ever get done, and that's worse than occasionally making bad decisions.

Besides, just because you've made a supposedly rational decison doesn't mean it will agree with what actually transpires, since forces out of your control exist in perpetuity. You can consider every factor imaginable, and then there will be a completely surprising event that throws your careful calculations completely off the track.

[ASIDE: Interestingly, no one is more guily of this (that I ahve encountered) than scientists. When a group of scientists wants build something expensive, it takes a mindblowing fuckload of planning, engineering, committee engineering, and budget planning to get it into the queue for construction. And since so much money is on the line, a big perturbation to their plans often leaves their big project cancelled.

An example: (1) the Superconducting Super Collider was a ~$4B project in Texas. It was approved, construction began, they dug a huge circular hole in the ground, then the project leaders thought it would be a good idea to change the bore size of the beam cavity by a quarter inch. This added a billion dollars and the project was cancelled by Congress.]

Your argument seems to be that emotion and thinking off-the-cuff will more likely yield a bad decision, and rationally and calmly examining in detail a decision is more likely to yield a good decision than in the previous case. Well then what is emotion? It's a shortcut response to your ideal case in which you have infinite time to make every decision. It happens very often that decisions need to be made immediately or quickly with imperfect information; in fact, there is no such thing as perfect information, you already know that though. I've read several articles that suggest that an individual's "instinctual," or emotional decisions are very often correct. This makes sense from an evolutionary psychology/biology standpoint.

All in all, realize that, in the real world, quick decisions need to be made on extremely important issues without good information. And if one removes emotion from every decision one makes, not only is one going to make a lot of stupid decisions, but one deprives oneself of one's humanity.

I'm not referring directly to the Iraq war, in particular, by the way. This is more of an abstraction.

chuck zoi said...

"What you need to understand is that there is not always the luxury of time to seek a rational and calm approach to complex issues. If every time somebody needed to make any decision they were to sit down with a big committee and go through every single detail ad infinitum then nothing would ever get done, and that's worse than occasionally making bad decisions."

No doubt, I'm with you. And in simple situations in everyday life, or even in complex situations that require swift response, one usually has no choice but to act quickly, even if that means making decisions under the fog of emotion.

"Your argument seems to be that emotion and thinking off-the-cuff will more likely yield a bad decision, and rationally and calmly examining in detail a decision is more likely to yield a good decision than in the previous case."

Quick, emotionally-influenced decisions are more likely to be bad than calm, rational decisions. I think we're on the same page if you realize that I mean this comparitively, by which I mean I haven't stated any position on whether I think an emotional decision is more likely to be bad than good, only that it is less likely to be good than a more measured decision.

"Well then what is emotion? It's a shortcut response to your ideal case in which you have infinite time to make every decision. It happens very often that decisions need to be made immediately or quickly with imperfect information; in fact, there is no such thing as perfect information, you already know that though. I've read several articles that suggest that an individual's "instinctual," or emotional decisions are very often correct. This makes sense from an evolutionary psychology/biology standpoint."

I'm with you 100%. To illustrate a situation though in which an emotional response might be bad, consider perhaps if you're physically assualted by a smaller man than you. You might be tempted to hit him back, which would be a reasonable strategy in some situations. But if he has 6 huge friends nearby and you're all alone, your hot temper could lead to a major strategic blunder.

Also I'd point out one of my recurring themes, which is that we evolved to fit in a world that no longer exists. Are emotions are pretty well fine-tuned to be effective in the African savannah 30,000 years ago, but I they probably aren't as effective in an office in Washington D.C.




Anyway I think we both realize that my only point with my response to the story was that the pilot hadn't made any kind of rational case to support a war. All he said was "hit them back because I'm pissed."

A point you raise that is important, one that I didn't address, is that there could truly be some virture in his idea that it is best to act in a concrete way "right or wrong." My reaction to that idea though is that the only thing is does is make me feel less inclined to think someone who chooses wrong is deserving of punishment. In other words, someone who rushes to war might have made a terrible mistake but it was an honest mistake, and so he might be incompetent, but he isn't a criminal.

Does that make sense?

(again everything I'm saying here is an abstraction, and not my specific opinion on specific real world events)

Anonymous said...

The email is a fake. The alleged pilot's medical expired June 2005, but the writer of the letter claims he retired in May 2006.