Posted on 09/09/2002 3:46:56 AM PDT by kattracks
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - The airline pilots' group that proposed arming commercial airline pilots with handguns wants Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta fired for his opposition to the plan.
"Secretary Mineta's opposition to arming pilots is not based in reason, but is based upon an emotional and visceral aversion to firearms in the hands of anyone but federal agents," said Capt. Tracy Price, chairman of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance (APSA).
APSA began working almost immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks to promote measures authorizing properly trained pilots, who complete training and background checks, to carry handguns onboard their planes for self-defense.
Legislation to that effect, Sen. Bob Smith's (R-N.H.) Arming Pilots Against Terrorism and Cabin Defense Act of 2002 (S. 2554), was amended to homeland security legislation Thursday by a vote of 87 to 6.
The pilots' group also promoted similar legislation in the House, the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act (H.R. 4635), which passed July 10 by a vote of 310 to 113.
Mineta has consistently opposed arming pilots with any lethal weapons.
"I don't feel that we should have lethal weapons in the cockpit," he said at a March 4 press conference.
Mineta has also argued that implementing such a program would be cost prohibitive.
"I don't want to be in the position of having armed pilots and then all of the sudden facing a bill of $850-900 million in terms of the start-up costs, the training, getting the weapons for 85,000 pilots, and then doing the $250-$260 million in annual costs to do quarterly recurrent training," he told the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee July 25.
Price scoffed at the alleged costs.
"These figures are ridiculously over-inflated and Secretary Mineta knows it," he said. "Many highly-qualified firearms training institutions have said this training can be accomplished for less than $1,500 per pilot."
Assuming 60,000 of the 85,000 eligible pilots apply and pass a background investigation, Price estimated the actual costs for the program would be only $110 million, including the purchase price of the firearms. Annual re-certification costs would be one-tenth to one-fifth that amount.
Mineta's bias against firearms in civilian hands, Price speculated, is motivating his alleged inflation of cost estimates.
"He is attempting to undermine a highly cost-effective program that will provide real security to the traveling public," he said.
Price said Mineta should have stepped down from his post when Congress passed the first legislation to arm pilots, to which Mineta also objected.
"An honorable man would have resigned long ago," Price said. "It is time for President Bush to replace Secretary Mineta with a leader who ... will work in good faith with pilot groups to implement an armed pilot program."
Calls to the Department of Transportation requesting comment for this story were not returned.
Chronology of the Armed Pilot Debate
- November 19, 2001 - The House passed the Airport Security Federalization Act, giving Mineta the option to arm pilots and establishing minimum requirements for an armed pilot program.
- Nov. 20 - Pilots' unions wrote Mineta, offering their assistance in developing the training program mandated by the legislation.
- Dec. 7 - Reps. John Hostettler (R-Ind.) and Don Young (R-Alaska), chairman of the House Transportation Committee, launched a petition drive to move the issue forward. "The goal of the letter is to encourage the secretary, as he makes a decision in hiring an under secretary of transportation, to keep in mind what Congress put into law regarding the authorization of commercial pilots to carry firearms in the cockpits of their aircraft," Michael Jahr, spokesman for Hostettler, said.
- February 3-9, 2002 - a survey of members of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) showed 73 percent-supported "authorization of pilots who volunteer to be armed with firearms for defense of the flight deck."
- March 4 - Mineta continued to oppose arming pilots. "I've expressed a personal opinion on this ... I don't feel that we should have lethal weapons in the cockpit.
- April 29 - Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee, announced hearings into why the newly-created Transportation Security Administration (TSA) had not yet implemented the armed pilot program.
- May 1 - Mica and Young introduced legislation to make the armed pilots program mandatory.
- May 1 - White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe reiterated the administration's opposition to arming pilots. "We don't need to have a potential for handguns getting loose on airplanes," he said, claiming arming pilots "could create more danger than it eliminates."
- May 21 - Acting Undersecretary for Transportation Security John Magaw announced his opposition to the proposal: "After a lot consultation and realizing my experience in law enforcement, I will not authorize firearms in the cockpit."
- May 23 - Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.) introduced the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism and Cabin Defense Act, which would also create a mandatory armed pilot program.
- May 23 - The Law Enforcement Alliance of America, the nation's largest group of law enforcement officers and crime victims, announced its support of the armed pilots concept. LEAA Executive Director James Fotis said, "Undersecretary Magaw and Transportation Secretary Mineta need to put aside their anti-gun hysteria and listen to reason. Any security policy that culminates in allowing a military fighter jet to shoot down a jetliner full of innocent Americans certainly has room for a trained pilot armed with a handgun as an alternative."
- July 10 - The House passed the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act, mandating an armed pilot program, by a vote of 310 to 113.
- July 18 - Magaw, who had served as head of the Secret Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, before taking over the Transportation Security Administration, left the TSA "for health reasons." Adm. James Loy, retired commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, is named as Magaw's successor.
- July 19 - Ellen Saracini spoke on Capitol Hill in support of arming pilots. She is the widow of pilot Victor Saracini, who was killed when terrorists hijacked his United Airlines Flight 175 and flew it into Tower II of the World Trade Center. "Because the September 11th hijackers were armed with only box cutters, armed pilots would probably have been able to neutralize them before any significant loss of life took place ... Certainly, the possibility of commandeering the aircraft would have been significantly reduced."
- July 25 - Loy expressed reluctance over the issue. "I need to learn about this and get up the learning curve very quickly ... I can say that on the upshot, I'm hesitant, but I'm also being directed to conduct a review, and I will do that."
- Sept. 5 - The Senate passed the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism and Cabin Defense Act by a vote of 86 to 7.
E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
He's "hispanic".
I keep thinking of that loser air marshall who pulled a gun on a planeload of passengers due to a routine unruly passenger incident and wonder.
We simply assume that all pilots are in perfect emotional and psychological health. That may be a serious error.
There used to be an old saying about "when you're up to your ass in alligators..."
Initial reports have not been encouraging.
Right. We all have heard about the numerous planes crashed into the ground because of the pilots undergoing divorces and having emotional problems.
If we trust them to fly the planes, we can trust them to defend the cockpit.
You may well believe that Mineta travels with "an armed guard" when he flies, as does Bush. For the unwashed masses, to hell with them.
Of course all of the single-issue conservative voters who walked away from the polls when the liberal media called Florida for Gore helped a lot too! They allowed RATs to win squeakers out west.
That’s odd. Especially since everything I’ve read from the APSA centers around the pilot “volunteers” being “deputized” Federal Law Enforcement Officers.
"These figures are ridiculously over-inflated and Secretary Mineta knows it," he said. "Many highly-qualified firearms training institutions have said this training can be accomplished for less than $1,500 per pilot."
That’s also odd. The proposal that was accessible from the APSA website estimated initial costs at $1.2 billion, with an additional $200-something million yearly to maintain and oversee the program. I guess they have reached the point where they can’t remember what they want and when they proposed what. It doesn’t matter – they’ll just spout off ever-changing figures until the dupes fall for it.
A diaper headed hijacker in the cockpit IS a lethal weapon.
That’s an understatement. I’m not talking about an Air Marshal either; I’m talking about training scenarios that use armed pilots during takeover simulations.
People don’t seem to understand the demonstrated fact that if an attacker can get within four to five feet of you in an enclosed space you will never get the chance to draw your weapon. Well, you will get something on the order of a little less than 4%, but that decreases to 0% when you consider whether they actually got a chance to discharge a round.
A lot of people either haven’t thought things through clearly or don’t understand that training programs have been in the works since before the buildings fell on 9/11 and that the results using armed pilots have not been encouraging at all when faced with trained opponents.
I suspect a lot of them also thought throwing billions of dollars away federalizing the screeners was going to accomplish something too.
It’s not a trust issue. It’s an issue of spending a ton of money on a program that is “voluntary” and creates a semi-federalized private employee classification while accomplishing nothing.
If you want pilots to “defend” the cockpit you will have to seal them in like tuna in a can because trained attackers will overrun them whether they are armed or not if they can access them. They can still access them, BTW.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.