Posted on 05/21/2002 7:34:17 AM PDT by Cagey
WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal government said Tuesday that pilots will not be allowed to have guns in the cockpits of commercial airplanes.
The announcement was made at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing by John Magaw, undersecretary for transportation security. It followed months of debate over whether arming pilots would be a deterrent to hijackers.
Both Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge previously indicated their opposition to arming pilots.
Magaw gave no reason for his decision, which was announced in response to a question from Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the committee.
Airline pilots have been pushing for guns, saying it would allow them to confront a hijacker who breaks into the cockpit. Hijackers took over four commercial airlines on Sept. 11, crashing two of them into the World Trade Center and a third into the Pentagon. The fourth crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.
Flight attendants, meanwhile, have advocated nonlethal weapons, such as stun guns, that they could use in emergencies.
Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., who chairs the Commerce Committee, said guns would not be needed as long as pilots kept cockpit doors locked while in flight.
"You can put the rule in right now and cut out all the argument about pistols and stun guns," Hollings said.
Opponents of arming pilots have said reinforced cockpit doors now required on all planes mean that pistols are unnecessary. They have also expressed concern that an errant shot might hit a passenger or damage a key electrical system on the plane.
Two House Republicans have introduced legislation to arm pilots and the House Transportation Committee is scheduled to take up the bill this week.
Thank goodness Sen. Hollings is watching over this situation. < /sarcasm> What a jackass
The Islamic terroists must be laughing their arses off.
Rebuttals to Arguments Against Arming Pilots
It has been our experience that the more an individual knows about ALPA’s proposal to arm pilots, the more likely they are to support it. We have found this to be true even within our own ranks. Those who are unfamiliar with our recommendations have raised several arguments against arming pilots that deserve to be addressed. Following are a few of the more commonly raised arguments against a flight deck protection program, and our answers to them.
Ø
New cockpit doors make arming of pilots unnecessary. The newly designed, enhanced-security doors that are required by the FAA are not yet installed on the U.S. airline fleet, and that task will not be completed until April 2003. Neither the current cockpit doors (with interim measures in place to strengthen them) nor the new cockpit doors are impenetrable, and we are convinced that a team of trained terrorists could well decide to prove that point. Furthermore, airliners will have only one hardened cockpit door – a door which must be opened during flight to enable the pilots to use the lavatory and gain access to the passenger cabin as required for other purposes. Any passageway into the cockpit, no matter how well fortified, still holds the potential of a threat to the flight deck.It is worth noting that the respected airline, El Al, uses two doors on all of its aircraft to protect the flight deck, along with a team of air marshals on each flight and an armed guard who protects an entrance zone in front of the door near the passengers. Per El Al procedures, the doors are never opened simultaneously to help ensure that unauthorized access to the flight deck is denied. While we strongly support the installation of a new, hardened flight deck door on U.S. aircraft as an additional layer of security, we should not fool ourselves into thinking that they are sufficient to protect the flight crew under all circumstances.
Ø The cost of arming and training pilots is too high. There is no question that there will be some expense associated with training pilots and equipping them with firearms. The program that we envision would require 48 hours of intensive training with recurrent proficiency training to be conducted at least annually. However, from the research that we have done on this issue, the cost of training and equipping pilots to carry firearms is the most efficient and cost-effective measure that the airlines can take to guard against further hijackings, bar none. In fact, these costs will be a mere fraction of the billions proposed for other, less effective security enhancements. The Young/Mica bill even proposes that the government pay the cost of training, which relieves the airlines from any cost concerns. Lastly, we must consider how many billions of dollars have been drained, and will be drained, from the national economy because airline pilots were not armed on September 11, 2001.
Ø Airlines face liability if an armed pilot makes a mistake. This concern was satisfactorily addressed by those airlines that allowed some of our members to fly armed for many years, when it was still permitted under the federal aviation regulations. We believe that the federal government’s deputization of federal flight deck officers will virtually eliminate this concern and place the liability burden on the government, where it belongs. We would also question whether airlines are prepared to face a charge of negligent liability for opting not to arm their pilots, should terrorists ever again assault another flight crew inadequately equipped to defend the flight deck of their aircraft. The bill under consideration provides for elimination of liability for both pilots and air carriers as part of the flight deck officer program.
Ø Pilots are too busy flying the aircraft to use a gun. Pilots are trained to do numerous tasks simultaneously – individuals who cannot do so are unable to become airline pilots. One of the tasks that they must be prepared to perform is using fire extinguishers if a fire breaks out in the cockpit, regardless of other pressing duties. A suggestion that pilots should ignore the fire and continue to fly the aircraft would be ludicrous; yet some have suggested that pilots should ignore terrorists breaking into the cockpit and continue to fly the aircraft. This is utter nonsense.
Ø An accidental discharge could damage the aircraft and/or injure someone.
This country made a decision approximately 40 years ago that use of firearms by airborne federal officers was necessary to protect against hijackings. Some of the arguments that have been raised against arming pilots must, to be consistent, also be raised against armed Federal Air Marshals (FAMs), namely: bullets could pierce the fuselage and cause rapid decompression; an accidental discharge could injure or kill someone; or, an aircraft system could be damaged by gunfire. We have, rightly so, made a decision to accept those potential outcomes as manageable risks because there is a need for an armed law enforcement presence onboard the aircraft. No one has more knowledge of what can happen on the aircraft, nor will anyone be more conscientious about using a firearm onboard, than the pilot.
Further, contrary to Hollywood movie depictions of aircraft exploding in midair as a result of the discharge of a firearm in the cabin, virtually no danger exists that multiple gunshots could cause rapid decompression of a transport-category aircraft. The shooting proficiency that we recommend for the flight deck officer program exceeds that of federal law enforcement agents in order to minimize the possibility of a stray round hitting an innocent passenger or crewmember. If a weapon did cause rapid decompression during a struggle for control of the aircraft, that event would pale in comparison to the plane crashing into a building and killing all on board.
Ø Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) on airliners make arming pilots unnecessary. ALPA is a strong supporter of the FAM program, and we envision the flight deck officer program as an extension of the FAMs. However, the number of FAMs is limited and will certainly never be sufficient to provide protection on each flight. A large band of terrorists could overpower the FAM team – difficult though that might be – and turn its attention to the flight deck, using the FAMs’ weapons. Ultimately, the flight crew must be able to defend the cockpit regardless of what other resources may be in the cabin.
Ø We need to keep guns out of airplanes. Incredibly, even a former high-ranking transportation official recently expressed this view on television. The truth is that law enforcement officers carry many weapons on our airplanes every day of the year with very few problems. Many of our members are former military and/or law enforcement officers who have defended this country and its neighborhoods using firearms. To suggest that these brave men and women should not be entrusted with lethal means to defend the flight deck against a lethal threat is, intentional or not, highly insulting to them. The argument to keep guns out of airplanes is also nullified by our nation’s decision to place armed FAMs on flights, as we have already said.
Ø No more terrorist attacks like those experienced on September 11th will occur. This sentiment is merely wishful thinking and cannot be substantiated. In fact, the intelligence community and the TSA strongly indicate that the threat to aviation is still very high.
And our borders and immigration policies will continue to be a national security nightmare and a national disgrace.
Ronald Reagan would have never forced the pilots to remain defenseless in the wake of 9/11.
I have worked with airline pilots for over 30 years for 3 different airlines. I am here to tell you that the only hope we have of protection while in flight is if the cockpit crew is armed. Hollings is a buffoon, without a single clue of what real life is like for an airline pilot. His theory might work for the shuttle flight between D.C. and New York City, but transcontinental and international flights are just a wee bit longer (smirk). Why in God's name even the 'Rats let this fool speak is beyond reason. Bin Laden must be having a real laugh over this one.
Compare this possible damage with the actual damage done when a missle is used to stop a hijacked airplane and you'll get an idea of how really concerned about us our fearless leaders are. Until the airlines demand armed pilots, I will continue to assume that they are not serious about passenger safety in any other aspect of flight.
And none of this keeping a derringer in a locked firebox in the cockpit. Make it shoulder holsters or cross-draw hip-belts that aren't blocked by the pilot's seat.
Our servants are in chaos and running amuk.
Then, they eventually retire with a full pension stolen from productive people under threat of force.
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.