YOUR TURN, NH: Armed pilots are a better defense than sky marshals

Union Leader ^ | June 23 2002 | KURT WOLZ

[JoeGar]

The problem with this approach is that it makes too much sense, costs too little, and would be too effective to ever be considered by our inept government bureaucrats and Congressmen.

[leadpenny]

Good question. More guns=safer flights. Heck, if flight attendants want to be armed, and go through prescribed training, they should be armed on a case-by-case basis. Again, the flying public (and would-be terrorists) should just assume there are firearms on airplanes.

[cannonball]

So the bad guys win at least a partial victory by killing some number of passengers. Since they (the bad guys) are prepared to die anyway, what happens on the ground becomes irrelevant.

[cannonball]

"Again, the flying public (and would-be terrorists) should just assume there are firearms on airplanes."

Yep, but I would add to that - and they (the would be terrorists) don't know who has them.

[leadpenny]

Most definitely. Only armed personnel know where other armed personnel are. Regular passengers don't need to know specifics. For the terrorist, they should be thinking, "Do I feel lucky?"

[PoppingSmoke]

"First of all, where on the airplane will the sky marshal sit? In which class? When is the right time for him to jump into action against the one, three or five terrorists? How does he know how many there really are?"

These are some good questions. The pilot makes a decent argument and I do not totally disagree. However, either the pilot is a novice at what it takes to secure an aircraft, which is my fear with allowing pilots to intervene in the cabin or is just pushing his own agenda. To protect an aircraft take a total security concept, which starts on the ground at check in, then the gate folk, then the ground crews and then the on board security folk which includes the cockpit. It does not work when one of these job tasks is not up to speed or not in place. Meaning, if the check in folk fail the threat potential increases. If the ground crew fails, the threat potential increases. If there is no sky marshal and only the pilots are armed, the threat potential increases. Remember it’s a total security concept.

EL AL has a total security concept in all of its aircraft. Depending on the model EL AL aircraft determines the size of the security force. You would be surprised how many security folk it takes to protect a 747 (forget it, that something I will not give away). EL AL Security folk take on different identities on board. Some are passengers, some are flight attendants and in some cases some are even pilots. There are pre-plans for almost every conceivable incident. Security is placed on board so that there are overlapping fields of fire. Where the security folk have total coverage. Communications is operational; in some cases CCTV is operational overlooking the passenger compartment. The flight deck is also part of this total security concept as well. A total security concept.

Not one, two or the pilot armed. This type of security is doomed to fail.

However EL AL has nowhere near the size fleet that we have. In any one given day we have some 60,000 flights. We have yet nowhere near the amount of Sky Marshals it would take to protect each and every flight. Arming just the pilot sounds great. In reality it's meaningless.

Now if we deploy a total security concept on board an aircraft I have no problem with the cockpit having a weapon to protect the cockpit only. NOT GET INVOLVED IN THE CABIN.

Lastly this also does not mean that a pilot should be CCW permitted. The Weapon would be pre-arranged on board for the flight deck and then be returned to security after the flight is over.

There is a heck of a lot more to securing an aircraft and protecting the flight crews and flying public than just arming a pilot.

[leadpenny]

Why go through this hoop jumping routine? Just let the pilots carry a gun and be done with it. No need for this "check in" and "check out" dog and pony show.

I was thinking of what the public might buy. I don't have a problem with pilots carrying all the time.

[2Trievers]

AMEN! &;-)

[SauronOfMordor]

So the bad guys win at least a partial victory by killing some number of passengers. Since they (the bad guys) are prepared to die anyway, what happens on the ground becomes irrelevant.

Terrorists, even martial-arts-trained terrs, armed with just improvised blades, are not going to be all that effective against 100 other passengers charging them to prevent another 9/11

If they've no reasonable expectation of victory, it would make more sense for them to forget about planes and switch to planting bombs in malls

[steve-b]

From today's Nealz Nuze:

So …why is this such an extraordinary story? Think about it for a minute. Just what does a Postal Inspector do? Inspect mail fraud? Try to figure out which postal employees might be pilfering things from the mail? Track down neighborhood criminals who put "Will mow your lawn for $10.00" notices in federal controlled mailboxes? Face it, these guys aren't exactly Clancy material, but they're allowed to carry handguns on commercial airliners -- and the pilots can't? Some Postal Inspector on the way to Sioux Falls to arrest a postal employee who has been ripping centerfolds out of Penthouse magazines can carry a gun on the airplane --- but the man in the front left seat who is responsible for the safety of the flight cannot? Have we gone nuts?

This has prompted me to try to gather a list of the various government employees who are permitted to carry firearms. It’s not a quick job, but we're working on it. Here are some tasty little facts. Smithsonian curators can carry guns. Airline pilots cannot. Agriculture Inspectors can carry guns. Airline pilots cannot. Some Park Service employees can carry guns. Airline pilots cannot.

[2Trievers]

Thanks Steve &;-)