In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
So long as cockpit is secure, hijacked airliner ca
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
So long as cockpit is secure, hijacked airliner can't be turned into weapon
Roger Simon July 28, 2002
The best thing about flying JetBlue Airways recently was not the cheap price, the clean plane or the live satellite TV at each seat. No, it was the sign on the cockpit door.
It read: "Reinforced Armor Plated Door. Locked from Inside Cockpit Only."
And the flight attendant got on the loudspeaker just before we took off and reminded us the cockpit door was armor plated and could not be opened unless someone inside the cockpit opened it.
This is more than just another sign of post-Sept. 11 America. This is a sign of good thinking.
And it is much better, much safer thinking than what Congress is considering: giving guns to airline pilots.
To me, it is pretty simple - thousands of people would be alive if the Sept. 11 terrorists were not able to gain access to cockpits. Solution? Make the cockpits impregnable. I don't know of an airline that has done this yet, but why not reconfigure the front of the planes so the cockpit crew can have a separate washroom so they never have to leave their safety zone.
That way, nobody can take control of the plane. Yes, they can potentially wreak havoc on the passengers and flight crew, but that is far better than killing everybody as well as flying the plane into a high-rise building, a bridge, the White House, a baseball stadium, etc.
If you want to get even safer, let the cockpit crew monitor what is happening through cameras and microphones, so they can take action to render hijackers in the aisles harmless. (Flipping the plane over, diving, etc. Pilots say any number of maneuvers would be effective.)
Why, then, do some people, including some pilots, want guns? "As a last line of defense," they keep saying.
They say airport security still stinks - this is true - and that armed pilots could save everybody if, for instance, terrorists got plastic explosives aboard the plane and blew open that armored cockpit door. I think that is less likely to happen, however, then a pilot with a gun and a John Wayne complex barging out to save the day, hijackers overpowering him, perhaps using his own gun against him, then gaining access to the cockpit where they turn the plane into a guided missile.
Arming anyone who is not a law-enforcement officer is a problem and potential disaster. Pilots have a lot to do just flying. And even if they get good training - and how much good training do airport security screeners seem to have? - there is still going to be the problem of lost guns, dropped guns, the accidental discharge of guns and, of course, shooting the wrong people.
President Bush opposes arming pilots, but the House recently passed a bill by a 310 to 113 approving it. A similar bill is now before the Senate.
We can only hope it will be defeated there. We do not need any more guns in airports.
Roger Simon writes for U.S. News and World Report. His column is distributed by Creators Syndicate, 5777 W. Century Blvd., Los Angeles 90045. His e-mail address is WriteRoger@aol.com.
cNew Haven Register 2002
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=4880429&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=7581&rfi=6
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Roger Simon July 28, 2002
The best thing about flying JetBlue Airways recently was not the cheap price, the clean plane or the live satellite TV at each seat. No, it was the sign on the cockpit door.
It read: "Reinforced Armor Plated Door. Locked from Inside Cockpit Only."
And the flight attendant got on the loudspeaker just before we took off and reminded us the cockpit door was armor plated and could not be opened unless someone inside the cockpit opened it.
This is more than just another sign of post-Sept. 11 America. This is a sign of good thinking.
And it is much better, much safer thinking than what Congress is considering: giving guns to airline pilots.
To me, it is pretty simple - thousands of people would be alive if the Sept. 11 terrorists were not able to gain access to cockpits. Solution? Make the cockpits impregnable. I don't know of an airline that has done this yet, but why not reconfigure the front of the planes so the cockpit crew can have a separate washroom so they never have to leave their safety zone.
That way, nobody can take control of the plane. Yes, they can potentially wreak havoc on the passengers and flight crew, but that is far better than killing everybody as well as flying the plane into a high-rise building, a bridge, the White House, a baseball stadium, etc.
If you want to get even safer, let the cockpit crew monitor what is happening through cameras and microphones, so they can take action to render hijackers in the aisles harmless. (Flipping the plane over, diving, etc. Pilots say any number of maneuvers would be effective.)
Why, then, do some people, including some pilots, want guns? "As a last line of defense," they keep saying.
They say airport security still stinks - this is true - and that armed pilots could save everybody if, for instance, terrorists got plastic explosives aboard the plane and blew open that armored cockpit door. I think that is less likely to happen, however, then a pilot with a gun and a John Wayne complex barging out to save the day, hijackers overpowering him, perhaps using his own gun against him, then gaining access to the cockpit where they turn the plane into a guided missile.
Arming anyone who is not a law-enforcement officer is a problem and potential disaster. Pilots have a lot to do just flying. And even if they get good training - and how much good training do airport security screeners seem to have? - there is still going to be the problem of lost guns, dropped guns, the accidental discharge of guns and, of course, shooting the wrong people.
President Bush opposes arming pilots, but the House recently passed a bill by a 310 to 113 approving it. A similar bill is now before the Senate.
We can only hope it will be defeated there. We do not need any more guns in airports.
Roger Simon writes for U.S. News and World Report. His column is distributed by Creators Syndicate, 5777 W. Century Blvd., Los Angeles 90045. His e-mail address is WriteRoger@aol.com.
cNew Haven Register 2002
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=4880429&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=7581&rfi=6
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
By EDWARD WONG
IVEN the tightening of aviation security, a short hop in the friendly skies could soon feel like a trip through the Wild West on a Wells Fargo stagecoach. Federal marshals are riding shotgun. Members of Congress want to see pilots carrying guns. The government is putting armed guards at ticket counters and other crowded areas in airports following the July 4 shooting in Los Angeles International Airport that ended in three deaths.
Advertisement
But some social scientists and risk assessment experts say there is a point at which there is too much security, too many well-intentioned men and women parading around with weapons in an effort to stave off an invisible danger. Many Americans certainly say there is a real need to increase protection around the country's airline system, perhaps more so than in any other facet of daily life. Still, a system designed to reassure people can actually strike fear in them.
"At some point, if an airport looks like an encampment, the balance will probably be tipped in the direction of increasing fear," said Barry Glassner, a professor of sociology at the University of Southern California and the author of "The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things." "In general, the more obvious the safety precautions in the environment, the more we think the place is unsafe. The question that has to be asked is: Can security be increased in a way that is beneficial without increasing levels of fear and anxiety that deter people from traveling?"
The tipping point at which security creates higher levels of anxiety seems to depend on how much danger people think they are in, and if they are used to seeing security in that environment. For example, residents of neighborhoods where the government undertakes an environmental cleanup often become even more nervous when they see workers walking around in silver biohazard suits, said Paul Slovic, a professor of psychology at the University of Oregon. In those situations, people are witnessing a high-level security measure in their own backyard, a place they assumed was safe.
Similar fears often afflict travelers in foreign lands who arrive unaware of the local dangers or culture of security and become nervous when they see armed guards or soldiers. Many Americans traveling in Western Europe in the 1990's, when incidents of terrorism were relatively rife there, were taken aback by soldiers patrolling airports and subway stations.
Despite recent events, American airports and airplanes have not reached a red-alert level, and so many travelers still expect some sense of "normality" when they catch a flight. That is, after all, what the White House wants Americans to feel, and air travel for many people still means going on vacation and relaxing.
Some security experts say an invisible wall of security, like that set up in casinos, could help alleviate anxiety and inconvenience. This would include a heavy reliance on surveillance cameras and undercover guards. It could also mean an increased use of profiling, which itself points to instances in which security seems to do more harm than good, at least from the perspective of many Muslim, black and Hispanic men.
But the argument against having an invisible security system is that visible measures might act as a deterrent, even if they heighten anxiety.
Most businesses that rely on continuation of a leisure mindset might balk at the levels of security now required of airports and airlines. Rare is the department store that would choose to broadcast messages saying that bombs are not allowed. It is no surprise, then, that many airline executives, in an effort to preserve their bottom line, have been berating the government for creating tough security measures that they say are driving passengers away for various reasons.
Besides stirring up paranoia, concentrating security in one area can turn other sites into attractive targets, some security experts say. The widening of the security perimeter often just displaces the danger zone to the area right outside the perimeter. For example, the tightening of security at the X-ray checkpoints in airports has made the crowded ticketing areas attractive targets, and the addition of guards to those counters could move the bulls-eye farther out, to the parking lot.
"I'm not sure if we put more police officers out, that will be an improvement," said John D. Woodward Jr., a former operative with the Central Intelligence Agency who works as a senior policy analyst for the Rand Corporation, focusing on national defense. "You just can't protect everything. If you're moving out the perimeter, you're providing targets elsewhere. And you have to ask what are the acceptable risks we can live with."
Some psychologists also argue that while security overkill may in fact decrease anxiety, it can at the same time create a false sense of complacency. Social psychologists point out that humans are prone to what is called diffuse responsibility or bystander apathy behavior, which explains why witnesses of a volatile situation often stand around and do nothing: they think other people, especially those with authority, will act.
For example, passengers witnessing a hijacking might not take action if they know a federal marshal or armed pilot is nearby. Creating complacency obviously becomes even more dangerous if the people carrying out the security are incompetent. Jeff Schlanger, the chief operating officer of security services at Kroll Associates, an international risk assessment group, said he believes that airport security workers are not properly trained to identify suspicious behavior, so their presence should not be as comforting as people think.
IN fact, the Transportation Security Administration, which oversees airport security, recently conducted tests where they found that privately contracted screeners missed fake weapons smuggled by undercover agents in a quarter of the trials. "A lot of security measures are giving us a false sense of security," said Jeff L. Greenberg, a professor of social psychology at the University of Arizona and co-author of the coming book "In the Wake of 9-11: The Psychology of Terror."
But the level of security that people are psychologically able to accept changes as crisis situations wax and wane. In the current climate of unpredictability, and especially if another terrorist attack takes place, Americans might decide there is no such thing as too much security. Extreme protective measures cannot heighten one's anxiety if fear already rules the day.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/28/weekinreview/28WONG.html
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Permissions | Privacy Policy
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Both are pressing Congress to allow pilots to carry guns.
COX NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON - The National Rifle Association and the nation's airline pilots are waging parallel but equally aggressive campaigns to bring guns into the cockpit.
Uniformed pilots are roaming Capitol Hill, visiting lawmakers and their staffs, dismantling what they say are the myths about guns in airplanes. One pilot union has devised a slogan for the effort: "Qualified to Fly. Qualified to Defend." The phrase is featured on posters, along with a pilot's silhouette against an American flag.
The NRA is doing what it does best - using the power of its nearly 4 million members.
The gun rights group has sent letters and e-mails across the country urging the rank-and-file to contact members of Congress and urge them to support arming pilots. The NRA's magazine has focused on the issue for months and the group has placed newspaper ads in the Washington, D.C.-area urging Congress to act.
"We've talked to the administration. We've talked to the Congress. We've talked to everyone," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president. "It's a priority."
LaPierre said he has appeared on 35 radio shows and several network television programs to promote arming pilots. The NRA has been involved in the issue since the days following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, he said.
"We have been besieged with calls from commercial airline pilots asking for our help," he said. "I don't know how you look at what happened on Sept. 11 and you don't wish that those pilots had a firearm to give them a chance."
LaPierre said that House and Senate votes on arming pilots will surely make it on the NRA "report card" mailed to members before the fall elections as a voting guide.
In addition, NRA officials said they may also send separate mailings to the home states of senators who oppose legislation to arm pilots.
Pilots take different route
Stephen Luckey, who chairs a security committee for the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), said that pilots are working on a different campaign to reach the same goal.
"We try to keep this separate from the Second Amendment," said Luckey, whose union represents more than 67,000 pilots.
Arming pilots is more of "a national security initiative" to allow pilots to have "a desperately needed piece of emergency equipment," he said.
In addition, he said that airline pilots "have never put more energy into anything" and that he senses "a tremendous momentum" on the issue.
Luckey, who has testified before Congressional committees on firearms in the cockpit, knows a lot about pilots and guns.
In the mid-1970s, he was among a group of pilots allowed to carry guns on commercial flights because of fears of planes being hijacked to Cuba.
"I thought it was necessary to be armed then, and I believe that it is even more necessary for qualified and properly trained pilots to be armed now," he said.
Despite some obstacles, the one-two punch of the NRA and the pilots seems to be working.
The House overwhelmingly passed a measure earlier this month to allow thousands of pilots to become federal law enforcement officers, and the White House has recently back-tracked in its opposition to arming pilots.
But the Senate is a tougher sell.
In particular, Sen. Ernest Hollings, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, strongly opposes the bill. Hollings says that safety efforts should focus on sealing the cockpit for the duration of the flight. Impenetrable doors would nullify any need for weapons, he says.
Widow lobbies for approval
The South Carolina Democrat went so far as to decline a request from the widow of a pilot who died on Sept.11 to testify in favor of arming pilots before his committee.
Ellen Saracini, wife of Victor Saracini, who died on United flight 175, which crashed into the World Trade Center, said that her husband supported having guns in the cockpit.
"My husband always was very safety conscious. He was familiar with guns and felt at ease with them and thought that it would be something that pilots should have," she said.
In addition, she criticized lawmakers who oppose the initiative.
"I'm amazed because they haven't come up with one other avenue to take that would protect everybody 100 percent," she said.
Saracini, who contacted a pilots group to offer her help, is lobbying for a Senate version of the House bill. She has appeared on television shows, visited Congressional offices and spoken at a press conference on Capitol Hill with Sen. Zell Miller, a Georgia Democrat who co-sponsored the legislation.
La Pierre, who had sent a letter to Hollings urging him to let Saracini testify, said he was disappointed at the senator's reluctance.
One way, suggested by Sen. Robert Smith, R-N.H., is to attach the measure to a large spending bill or to one that establishes a new homeland security department. The latter is expected to hit the Senate floor next week.
Al Aitken, a United Airlines pilot and spokesman for the Allied Pilots Association, said that the measure would pass, if brought to a vote.
"We believe we have well over 60 supporters in the Senate," said Aitken, whose union represents about 14,300 pilots.
Smith has some unusual allies in his push to allow pilots to carry guns, including Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who usually favors gun control.
Boxer said she supports the bill because of the lack of progress in revamping airport security and concern that the number of federal sky marshals on planes is too low.
On the House side, surprise votes in favor of arming pilots included Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., who became a leading advocate for gun control after her husband was killed and son wounded in a 1993 shooting on a commuter train.
Some gun control advocates say lawmakers are making emotional decisions instead of thinking about the possible consequences of arming pilots.
"The hijacker is going to assume there is a gun on the plane. He's going to be very intent on getting that gun away or bringing his own gun to match the firepower," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, a Washington-based gun control group.
http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/pilotsnra28.htm
__________________________________
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
The fact that 1 out of 4 attempts to sneak a weapon through airport security is still successful has helped revive the idea of letting pilots carry guns.
E-mail this story
Write a letter to the Editor
Printer-friendly version
Related stories:
07/12/02
House OKs guns in the cockpit, but battle still looms
10/31/01
Consumer trust hangs on aviation security bill
monitortalk:
Weigh in on the latest news in our online discussion forums.
Give your view.
The GOP-run House passed a bill this month authorizing it, even though the White House has been against it. Now Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, and others, are starting to backpedal on the issue. No wonder. Arming pilots is an idea supported by the National Rifle Association.
The NRA gave a whopping $1.2 million to candidates and parties in support of gun rights (93 percent to Republicans) in the last election. This strong lobby says it plans to talk to every senator about supporting the bill to arm pilots, and that it will keep close track of the vote on the issue.
In NRA logic, a pilot is just another member of the "militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms. The NRA, and other supporters of the bill, can't be satisfied with the better idea of using trained air marshals to act as deterrents. Yes, that extra manpower would cost more, but incognito marshals would be better shots and less likely to harm passengers.
And with new safety measures in place next year - better screening of passengers and baggage, for instance, and reinforced cockpit doors - would-be terrorists will think twice about repeating Sept. 11. Al Qaeda, the main threat, has probably already moved on to plans not involving planes.
A poll conducted by the Air Line Pilots Association, which represents 66,000 pilots, found that 73 percent of its members favored guns in cockpits. That's despite the group's worry that many pilots wouldn't take the lengthy gun training.
A pilot's job is to fly, not be a deputy Wyatt Earp protecting the cockpit in a packed fuselage. If pilots have guns, then why not bus drivers, school guards, and other people controlling large crowds?
Guns in the cockpit raise too many "what ifs." The Violence Policy Center notes that 21 percent of police officers killed with a handgun are shot with their own weapon. Two pilots were recently fired for being intoxicated just before they were about to fly. A would-be terrorist who knows a pilot has a gun may be tempted to somehow take it away. If a gun is fired in the cockpit, instrumentation could be damaged or destroyed and bring down the plane. (Airlines worry about their liability in such a situation.) Even Israel's airline, El Al, doesn't arm its pilots, and it's been very successful at preventing hijackings.
One alternative is nonlethal weapons such as stun guns or Spider-Man-type devices that shoot webs to entangle criminals. In the meantime, senators shouldn't be politically pistol-whipped into giving pilots guns.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0726/p10s01-comv.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878