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.
Options
Todays "Arming Pilots" news( 5/30/02)
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Aviation safety experts cite big gaps in air marshals plan
Not enough agents on passenger jets and none on cargo flights
Thursday, May 30, 2002
BY MILES BENSON
NEWHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON -- Unless Congress reverses the decision, the government's denial of guns to airline pilots for cockpit protection means the last line of armed defense against terrorists aboard aircraft will be federal air marshals -- an elite, super-secret force of lawmen and -women too few to ride every flight.
From Our Advertisers
They may be the best of the best -- "like the Texas Rangers were 150 years ago," in the words of airline safety expert John J. Nance -- but it would take an army of 100,000 of them to adequately guard each of the 26,000 daily flights in the United States.
Nothing like that level of manpower is under consideration.
The actual number of people in the air marshal program, which is headquartered outside of Atlantic City, N.J., is secret.
The total number of personnel for which the new Transportation Security Administration is seeking congressional authorization is 67,000. But that includes the far more numerous passenger and baggage screeners; personnel responsible for port security, cruise ships and other maritime traffic; those responsible for pipelines; and administrators and supervisors.
The House of Representatives approved a total manpower level of only 45,000 for the entire TSA. Authorizing legislation is still pending in the Senate.
Meanwhile, industry officials worry about other holes in the air marshal concept.
Armed marshals are absent from planes operated by most foreign carriers flying in and out of the United States, although some nations -- including Canada and Australia -- have begun to use them, and Israel's El Al has long posted guards aboard every flight.
And no marshals are deployed on the thousands of daily U.S. air cargo flights using planes as big and dangerous as the ones hijacked and slammed into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center on Sept. 11.
"A loaded and fully fueled cargo 747 makes just as good a guided missile as a passenger jet," said John Mazor, spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association.
Many cargo planes routinely carry some passengers along with freight, Mazor said. Moreover, cargo terminals often have less ground security than passenger terminals and may be located in remote and unrestricted areas of the airport.
"That entire segment of the industry has been lost in the shuffle," Mazor said.
Nance, Mazor and other security experts say air marshals are just one element -- though a vital one -- of a multilayer defense system to protect aircraft.
Launched in the early 1970s in response to a series of hijackings, the air marshals, then called sky marshals, had both successes and failures.
In 1971, air marshals arrested a total of 18 individuals aboard airliners. But the same year, a gunman hijacked an American Airlines Boeing 747 to Havana despite the presence on board of three sky marshals and an FBI agent.
As bombings aboard airliners became more of a concern than hijackings, the federal security focus shifted and the sky marshals, whose authorized strength was once 1,200, shrank to a mere handful. Personnel were redeployed to screen for explosives.
The program was reborn in the aftermath of 9/11.
Law enforcement personnel were borrowed from other federal agencies, including the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Postal Service. The government said it was placing two or more air marshals aboard every flight in and out of Washington's Reagan National Airport.
The Transportation Security Administration also began an aggressive air marshal recruitment program, offering salaries that started at $31,000, rising to $80,000, and requiring 14 weeks of intensive training at an FAA facility near Atlantic City.
There, marshals practice shooting at paper targets and down narrow airplane aisles. They play out scenarios in which they have to stop knife-wielding terrorists and subdue unruly drunks.
Recently, the Transportation Security Administration allowed reporters to view a training demonstration. In some scenarios, the marshals used fake bullets. But on the job, the bullets are real. So marshals must be able to hit the target, no matter how cramped the quarters and how tough the shot.
"If we have to fire our guns, we are going to want to put the threat down -- hit to put them down," said Brad DeLauter, an air marshal firearms instructor.
As Tom Quinn, the Federal Air Marshal Service director, put it: "There's no backup on the way. They can't pick up the phone and call for a police cruiser. They have to deal with the situation and deal with it for a significant amount of time."
Recently, the TSA sent the borrowed agents back to their agencies and halted Internet recruiting for new air marshal candidates. "We had 200,000 applications," said agency spokeswoman Dierdre O'Sullivan. "We're no longer accepting applicants."
The government and the airline industry want to persuade potential hijackers that marshals could be present aboard any flight.
"Before 9/11, the entire federal air marshal force could fit into the first-class cabin of an L-1011," said Jack Daulton, vice president for security at Delta Airlines. "Today, you can hardly get a seat in first class anymore because it's full of air marshals."
But there aren't enough of them to cover every flight.
"They are a very limited presence, mostly on international flights," said Gary Burns, a spokesman for Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Transportation Subcommittee on Aviation and a leading backer of legislation to allow pilots to carry guns.
Mica's pending bill is intended to overturn a decision by TSA chief John Magaw, who recently ruled that pilots may not arm themselves. "It's not a new idea," Burns said. "The FBI and the Federal Aviation Administration and the airlines had allowed pilots to be armed since the '60s, but the rules lapsed last summer."
The bill to allow pilots again to carry guns has the support of the Air Line Pilots Association, with 62,000 members at 42 airlines.
"Air marshals are a very important part of the overall strategy," Mazor said. "However, everybody recognizes that there were never going to be enough of them to cover a majority of flights, let alone all of them."
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1022749918228071.xml
Star-Ledger staffer Judy DeHaven contributed to this report.
"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
Not enough agents on passenger jets and none on cargo flights
Thursday, May 30, 2002
BY MILES BENSON
NEWHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON -- Unless Congress reverses the decision, the government's denial of guns to airline pilots for cockpit protection means the last line of armed defense against terrorists aboard aircraft will be federal air marshals -- an elite, super-secret force of lawmen and -women too few to ride every flight.
From Our Advertisers
They may be the best of the best -- "like the Texas Rangers were 150 years ago," in the words of airline safety expert John J. Nance -- but it would take an army of 100,000 of them to adequately guard each of the 26,000 daily flights in the United States.
Nothing like that level of manpower is under consideration.
The actual number of people in the air marshal program, which is headquartered outside of Atlantic City, N.J., is secret.
The total number of personnel for which the new Transportation Security Administration is seeking congressional authorization is 67,000. But that includes the far more numerous passenger and baggage screeners; personnel responsible for port security, cruise ships and other maritime traffic; those responsible for pipelines; and administrators and supervisors.
The House of Representatives approved a total manpower level of only 45,000 for the entire TSA. Authorizing legislation is still pending in the Senate.
Meanwhile, industry officials worry about other holes in the air marshal concept.
Armed marshals are absent from planes operated by most foreign carriers flying in and out of the United States, although some nations -- including Canada and Australia -- have begun to use them, and Israel's El Al has long posted guards aboard every flight.
And no marshals are deployed on the thousands of daily U.S. air cargo flights using planes as big and dangerous as the ones hijacked and slammed into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center on Sept. 11.
"A loaded and fully fueled cargo 747 makes just as good a guided missile as a passenger jet," said John Mazor, spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association.
Many cargo planes routinely carry some passengers along with freight, Mazor said. Moreover, cargo terminals often have less ground security than passenger terminals and may be located in remote and unrestricted areas of the airport.
"That entire segment of the industry has been lost in the shuffle," Mazor said.
Nance, Mazor and other security experts say air marshals are just one element -- though a vital one -- of a multilayer defense system to protect aircraft.
Launched in the early 1970s in response to a series of hijackings, the air marshals, then called sky marshals, had both successes and failures.
In 1971, air marshals arrested a total of 18 individuals aboard airliners. But the same year, a gunman hijacked an American Airlines Boeing 747 to Havana despite the presence on board of three sky marshals and an FBI agent.
As bombings aboard airliners became more of a concern than hijackings, the federal security focus shifted and the sky marshals, whose authorized strength was once 1,200, shrank to a mere handful. Personnel were redeployed to screen for explosives.
The program was reborn in the aftermath of 9/11.
Law enforcement personnel were borrowed from other federal agencies, including the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Postal Service. The government said it was placing two or more air marshals aboard every flight in and out of Washington's Reagan National Airport.
The Transportation Security Administration also began an aggressive air marshal recruitment program, offering salaries that started at $31,000, rising to $80,000, and requiring 14 weeks of intensive training at an FAA facility near Atlantic City.
There, marshals practice shooting at paper targets and down narrow airplane aisles. They play out scenarios in which they have to stop knife-wielding terrorists and subdue unruly drunks.
Recently, the Transportation Security Administration allowed reporters to view a training demonstration. In some scenarios, the marshals used fake bullets. But on the job, the bullets are real. So marshals must be able to hit the target, no matter how cramped the quarters and how tough the shot.
"If we have to fire our guns, we are going to want to put the threat down -- hit to put them down," said Brad DeLauter, an air marshal firearms instructor.
As Tom Quinn, the Federal Air Marshal Service director, put it: "There's no backup on the way. They can't pick up the phone and call for a police cruiser. They have to deal with the situation and deal with it for a significant amount of time."
Recently, the TSA sent the borrowed agents back to their agencies and halted Internet recruiting for new air marshal candidates. "We had 200,000 applications," said agency spokeswoman Dierdre O'Sullivan. "We're no longer accepting applicants."
The government and the airline industry want to persuade potential hijackers that marshals could be present aboard any flight.
"Before 9/11, the entire federal air marshal force could fit into the first-class cabin of an L-1011," said Jack Daulton, vice president for security at Delta Airlines. "Today, you can hardly get a seat in first class anymore because it's full of air marshals."
But there aren't enough of them to cover every flight.
"They are a very limited presence, mostly on international flights," said Gary Burns, a spokesman for Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Transportation Subcommittee on Aviation and a leading backer of legislation to allow pilots to carry guns.
Mica's pending bill is intended to overturn a decision by TSA chief John Magaw, who recently ruled that pilots may not arm themselves. "It's not a new idea," Burns said. "The FBI and the Federal Aviation Administration and the airlines had allowed pilots to be armed since the '60s, but the rules lapsed last summer."
The bill to allow pilots again to carry guns has the support of the Air Line Pilots Association, with 62,000 members at 42 airlines.
"Air marshals are a very important part of the overall strategy," Mazor said. "However, everybody recognizes that there were never going to be enough of them to cover a majority of flights, let alone all of them."
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1022749918228071.xml
Star-Ledger staffer Judy DeHaven contributed to this report.
"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
First published: Thursday, May 30, 2002
HOUSTON -- Three pilots of a major airline recently gathered here at George Bush Intercontinental Airport to discuss whether, as an anti-terrorism measure, pilots should be armed. The Transportation Department says guns will not be permitted in cockpits. Some in Congress will try to overturn this ban. The Air Line Pilots Association, which represents 62,000 pilots working for 42 airlines, adamantly favors arming them.
These three pilots -- two trained in the military, one in civilian life -- are ALPA members. They have a cumulative 75 years of experience flying for commercial airlines. None has an aversion to guns. Says one, "I was raised around guns all my life.'' Says another, "I've not got any affinity for gun control.'' Says the third, "I love guns. Been a hunter all my life. I'm adamantly against gun control.''
All three oppose arming pilots. Here is why.
They note that Sept. 11 triggered a reversal of assumptions. The policy for pilots regarding a hijacking had been: Don't deal with it. Before suicidal hijackers took over four planes, the procedure was for pilots to fly their aircraft to the destination the hijacker demanded.
Now, these three pilots say, the overriding priority must be to guarantee that cockpits are sealed behind bulletproof doors, protecting the flight deck from intrusion while pilots get the plane on the ground as quickly as possible. Which can be 10 minutes -- as pilots know from training to deal with the problem of sudden decompression of an aircraft.
Prior to Sept. 11, if a passenger became unruly, the pilot might come back into the cabin to assert authority. No more. Says one of these three, "The flight attendants know they are on their own.''
"You cannot fly an airplane and look over your shoulder, firing down the cabin,'' says one of these pilots. What you could do, he says, is look down the cabin by means of a closed-circuit television camera that would warn the flight deck of cabin disturbances requiring quick action to take the plane to the ground. Flight plans should show the nearest alternative airport at every stage of every flight.
Another potential problem with arming America's 120,000 commercial airline pilots is what one of the three pilots here calls, with no demurral from the other two, "cowboys or renegade pilots.'' Many commercial pilots began their flying careers as fighter pilots. Two of the three speaking here this day did. One of them says: There is some truth to the profile of fighter pilots as, well, live wires and risk-takers. Arming them might incite them to imprudent bravery. Armed pilots would be more inclined to go out into the cabin, whereas the primary goal should be getting the plane to the ground.
"The popularity of an idea does not make it a good idea,'' says one of these pilots, and all three, although members of ALPA, question whether the idea of arming pilots is as popular with pilots as ALPA suggests. One of these pilots was polled by phone by ALPA and considered the questions written so as to produce an expression of support for arming pilots.
There is in the airline industry the suspicion that the drive to arm pilots, to equip them for potential action back in the cabin, is for ALPA a new front in the organization's long-standing campaign to revive the requirement for a third pilot in the cockpit. The three pilots gathered here would prefer that ALPA concentrate on protecting existing jobs rather that creating new ones.
Many thoughtful pilots do favor guns as an additional layer of deterrence, and a last resort to restoring control over an aircraft before F-16s are scrambled to shoot it from the sky. Had armed pilots been flying the four planes hijacked on Sept. 11, box cutters would not have sufficed. And you do not want to know how many dangerous implements escape the detection of airport screeners while they are X-raying your shoes and frisking grandmothers to demonstrate innocence of racial or ethnic profiling.
However, the pilots of El Al, Israel's airline, are not armed, and the airline has not had a hijacking in 34 years. The three pilots consider this evidence for the argument that the deterrence effect of armed pilots is not essential. Furthermore, gunfire in the cockpit could easily shatter the windshield. In which case, says one of these pilots, "someone is going to be sucked out -- the terrorist, if he's not strapped in.''
"There are,'' says one of the three, "a lot of what-ifs and don't knows'' when you decide to arm pilots. These pilots know they are against that.
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyKey=83806&category=O
"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