Pilots should be well armed and well trained

Josey1

Pilots should be well armed and well trained

POSTED: June 17, 2002 6:32 p.m.

In response to the editorial, "Airline security: Stuck at the Gate?" (AC-T, June 9). Rep. John L. Mica and the Air Line Pilots Association are right - pilots should be allowed to carry guns, but they should also have to go through some sort of training. What good would a pilot with a gun do if he or she didn't know how to use it? There should also be air marshals, because if the pilots are the only ones protecting the plane and there are several criminals then the pilots might not be much good. Plus the air marshals would also have a lot more training in actually taking back control of the airplane. They have to pass several tests, including physical and psychological ones. There are also training facilities where they have planes where they actually practice for real law enforcement threats. Air marshals would be a large improvement to the safety of the skies along with the guns of the pilots.

Robert White,



Edited by - Josey1 on 06/19/2002 08:03:12

Edited by - Josey1 on 06/19/2002 08:08:10

Josey1

Guest Editorial: Pilots need guns
By CONRAD BURNS
U.S. Senator

I've never met a door that couldn't be opened or a pilot who's ever seen an air marshal. So I was perplexed and disappointed when the undersecretary of transportation for security testified before the Senate Commerce Committee that the pilots we entrust daily with multimillion-dollar machines and thousands of lives aren't to be trusted with side arms. He puts his faith in "fortified doors," a seemingly nonexistent army of air marshals and - if all else fails - in-flight maneuvers to throw terrorists off guard. Instead, he should be thinking like the kamikaze terrorists that these pilots could face.


Insufficient deterrent
When I was in the Marines I learned that to defeat the enemy, you must think like the enemy. For this reason, I believe the Justice Department is better prepared to handle aviation security than Federal Aviation Administration bureaucrats. Do they really think a door - not a 9-millimeter gun - is a sufficient deterrent to future Mohamed Attas?


If people want to die hijacking planes, it makes sense to this old cowboy that they die before they get the job done.


That's why I am co-authoring a bill to create a voluntary program to arm pilots and establish a training program for flight attendants. Deadly force is the only language of deterrence a terrorist understands. Without it, we're vesting our faith in the chimera of air marshals and spotty airport security. A secure commercial flight relies on preventive layers of security being 100 percent effective, 100 percent of the time. We're foolish to expect that equation to work perfectly, forever, just as we're foolish to believe in an impregnable door. A fortified door is not fortified when the door is opened, as it must be when attendants bring pilots their meals. Rather than allow pilots to protect themselves, their aircraft and passengers with guns, should the government mandate that pilots abstain from eating?


Virtually defenseless flights
Once airborne, flights are virtually defenseless. There are only 1,000 air marshals - who at the very least work in pairs - to service more than 30,000 flights a day in the U.S. To build up a force sufficient to staff every flight we'd need to create something nearly the size of the Marine Corps.


This is no time to be gun-shy about terrorism. We give our soldiers guns and send them to Afghanistan. We are prepared to give air marshals guns and put them in the flight cabin. But we're prepared to let pilots, almost two-thirds of whom have served in the military, fend for the plane and passengers with their bare hands. Or arm them with stun guns.


American soldiers aren't asked to fight terrorists with toys and temerity. Let's give trained men and women the right to self-defense. And let's do that by using frangible ammunition, which disintegrates upon impact with a metal surface but is strong enough to take down a terrorist. That's how the terror will end how the hijackings can end. Not with a whimper but a bang.

---

This column was written for publication in the Los Angeles Times, which published it Thursday. Conrad Burns is a Montana Republican.

http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2002/06/18/build/safety/airgunop.php?nnn=5



Tuesday, June 18, 2002



"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

Josey1

Armed-pilot bill gains steam in Senate
Twin measures give Congress final say on guns in cockpits

---

Posted: June 19, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Jon Dougherty
c 2002 WorldNetDaily.com


A Senate bill that would give Congress the final say over whether to allow commercial airline pilots to fly with firearms is making headway, while a similar measure in the House has been scheduled for debate.

The Senate measure, called the "Arming Pilots Against Terrorism and Cabin Defense Act of 2002," or S. 2554, which was introduced May 23 by Sen. Robert Smith, R-N.H., has since been referred to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Like its cousin in the House, the Senate bill would amend federal statutes to allow commercial pilots who volunteer for federally approved training to fly armed.

"The pilots want this program, the flight attendants support the legislation, and the American people want additional means to be protected against future acts of terrorism," Smith said when introducing the bill last month. "Our legislation is the best way to allow voluntary implementation of programs, so that pilots can provide the first line of deterrence and the last line of defense."

"The pilots and flight attendants bear ultimate responsibility for the safety of their plane and passenger," said Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., a co-sponsor of Smith's bill.

"This legislation would give trained pilots an additional resource to maintain total control of their aircraft, and provide training to flight attendants," Burns said. "We must do all we can to ensure that the tragedy of 9-11 is never allowed to be repeated."

Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, introduced the House version.

According to officials at Gun Owners of America, which is tracking both bills, 11 senators so far have cosponsored Smith's measure. Only one ? Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia ? is a Democrat.

The bills were introduced after the Bush administration decided in May against implementing an armed-pilot provision included in an aviation security measure signed into law last fall, following the Sept. 11 attacks.

Under the terms of that legislation, Under Secretary for Transportation John Magaw, head of the newly created Transportation Security Administration, was given the authority to decide whether or not to allow pilots to fly armed. Both the Smith and Young bills take that discretionary authority away.

"Currently, pilots and airline passengers are defenseless against terrorist efforts to take over their planes," said a Gun Owners of America e-mail alert. "And, with F-16 fighter jets positioned to shoot down hijacked airplanes, it is only a matter of time until the current policy of disarming pilots results in another terrible calamity."

Eryn Witcher, a spokeswoman for Smith, said the House bill was scheduled to be debated this week, but she told WorldNetDaily the Senate version was still in committee.

Witcher also said Smith was scheduled to get an award Monday in New Hampshire from a pair of pilots' organizations "for all his work on the armed-pilot issue."

The Airline Pilots' Security Alliance and the Allied Pilots Association ? the collective bargaining agent for American Airlines pilots ? will be represented at the awards ceremony, Witcher said. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28001



"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