Call to Arm Pilots Grows Louder

Josey1

Call to Arm Pilots Grows Louder

More Signatures Sought For Petition
Congress, this week, revisited one of the recurring topics raised during last week's Annual Meetings-the idea of allowing properly trained flight crew on commercial aircraft to be permitted to carry firearms to defend their aircraft. U.S. Representatives John Mica (R-Fla.) and Don Young (R-Alas.) recently introduced H.R. 4635, which seeks to establish a training program for arming flight crew, and on Thursday, the House Subcommittee on Aviation held hearings to discuss the subject.

In addition, a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators held a press conference to announce the introduction of a companion bill to H.R. 4635 in the Senate. The group of Senators included Conrad Burns (R-Mt.), Zell Miller, Frank Murkowski (R-Alas.), and Bob Smith (R-N.H.).

Although President Bush signed into law the "Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001" last November, which includes language that allows properly trained commercial pilots, co-pilots, and flight engineers to carry firearms aboard commercial airplanes, there has been no implementation of a program to train and equip flight deck crew members who wish to be prepared to use firearms as a last resort to defend commercial aircraft from hijackers.

Two weeks ago, we told you about an online petition spearheaded by several airline pilot organizations. The petition is being promoted to urge Congress and President Bush to move ahead to ensure the establishment of a program that will properly train and equip flight crew to act as an effective last line of defense against terrorists or other hijackers. If you have not yet signed the online petition urging President Bush to support arming airline flight crew, the deadline to sign has been extended. Please be sure to add your support. The petition can be found at http://secure-skies.org/. Also be sure to urge your U.S. Representative to support H.R. 4635, which seeks to implement the training program through legislation, rather than administratively. You can reach your U.S. Representative by calling (202) 225-3121. You can find additional contact information by using our "Write Your Reps" tool.

http://www.nraila.org/LegislativeUpdate.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=382


"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

Root-Cause Redux
The dispute over arming pilots echoes earlier crime debates.

BY BRENDAN MINITER
Monday, June 24, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT

We have a Texan in the White House, hundreds of congressmen who fly home for weekends, and terrorists who ram planes into buildings. So why is it we're not allowing pilots to fly with side arms?

On Capitol Hill that's not a rhetorical question. More than a few members realize that if the terrorists had struck on a Friday instead of a Tuesday any number of congressmen might have been on the Dulles flight that smacked into the Pentagon. So lawmakers are pushing the issue. Last week the House Subcommittee on Aviation approved legislation to force the Transportation Department to create a program to certify and train up to 1,400 pilots to carry pistols. The legislation would also restrict liability, so that pilots acting in good faith couldn't be sued for shooting a hijacker. The full Transportation Committee is expected to vote on the bill this week. In July it'll likely come before the full House for a vote--it's expected to pass overwhelmingly.

But winning this fight won't be easy. The legislation has already given ground to the bureaucrats. It would require pilots to undergo federal training and would expire in two years. Even that is too much for Sen. Fritz Hollings (D., S.C.), who will likely stall similar legislation in the Senate. Mr. Hollings says he believes in locked cockpit doors and wants pilots to focus on flying the plane. And both Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and Transportation Security Administration head John Magaw publicly oppose letting pilots carry guns, as does Homeland Security Adviser Tom Ridge.




The divide here seems to be a cultural one. Mr. Mineta and others believe in a culture of "fail proof" systems. Hire 57,500 airport screeners, make people take off their shoes, and we'll catch potential hijackers with random searches.
But of course, this is America, land of heroes like John Wayne and Clint Eastwood. A not-so-small segment of the population assumes security systems will fail and wants to be able to draw the most powerful handgun in the world and ask a hijacker: "Do you feel lucky?" Clint Eastwood's "Dirty Harry" delivered rough justice and memorable lines while fighting crime. But he also had to fight bureaucracy. The popularity of Dirty Harry in fighting these twin battles is worth remembering.

Many Americans have little patience for bureaucracy when their safety is at stake. They vote for candidates who are willing to take a strong stand. So it shouldn't be surprising that congressional mail is overwhelmingly in support of letting pilots carry side arms. Rep. John Mica, chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, hasn't seen a single letter siding with Messrs. Mineta and Hollings, his spokesman tells me.

The last time the electorate had to demand a better defense was in the early '90s. For decades liberal policies designed to understand and alleviate "root causes" of criminal behavior sent crime rates soaring. By 1993 New York City had had enough and elected Rudolph Giuliani. A year later George Pataki won the governorship of New York by promising, among other things, to bring back the death penalty. That same year, Republicans--who also talked tough about crime and welfare--won control of both houses of Congress.

Now America faces a similar situation in regards to terrorism. We are told to submit to bureaucratic rules for our safety. Others tell us to understand terrorism's root causes--mainly poverty and oppression. These recycled excuses for inaction in the face of violence are as wrong now as they were in the 1970s and '80s. What works is swift action that punishes and physically stops those who would harm us.




Of course, we don't want Dirty Harry in the cockpit. Nor do the thousands of pilots who've signed petitions asking for guns in the cockpit. That's why the bills working their way through Congress are designed to cull out the cowboys and renegades.
Pilots are one of the most scrutinized groups in America. They are often ex-military, go through flight school, and are checked out by the airlines that hire them. They also have to pass airport-security background checks. And the pilots most likely to carry a side arm to work--those who have pistol permits already--have passed an additional battery of checks. What's more, the program set forth in the House bill would add a new layer or screening and training for pilots who wish to carry a gun.

Arming pilots won't give us Wild West shootouts in the sky. If that fear sounds familiar, it's because it too is recycled from the crime debates. Those who oppose self-defense raised it each time a state considered a "shall issue" law--one that requires authorities to grant a pistol permit to anyone who passes a background check. Now more than 30 states have such laws and we didn't get the OK Corral in suburbia. Instead, we got less crime.

The new twist on this fear is that a single gunshot will bring down a plane. That's false. Boeing officials told the Los Angeles Times that shooting out a window wouldn't rapidly depressurize the plane. Unseatbelted passengers nearby might be in danger, but the plane could still safely land. What's more, windshields and windows are made to withstand gunshots. And federal requirements mandate that an aircraft survive a 20-square-foot hole.

Terrorists aren't likely to be cowed back into their seats when a pilot pulls a gun. But they may be deterred from getting on the plane. And if not, at least the pilot has a recourse unfathomable to the bureaucratic mind--killing the hijacker before he kills everyone on the plane--and who knows how many people on the ground.

Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Mondays.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110001886


"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

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


I AM A PILOT with a major airline who would like to express concerns regarding the FAA's remedy of using sky marshals to make our skies safe, and present a solution involving "arming" pilots without actually arming pilots.

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?

Today we deal with terrorists with well- thought-out plans for accomplishing their objectives. A future revision to their plans will include the method to defeat the sky marshal and get his gun. When they do get his gun and are on their way to the cockpit, we pilots have no other choice than to crash the airplane. We will be defenseless to do anything to stop them from eventually commandeering the airplane, killing us with the sky marshal's gun in the process, and killing innocent people on the ground with the airplane.

I suppose we can rest assured that our military will shoot the airplane down before it reaches its target!

How will terrorists defeat the sky marshal? Simply by having one or two "sleepers" among their team who will keep low-profiles during the initial minutes of the takeover, and will then either sneak up on the now-visible sky marshal, or innocently offer assistance. One way or the other, they will overcome the sky marshal and get his gun. If the sky marshal sits in the coach class, he will be unaware of what is happening behind the curtains up front. If he sits in business or first class, he is vulnerable to anyone coming up from the rear of the airplane, whether it be a legitimate passenger offering assistance or a "sleeper." He could have terrorists sitting on all sides of him and not know it! So, how is he to know who is a terrorist and who is not?

Another consideration in this scenario is the proper time to act. Does the sky marshal jump into action after three terrorists have passed him on the way to the cockpit? He has no way of knowing how many terrorists are on board.

Having more than one sky marshal on board does complicate things for the terrorists, but the possibility still exists for them to get the sky marshals' guns. This makes the FAA's sky marshal remedy a bad idea! The only time sky marshals are 100 percent effective is when there is only one hijacker/terrorist! This is a perfect example of our government instituting a politically-correct. feel-goodsolution that didn't involve much thought, if any. Using sky marshals is not the solution - they are a $2 billion waste of taxpayers' money!

Had it been known to all that we pilots were "armed" and there was no gun to be had courtesy of the sky marshal, any attempt to take over our airplane would not be successful. With a hardened cockpit door and guns in the cockpit, we pilots would be ready for the terrorists. It's our airplane to defend!

A new policy involving guns in the cockpit and attempted cockpit takeovers should be as follows. It should instruct the flight attendants to step aside - stay out of harm's way. There is nothing they can do to stop today's terrorists anyway. A courtesy call to the cockpit is all that is necessary. Unless the terrorists are coming to the cockpit with a gun, they are guaranteed failure. And considering the fact that the majority of major airline pilots have prior military experience, "arming" us should not be of any real concern. Firearms training can be added to our annual recurrent training for those who need it. Besides, what special training is needed to shoot from point blank range?

In my solution to arming pilots, guns would become part of standard cockpit emergency equipment. There would be no gun-toting pilots in airport terminals! Two titanium lockable gun boxes with guns would be installed in the cockpits of our airplanes - one on each side panel near the oxygen mask - another piece of emergency equipment that is there should we ever need it. Pilots would be the only ones issued keys and the boxes would be unlocked when the cockpit door is closed at the beginning of the flight and locked when the cockpit door is opened at the end of the flight. The guns would only be used to defend the cockpit from takeover attempts.

Guns could be permanently attached by steel cable lanyards to the gun boxes to insure that they are not taken into the passenger cabin by pilots to quell a cabin disturbance. In the event of a breach of the cockpit door, pilots would be sitting ready with the autopilot engaged (altitude hold), guns drawn and aimed at the cockpit door, and oxygen masks and goggles on in case of a depressurization. Any person attempting to break the door down would be considered hostile and would be shot upon entry. There would be no mistaking a friendly passenger for a hijacker/terrorist.

Another possible option to ensure the security and the proper use of the guns would be an airplane system where several conditions must be met to unlock the gun boxes. Gun boxes unlock when an engine is running, and the squat switch on the landing gear is open (landing gear is up), and the transponder is set to the hijacking code. This would also alert air traffic control at the same time. Boeing and Airbus could offer the titanium gun box option with the reinforced cockpit door modification and mass-market it to all the airlines, thus making it also an economically viable solution. Reinforcing cockpit doors, installing two gun lock-boxes with two guns per airplane, and freeing up the revenue-passenger seat that the sky marshal would occupy, is not only the best way to prevent the horrific events that occurred on Sept. 11 from ever happening again, but is also the cheapest to the airlines and taxpayers, too!

If the FAA insists on going forward with the sky marshal program, then the proper seat for him is the cockpit jumpseat.

- Kurt S. Wolz, an airline pilot, is a resident of Bedford.

Opinions expressed in this weekly column aren't necessarily those of The Union Leader. All readers are welcome to submit essays of up to 750 words for the editor's consideration. Please include a word or two about yourself, along with name, address, phone number and, if possible, a photograph. Mail to: Your Turn, c/o The Union Leader, P.O. Box 9555, Manchester, NH 03108. All submissions become property of The Union Leader and can't be returned.

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=12128



"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