Cargo Pilots Slam Cockpit Guns Change

Nov 15, 2002

The US air cargo industry has been accused by its pilots of compromising safety after changes to the wording of the Homeland Security Bill which would deny them the right to carry guns in the cockpit.

The chairman of the biggest pilots union and the union's man at cargo carrier FedEx both criticized a move which will exempt the cargo industry from arming its cockpit crews.

In a statement issued Thursday, Captain Duane Woerth, chairman of the Air Line Pilots Association said: "In an act that defies logic and creates a serious threat to public safety, the air cargo industry managed a back-room deal to get the word 'passenger' inserted in the House bill's provision for arming pilots. A similar change is expected in the Senate version.

"The effect of this single word change is that it exempts all cargo carriers from the federal mandate to arm pilots in a bill that was intended to enhance the pilot's ability to protect the airplane.

"The Republican leadership is totally ignoring the will of the House and Senate, both of which already have voted overwhelmingly to mandate firearms for all airline pilots, not just those in passenger service," Woerth said.

"The mandate provides a significant increase in security, and that is a very positive development. However, that the Republican leadership would intentionally create such an obvious loophole in cargo security is mind-boggling."

Full backing for the attack came from the chairman of ALPA's FedEx pilots, Captain David Webb. "This follows an all too familiar pattern. The air cargo industry tries to circumvent safety and security regulations through waivers and exemptions," he said.

"It was bad enough that cargo airline security had been overlooked in the rush to beef up airline anti-terrorist procedures after September 11. Despite the fact that a hijacked cargo airliner makes just as deadly a guided missile as one full of passengers, not enough has been done to protect this segment of the industry from terrorist attacks," said Webb.

"A cargo aircraft is devoid of cabin attendants and air marshals. However, at airlines such as FedEx, employees and vendors are routinely boarded. Political maneuvering by the cargo industry has shielded them from the level of security screening mandated for the passenger terminal. The entire burden for the security of the aircraft rests on the two or three pilots in the cockpit. There is little we can do to defend the aircraft against a terrorist attack. Stripping us of the ability to carry firearms in the post-September 11 environment is an appallingly irresponsible act."

In addition to FedEx, ALPA represents pilots at cargo carriers Atlas Air, DHL, Gemini Air Cargo, and Polar Air Cargo, all of whom would be affected by the change.

The pilots are not the only group concerned about the compromise bill. Flight attendants leaders spoke out about changes which will make self defense training for cabin crews voluntary, rather than mandatory.

The Association of Flight Attendants International president, Patricia Friend said: "The legislation makes flight attendant self-defense training voluntary by allowing them to opt out of the training and refuses to set a minimum number of training hours to ensure proficiency.

"This omission robs flight attendants of the vital job training that could allow them to save their own lives, the lives of their passengers and protect the cockpit in the case of another terrorist attack on-board an aircraft.

"A flight attendant cannot opt out of the training that prepares us to evacuate an aircraft or fight an in-flight fire, and security training shouldn't be any different," said Friend.

http://news.airwise.com/display/story.html?name=2002/11/1037361601.html

This is totally incorrect:

quote...A cargo aircraft is devoid of cabin attendants and air marshals. However, at airlines such as FedEx, employees and vendors are routinely boarded. Political maneuvering by the cargo industry has shielded them from the level of security screening mandated for the passenger terminal. The entire burden for the security of the aircraft rests on the two or three pilots in the cockpit. There is little we can do to defend the aircraft against a terrorist attack. Stripping us of the ability to carry firearms in the post-September 11 environment is an appallingly irresponsible act." unquote

If the threat is that real, then the carriers should prevent non rev employees from traveling. Any "vendor" who has a NEED TO TRAVEL status can be individually searched, screened, etc prior to boarding. How does having a gun in a non secure cockpit help prevent a potential take over?

Cecil, Thanks for the accurate information.

Barbara

Here is some more, associated information:

"On April 7, 1994, we came dangerously close to finding out what a DC-10 full of jet fuel and a man with nothing to lose could do to a corporate campus in Memphis. That's the day a disgruntled employee attacked the crew of FedEx Flight 705 with the intention of crashing the airplane into company headquarters. Jim Tucker had taught air combat maneuvering in the Navy -- and after being severely wounded in the attack, he fought back with the only weapon he had: the DC-10."

AVweb Profile: Jim Tucker

Pilots Fear More Hijackings, Want Guns Now

Some airline pilots believe terrorists are laying the groundwork for another wave of hijackings and they want to have guns in the cockpit as soon as possible. In a recent letter, Capt. Scott R. Lewis, director of the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance, said airliner crews and federal air marshals have noticed a series of events that he interprets as an organized intelligence-gathering mission on airliner security.

AVweb News Brief

Airline Pilots' Security Alliance - Letter of November 8, 2002

Chris thanks for the information. That FedEx story is absolutely fascinating. I have to admit I don't even remember this from back then. Those pilots were incredibly brave. It must be terrible for Jim Tucker to have lost his career as much as this man obviously loved to fly.

>He said crews have noticed the activity escalating and many are worried another attack is imminent. Lewis said armed flight crews are the second-to-last defense (ahead of military jets) against suicide terrorists and it's imperative that pilots are armed sooner rather than later<

This is awfully scary to hear! This is such a tough issue. I think Cecil has brought up some excellent points about why pilots should not have guns and yet in this crazy new world I'm starting to wonder if there really is a choice but to allow trained pilots to have them as a last defense. If another 9/11 would God forbid happen, aside from the fact that people would be killed and that would be horrible enough, I don't know if commercial aviation would survive it as well. People would truly be terrified to fly if this became a common occurance. Just look at how many people now only do it if they have to. Many times I know I've avoided it and will only fly if I have to.

I'm surprised to hear that cargo companies would lobby against protecting their pilots.

Thanks again, this really gives you something to think about.

"If the threat is that real, then the carriers should prevent non rev employees from traveling."

Cecil, This goes without saying. They really should at the very least put a ban on that.

I do not think that the cargo air line industry is lobbing against guns simply for the exercise, but rather for good sound reasoning. You have to picture the equipment used to transport air cargo. To my knowledge, none of these airplanes have cockpits which would be secure from any employee traveling on a pass, or from a non airline individual who was having to accompany a particular type of cargo, i.e. animals. . Most airplanes only have a small area immediately behind the cockpit with seats, and maybe a galley and lav. Unless recently added, there is no cockpit door to isolate these passengers from the pilots. Therefore, guns in the cockpit offer no deterrent or protection against ugly activities of those who are on board for that purpose. I again state, the best, and only, shield is on the ground, prior to boarding. If you cannot stop it there, in my opinion you are not going to stop it by having a gun fight in the cockpit while in the air.

You make some excellent points Cecil. It doesn't sound like it would be very useful for pilots to carry weapons on a cargo aircraft given the layout etc. I would assume the following information excludes cargo jets. Here is a new article out today. I don't care for this comment,

'It will also give breathing space to US airports who are struggling to meet a security screening deadline.'

As you have stated I think the best line of defense is in the security/screening process. This just seems to give them the excuse to continue to be lazy and ineffective at least IMO. They shouldn't be counting on armed pilots to totally defend the aircraft. Their job is to fly the plane and furthermore I would assume they haven't had any substantial training yet.

US Senate Backs 'Cockpit Guns' Bill

Nov 20, 2002

America's long debated Homeland Security Bill has cleared its final hurdle after winning the approval of the US Senate.

A major new cabinet level Department of Homeland Security, with a brief to protect the nation from terrorist attacks, can now be created.

For the aviation industry, the decision means that pilots of commercial passenger aircraft will be allowed to carry guns in the cockpit to protect themselves from potential hi-jackers. It will also give breathing space to US airports who are struggling to meet a security screening deadline.

Sophisticated bomb detecting equipment, which screens checked baggage, is due to be installed at all major airports by December 31, but many say they are unable to complete by that date. Under the new legislation, airports are likely to be given a further twelve months to finalize the program.

President Bush may sign the landmark legislation some time next week, a White House spokesman told CNN.

http://news.airwise.com/index.html

I also fail to see how allowing pilots to carry guns in the cockpit is a 'landmark decision' considering I thought they were actually allowed to do that until just before 9/11 when that privilege was rescinded.

Barbara... I cannot remember if I sent this along or not...but in any event, enjoy.

http://www.whoohoo.net/pilot/index.htm

LOL Cecil. Unfortunately it isn't that hard to imagine hearing that message from a pilot while flying in this strange new world we are living in! Have you ever seen any polls lately on how most pilots feel today about carrying a weapon into the cockpit? It would certainly be more ideal to have air marshals that are watching passengers before things get that far, but as has been pointed out many times, the cost would be prohibitive. I think maybe 'The Onion' had the solution- banning passengers from all commercial flights. Now that would solve everything!