WASHINGTON (AP) -- Momentum is building in Congress for a proposal to arm America's commercial airline pilots to protect against terrorist hijackings, even though Bush administration officials have opposed it.

At a hearing Thursday before a House aviation panel, some members of both houses endorsed legislation that would allow pilots to have guns available to foil a takeover.

"Arming trained and qualified flight crew members is a necessary step to ensure the safety and security of the flying public," said Rep. John Mica, Republican of Florida, chairman of the House Transportation aviation subcommittee and sponsor of a bill to arm pilots. "Nothing else can provide the deterrence or effectiveness of a weapon wielded by a highly trained individual."

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TRAVEL/NEWS/05/02/armed.pilots.ap/index.html

The Quickvote poll by CNN is running 70% in favor of arming pilots, with over 140,000 votes recorded.

David, Thanks for an interesting article. I personally have such mixed feelings about this issue. In retrospect it would have been useful on 9/11 if the pilots had been armed. I wonder though if there will be situations that arise where there could be a misunderstanding and a pilot reacts too quickly? I think it was Cecil who sometime ago suggested that security issues should be taken care of before the doors to the aircraft are closed. That would certainly be the ideal.

Barbara

Barbara

Denied guns, miffed pilots undercut new safety agency

Air security - Move echoes past lobbying that carved holes in safety net.

USAToday
May 3, 2002
Page 13A

At a time when the federal government is struggling to make air travel secure, the last thing it needs is unions undermining its mission. Yet instead of respecting the authority of the fledgling Transportation Security Administration (TSA), six pilots unions are attempting an end run around the agency so pilots can carry guns in cockpits.

If they succeed, the power to make airline-security decisions will be taken from the professionals and thrown into the political arena, where potent lobbies hold considerable sway. That same kind of behavior, most often by the airline industry, helped neuter the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as an effective security watchdog in the years before Sept. 11.

Airline pilots started down this path because Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta opposes gun-toting pilots. TSA chief John Magaw is clearly skeptical, too, and likely to say no.

There may be good reason for pilots to carry guns as the last line of defense on a hijacked plane. But lethal weapons in cockpits pose as many security risks as they settle. For instance, who'd fly the plane during a crisis? Even the initial reaction from the president of the Air Line Pilots Association was negative: ''We can't be Sky King and Wyatt Earp at the same time,'' Duane Woerth told Congress last year.

Woerth changed his mind, and now the unions are unwilling to accept the TSA's likely veto. So they're appealing to higher authorities. Last month, they wrote to the White House. This week they're making a case to Congress, complete with a Washington public relations firm, a petition drive and a potent ally, the National Rifle Association.

Even if Congress had a stellar record on air security, this second-guessing would be dangerous. But Congress has a long history of giving in to airlines and other lobbies seeking to weaken security measures:

* After Sept. 11, Republican House leaders, heavily lobbied by private security firms, first sought to keep the same security companies that had failed so dismally. When the effort wasn't successful, lawmakers kept open the prospect of returning to private baggage-screening companies after three years under a new federal system.

* After the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103, Congress ordered regulators to move speedily to screen checked baggage. Slowed by airline-industry reluctance and lobbying, Congress didn't get around to providing adequate money to start the job until the mid-1990s -- one reason the U.S. must now spend billions in a race to screen all bags.

After Sept. 11, the FAA was stripped of its security mandate, in part because it was seen as pliable in the hands of the airline industry. Passengers won't be any safer if the TSA proves just as powerless.

Congress placed responsibility for security with a new federal agency because public safety has a better chance when the pros, and not the politicians, make the nitty-gritty security decisions.

Pilots, of all people, should respect that logic, and Congress should remember its reasoning before doing an about-face because of lobby pressure.

Christopher thanks for the article. I thought what Stuart suggested (can't find the post when I went to look for it again), on his board made some sense. He suggested that a third crew member should be brought back into the cockpit who would be armed (and I would assume trained), who could be there in case of an a/c emergency or deal with a threatening situation such as an intruder. This way two pilots would be free to fly the plane. I doubt the airlines would like that solution much as it would require them to spend more money on safety/security. It seems like a good suggestion to me.

Found it:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aviationsafety2/message/21891

Good Morning Barbara... re Stuarts post, "If you want to arm pilots, then do so by putting a THIRD pilot back in the cockpit, armed and trained, as both pilot and guard." We have it already, it is called the Federal Sky Marshall program. Why reinvent the wheel.

Hi Cecil. The reason that I like Stuart's plan is because the third crew member would also be there to help in the event of an aircraft emergency. I was under the impression that sky marshals were only there to protect the aircraft from intruders. It's even possible that sr111 could have been saved if a quick thinking third crew member had been present. An armed third crew member may have also prevented 9/11 from happening at all. I do think you were right though that mostly security problems should be stopped prior to the plane taking off. Stuart's plan could be used as a last defense and possibly prevent some air crashes from occurring. I think security can be achieved but inevitably it may mean higher ticket prices. Believe me it's worth it.

Barbara