Gov't: Pilots Can't Have Guns in Cockpit Fox News

Tuesday, May 21, 2002

WASHINGTON — The federal government announced Tuesday that pilots will not be allowed to have guns in the cockpits of commercial U.S. airplanes.

The announcement came at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing by John Magaw, undersecretary for transportation security. It followed months of debate over whether arming pilots would be a deterrent to hijackers.

Government officials, airline executives and pilots groups had hotly debated the topic in the months following the Sept. 11 attacks. Some airlines had said they would allow their pilots to carry weapons, while other carriers opposed the plan.

Both Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge previously indicated their opposition to arming pilots.

Magaw announced the decision in response to a question from Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the committee. Magaw said a formal announcement will be made later in the week.



Do you agree with the decision to bar pilots from carrying guns in the cockpit?

Yes

No

Not Sure






This is not a scientific poll.





Flight attendants, meanwhile, have advocated non-lethal weapons, such as stun guns, that they could use in emergencies.

Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., who chairs the Commerce Committee, said guns would not be needed as long as pilots kept cockpit doors locked while in flight. "You can put the rule in right now and cut out all the argument about pistols and stun guns," Hollings said.

http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53315,00.html

US Pilots Slam Cockpit Firearms Ban

May 22, 2002

Airline pilots in the US have condemned a ruling which will prevent them from carrying guns in the cockpit. They say they have demonstrated the need to arm pilots against the threat of terrorist hi-jackers.

Transport Security Administration chief John Magaw told the US Senate Commerce Committee Tuesday that he would rule against the introduction of cockpit firearms as part of airline security measures.

Re-acting swiftly to the news, Captain Duane Woerth, president of the Air Line Pilots Association International, called on Congress to reverse the decision and blamed opposition from US airlines for influencing the ban.

In a statement he said: "We are disappointed, but not surprised, by this announcement. The administration, under the influence of opposition by the airlines, has been telegraphing its intent for several months now.

"ALPA has made a very strong case. We have demonstrated the need to arm pilots against terrorist hi-jackers. We have examined the objections and have shown in each instance why the objections are misleading or wrong.

"The government already has told us that if terrorists take control of one of our cockpits, they will send military aircraft to shoot down the airliner and all its crew and passengers. In the face of such choices, we do not understand why these same government officials refuse to give pilots a last chance to prevent such a tragedy.

"At this point our only recourse is to call on Congress to re-assert its wishes regarding firearms in the cockpit."

Captain Woerth's comments were backed by the Coalition of Airline Pilots. Captain Bob Miller, its president, called on John Magaw to reconsider "in light of the fact that many of the proposed security enhancements are not yet in place and won't be for some time to come."

Miller said: "CAPA firmly believes armed pilots are one of the essential layers of defense for the traveling public. Under-Secretary Magaw indicated that training pilots was a major concern. We reiterate our willingness to undergo any firearms training that (his) agency may require."

http://news.airwise.com/stories/2002/05/1022063738.html

I agree.

Hi Cecil! You mean you agree that they shouldn't be armed? I was reading on Stuart's site where Bob pointed out that (and I hope I'm stating his point of view correctly), that maybe we can't always trust pilots to do the right thing. He used as examples EgyptAir and SilkAir. There is no doubt in my mind that if we do arm pilots that too will cause a tragedy down the road. On the other hand, I still like Stuart's idea of having that third crew member. I'm very conflicted over this because the thought of another 9/11 is terrifying to me, but I'm just not sure what the right solutions are.

Barbara

Good Morning Barbara.... Yes, the problem with agreeing to a negative. I agree that they should not be armed, my position from the start. If a third person is to be put BACK in the cockpit, then it should be for flying purposes, not for a potential gun fight. Now, I will vote in favor of putting another person in the cockpit on some airplanes, say any airplane with more than two engines, or any airplane over a certain weight. But I will never favor placing someone in the cockpit whose duty extends beyond those needed to aid in flying the airplane, particularly if part of that duty involves a hoster. Keep guns off of the airplane, particularly out of the cockpit. If one has to have one, keep it on the ground, and in the air, in the hands of a trained government official. Just a lowly opinion.

'Just a lowly opinion.' Nothing lowly about your position Cecil! I take your thoughts very seriously considering that you were a pilot for many years. If you say that you think guns don't belong in the cockpit I figure you certainly know what you are talking about considering all the years you spent there. I guess it comes back to preventing potential problems from developing on the aircraft prior to boarding if it is possible to do that. I completely agree with you that there should be a third crew member if for nothing else but for a third set of hands in the event of a potential tragedy on certain jets if a mechanical problem develops. Thanks.

Barbara

Cecil, Just wanted to add, if I appear to be 'waffling'on this issue- I am!

Barbara... No problem with waffling... complex issue with valid points both sides. On most airplanes, the 747 being the exception, cockpits are small and compact so all key areas may be reached from a seated position. Enclosed compartments, with close approxsemtry (sp?) of personnel does not lend itself to a defensable position, particularly using fire arms. Anyone desiring access to the cockpit will not be knocking on the door requesting permission to enter. Entry is apt to be swift, violent, and purposeful, which leaves little reaction time for any crew member. Stun guns will or may work once, but then what. They have to be recharged. Guns with bullets likewise, but who or what else is likely to get hit. Bad situation and guns add to the delima. Cockpit doors strong enough to delay or prevent entry is in my opinion the best line of defense, after onboard (non crew) personnel trained to thwart terrorist activity.

Barbara... I might add, China and I have exchanged some comment relative to this, other off line thing.

Cecil, Thanks for taking the time to explain. All good reasons. Will check offline.

Barbara

I agree too, no guns in the cockpit. I hate to imagine what a stray bullet could do, not only me happening to be in its way.
Done my time in the armed forces, having had my share of the officer on guard duty, it makes me nervous. We were a small battalion, ~250 strong, 3 componies (4th on paper), and well, about twice a year, a shot got loose, most in the wee hours. Luckily not during me playing the officer of the guard. they were not supposed to chamber a round, but apparently some nervous types did, when on the beat. No, no guns on board.
Best defense IMHO are the strengthened cockpit doors to prevent access, and, my priority, have a better check before boarding. Don't let them on board in first place. Mandatory, computer readable photo ID cards is a hot item in the US, perceived violation of privacy, freedom or whatever comes to mind.
I have no problems to carry mine around, have it read by a scanner at an airport security check point and compared to a database.

hank@ster

This was from this week's Air Safety Week. I thought Cecil and Hank might be interested in this. It pretty much agrees with you both.

TSA Rejects Pistols for Pilots, May Approve Non-Lethal Weapons

Pilots will not be allowed to have firearms in the cockpit, but a decision has yet to be made by the U.S. government on allowing aircrews to be equipped with non-lethal weapons, such as stun guns and TASERs.

The decision against firearms was announced May 21 by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) head John Magaw at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing. Magaw left open the possibility that non-lethal weapons could be authorized for aircrews after official testing by a technical panel.

Magaw's decision came in a brief exchange with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.):

McCain: I take it from the last conversation that you're about to make a decision, is that right, Mr. Magaw?

Magaw: Concerning -

McCain: On the guns.

Magaw: Concerning firearms in the cockpit?

McCain: Yes.

Magaw: Yes, sir. After a lot of consultation and months of work ... using my 40 years of experience in law enforcement ... and obviously consulting all along the way with [Transportation] Secretary [Norman] Mineta, I will not authorize firearms in the cockpit.

McCain: You will not?

Magaw: No.

His decision rejected the argument presented by pilots, and prompted a predicable reaction.

"We are disappointed, but not surprised, by this announcement," said Capt. Duane Woerth, president of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA).

"The administration, under the influence of opposition by the airlines, has been telegraphing its intent for several months now," Woerth said, adding, "the government already has told us that if terrorists take control of one of our cockpits, they will send military aircraft to shoot down an airliner and all its crew and passengers. In the face of such choices, we do not understand why these same government officials refuse to give pilots a last chance to prevent such a tragedy."

Some legislators on Capitol Hill shared Woerth's disappointment, vowing to overturn Magaw's decision by legislative mandate. Legislation introduced by Rep. Don Young (R-Ala.) titled "The Arming of Pilots Against Terrorism Act" (H.R. 4635), clearly shows his position. "I strongly disagree with their announcement today," Young said flatly.

Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Aviation Sub-committee, expressed similar sentiments. "Given ... the inability to have air marshals on all of our planes, and the difficult transition we face putting into place comprehensive aviation security, we think it is absolutely essential to have this last line of defense," Mica declared.

Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mt.), who is sponsoring legislation on the Senate side authorizing firearms for pilots, offered this stark rationale: "If we have people on an airplane who are willing to die in the commitment of such an act, I see no reason why we shouldn't [give pilots the means to] get it done. And that's kind of a Marine way to look at it, but that's just the way I think."

Magaw clearly does not see it as a stark choice between armed pilots and certain death. The deployment of non-lethal weapons remains an open question, and a conditional "yes" may well be granted. A United Airlines [UAL] official said his carrier would be actively engaged in additional testing of non-lethal weapons. This official said the carrier will continue to train its aircrews in TASER use and to deploy two of them in every cockpit (see ASW, April 15). United is one of at least three carriers committed to deploying stun guns or TASERs, arguing that an electric-discharge type weapon represents a safer compromise.

Magaw told the Commerce Committee he envisions a division of responsibility between air marshals and pilots - marshals protect, pilots fly. Magaw indicated that there is always more than one air marshal aboard a plane. However, proponents of arming pilots with firearms counter that air marshals are on only a small fraction of flights.

At the same time, Magaw suggested that he supports upset maneuvers to unbalance any terrorists bent on attacking the cockpit. This concept has been advocated by Don Wylie, president of Texas-based Aviation Safety Training, a company specializing in upset recovery training (see ASW, Oct. 8, 2001). With a video feed to the cockpit of terrorists in the cabin, Wylie said he could time to the second such an upset maneuver. Wylie described the scenario: "In one second, Mr. Terrorist, you're going to take a surprise trip."

Air Marshals Protect - Pilots Fly
TSA head John Magaw's rationale for prohibiting pilots to carry firearms:

"[Air marshals] will do whatever they have to do, to the point of giving up their own life, to make sure that that cockpit stays safe. Now, the cockpit in the aircraft is for the pilots to maintain positive control of that aircraft. And the positive control to them, and what it is to me, is to get it on the ground as quickly as you can, regardless of what's happening back there. [Pilots] also tell me that with slight maneuvers - you can't do a lot with a big aircraft - but they can, unless you are seat-belted in, they can make your equilibrium so that you can't function. I am also looking at putting cameras back there, so [pilots] can see what's happening and see how they are making these people fall and move."

Source: Testimony to Senate Commerce Committee, May 21, 2002

The Rejected Option - Firearms In The Cockpit

"The only reason we want lethal force in the cockpit ... is to provide us with the ability to get the aircraft on the ground as fast and as safely as we can. We can't pull over. We are the ones sealed in the aircraft when we close that door. We seal the problems in. We seal the resources out. And it's prudent that we be able to get that aircraft on the ground from a cruising altitude if you can see the concrete that you're going to put the aircraft on, it's a minimum from cruise of a 20 minute flight, and that's ideal.

"A weapon in the cockpit is nothing more than another piece of emergency equipment. Our protocols ... require that ... one person is focused on flying at all times ... and one would be defending. And that would not be a distraction any more than any other viable emergency like a fire in the cockpit, where somebody has to grab a fire extinguisher and do that.

"If terrorists board an aircraft with the intention of hijacking it, will they be armed only with box cutters as they were before? We think the answer is 'probably not.' The element of surprise from a box cutter-type attack is gone and small knives are now confiscated at security checkpoints, so we must assume that terrorists will be armed with some other weapons, which could include guns not taken through screening checkpoints and/or undetected explosives.

"Neither the current [locked] cockpit doors ... nor the new [hardened] cockpit doors are impenetrable, and we are convinced that a team of trained terrorists could well decide to prove that point.

"Once terrorists learn that the U.S. has decided to begin arming pilots, commercial aviation becomes a much less inviting target."

Source: Capt. Stephen Luckey, chairman, Air Line Pilots Association's flight security committee. Quotes above compiled from May 2 testimony to House Transportation Committee.

The Pending Option - Non-Lethal Weapons
"United [Airlines] considered everything from chemical sprays to firearms ... We found the TASER [acronym for Thomas A. Swifts Electrical Rifle] represented the best overall solution ... The M-26 [TASER] resembles a handgun and immediately disables an attacker through electro-muscular disruption ... The typical early TASERs were in the seven to eight watt range. This is a 25 to 26 watt TASER.

"Since Sept. 11, there have been two physical attempts to gain entry to a cockpit, both by mentally unstable passengers, not terrorists. On Feb. 6 of this year United Flight 855 from Miami to Buenos Aires was one of these attempts. Even with the door bar installed, a passenger was able to ... crawl on the floor into the cockpit. Because of the position of the attacker, our pilot had to be very careful not to hit himself, the other pilot, or hit vital control panels ... with the fire axe. Therefore, he was not able to use the axe effectively and never fully subdued the attacker ... [cabin] crewmembers and passengers in the cabin began to swarm around the attacker about the time the axe was being used. A TASER weapon would have done a number of things. Both pilots could have stayed at their control stations, which would have allowed control of the aircraft even if one of the pilots [was] disabled. The TASER immediately would have immobilized the attacker without fatally endangering others who were trying to help. In this case, the shot would have been through the floor. A standard firearm aimed in this manner might have shot into the electronics bay underneath the airplane or, worse, ricocheted into the passenger cabin itself. Certainly the TASER would have been an improvement over the medieval tool used by our pilot that evening."

Source: Capt. Hank Krakowski, vice president of safety and security for United Airlines. Quotes above compiled from May 2 testimony to House Transportation Committee.

Yep Barbara,

China will agree, it is one thing standing on a range and shooting at static or moving targets, but it is another one, when having to act under duress.
Pilots are professionals.
When they have their hands on the controls (at least most of them).
I doubt, that they will be able to keep to keep that up when they have to play armed guards in an attack, or even perceived attack.
You got a drivers license, had no accidents in the last few years? Well, jump into this F1 car and beat Schumy and the rest.

As your compilation shows, there are options. But to buy a handgun per plane is the cheapest options, hardware wise.
Why do I have goose pimples now?

hank@ster

Hank, I think you and Cecil have convinced me that other options should be pursued other than allowing pilots to be armed. When you think about it, it would probably do more harm than good. It is a very difficult situation we have- a new kind of hijacker that not only has no regard for human life, but doesn't even care about their own. The solutions are difficult to say the least.

Barbara,
Just another thought against firearms in the cockpit. Imagine what a modern handgun can do to the fuselage. Besides, modern weapons lack one thing, man stopping. A hit in the arm, leg or even body will not stop a determined terrorist, you have to kill him. If you miss, someone else might be in the line of fire. And what will keep a terrorist to use a human shield?
The only handgun with man stopping effect (and shock) that comes to my mind is the good old black powder Colt or Remington with a soft lead ball. 90%+ of the German beer bottles (5c for return) I used for target practice 25 years ago survived. Except when hit were the body tapers into the neck (concave). But it was another story with 1/2 inch of plywood. Still, even those I do not want in the cockpit. A pilot will be just another nervous amateur, except if he spents much of his time on situation and practice training. And even a good pilot can be a lousy shot. IMHO, it is not their job to play gunman. A well trained Air Marshall with an old style Derringer seems the best solution. But they should not be trained or be on the payroll of the airline, else they will start cutting costs again down the road.
Belgian gunmaker FN (they have a factory in the Carolinas too), came up with another idea. A non lethal gun. They took the idea of the paint ball gun a step further. They shoot a capsule that contains an anaesthizer or tranqilizer, where the container does not penetrate clothing or skin, but pushes the agent through the cloth and skin, putting the target to sleep for a while. Sounds like an interesting approach. If someone wants to board wearing a Mac, put him into the cargo hold

hankster

- This post is served without fries -

"They took the idea of the paint ball gun a step further. They shoot a capsule that contains an anaesthizer or tranqilizer, where the container does not penetrate clothing or skin, but pushes the agent through the cloth and skin, putting the target to sleep for a while. Sounds like an interesting approach. If someone wants to board wearing a Mac, put him into the cargo hold."

Excellent points Hank! This new deterrent you mention sounds promising. Worst case is that you put the wrong person to sleep which might not be so bad- he gets to miss the ensuing firefight. Should do the job as long as the hijackers don't wrestle it away from the pilots and use it on them.

Barbara,
Rather would not have it in the hands of the pilots. They should stay in their 'fortress cockpit'. An Air Marshall (best) or cabin staff should take care of the bizz.
Opening the cockpit door renders the fortified doors and impregnable cockpit useless. Even gun slits will be counterproductive. They limit the vision. And as you surely have noticed, there are bulkheads on both sides. Somebody travelling over the seats next to the windows will stay out of sight. Well, you can install a lot of cameras, but they can be taken out too. A surprise dash to cover the last 3 yards to come next to, or at the foot of the door, it has good chances to succeed, and the gun slits can then used against the pilots.
Seal off the cockpit, and have others take care of the messy bizz.
You are right, being hit by accident by those capsules might not be that bad. One has a chance to miss an airline meal

hank@ster

"Seal off the cockpit, and have others take care of the messy bizz.
You are right, being hit by accident by those capsules might not be that bad. One has a chance to miss an airline meal."

Now there is something I hadn't thought about! Of course I've noticed that here in the U.S. those (airline meals) are few and far between of late- thank goodness!

Still frozen salad dressing....
Half frozen mini pizza ...
AA rates below McD.
Has me scramble to my garbage bag for some goodies..

hank@ster

Still frozen salad dressing....
Half frozen mini pizza ...
AA rates below McD.

Honestly? I don't even know why they bother. One time years ago I was on this flight to Maine with the kids and this poor older woman politely asked for an extra bag of pretzels. You'd think she had asked them for a special gourmet meal by their reaction! Let's just say we ended up giving her ours because we felt so badly for the way they made her feel. I could swear that when I was in my twenties they had a different attitude towards their customers in general.