Pilot arrested with gun (merged)

[Flash2001]

CNN is reporting a NW pilot arrested with gun at a New York airport.

After an excellent landing you can use the airplane again.

[GBXRE]

http://europe.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/01/21/pilot.arrested/index.html

I thought that the Senate passed legislation allowing the carriage of guns by pilots?

[I. M. Esperto]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-pilot-arrested0121jan21,0,7953122.story?coll=sns%2Dap%2Dnationworl d%2Dheadlines


January 21, 2003, 2:38 PM EST

Pilot alleged to have gun in carry-on

NEW YORK -- A Northwest Airlines pilot scheduled to work a Detroit-bound flight was arrested Tuesday morning at LaGuardia Airport after a loaded handgun was found in his carry-on luggage, authorities said.

Robert Donaldson, 43, was charged with three state counts of criminal possession of a weapon, and could face up to 15 years in prison, said the office of Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown.

According to authorities, Donaldson was walking through a terminal used for luggage screening of passengers and crew of both Northwest and Delta Airlines. Officials discovered the Taurus 9 mm semiautomatic handgun in his carry-on luggage.

Donaldson was scheduled as co-pilot on Flight 1191 from New York to Detroit, departing at 6 a.m. He had a permit to carry the gun in Michigan.

Brian Turmail, spokesman for the federal Transportation Security Administration, said screeners identified a handgun while examining a carry-on bag and referred the owner to local law enforcement. Police of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the agency that runs the airport, took him to a secure area, Turmail said.

No disciplinary action was immediately taken against Donaldson, who was in custody pending arraignment.

"We are cooperating with local and federal authorities," said Mary Beth Schubert, spokeswoman for Northwest.

A spokesman for Northwest's pilot union, the Air Line Pilots Association, said the group was aware of the incident. "We definitely don't want to speculate at this time," said Will Holman.

The homeland security bill that President Bush signed in November includes a provision allowing pilots on passenger planes to carry weapons -- but they would have to receive special training. The Transportation Security Administration was given broad authority to set standards, develop a training program and write rules for what kind of weapons would be used. It was estimated at the time that the program could be in operation as early as this spring.

[beardy]

This is dreadful, to carry and safely use a firearm one needs to have self discipline, which this individual appears not to have possessed. Would you trust him knowing that he was willing to flout laws like this. God forbid he should ever get near an aircraft or passengers ever again.

[whatshouldiuse]

So before we start making statements like:

"God forbid he should ever get near an aircraft or passengers ever again."

I'd suggest you let all the facts come out in this case. It is permissable to carry to a gun across interstate lines in the U.S with proper paperwork and licenses even for a pilot...not to mention passenger!!

Andy

[RRAAMJET]

Sorry, Whatshouldiuse, but this is precisely the sort of "absent mindedness" that is going to kill-off the program before it gets off the ground (I'm, like many of my colleagues, not convinced we dotted enough I's or crossed enough T's before rushing this one through). Reception to it amongst the public is lukewarm, despite the Union-sponsored surveys, and pilots have to be more responsible than ever to ensure that the "options" are left available that this program can provide (not to mention the deterrent effect).
The fact remains that some of the most enthusiastic and earliest volunteers for the training are the last people you'd want to have next to you on a flightdeck with a weapon - so called "gun nuts" - and it is imperative that fellow aviators weed these candidates out or calm them down. I personally have flown with one individual who said "...I hoped something would happen at the millenium new-year's eve, 'cos I was ready with my automatic weapons and bunker....they ain't gonna get my guns...". And he's one of the first to sign up.....God help us....:rolleyes:

[Xel]

The report says it was a Taurus 9. I wonder if it was their new Millennium PT-111 9mm Semi-Auto, Double Action Only, 2.35 barrel, 10+1 capacity, stainless slide, black polymer frame with 3-dot fixed sight. ;)

[DomeAir]

The airline industry is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on tough new security screening, has introduced AD's for the installation of tough new cockpit doors (that are bullet proof - presumably both sides), cameras and other valid aircraft security enhancements, and then in the US, laws are being drafted to allow pilots to introduce weapons to an aircraft?

And what can the pilots do if they're sitting behind a bullet proof door? Maybe open it and then start shooting in the cabin? That seems like a good idea...

Lets hope that as time continues to pass, more people will become aware of how difficult (in all respects) such a law would be. This arrest will hopefully highlight some of the difficulties with gun carriage and get more people thinking about the pros & cons of such.

And for the ultimate ironic situation? A pilot being told he/she can't have nail clippers in their O/N bag, but its OK for the fully loaded .357 Magnum because they have "approval" for that. What more can be said...:rolleyes:

[con-pilot]

Well actually a lot more can be said Dome.

I used to fly 72s for the United States Marshal Service. We tried to make the cockpit door to be protected against any type breach.

What we discovered was with enough time no matter what we did to protect the door the “bad guys” could gain access. There are enough tools in the cabin of ANY airliner that can be used to force the top or bottom of the cockpit door open.

Therefore the ultimate answer was to have a firearm in the cockpit. I can’t tell what we did because it is still controlled information. But we were comfortable with the end result.

The bottom line is “Arm the Bloody Pilots”. As in Period!

Sorry anti-gun folks, but sometimes the truth is not PC.

Ps. We can’t put all of our passengers in handcuff, waist chains and leg irons, even how bad sometimes we want to!

Now understand I am not defending this guy. Ok?

[Ignition Override]

How could the guy either forget that the gun was in his bag or feel that he could get away with it? At some airports, we can all bypass security-you sit in a two-hour class and watch a video to earn the SIDA ID badge!!. But only at your homebase airport. DID an ex- or soon-to-be-EX-WIFE put it in after his bag was packed? Years ago, a Continental pilot's 'angry' wife put a 'controlled substance' into his food. She then called the airline, trying to get him fired. Of course he failed the urinalysis, either the gas-chromatography or spectrometer, or both. They gave him his job back very soon: somehow, the demented b---h confessed, or the airline probed and figured it out.

Believe me, these things have happened, and much more than once (If someone slipped drugs into your bag before you went to some Pacific Rim dictatorship nations, they will hang you, no matter who was responsible).

IF this was not the case, then this guy was very stupid and ignorant. Why do people who do the really stupid things actually believe that their employers need their services? Any of us can be replaced by reserve pilots or those who need extra money. Why is this a new concept for pilots, no matter how expensive their sim. training?? We are NOT critically-needed management officers.

Do we still carry "postal inspectors" in the US now, as in the old days, who can have a weapon with them? I would have to ask Dispatch or find clear language in the FOM to allow this.

[Heilhaavir]

Con-pilot, without entering in a pro or con on arming pilots, I have to disagree with what you just wrote.
You WILL NOT be able to get on an El Al flight deck unless you blow the plane up. The whole bulkhead is bullet proof and there are double doors. My dad as well as his fellow crew members there, never needed to carry a gun with them and the last (serious) attempt to enter the cockpit with a gun and a hand grenade miserably failed after Capt Uri Barlev clicked the AP off and dove. Patrick Arguelo, the male terrorist, was shot dead by the sky marshall while Uri Cohen the purser tried to pin down Leila Khaled (the reknown female terrorist). Uri Cohen took 7 bullets and survived, the 707 landed safely in London (Sept 1970). I would not qualify the November 02 "attempt" on an El Al 757 as serious, but even there the poor guy was pinned down in a few seconds and the pilots never had to get involved.
Again my intent is not to start a thread on El Al security or the need for guns in cockpits. Just correcting con-pilot on his statement.
Con-pilot, if it was possible for the "bad guys" to gain access to your flight deck, your company got conned into buying the wrong doors ...... :)

Pat
:)

I forgot to mention that Khaled & Arguelo were never able to get through the cockpit doors, but I'm sure you understood.

[Konkordski]

...aside from the fact that, while the bad guy is kicking away at the door, there's 200 passengers behind him who aren't going to just sit and wait for him to put them all into the ground.

[OZZY AIRBORNE]

Couldn't agree more. Just beef up the door and leave any shooting to the sky marshall. If the pax haven't killed them first.

[Huck]

It doesn't matter - if the next bunch of terrorists don't want to fight armed pilots, they'll simply take over a cargo jet, whose pilots were quietly exempted from the "Armed Pilots" legislation.

[Human Factor]

....this is precisely the sort of "absent mindedness" that is going to kill-off the program before it gets off the ground.

Here's hoping.

[boofhead]

The only time a gun is dangerous, whether in the air or on the ground, is when it is in the hands of someone who intends to use it in a criminal manner. If all crew and passengers were armed all the time the flights would be safer than they are now, since the vast majority (99.99999999%) of crew and passengers are on the airplane for only one reason: to fly.

[beardy]

Boofhead,

Surely you must be joking, if you are it is in poor taste, if you're not, please never hold a firearm anywhere near a breathing body. Negligent and accidental discharges are not only embarrasing but at times deadly. Towhit my earlier comments. If this particular bonehead believes he knows best and is willing to blatantly ignore rules he should not be allowed near an aeroplane nor passengers.

[cwatters]

I can see it now....

"Airline bans guns after pilot sues airline for death of son who found loaded gun in travel bag"

[boofhead]

The two preceding posts show me, at least, what is wrong with our world post 9/11. Two states of mind seem to have become permanent; ignorance and fear.

A gun is not, as so many suppose, a malignant, sentient being. It has no life of its own and cannot send out a heat -seeking missile toward a "breathing" body. It needs to be picked up, held in the hand and pointed. Then the trigger needs to be pulled. All supposing that the gun is loaded and the safety is off. An automatic, by its design, cannot be fired unless it is grasped correctly, something a small hand cannot do. A revolver has a heavy trigger action and is difficult for a child to fire. Sure they both can do a lot of damage, but again I stress, it has to be a deliberate action.

So while a child is rummaging through someone else's bag, and presuming Mom or Dad is off at the bar drinking strength and courage for the upcoming flight, what is the bag's owner doing? Looking on and laughing? Do we care about the other dangerous items that can be found in a stranger's bag? His pills? Lighter? Electric stapler? Shaving kit? Or is it just (shock horror) guns? And why just at the airport? What about at the mall or the railway station, or are guns only carried by evil passengers and crew at airports?

If one of my kids was as ignorant about life I would despair, and in fact I do, because so many have bought into the current stupidity and without a group effort the clowns will win.

The second state of mind, fear, is probably worse, since it allows ignorance and resignation to thrive. Because of fear, we are doing bin Laden's work for him, destroying our freedoms and allowing the clowns to take away our rights without protest. We choose to believe them when they tell us that the airports need to be made into fortresses (at least on the side we can see, never mind that the backside is just as porous as it ever was) and it is GOOD that 15-20 percent of the passengers have given up flying because of the hassles. We are told, over and over, by word and deed, that flying is inherently unsafe, and we are under an immediate threat of terrorist action; only the alert government can protect us. Well, since we know that all governments lie (it is their job, but it is not our job to believe them) and that governments work on the principle of the lowest tender, we should know that they cannot protect us, and that the threat as they present it is not real, it is only a means whereby the government can grow itself.

The real risk of flying is still the same as it ever was: pilot error. terrorist threats are, statistically, very tiny, and less likely now that we are on our guard. The place we need to develop strategies to deal with the threat is in the air. Something that is not being done. The best airport security cannot protect us, it cannot even come close. Look at the last series of hijackings, just over the last few months. The weapons used were a small penknife (on El Al, the world's safest they say), a bottle of petrol, an asthma inhaler and in the last one there was no weapon, just a group of guys who broke down the flight deck door and laid into the pilots. In the only successful hijacking the perp used a TV remote control! Even Richard Reid was stopped not by airport security but by an alert passenger who was suspicious that the guy sitting next to him was trying to set fire to his feet and called the attendant. I repeat, in case it needs to be said again: Airport security cannot protect us.

But we have given up looking out for ourselves and have submitted to Big Brother. Why have we done this; have we not learned from history that this will fail, and that we will lose our rights and freedoms without increasing our safety in any way? Are we stupid or just cowards?

[beardy]

This last post looks as though it is from someone who has never had formal firearms training from an expert. Accidents do happen and all too frequently. In these circumstances (in an aircraft) they would be worse than negligent since there is no necessity for firearms on board. An aircraft is no place for a shoot out, it is no place for a firearm.

[cwatters]

> The two preceding posts show me, at least, what is wrong
> with our world post 9/11. Two states of mind seem to have
> become permanent; ignorance and fear.

Mine being one of these two posts I thought I might come back..

I've had basic firearms training and have fired 9mm pistols and 303 single shot and automatic rifles. Had I not got into other hobbies I might have continued to be intrested in shooting (I currently have no involvement in the sport).

When taught correctly you develop a healthy respect for firearms that seems to be seriously lacking in some. Firearms maybe inanimate objects incapable of acting on their own - but you would be wise to treat them as if they were! I for one would prefer not to be around guns unless under the controlled conditions of a well organised shooting club/range. Allowing even responsible people to carry guns and ammunition in public is asking for trouble. There will be accidental shootings, it's just a matter of time. I'm sure the airlines will get sued and then we will see how long the policy lasts.

Out of interest... Where would you stand if you refused to fly with someone carrying a gun?

[whatshouldiuse]

On the news today in N.Y, it turns out the pilot had a permit to carry the gun. Northwest is not going to pursue any charges or actions as the pilot had the permissable paperwork.

Andy

[A-V-8R]

Beardy...

"An aircraft is no place for a shoot out, it is no place for a firearm."

You're forgetting what my friends Vince Saracini, Jason Dahl, and Leroy Homer found out the hard way.

Some people will take your airplane and fly it thru a building to further their own cause.

Try to remember in this thread why the subject of arming pilots came up. It was a non issue prior to 9/11.......

R.I.P., Vince.

[boofhead]

Whenever guns come up it polarises people into those who accept them as what they are, tools, and those who hate and fear them. Logic goes out the window.

In the US (for example) there are around 30,000 gun deaths (with a population of 275,000,000), including legal shootings, suicides and murders. There are only 1,200 accidents, most in the home ('only' does not mean that it is not important or that we should not do all that we can to prevent such accidents. The NRA has a good safety program aimed at kids but the gun haters refuse to promote it because of the source). I am not aware of any such accidents in public places such as airports or airplanes, and I am sure if such an accident did happen the liberal press would shout it loud and clear. Sure one accident would be one too many, and I am not advocating that everyone should carry a gun on a flight. My point is that if one was to be carried, it would not increase the danger to those who flew on the same flight. They would never even know that the gun was there.
Of course, if some nutter did attempt to take over the airplane in the same manner as 9/11, it might be nice to have that gun, wouldn't it?

I am not a gun owner, but I did have my 12 years military and served in combat. For what that is worth. I do believe that gun control is anti rights and freedoms and is aimed at eventual gun confiscation, as was the case in Aus, UK and soon Canada. And in every one of those cases gun crime has skyrocketted. Even if I hated guns I would have to see, using logic, what was really happening.

Step back from fear and look at the situation logically.

[GlueBall]

I doubt that this gun toting pilot will be back on the job anytime soon. For one thing, the FAA Aeromedical Branch will first insist on having his head examined before revalidating his current or next medical certificate. This guy must be either dumb, stupid or close to retirement.
:confused:

[Ignition Override]

I just heard a theory, which might explain (but not justify) how a very forgetful person could have a gun in their baggage.

The pilot has a Michigan permit to carry the gun. In most cases, any US pilot can get an extra airport ID badge (by watching a two-hour videotape), which allows us to totally bypass security at one airport-our crewbase. This guy could have carried his gun - through the bypass- from DTW to LGA etc, and legally, regarding the Michigan regulations. But why did he not somehow go through his bag later, at whatever home or hotel he stayed in? Something really strange will emerge during this investigation, but might not be released to the media. The guy I just flew with today spoke to the weird guy recently, having been already acquainted, and only got an odd, blank stare...................

By the way, our FOs all have a crash axe next to their seats in the cockpits. They therefore have a deadly weapon which can knock out anybody, or worse, with one blow, and IN EVERY COCKPIT in this fleet.

Do the flying public and media realize that we [and most other airline employees] can physically bring anything we want onto the airport ramp, various ops areas, or other airport locations, at most or all US flightcrew bases, if it is our crewbase? No x-ray machine is there to check us next to baggage claim etc. We just push buttons and/or swipe the card through a small box, and poof! There we are, walking around airplanes, fuel trucks, "sensitive cargo" etc..

[boofhead]

I agree that this is degenerating into the same old gun control debate and deserves to be dropped. But if yours was a cry for this, why add the phrase "make gun control safer"? Surely you mean "make guns safer", or has your real agenda slipped out?

[T_richard]

Good Morning Mike,

May I clear up to misstatements please

It is fact that the NRA has an excellent gun safety program designed for children. It gets limited hearing in some parts of the USA because of an anti-gun bias. Having recognized the program, ultimately, I believe it is the resposability of the parents to teach their children and themselves to respect the potential danger in a gun just as we acknowledge the potential danger in an automobile.

The NRA is not against federal regulations to make guns safer. (I took the liberty of editing your post to reflect what I think you meant to say, pardon me if I'm wrong.) The NRA resists the movement to register gun owners, limit gun ownership or to eliminate gun ownership. The existing gun laws in the US if PROPERLY enforced would be more than enough to reduce gun related crimes and accidents.

Having said all that I return to the original topic, this pilot and Mrs. Lou Dobbs commited an unforgivable sin IMHO. They forgot where their loaded gun was. These people probably remember turn off and lock their car when they aren't using it, but they can't remember to store a loaded weapon safely. I believe they may have violated some federal regulations in doing so. If I am wrong please cite the relevant law for my education. If I'm correct someone please charge them under the appropriate statute and lets get on with it.

Thanks

The pavlovian reaction of anti gunners to the NRA and its supporters reflects an unwillingness to see the real issues and address them.

[OFBSLF]

This last post looks as though it is from someone who has never had formal firearms training from an expert.I've had about 160 hours of formal firearms training (4 times what a police cadet gets in most police academies in the state of Massachusetts).

I'm a firearms instructor certified by the NRA to teach Basic Pistol, Home Firearms Safety, and Personal Protection. I'm certified by the Massachusetts State Police to teach firearms safety. I'm a certified range safety officer and not too long ago was permitted by the US Army to act as range safety officer/officer in charge at the small arms ranges at Fort Devens. I'm also the Chief Range Safety officer of the gun club that I belong to. I know my way around a firearm.

For the most part, I agree with boofhead. I personally support having trained pilots carry firearms. I believe the added risk to passengers would be slight and that the risk of an accidental discharge would be quite low. A holstered gun is a safe gun -- the only way for a holstered gun to go off is if it is removed from the holster and the trigger is pulled. A handgun will not simply go off by itself -- someone has to be messing with it for it to go off. Modern design handguns won't go off if dropped. They will go off only if someone loads it and pulls the trigger.

boofhead said: An automatic, by its design, cannot be fired unless it is grasped correctly, something a small hand cannot do. A revolver has a heavy trigger action and is difficult for a child to fire.I have to disagree with you a bit here.

A few models of semi-automatics, like the M1911 (used by the US military for decades) and the more recent Steyr series, have grip safeties, which are a device on backstrap. These guns will not go off unless the grip safety is depressed, even if you try to pull the trigger. The grip safety is depressed when you take a proper firing grip. But most semi-autos these days do not have grip safeties. Some semi-autos have manual safeties (e.g., Berettas, S&W third generation), but many others do not (e.g., Glock, Sig). Small hands can sometimes fire a semi-auto -- it might take them some ingenuity, but kids are pretty ingenious.

The double-action pull on a revolver is relatively stiff (usually 10-12 lbs these days). While that may be beyond the strength of a smaller child, they probably can pull the trigger by bracing the gun against an object (say a chair). The single-action trigger pull of a revolver is usually much lighter (< 4 lbs). Single-action does require that the revolver be manually cocked, which may or may not be beyond the knowledge and strength of a particular child.

I strongly recommend that one never depend upon a particular feature of a gun to keep it safe from a child. Instead, I recommend that the guns be kept locked up when not in use (something that is required by law in some countries and some states of the US). I also recommend that you educate your child on firearms safety, starting with the Eddie Eagle message -- "stop, don't touch, leave the area, tell an adult."

Are planes a bad place for a gunfight? Any place is a bad place for gunfight. Sept. 11 also showed us they are a bad place for a knife fight, particularly when the terrorists are the only ones with the knives.

To get back a bit closer to the main thread, no, I don't support having passengers carry guns. I do support trained pilots having guns and being trained to use them solely to protect the cockpit.

The Allied Pilots Association has a video on their web site illustrating how easily Tasers are defeated:

http://www.alliedpilots.org/Public/InfoCenter/streaming_media.asp

Having said all that I return to the original topic, this pilot and Mrs. Lou Dobbs commited an unforgivable sin IMHO. They forgot where their loaded gun was. These people probably remember turn off and lock their car when they aren't using it, but they can't remember to store a loaded weapon safely. I believe they may have violated some federal regulations in doing so. If I am wrong please cite the relevant law for my education. If I'm correct someone please charge them under the appropriate statute and lets get on with it. They certainly violated federal law by trying to bring their guns into the secured area of an airport (even if they did so inadvertently). I am not aware of any US federal law or regulation regarding storage of firearms. Some US states do have laws regarding storage of firearms, but I'm unaware of any such law on the US federal level.

Most state storage laws would probably not apply anyways, since, in this case, the guns were not "stored." Instead, the guns were under the direct control of the pilot and Mrs. Dobbs, in their carry-on bags. They might have forgotten that the guns were there, but that doesn't meet the definition of being stored. Storage implies that the guns were left somewhere, out of their direct control, which was apparently not the case.

[T_richard]

Good Afternoon OFBSLF

I am sure you are right about the absence of federal law re: storage, we have one here in RI. I believe that my main point was that these individuals "forgot" or misplaced their personal firearms. I hope we can agree that that is an irresponsable form of behavior for a gun owner. I cannot claim your pedigree but I've been around firearms all my life too, and I can't conceive of "losing" my pistol.

End of point

[OFBSLF]

T_richard: Indeed I do agree. Their behavior was irresponsible. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is responsible.

[Ignition Override]

As for odd things happening, how about a crewmember finding a pistol round (one shell, containing the bullet) in the empty overhead baggage space in the passenger cabin, soon after everybody has walked off of the plane? This was probably the airplane's third or fourth flight that day.

This happened recently right after one of my flights, and according to the gate agent who waited onboard for the TSA person to show up, no Federal Marshals had flown on it that day. Maybe a postal inspector (a Dirty Harry wannabe) had lost the round, but why was the thing loose, in the first place?

[T_richard]

I/O

As weird as it may seem, its more likely someone lost their"lucky" round. Or they went to the pistol range and that round got lost in the bottom of a pocket.

Getting an unspent round out of a pistol clip takes technique or an act of Congress. Typically if there is one in a revolver there are six, so this was probably a stray. A girlfriend gave me a keychain made out of an unfired 9 mm (gunpowder is drained). Needless

to say, that stays home when I travel.

[Ignition Override]

Yep, that was apparent to me to, but I'm against anyone on the plane having a gun, except FBI, an Air Marshal, Secret Service or a pilot with good training (whereby no passenger can go steal his gun when he goes out for a bite or byte).

No other agencies, unless traveling with a prisoner, for example to Kansas City (federal and military prisons nearby in Leavenworth), should be allowed to get on the plane with a gun.

[jet_noseover]

Better NOT


From the AP:


Thursday January 30, 2003 12:20 AM
The recent arrest of a Northwest Airlines pilot found with a loaded handgun in his carry-on luggage raises the question of how airport security workers can identify those pilots authorized by the government to have a gun.

Congress gave the Transportation Security Administration until Feb. 25 to develop a plan to train those passenger airline pilots who volunteer to be "federal flight deck officers.'' The agency also must come up with rules by then that govern when and where those pilots may carry weapons.

"There are still some policy questions that need to be answered,'' agency spokesman Robert Johnson acknowledged.

Among the questions: How does the gun get into the cockpit? Does the pilot carry it through the airport? If so, what happens in countries with stricter gun-control laws than the United States? Who supplies the weapon? What kind of weapon will be issued? And how much training should be required?

The largest pilots' union, which favors arming pilots, is concerned the government may be looking for ways to limit or delay the program, which the Bush administration only embraced after Congress expressed overwhelming support.

"They want to restrict it as much as they can,'' said Capt. Steve Luckey, chairman of the Air Line Pilots Association's national security committee.

Money is another unknown. The agency assembled $500,000 from various accounts for a test program for 50 pilots in the spring.

But with perhaps 30,000 or more of the estimated 100,000 commercial pilots interested in participating, far more dollars will be needed.

The agency's chief, James Loy, estimated in November it would cost $900 million to start the full program and about $250 million a year to maintain it. The agency has backed off those figures, saying it will cost less, but has provided no updated estimates.

Airlines, still reeling from the Sept. 11 attacks and losing billions of dollars, do not want to cover any of the cost.

"The pilots don't want to pay for it, the airlines don't want to pay for it and the government doesn't want to pay for it,'' said Paul Hudson, executive director of the Aviation Consumer Action Project, which advocates airline safety and security.

Polls have shown most people want to allow pilots to carry weapons. The airlines strongly oppose the idea, fearing a weapon could fall into the wrong hands, accidentally injure a passenger or cause a plane crash if a stray bullet struck a fuel line or navigational equipment.

The big airlines' trade group, the Air Transport Association, argues that stronger cockpit doors and the presence of air marshals provide protection against hijackings.

Capt. Fred Bates, an American Airlines pilot who heads a group of pilots working with agency to put the program in place, said the training requirements are pretty obvious because a cockpit is such a limited jurisdiction.

"It's really not about guns, it's about no more 9/11s,'' Bates said.

Agency spokesman Johnson said the agency is likely to go along with the pilots' recommendations for five days of training, including marksmanship.

The pilots want to be trained at federal facilities around the country so it is more convenient for them. The agency has not decided whether to limit the training to federal law enforcement training centers in Georgia and New Mexico.

Also unanswered is what kind of gun will be allowed and whether pilots can carry them or be required to leave them in the cockpit.

Pilots want to carry semiautomatic pistols, not revolvers, so they can fire multiple rounds in case more than one hijacker tries to commandeer a plane. They also do not want to keep the guns in lockboxes in the cockpit, an idea the government is considering. Pilots say it is safer to carry guns because they know where they are at all times.

[Tripower455]

The recent arrest of a Northwest Airlines pilot found with a loaded handgun in his carry-on luggage raises the question of how airport security workers can identify those pilots authorized by the government to have a gun.

How about doing it the same way that Air Marshalls and other armed LEOs are IDed and handled? No need to reinvent the wheel.

Among the questions: How does the gun get into the cockpit? Does the pilot carry it through the airport? If so, what happens in countries with stricter gun-control laws than the United States? Who supplies the weapon? What kind of weapon will be issued? And how much training should be required?

See above......

Money is another unknown. ............ "The pilots don't want to pay for it, the airlines don't want to pay for it and the government doesn't want to pay for it,'' said Paul Hudson, executive director of the Aviation Consumer Action Project, which advocates airline safety and security.


How about reducing the cast of the "Greatest Security Show on Earth" by a few thousand? Do we really need that many overpaid, ex Burger King workers standing around the pilot errrr, passenger screening checkpoints?

The airlines strongly oppose the idea, fearing a weapon could fall into the wrong hands, accidentally injure a passenger or cause a plane crash if a stray bullet struck a fuel line or navigational equipment.

The airlines don't seem to worry when Barney Fife, Dept of Education, Postal workers, Dept of Agriculture and the myriad of other folks (most with dubious reasons), carry firearms on the aircraft.

The big airlines' trade group, the Air Transport Association, argues that stronger cockpit doors and the presence of air marshals provide protection against hijackings.

What happens when there are no marshalls aboard, and a fraction of the amount of C-4 that Richard Reid had removes the "stronger" door from it's mounts?

Airport security does not necessarily equate to airplane security.