FAA on guns in cockpits
 

HOMELAND INSECURITY
Armed pilots banned
2 months before 9-11
FAA rescinded rule allowing guns in cockpits just before terror attacks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 16, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Jon Dougherty

A 40-year-old Federal Aviation Administration rule that allowed commercial airline pilots to be armed was inexplicably rescinded two months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, leading aviation security experts to lay at least some of the blame for the tragedy at the feet of airlines, none of which took advantage of the privilege while it was in effect.

The FAA adopted the armed pilot rule shortly after the Cuban missile crisis of 1961 to help prevent hijackings of American airliners. It remained in effect for four decades.

But in July 2001 – just two months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks – the rule was rescinded.

According to FAA officials, the rule required airlines to apply to the agency for their pilots to carry guns in cockpits and for the airlines to put pilots through an agency-approved firearms training course.

The aviation agency said, however, that throughout the life of the rule not a single U.S. air carrier took advantage of it, effectively rendering it "moot," according to one agency official.

"In the past, FAA regulations permitted pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit provided they completed an FAA-approved training program and were trained properly by the airlines," FAA spokesman Paul Takemoto told WND in a voice-mail message. "That was never put into effect because no requests for those training programs were ever made. …"

Takemoto said the newly created Transportation Security Administration is now responsible for deciding whether pilots can be armed. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act signed into law by President Bush Nov. 19, 2001, has a provision allowing pilots to be armed, but the law does not mandate that the right be granted.

The FAA failed to return numerous follow-up phone calls requesting to know why the rule was rescinded, who was responsible for the decision, whether a particular incident spurred the decision and whether the aviation agency believes the airlines share some culpability for never taking advantage of it in the first place.

Some security experts speculate that had airlines taken advantage of the rule, it likely would not have been rescinded by the FAA. And if it had been implemented by the airlines, they say, the Sept. 11 hijackings – which led to the deaths of nearly 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. – may never have occurred.

"It's hard to say," said Capt. Robert Lambert, a commercial airline pilot and founding board member of the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance. But in lieu of the attacks, he said he can't understand why airlines still refuse to support arming their pilots.

"We're convinced there was a myriad of reasons why the airlines refused to allow pilots to be armed" before the attacks, said Lambert. He said the airlines were likely concerned about liability issues, but "of course, they have a lot of liabilities after Sept. 11, too," he added.

"For airlines not to trust us [with a gun in the cockpit] is totally ludicrous," he said.

Other pilot advocacy groups have said arming pilots as a "last line of defense" against terrorist hijackings is a better option – even if some innocent passengers are inadvertently harmed – than having Air Force fighters blow entire airliners out of the sky, assuredly killing all aboard.

Nico Melendez, a spokesman for the TSA, said his agency wasn't aware of the FAA's former rule. But when asked if it could have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks, he refused to speculate, saying, "I won't go there."

Melendez also refused to say when or whether the agency would sanction arming pilots. "That will be announced in due time," he told WND.

Airlines mum

None of the airlines WND attempted to contact for this story returned inquiries asking whether they believed they shared some culpability for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Bill Mellon, a spokesman for Northwest Airlines, initially responded but, after repeatedly declining to answer pointed questions as to why his company never applied for the FAA program, referred further inquiries to an airline industry group.

"Those are industry questions," he told WorldNetDaily in an e-mail response, "not Northwest Airline questions," referring the newssite to the Air Transport Association, or ATA, the industry's primary trade group.

But the ATA, along with America West, American Airlines and United Airlines, also failed to respond to numerous requests for comment.

APSA's Lambert said the ATA, which purports to speak for the entire airline industry, has "historically been against arming pilots," a position he said was "hard to understand."

According to published statements, the ATA said it has traditionally supported "more federal air marshals" instead.

Congressional help?

Some lawmakers are working to implement new legislation that would require federal officials to "deputize" airline pilots and allow them to be armed.

The House Transportation Committee is considering H.R. 4635, called the "Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act," which would make volunteer pilots Federal Flight Deck Officers, according to a published summary.

The bill would mandate – not simply ask – the "Under Secretary of Transportation for Security to … deputize qualified volunteer pilots as federal law enforcement officers to defend the cockpits of commercial aircraft in flight against acts of criminal violence or air piracy."

The program would go into effect 90 days after it is signed into law, and would be implemented in conjunction with the federal air marshal program.

The head of the Center for the Study of Crime, Randall N. Herrst – an attorney by trade who said his arguments have been used successfully in anti-gun control cases – disagrees with the government's intention of placing sky marshals on each flight. He says arming pilots would be a better, more cost-effective and faster plan to implement.

"At 35,000 flights a day, even if some marshals can cover two round trips per day on short routes, we will still need 90,000 sky marshals if we want at least two on each flight," taking into account days off, vacations and sick days, he said.

He agreed that "there are no guarantees" armed pilots would have prevented the Sept. 11 hijackings. But he added: "That is the only course of action that could have stopped the attacks."

Herrst said arming pilots would amount to a military principle known as "defense in depth."

"If you have a choice," he says, "you never depend on a single line of defense – you always have a second, third and fourth line as well."

He is also suspicious that despite Sept. 11, lawmakers, bureaucrats and the White House are still dragging their feet over arming pilots.

"The reasons must be purely political," he told WND. "[But] if there is another major round of hijackings, it will probably bankrupt the entire U.S. airline industry."

"People are so obsessed with banning guns that they are willing to sacrifice human lives and a huge portion of our economy to political correctness," he added.

C'mon guys and gals....only criminals are allowed to have guns on airplanes...not law-abiding citizens.....let's get real...If I shoot a burglar in my home, I have less rights than if he breaks in and shoots me....but hey...at least I CAN have a gun......:rolleyes: :D

CLICK-CLICK

I SAID TWO SUGARS IN MY COFFEE, BITCH!

BANG

Ruling Lets Pilots Act All Crazy

Washington, D.C. (SatireWire.com) ? In a long-awaited decision, the Transportation Security Administration today denied a request that would have allowed airline pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit, but said it would allow them to "do that wacko crazy-person thing where you make lots of erratic movements and scream at yourself and swear and bark and ****" in order to fend off possible hijackers.

While refusing the pilots' petition, the TSA approved a controversial request by the flight attendants' union that would allow cabin stewards, in the event of an emergency, to "run like hell" straight into a bulkhead and knock themselves out.

http://www.satirewire.com/briefs/pilots.shtml

Armed Flight Deck
 

I was walking past a small suburban bank recently when a security company was making a delivery of cash.
By the size of the cash box I'd guess a total of a a few hundred thousand bucks.
The driver & two guards were all armed with heavy calibre revolvers.
The politicians & bureaucrats don't seem to have any problem with this scenario but can't come to grips with the protection
of an airliner that could be flown into a nuclear plant by suicide terrorists. All to appease the anti gun lobby no doubt.

U.S. pilots won't be armed...
 

U.S. pilots won't be armed.

It all seems so simple to the good senator, I don't know about the rest of you, but no one has installed a galley or lavatory in my flightdeck yet.

What say we all just stay home for a while and let the "experts" really put some thought into developing effective security.:rolleyes:

-----------------------------------

Orca, if they arm the pilots I want to know which airlines. I wouldn't want to acidentally book with one. Maybe I'll stick to B.A. or Virgin.

Yeah, let the "Honorable" Sen. Hollings sit in an -80 cockpit 4 1/2 hours from STL to SEA not including taxi time. Better yet, make him do it in August.TC

Clown
All other aspects aside, as a last resort, don't you wish the crews on Sept11 were armed? I wish they had that option. At worst they would still have crashed, perhaps though one or more of the aircraft might not.

Clowns. Its not about arming / dis-arming the pilot's that concerns me as much as the inane concept of a sealed and secured flight deck.

The good senator's advice on keeping the flight deck door locked is purely for public perception and nothing to do with real security.

It's time for real discussion and real solutions (however this may have to include pilots and cabin crew), and by the look of the pol'tics that have been involved thus far, we will continue to be left out of the process.:(

-----------------------------------------------

Yeah, Now our "Last line of defense" is the f16 waiting to shoot us down. Makes you think twice about reporting being hijacked, doncha think?

I am not sure I would squawk hijack intodays atmosphere...

Cheers
Wino

Let me re-phrase the above statement.

It’s not about arming or dis-arming the pilot’s that concerns me, it’s the neutering…
----------------------------------------------

I think we already discussed the pros and contras of guns in the cockpit extensively here... Seems more a side-of-the-ocean conflict than anything else, therefore I was surprised to hear this (in my ears) good news coming from the US!

P77

I have read the Globe and Mail article posted by Orca and support guns in cockpit as a last line of defence. Hollings and his mates worry about a passenger being injured or electrical system malfunction before we all get shot down by an F-16 and die anyway. If terrorists want to get in they're going to. Next time they will probably pick a softer target. Europe? The reinforced doors theory is nonsense, they still have to be opened for food anyway and I saw a 'locked' door fall open during descent.

reminds me of a story years ago when an inbound aircraft asked ATC to order seven and a half tonnes of fuel for them from the airfields fuel suppliers. Some bright spark in the tower decided it was some kind of code and asked them to repeat the figure using numerals only and then ordered a full scale security alert for the planes arrival - ooops! Soz, completely irrelevant...

Sorry to the people that read my reply on an other thread, but my opinion:

Guns on flightdeck: NO WAY!

Before you know it the capt and FO having a contest who can clean the gun fastest. You need to do something after six hours flying from LAX to LHR.
"XXX123, Mayday, mayday, my capt just shot himself cleaning his gun!!"
ATC: "Say again:confused: ??

Cloggy:

And this would be before or after their 'who can do the better barrell roll in this Boeing/Airbus' competition?


Jeez.... :rolleyes:

ALPA Responds to Magaw Statement against Arming Pilots
 

Here's the response from the ALPA on this issue:

http://www.alpa.org/internet/news/2002news/nr02044.html

Cheers,

Pilots carried guns for longer than they have been banned. They were REQUIRED to untill into the 50s, and were actively encouraged to do so during the hijackings of the 70s.

I know of no cases where anything bad happened as a result of pilots carrying guns. I can point to one hijacking that was stopped when the hijacker was shot dead by the Captain (American Airlines DC-6 in the fifties)...

It certainly couldn't have made things worse on Sept 11.

Cheers
Wino

.... and before the 50's how many "Columbine" incidents did we have. How many "he was just a normal, well balanced guy before this..." incidents of mass murder and gun rage did we have?
Guns in the cockpit...NO WAY.http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/shot1.gif
There are plenty of non lethal alternatives.

I'm not for or against the principle of arming, but Rice you say there are plenty of non lethal alternatives........and they would be?????

I'm not sure Rice is a pilot. According to his profile he does not have an ATPL, so it's not his problem, it's ours.

No guns!!
Cool! - common sense prevails.

I've been observing the posts re. arming pilots and several who profess to be anti-arming don't have pilots licences, at least on their profiles, which makes me think the anti-gun lobby are having their say, like 18, above. "Cool-no guns". No reasons either.
By the way 18-wheeler, did you know all 747's (400's anyway) have the same door key?

Air Security is still in the BandAid stage. Folks really dont know what the hell to do and who to allow to do it. Things of yesterday are gone forever. The US Army never had locks on Aircraft until some idiot stole a helicopter and drove it to the White House. Within a week, all in the inventory had keyed ignition and locked doors that a teenager could open....
So it is with Guns. As for me, if I were in heavy Iron, I would probably settle for a nice sawed off shotgun. Something with a good load to kick Al Quiada's ass back through first class.
In reality though, I think a compromise as to let those who want to be, and can qualify, carry a weapon.... Let the terrorists try to figure out who is not armed....
As to non lethal stuff someone mentioned MACE. Now that will certainly do the trick. Everyone goes blind.. Where are these folks coming from...
As one who flys as a passenger when not doing part 135, I can agree with someone elses comment. Should one of our Al Quiada brethern even appear to head for the cockpit, Im going to drop him like a bad habit. Hopefully with help and guarnteed, We will be the only ones to give a statement after all is said and done....

And for special effects, you can use the Halon or CO2 Fire Extinguisher on the face of the cockpit intruder.

But the bottom line is that pax no longer will sit idle during any inflight confrontation. Fearing for their own safety and survival, passengers would quickly tackle any would be hijacker. This fact already has been demonstrated with the "shoe bomber" and the Urugayan "banker" nut-case who attempted to break into the UA 777 cockpit.

ALPA's aerial cowboy mentality is reactionary. Juvenile. Impractical reality.:eek:

B.Sousa…..

Don’t you remember the days when flying used to be fun????



Mutt.

West Coast the fatal logical flaw that September the 11th was last year. Any armed flight is a solution to a problem that has already occured. September 11th was a dramatic enough event to change all future cases of airborne violence such that a respose to that attack in that form becomes obsolete.

Completely agree Orca. Pilots must be in the debate. No-one outside aviation seems to realise quite how much this affected us. At least outside the USA there was from teh start even more shock amongst our community than in the wider society. Mutt perfectly expresses my initial feeling as I saw the sight I can still not watch when it is repeated on television.

The ability to carry a firearm would be completely voluntary. Those of you that are against armed cockpits would not be required to carry.
Those that are against scare me because you do not have any viable solutions. Keep locking your selves into the paper mache vault and wear those pink sunglasses.
The US government is great at diverting attention from the real need of its people. Security is a joke and will continue to be as long as the Keystone cops are in charge.
To those that think that this coming from some gun happy "cowboy", you are wrong. I do not own a gun, but would be willing to go to any training program that would make me competent to safely use a tool of self defense. As it stands today, all the bad guys have guns and know that we do not. Still feel safe?

Grandprix said-

"To those that think that this coming from some gun happy "cowboy", you are wrong. I do not own a gun, but would be willing to go to any training program that would make me competent to safely use a tool of self defense. As it stands today, all the bad guys have guns and know that we do not. Still feel safe?"

So, why have you not taken the training? As a non-pilot you stand a much higher chance of meeting an armed BG (bad guy) in your everyday life - and yet you have not taken the opportunity to protect yourself. And were you to take proper training, you would have a much better idea of the limitations of a firearm in resolving aggressive confrontations.

Turnup,
Good ?
I belive that in any other situation I can get away from the BG.
In a cockpit I have no place to go. In the real world, I get to make the choice as to where I go. I avoid dangerous areas and sitiuations at all reasonable cost. That opportunity does not exist on the aircraft because I do not have the final authority as to who is allowed to board. The government made sure of that when they decided that profiling was wrong.

As an intrested and sympathetic ATC person, I wonder if we are not getting sidelined whether pilots should or should not be armed, and whether the flight deck door is locked or not.
The important thing is to make all efforts with the regulatory and airport authorities to make sure that these hijackers do not get on the aeroplane in the first place by the use of increased security, surely if these hijackers are on board the aeroplane then the battle is effectively lost.

Well said GrandPrix!

The most emotional responses to gun issues on this board appear to overwhelmingly come from non flight deck personnel.

A gun in every flight deck makes about as much logistical and economic sense as hiring 90,000 air marshals.

A gun on some flight decks? Why not, there are some very qualified people in flight decks already that come from anti-terrorist and gun handling backgrounds. The idea is to add one more layer to a multi-layered security blanket.

Observed in a retail shop: -----------------------------------------

And the debate rages on...
 

Ideas like arming pilots are there to remind us of how much we still need our sense of smell and test our professed dedication to honesty...

Permission to speak with 100% candor, please.

In the consideration of suicidal terrorism onboard:
Without respect to your toughness, bravery, or commitment to maintaing command of your aircraft, the moment that an aggressive intruder breaches that cockpit, flightcrew life expectancy careens to infinitesimal.

I estimate the space between pilot seating and the cockpit door, runs @ three feet deep, generally speaking. The time it takes somebody to cross that span is exactly how long you have to:

1) Notice the entry
2) Determine the threat
3) Get a hand on that weapon
4) Aim
5) Make your shot without doing catastrophic damage to your aircraft or passengers who mean you no harm.

Assuming that you can manage to overcome astronomical odds here and survive... The argument could easily be made that if you had time to make that shot, you were not warranted in the use of deadly force because the threat to your command of that aircraft was not as great as you perceived it to be. Here's the bitch of the thing; even if you are justified--you're still going to get stuck with the liability and pay through the nose for it.

You may have been right, and I may believe you--but it will not matter.

Now, considering that fact that the potential for civil liabilities, aircraft damage, and bad public relations are enormous... And considering that no insurer, anywhere, is going to touch this--period... This is a formula for the demise of your carrier (that's already struggling in a brutal economic environment) your career, and the livelihood of tens of thousands of people. So, who's going to pay for these liabilities when this bright idea goes south--and it will--ALPA? Carrier? Passengers? Tax Payers? Who gets to have the dubious distinction of bending over and taking it in the rear for this utterly volitile but completely illusory sense of security?

This is nothing more that a dangerous security blanket. You will not have the time to use it properly--and if you do, then we'll be made to pay for it as though you shouldn't have.

We need to stop clapping each other on the back with these feel good "We'll give you a fighting chance" lies. This measure will not push the odds in your favor one iota---nada.

We need to be about the business of making sure that you have the capabilty of throwing over command of your aircraft to a ground unit that will guide you onto a militarized airfield, where you'll be met by a well equipped and highly trained anti-terrorist team, and providing you with security onboard.

What we're trying to do here is reduce the incentive to dispose of the flightcrew and provide you with an unmistakable 'heads up' that you've got trouble just outside that door. Now, you've got the time you need to prepare for your own defense and the defense of your aircraft. You can switch over command, pull that axe off the wall and steady your nerve for whatever may come through that cockpit door. Now, you've got a fighting chance--we really have pushed the odds in your favor.

mriya225

With all due respect to opinion and argument, I have to refer to my previous statement regarding emotional responses from non flight-deck personnel. The general response from non flight-deck ppruner's is to let some other expert sort out the problems, that’s not the pilot's job, i.e.:I'll assume from this cozy statement that:
1) These facilities will be available world wide over land, water and ice?
2) There is zero possibility of anyone other than the appointed authority on the ground that can gain control of the aircraft remotely.

The second point of remote aircraft interference is the most absurd. Consider that:
1) The system on the ground would have the ability to override the pilot completely (think about that).
2) Keeping this electronic leash on the aircraft from being intercepted, corrupted etc. is not 100% guaranteed.

When your aircraft pushes back from the gate, the general public truly does not grasp the behind the scenes planning that has brought the aircraft to that point. Planning, dispatching, ground crews, maintenance, over flights, atc and so on. It always amazes me that the system works at all. But fewer yet understand that when that aircraft gets airborne, you better hope that the commander and crew are fully aware that they are now it. Looking for that big cozy hand in the sky to gently set you back on the ground is not going to happen. Just ask two highly motivated flight attendants that disarmed the shoe bomber.
--------------------------------------

Orca strait -

There were a couple of the pax who helped out in the Richard Reid case from a physical standpoint. BUT - a medal to the two AA Cabin Crew that initially went after the bas**rd!!

I am commenting on your post solely to point out the pax involvement. As a "professional" pax, I - and my fellow pros - normally sit in first class. The flight deck, at least in America, can rest assured that the pax are going after any, repeat, anybody that looks suspicious coming up the aisle towards the cockpit door. And, Yes, I do profile those getting on as well as those walking up the aisle!!

GlueBall has it right in his earlier post on this thread.

But, I still support the idea of the Flight Deck crew having the choice to arm themselves, or not. At the end of the day, it is the Pointy End that has the ultimate resxponsibility.

Lots of talk about Air Marshalls on the USA TV recently, but ATPLs know that there are very few of them in existance today, and real secure doors are one-two years away. So, the security gaps are still there and will be into the near future.

Even if we get the plane physically secure we still aren't doing the right thing about the people on the ground with access to the planes!! :mad: :mad:

Profiling: Not Much Help
 

Profiling would only help if all terrorists in the world happened to be in the racial group you happened to pick. They're not. Sorry wino, there are white terrorists as well, I grew up with IRA bombs and scares on the menu.

For the historically minded: One of the Palestinian star hijackers of the 1970s was a blonde, blue-eyed German woman...oops. (Gabrielle Kruger of the PFLP) Even if you are convinced that Islam and terrorism are the same thing, I would remind you that you that it's a religion not a race - you can convert. Think John Lindh.

AA SLF-

The professional pax’s are certainly a part of the team, and I have been assisted by them on various occasions (medical emergency, rowdy passenger to name a few). Glad to have you on board.

There is no doubt that since 9/11, collectively, our response to any kind of hi-jack threat would be treated much differently than prior to 9/11.

We have recently learned that there was considerable intelligence gathered prior to 9/11, that the probability of hi-jacking civilian airliners was high. As a pilot, prior to flight I receive briefings on weather, airspace changes, delays; equipment malfunctions etc., but nothing on security. Most of us have held security clearances at one time or another in our careers. Why not issue a discreet security bulletin to the flight crew, something like -an increased threat in air piracy or hi-jacking has been identified, possible perpetrators (terrorist group of the day). Forewarned is forearmed. As it was, prior to 9/11 we were still using hi-jack prevention and control tactics from the 1960's! Instead, we were all led to believe that the hi-jack threat died in the 1970's!

If the crews on that fateful day had known that the possibility of domestic hi-jacking was there and that tactics and demands of the hi-jacker may have changed (this was known in security circles), then those crews may have had a better more effective response that may have saved the day. As it was, the crews used the tools that they had been given and these tools were woefully out of date and ineffective.

The part that really makes my blood boil, since 9/11, crews have been further distanced from the security apparatus and treated as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. We are reminded of this every time we are made to surrender our shoes and nail clippers.

---------------------------

steamchicken-

There is a huge difference betwen "profiling" and "racial profiling".

------------------

I wish you wouldn't bother with the "all due respect" disclaimer--it just makes you look bad when you're unable to follow through.

This is a little no-p.c. nit-picky of me, but I just need to get it off my chest:
A "flight deck" is found on a naval carrier--pilots work in a cockpit.

Nothing about the argument, against arming pilots, that I've put forward here is "absurd"--so spare me your histrionics. That whole *tsk, tsk* routine is the bad substitute for logic, from hell, as far as I'm concerned.

As a former load master and mechanic, I've shared the burden of responsibility for aircraft, crew and passenger safety with pilots--so it's not as if I don't "get it". Now, I may not have to die with you, but that doesn't mean that I'm incapable of gleaning, from that experience, some insight into the pressure that you're under.

Nobody's discussed the procedure for assuming control of your aircraft with me--so I don't know exactly how they intend to safeguard against terrorists using that same system to their advantage. I do know that it wouldn't be tactically difficult to protect you from that possibility--but entrusting one source, especially a lumbering bureaucratic source, to handle it would be extraordinarily unwise.

As far as airfield availabilty goes, pardon my candor, but you're as good as dead anyway. Now, if I can get you onto a friendly military airfield--fabulous--you had better believe I'm going to do that (even if we have to wait a few hours for the anti-terrorist team and equipment to arrive). But if you're only wet enough to put you out over the Atlantic or any other unpopulated area, where your aircraft can't be used as a weapon to kill more people than are already going to perish onboard anyway--that, unfortunately, is precisely where you're headed. I'm terribly sorry; it isn't fair. Please forgive me--but that is exactly what's going to happen.

Nearly every commercial jet in production today is capable of completing a cycles without a flight crew. I sure as hell wouldn't trust it--unless I absolutely had to. But then, that's what we're talking about here, isn't it? A situation so dire has arisen, onboard this aircraft, that you absolutely must rely on it.

No guarantees? When have you, in any facet of your existence, been guaranteed anything? Ever? The probablities may have been high--but you have never been guaranteed anything--not ever; I promise you.

You want to work with a gun on your hip? I don't blame you. I wouldn't mind slinging an OICW over my shoulder too, for deterrence and safety--but that doesn't make it a good idea.
I know it sucks to face this rationally. But if you will throw your energy into productive means of addressing these threats--then this public will back your play and pressure this government and carriers into putting their money where your posteriors are.