After 9/11, there was a debate over whether pilots should be trained in small firearms and permitted (or required) to carry a pistol in the cockpit. From the get-go, I objected. I felt that the risks of firearms exceeded their benefit, especially if the Federal Air Marshals program already had armed law enforcement officers on board.
The risk of an accidental discharge, or worse, a pilot with less-than-honorable purposes, makes guns in the cockpit a substantial risk. And now it’s happened: A US Airways pilot discharged his weapon during approach to Charlotte.
What on earth was the pilot doing with his pistol during the approach? Shouldn’t he have been working on landing the plane? And why wasn’t his weapon holstered, with the safety on? What were they doing up there, talking about their favorite (and still, to this day, most disturbing) scenes in Christopher Walken movies?
The whole thing makes me feel less safe. Both because I don’t like the idea of hot lead flying through the fuselage, and because I like my pilots to be flying, not playing with guns.
The pro-gun argument has always been that armed pilots serve as the last line of defense in the case of a hijacking or other incident. Or that armed pilots are themselves a deterrent to hijackers.
But it’s impossible to prove whether or not the arming of pilots actually improves safety by scaring potential bad guys from trying anything on board a plane. You can’t prove or disprove that proposition, unless you’ve got an al Qaeda focus group that you’re running.
A more concrete case that would support the pro-arming side would be incidents of threats who were subdued by an armed pilot. I haven’t heard of a single incident wherein a pilot was called upon to unholster his or her weapon in flight. If readers have a link to such a case, please send it my way.
As it is, the passengers on this plane were lucky that nothing worse happened. Arming pilots remains a bad idea.
(Thanks to David, Kim, and Richard for sending this one in!)
UPDATE:
Here’s a photo of the gunshot hole, via the Associated Press:
RSS (FeedBurner)
Read with Amazon Kindle
Subscribe by E-mail
Follow on Twitter
March 25th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
You FEEL less safe b/c there are armed pilots on the plane.
I AM more safe b/c armed pilots can stop terrorists before the Air Force shoots down a whole plane of innocent people. Which would you rather have happen?
I also agree that the pilot should have had the gun holstered & not been touching the gun during the approach.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Why worry that a pilot can do damage with a gun? A jet plane traveling at 600 mph is a far more powerful weapon, as 9/11 showed.
I do think a handgun may be unnecessary for pilots. I think they should carry a multipurpose tazer/mace gun, however, if for no other reason than to hear a terrorist pleading in his durka durka voice: “Do not to tase me, bro! Do not to tase me!”
March 25th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
More safe?
Really!? What if the pilot is a terrorist or is drunk or has a bad mental health day or like what just happened, has an accident of some kind, or the co-pilot is a terrorist and manages to get a hold of the gun? Remember before 9/11 terror in the skies was about gaining control over an aircraft to have demands met, not to crash it, and weapons on the plane, even by pilots, increases this chance just by the fact that the weapons are on board. And yes, we all know how everyone who gets their hands on a weapon uses them responsibly and accidents rarely happen (sarcasm).
The threat of an accident is far more statistically likely than the weapon being used to thwart terror in the skies, as evidenced by this incident (and other statistics on guns). Why don’t we put effort into really making flights safer by preventing threats from reaching the aircraft in the first place – real security measures – such as actually inspecting cargo and improving detectors to sense dangerous substances? THAT would make me feel safer!
March 25th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Dave: On balance, the risks of accidents like this one (or worse) outweigh the potential benefits of a pilot protecting the passengers from terrorists — whom TSA officers and Federal Air Marshals should have snagged well before anyone reached the cockpit, anyway.
The presence of the firearm in the cockpit is an attractive nuisance — a deranged passenger rushing the flight deck when one pilot goes to the lavatory, for example.
And what about the pilot walking through the airport packing heat? Grab his pistol and you’re in business.
I don’t just “feel” less safe thanks to this incident. I know it.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I feel safer. Any would-be terrorist or thug now knows the armed pilot program isn’t for show. The pilots are (ok, need a refresher here) trained and carrying.
The comments about the pilots loosing their minds mid-flight and going bonkers are unfounded. One already did that and ditched a plane into the Atlantic a few years back. So, I’m not sure what the point is there. The plane could be a weapon. The gun allows for (or gives a greater than 0% chance) a good guy to stop it from becoming one.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I feel safer on planes because the couple of hundred passsengers won’t let a terrorist use the plane a weapon, not because a pilot with a pea-shooter will know what to do.
As this story proves, pilots are dangerous with guns.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Let’s face it, as frequent travellers we cannot depend on the dopes at the TSA to protect us. I would much rather depend on an FBI trained (weapons class), college educated professional pilot than the minimum wage TSA flunkies who stare at an x-ray machines all day.
There is minimal danger of an errant pistol shot bringing down a commericial airliner. It would take a hole in the plane body with a diameter measured in feet (not an inch) to cause the rapid decompression necessary to bring a plane down.
Can minor accidents happen with these fire arms? Yes of course, but that doesn’t mean the alternative of unarmed pilots is safer.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Hey Louis,
You think the passengers on the plane can stop terrorists? How’d that work out in PA on 9/11? Not too well, as the plane was crashed into the ground.
The “pea shooter” in the hands of a weapons trained pilot could have prevented this & saved a couple of hundred lives. Armed pilots are dangerous, dangerous to terrorists!!!
March 27th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Mark:
I want to inject some facts into this discussion.
I saw a report on CNN the other day in which current Federal Air Marshals estimated that less than 1% of US flights each day actually have an Air Marshall on them. Unfortunatley the Air Marshalls do not have the manpower or resources to protect passengers.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/03/25/siu.air.marshals/index.html
Regarding a deranged passenger charging into the cockpit, anytime I’ve seen the cockpit door open mid-flight, there was an FA and usually a beverage cart purposely blocking the walkway to avoid this scenario.
Also, a pilot walking through the airport does not carry the firearm on his hip. There are strict protocols followed which include the firearm being securely locked when the pilot is not in the cockpit.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:33 am
First off, don’t even criticize the pilots until we know exactly how it happened. Secondly, a taser isn’t going to stop a terrorist doped up on epinephrine or the like, and whoever suggested mace is a freakin moron. So I spray the mace at the terrorist and the fumes in close proximity of the pilots also disables them. Smart. The point is, that pilots have to go through many background checks before they even get to the level of a ATP. Even more so when they are allowed to carry a weapon. There are simply enough lunatics that actually make it onto planes as a passenger that a crash axe to the head will not stop. I feel safer knowing there could be a pilot with a gun in the cockpit.
April 20th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Sadly, people that fail to take the time (and responsibility) for themselves and make an effort to actually understand or use firearms competently, will go on making paranoid statements like, “guns make me feel “less” safe.
so sad, too bad.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:09 am
How is it paranoid, when there are abundant cases of people exhibiting behavior (whether due to lack of training, malice, or questionable soundness of mind) that puts innocent people at risk?
Those who “fail to understand and use firearms competently” are making the case for supporters of gun control.
Your comment’s lack of logic doesn’t help your cause.
February 15th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
I am so amazed all I can say is “WOW!”. Not “Wow, what a profane statement”, but “Wow, what an utterly ignorant statement”. Obviously, you haven’t taken the time to understand the FFDO program. Background checks, psychological reviews, training, specific gun protocol, etc.
As far as the pilots not being trusted…As everyone has said, they are flying the dang plane. What more of a weapon do they need? Secondly, if you are going to apply the “pilots can’t be trusted not to have a bad mental health day” rule, then you would have to apply the same to the Air Marshals. They walk through the terminal, past security, and right onto the plane with a loaded & unlocked gun. While FFDOs have to keep theirs locked up until they are in the cockpit and the door is closed. What is going to keep the Air Marshal from deciding, during an especially bad day, to take the lives of a few hundred others? By this “bad day” rule, no one could have a weapon…except of course for those that slip by the TSA. And if you think this isn’t possible, then you are more ignorant than I had previously thought.
Security is always applied in layers because each layer is like Swiss cheese. Every layer DOES have holes, but the goal is to not allow any holes to line up and let the terrorists through. The FFDO program is the last line of defense that blocks all other holes.
Finally, since 9/11 there have been hundreds of thousands of flights with armed pilots. You can not point to this one incident and say “See, it’s proven. Pilots shouldn’t have guns”. Again…ignorant.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:09 am
I find the arguments for arming pilots to be just more of the gun nuts saying, “If you just arm everybody, the world would be a safer place”. Bull! Most aircraft now have only 2 pilots, and their job should be to *FLY THE PLANE*. Giving the pilot a gun only tempts him to open the cockpit door and play Dirty Harry. A more appropriate set of rules would be:
1: Never open the cockpit door.
2: If you had terrorists causing problems, a few minutes of zero, then +2 Gs would have them settled down. The pilot never has to leave the cockpit (see rule 1)
Prior to all planes being retrofitted with re-enforced cockpit doors, I may have felt differently, but now, it doesn’t make sense to take the pilot away from his primary job of flying the plane.
October 12th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
its there constitutional right
October 12th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
their**
October 15th, 2009 at 9:57 am
[...] Pilots’ holsters Remember the pilot who discharged his pistol in the cockpit and shot a hole through the fuselage, in-flight? He’s been permitted to fly again, 18 months [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Regarding Big.Chief’s comments of July 14, 2009 — as someone who has been flying for over 29 years as an airline pilot, I must take issue with many of his points. No one is saying “arm everybody.” But how about those with the targets on their foreheads? You know, the ones who, if THEY die, everybody else does too? (And we are only talking about arming those who are volunteers, have been thoroughly screened, and have undergone intense training.)
Regarding the oft-heard mantra that the job of the pilots should be to “Fly the plane!” — I hate to burst anybody’s bubble, but I have news for you: If there’s a terrorist in the cockpit, AIN’T NOBODY GONNA BE FLYIN’ THE PLANE!!! You see, flying a plane requires mental and physical skills, and definitely requires one to keep his mind on what he is doing — which is quite challenging when he is fighting for his life to keep his throat from being slit. When a terrorist bursts into the cockpit, if he is not subdued within the first 20 seconds or so, it’s all over — for everybody on board. By the way, when you consider the fact that the cockpit geometry is such that a pilot cannot stand, but his attacker can, that the attacker has the element of surprise on his side, that he has trained for years for this moment, and that he generally has a 20 to 40 year advantage over his victims — unless the pilot has the ability to employ lethal force, it is no contest!
If you truly believe that pilots are so immature and undisciplined that having a gun is going to “tempt him to open the cockpit door and play Dirty Harry,” then I would suggest that you never set foot in an airliner. Despite hundreds of thousands of flights being protected by Federal Flight Deck Officers, it has NEVER happened. Pilots have undergone years of training to do what they do. If you are undisciplined, you don’t get to work in this profession. Many of our pilots are former military pilots who carried nuclear bombs. When was the last time you heard of a military pilot going nuts and nuking Chicago? End of discussion.
Regarding “never open the cockpit door.” Okay. But you’d better pass a law that says pilots must never need to eat, drink, or go to the bathroom, and find a way to enforce it. Many flights are four to five hours long (plus time on the ground.) Most of mine are eight to thirteen hours. How long can YOU go without nourishment or using the lavatory? If it’s not a good idea for a driver to go more than a couple hours without getting out of the seat and stretching his legs to getting the blood circulating, do you think it’s wise for a pilot to be totally sedentary for six hours? When it’s the end of the flight and he needs to be at his most alert as he makes an approach with a low ceiling, strong gusty crosswinds, or poor visibility (or all of the above), do you want him to feel as lethargic as YOU do after sitting that long in a cramped cabin? And do you want him to be thinking about what he’s doing, or worrying that his bladder is about to burst?
Regarding violent aircraft maneuvers to stop would-be terrorists, you are assuming that they will somehow communicate their intention BEFORE bursting into the cockpit. That may have worked before 9/11. Not any more. Terrorists may be evil, but they are not stupid, and they do adapt. The element of surprise will definitely be a factor in the future. Another consideration is that airliners are generally only stressed for up to 2.5 Gs. Not too good an idea to try to save the day but unfortunately rip the wings off the plane. And even if you don’t, you’d probably injure many other people on board. And if they had already made it into the cockpit, it wouldn’t work anyway. They’d just hang on for a few moments and THEN slit your throat. By the way, two Gs isn’t going to bring down a well trained 20-year-old terrorist. That’s the same as him carrying his buddy on his back. Not the easiest thing, but not that great a challenge for a fanatic that’s in good shape.
Regarding the reinforced doors — that’s great as long as the terrorist is on the OUTSIDE of the door. If he can get through the door when it opens (and you can probably think of a multitude of ways to accomplish that), then he is now protected from any passengers trying to save the day. The protection works both ways.
Just some food for thought. There are many ideas out there that sound great but will not stand up to scrutiny when you think the problem through.
November 24th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Old article, but I just wandered across it. I’m more appalled at the writer’s extremely low opinion of any and all air crews sanity & loyalty. How can you fly at all, if you think they’re all potentially nuts or terrorist moles? If they’ve so thoroughly penetrated even our professional pilots, then we’ve lost already.
I noticed that nobody’s answered the question:
>I haven’t heard of a single incident wherein a pilot was called upon to
>unholster his or her weapon in flight. If readers have a link to such a
>case, please send it my way.
July, 1954
the pilot: William Bonnell
The hijacker: fifteen year old Raymond Kuchenmeister, killed by the armed pilot.
Read more, for details, as I’m sure people will be asking how the pilot could shoot a kid.
The article’s called “Who would do such a thing?”, answering the common objection that armed people -anybody who’d go about armed- must be bloodthirsty thugs, itching for a chance…
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3510
Suggested Reading > Airplanes and Guns
And I haven’t seen any answers to the question by one respondent, about is it better for the terrorists to score a big victory by having the USAF shoot down a plane full of passengers?
And I for one don’t mind the idea of fellow passengers who’re trained & equipped and qualified, allowed to carry on their own. Give them reduced-price seating & breeze past security for that matter, and let the over-taxed federal air marshals take a nap and a later flight that’s not covered by crew or qualified passenger.
I know, all sorts of howls of indignation, but I personally am not afraid of my own family & friends, neighbors and co-workers, if they choose to train themselves to go armed.
Historic facts of civilians with concealed carry permits back me up. We -ourselves and each other- should trust and look out for each other.
BTW: can anybody answer why air crews should have to go through security checks at all?
November 24th, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Turns out there’s a good chance the pilot was handling the gun because TSA rules require him to do so.
It’s locked with a padlock through the trigger guard until he’s in the flight deck, then he unlocks it. He must lock it each and every time he leaves the flight deck.
Apparently, by rules, it’s a certain type of gun, carried loaded with one chambered. Most common carry guns for L.E. have no manual safeties: different mechanisms act as safety preventing it from going off when dropped, etc, but if a finger is on the trigger (or the hasp of a lock), it’ll go off.
Remember the infamous incident of the DEA agent in the kid’s classroom, saying he’s the only one qualified enough to touch his gun safely, and a second later accidentally sets it off in the holster?
The same thing: A DAO-Only pistol, carried loaded and chambered.
TSA Holster CNN report with Paul Huebl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzzzcw27iGw&NR=1
December 8th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Guns + Airplanes = Awesome end of story. Ok i know im stoopid so dont comment on this poop
September 10th, 2011 at 2:51 am
What can be more dangerous than a terrorist? We already saw it right? Pilots should be trained and armed. At least if the hijackers make it to the cockpit, the pilots can still try to shoot the crap out of them instead of letting the terrorists take over and succeed with their evil goals.
September 13th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Hey, let’s ask the passengers of Flight 93 if they think the pilot should be armed. I’m guessing the overwelming response would be “YES” but they’re all DEAD. All this jiberish about the safety of the passengers and accidental discharge, ARE YOU KIDDING ME???? The pilot has the life of everyone on the plane in his capable hands and you don’t trust him with a hand gun?? What an absolutely STUPID, LIBERAL position THAT is!!!! I’ll fly with an armed pilot LONG before I’d fly with one who isn’t.
February 2nd, 2012 at 10:57 pm
Everyone who is saying that it would be bad to have an armed pilot because they could be having a bad, mental day and shoot everyone up or whatever is completely stupid.
First of all, anyone who is a pilot obviously had to go through a lot to become one. I guarantee there isn’t a single pilot who is stupid enough to have a “bad day” and go crazy. It’s a THOUSAND times more likely that 1 out of 100 passengers is going to be the crazy one. When that day comes, well I’m glad one crazy passenger died because our pilot shot him than all 100 of us dying in a horrific plane crash.
Plane marshals aren’t even on every plane, and what they’re paid and trained to do is have that weapon. Are you going to complain that there’s an air marshal on your flight because he’s holding a gun and might be having a bad day? No, idiot, because that’s what he’s trained to do.
You could eliminate the training and pay of all air marshals and require firearm licenses for pilots (etc). That eliminates the fact that there’s money being paid to only protect few, and protects every single plane.
DUHHHHH!!!