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 [...]