KEEPING PILOTS UNARMED

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | January 28, 2004 | By Steven Bernstein

[Main Street]

On November 19, 2002, the Homeland Security Act, H.R. 5005, was enacted into law, authorizing the training and certification of commercial airline pilots in the use of firearms, to protect the cockpit against hijackers.

The Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) training program, administered by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), graduated the first weekly class of 48 volunteer pilots in April 2003. However, the second weekly class of 48 didn't graduate until July 2003, and as of January 2004, more than two years after the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, only "500 to 800" out of more than 100,000 commercial airline pilots, who fly 11 million flights per year, have been firearms certified.(1)

As mandated by Congress, the goal of the FFDO program is to quickly train and certify large numbers of pilots in the use of firearms, to provide a credible deterrent to hijackers bent on taking over an airliner. However, even if the TSA doubles the number of weekly graduates, less than 1% of commercial airline flights will be FFDO protected by October, 2004.(2) What are the reasons that so few pilots have been firearms-trained?

Simply put, the TSA's intimidating background screenings, which involve intrusive psychological tests; its threats of sharing its opinion of the pilot's psychological fitness with the FAA and the pilot's employer; its refusal to issue standard federal credentials to FFDO graduates; its ridiculous requirement that the firearm be carried in a lockbox onto the airplane, instead of on the FFDO's person; its use of only one distant training facility; its instructions to Federal Air Marshals to police the FFDO's; and its arbitrary and unnecessary disqualifications of FFDO candidates, have combined to discourage most of those pilots who would have otherwise volunteered.(3)

TSA has also refused to consider private firearms training academies, either as an alternative or as a supplement to their own training program.

All FFDO candidates must first complete a detailed and intrusive thirteen-page application form, then submit to a similarly intrusive and grueling three-hour written psychological exam, then submit to an interview with a government psychologist.(4) A large percentage of FFDO candidates are screened out by these procedures, however, making it through the pre-training exam and interview do not guarantee successful graduation. One FFDO candidate, a former DEA and US Customs Agent, was disqualified by the TSA one hour before graduation. No reason was given.

Concerning the fitness of those who are screened out, one FFDO candidate stated, "...the USAF trusted me for over 28 years to be responsible for several types of multi-million dollar jet fighters...The USAF considered me psychologically sound enough to be directly responsible for nuclear weapons...As a full Colonel and fighter wing commander I was responsible and accountable for leading and training (over 1000) warriors, maintaining F-16 fighters, and thousands of tons of sophisticated weapons. I find it ironic that I was responsible for...jet fighters and training...pilots, and yet a TSA psychologist has determined I am unreliable to carry a weapon in my own airliner..."(5)

No other federal law enforcement agency disqualifies so many highly competent people.

Airline pilots must fly at the sufferance of the federal government, and Airline Captains must earn and hold an Airline Transport Pilot's Certificate (ATPC), issued by the FAA. This certificate is subject to revocation, and pilots are subject to termination of employment upon their failure to meet any of the standards imposed by constant evaluations during their flying careers. However, the TSA has the power to summarily revoke the ATPC of FFDO candidates, resulting in termination of employment, if they consider him/her a "security threat."(6)

Everyone involved with the FFDO training program, except the TSA, is very concerned with the lockbox requirement, that is, how the firearm is carried onto and off of the airplane. According to John Mazor, of the Airline Pilots Association, the firearm is now carried onto the plane "in a lockbox,” which is itself in "an inconspicuous little bag." However, the FFDO must place the firearm in the box, every time he/she goes on or off duty, leaves the cockpit while on duty, or "deadheads"--flies as a passenger--in the passenger cabin.

According to Brian Darling, spokesman for the Airline Pilots Security Alliance (APSA), "No other federal Agent is forced to carry firearms in a lockbox. This may be why so many pilots have failed to volunteer for the program." In addition, the FFDO must carry the "inconspicuous little bag" at all times, marking him conspicuously and making theft of the firearm more likely. The APSA has estimated that the average pilot must put the firearm into or take it out of the lockbox 160 times per month, or roughly 8 times per day.(7) This practice is at best very burdensome, and increases the chance that the firearm might be lost, especially if the FFDO has to carry the boxed firearm to and from the aircraft cargo compartment for transport.

The TSA however, has acknowledged that FFDO bags containing firearms will be lost by airline baggage personnel, especially as more FFDO's graduate. Such a loss might entail the evacuation of the entire concourse area. The best way for the FFDO to carry the firearm onto the airplane, as Mazor stated, "is in the holster on his person,” which would eliminate the uncertainty and potential for chaos created by the FFDO having to carry his/her firearm around in a lockbox.

However, FFDO's are not issued standard federal credentials, because, as the TSA has stated, the FFDO's will use badges "to get out of traffic tickets."(8) TSA fails to acknowledge that lack of proper identification/credentials will not only make it difficult for other law enforcement officers to identify FFDO's, but could also prove dangerous.

In addition, FFDO candidates must pay their own way to and from the training site, pay for their own room and board while training, and sustain the loss of one week's income, which in some cases amounts to well over a thousand dollars. In September 2003 the training site was relocated from Glynco, Georgia, fairly close to Atlanta, to the remote location of Artesia, New Mexico. Artesia is 186 miles from the nearest city, Lubbock, Texas.(9) Presumably the training was relocated to Artesia because that site has jetliner mock-ups for training. However, jetliner mock-ups could conceivably be installed at another, more convenient site, and there is no reason why Artesia has to be the only site for FFDO training.

Congress mandated the FFDO program to train large numbers of pilots in a short period of time: two years or less. Unless the number of FFDO graduates increases dramatically between January and November, 2004, the number of graduates will not even amount to two percent of the total number of commercial airline pilots, and will not even begin to provide a deterrent to hijackers targeting the 11 million commercial airline flights occurring annually.

The responsibility for this pathetic state of affairs lies squarely with the TSA, an out-of-control and irresponsible government agency that has done everything it can to intimidate and threaten FFDO candidates. TSA has also placed a myriad of obstacles in the way of armed pilots successfully defending the cabin against hijackers, thereby giving the green light to terrorists bent on flying another jetliner into a skyscraper, and increasing the chances that a U.S. plane will be forced to shoot down a terrorist-commandeered airliner.

As Brian Darling states, "The TSA's implementation (of the FFDO training program) is woeful. We (APSA) are really concerned about the TSA's implementation of the program."

Americans can only ponder why the TSA, a U.S. government agency, has so blatantly abdicated their congressionally mandated responsibility to protect the lives of American citizens, and to stop those who are trying to destroy Western civilization.

ENDNOTES:

1. Article, "Pilots Still Unarmed," by John Lott Jr., New York Post Online, 1/6/04

2. Airline Pilots Security Alliance-Report to the House Aviation Subcommittee on the Status of the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program, October 29, 2003.

3. Ibid.

4. Article, "Where are the Armed Pilots?", by Captain Tracey W. Price, at www. secure-skies.org/Where-Are_the_Armed_Pilots?

5. www.secure-skies.org/AirlinePilotsComments.asp

6. Article, "Where are the Armed Pilots?" as in #4

7. ASPA-Report to the House Aviation Subcommittee on the Status of the FFDO Program, as in #2

8. Ibid.

9. Article, "Where are the Armed Pilots?" as in #4

Other Sources

Authors conversation with John Mazor, Airline Pilots Association, Herndon Virginia, November 2003.

Authors conversation with Brian Darling, Airline Pilots Security Alliance, Washington DC, 1/9/04.

[XHogPilot]

ping

[AnAmericanMother]

Make the trip frequently. It's four and a half hours, even though I never go more than 5 mph over the limit.

But it is centrally located, and I think the article mentions ATL rather than JAX or SAV because the airfares into ATL are so much cheaper from everywhere and it's almost always nonstop.

It was stupid to move the training from FLETC ("FleetSee" to the locals) because if they need airliner mockups, there is a huge airfield (Glynco Jetport) literally within yards of FLETC. It is not particularly well traveled, there is lots of room where other runways used to be (it was a training field during WWII) and there are all sorts of quiet corners in the industrial area nearby where a jet cabin could be squirreled away.

I think the liberal bureaucratic rats in the sewer are trying to kill the program by making it impossible to train.

[zeugma]

This sad state of affairs is entirely predictable. The government has no interest whatsoever in doing anything at all that will decrease their power or authority in the slightest manner. They really don't give a damn about you are I because we're just sheep to be constantly sheared of our money so they can lord over us and keep us in our place.

If they were really interested in in actually doing something about airline safety, everyone on the plane would be armed. This, of course gives the willies to the bedwetters who thing that everyone around them is a potential homicidal maniac. It's all about control folks. Anything that empowers us 'little people' is a dead letter to them.

[sangoo]

You would think, wouldn't you, that the airlines would be terrified of another 9/11, but apparently they aren't...

Didn't Congress spring into action real fast with relief money for the airlines after 9/11?

[expatpat]

I was in the Aerospace business for many years. The FAA was probably the most f'kerry'd-up of all the agencies we dealt with.

[expatpat]

If a Pilot is responsible for the safety of hundreds of people he should easily be approved for a concealed carry permit.

Of course it's even worse than that. That same pilot is subject to a thorough search every day he goes to work, and could lose his job if he forgot a penknife or something in a pocket.

[backhoe]

It was stupid to move the training from FLETC ("FleetSee" to the locals) because if they need airliner mockups, there is a huge airfield (Glynco Jetport) literally within yards of FLETC. It is not particularly well traveled, there is lots of room where other runways used to be (it was a training field during WWII) and there are all sorts of quiet corners in the industrial area nearby where a jet cabin could be squirreled away.

Absolutely!

[Bedford Forrest]

I hadn't seen any surveys indicating that a significant percentage of the pilots were concerned about their own personal liability. In contrast, there have been many rumors, but no public statements, that the airlines as a group are opposed to arming the pilots. Other than the stereotypical observation that the airlines are now being run by beancounters, MBAs and other assorted bunny rabbits, this position, if true, is completely irrational even from a narrow gauge business perspective. Presumably, the liability associated with arming the pilots stems from the possibility of stray rounds in the passenger cabin. Measure that against the liability for mass deaths ensuing directly and proximately from the pilots' inability, because of their lack of sidearms, to defend themselves against takeover of the aircraft by terrorists. Unless a secret indemnification agreement is in place between the feds and the airlines, the airlines are insane not to have undertaken a full court press on arming all of their pilots, particularly on the standard bodies and the heavies. The whole situation is very strange, particularly the deafening silence of the players. One wonders if the passenger airlines even see themselves as viable. It is hard to imagine Juan Trippe or Captain Eddie or CR Smith cowering in their executive suites over such a clearcut issue. Their response to the problem would have been instantaneous and real hard on the perps. But that was long ago, in another time and another country.

[snopercod]

I agree that neither the pilots nor the airlines want the liability, but neither of those two is holding things up. The TSA is making it so difficult and intrusive to comply with the program that the pilots simply won't bother. The airlines don't seem to care.

[southland]

That is an under statement and I was a Controller as well as an Air Force pilot prior to that. The problem was management and likely still is.

[jpl]

Mineta of course is a disgrace. The sad thing though is that the Bush administration in this case actually agrees with him and doesn't really want the pilots to be armed.

[jpl]

It is easy to blame Bush but the reality is that neither the pilots nor the airlines want the liability.

This may well be true, but it's really a ridiculous excuse, because the next time a plane gets hijacked in American airspace it's going to get shot down by the nearest military fighter plane and everyone on board is going to be dead anyway.

[Gritty]

It is easy to blame Bush but the reality is that neither the pilots nor the airlines want the liability.

What's going on here is complete and total bullshiite!

If there is another airliner hijacked and jihaded someplace, it will be portrayed as completely George Bush's fault - and with some justification. It is "his" executive branch which has totally farcked up this program.

This is a very serious ticking time bomb tied to George Bush's tail. If he had any smarts about it, he would roll some heads, change the regulations, and get this program on track,... NOW!

The next time we lose an airliner full of people will be the day the Media and the Democrats start screaming for his head. It won't matter if they are destroyed by terrorists or shot down by F-16s. Every finger will gleefully point right at the White House. What's he going to say? "It's Mineta's fault?" "The Secret Service pulled a fast one?"

[Darlin']

"Concerning the fitness of those who are screened out, one FFDO candidate stated, "...the USAF trusted me for over 28 years to be responsible for several types of multi-million dollar jet fighters...The USAF considered me psychologically sound enough to be directly responsible for nuclear weapons...As a full Colonel and fighter wing commander I was responsible and accountable for leading and training (over 1000) warriors, maintaining F-16 fighters, and thousands of tons of sophisticated weapons. I find it ironic that I was responsible for...jet fighters and training...pilots, and yet a TSA psychologist has determined I am unreliable to carry a weapon in my own airliner..."(5)"

Indeed. Sounds like it isn't about security but bureaucracy and emotions. Feelings. If a pilot intends harm, he doesn't need a handgun, for God's sake.

[Ben Ficklin]

An APA survey found that 24% of the pilots are opposed to arming pipots.

Another survey, for which I do have a link, indicated that around 30% of the pilots will not fly armed.

[Ben Ficklin]

For which I do NOT have a link. Sorry about that typo.

[jpl]

An APA survey found that 24% of the pilots are opposed to arming pilots.

Another survey, for which I do have a link, indicated that around 30% of the pilots will not fly armed.

I have no doubt that those numbers are probably accurate, or close to it. Personally, I think that any pilot who would rather take the chance of getting blown out of the sky than carry a gun is a complete idiot myself, but to each his own.

But if 24% of the pilots are opposed to letting their cohorts pack heat, then logically that must mean that 76% (or pretty close to it) are in favor of it! And as we can see from this article, that's not even remotely close to happening thanks to the incorrigible anti-gun bureacrats, who would rather shoot the plane down than let a pilot carry a gun.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

I wish each commercial flight would indicate whether or not the cockpit crew is armed. As a consumer I would much prefer to take a flight with an armed crew.

[LisaMalia]

I'm not all that familiar with the airline industry, so maybe someone can help me out here. How far in advance are pilots assigned to certain flights?

Would it be feasible to inform potential passengers if the flight they book is one with an armed pilot?

I for one, would definitely choose a flight with an armed pilot. Even if it meant I had to pay more.

[Ben Ficklin]

The way I read those numbers is that 24% oppose pilots being armed and that an additional 6% don't want to carry, but don't object if others chose to.

FWIW, 24% of the general population is opposed to arming pilots.