Rebuttals To Misguided Legislators Who Think Pilots Should Not Be Armed

One objection that Congressmen have given for not wanting to arm pilots is the supposed idea that a bullet hole in an airplane's hull can cause catastrophic depressurization or cause the ship to crash.

However, writer David Kopel (along with author and pilot, Captain David Petteys) notes that the risks related to the hull being punctured are greatly exaggerated. In a recent National Review Online article dated September 16, they state, "There is only one known instance in which a bullet hole in an aircraft frame yanked objects across the plane, expanded, and sucked a person out into the sky. That was the James Bond movie Goldfinger. The movie was not intended to teach real-life lessons about physics."

In a follow-up article, Dave Kopel notes that "the risk of a stray bullet creating a decompression that could cause a crash, which I'd reported to be virtually nil, is apparently even less than that. Retired Air Force General James Chambers points out that the Air Force has plenty of pressurized planes, such as AWACS, which are able to sustain penetration/damage from bullets from enemy fighter jet machine guns. The General said that the worst case would simply require a plane flying at an altitude of about 30,000 feet to hurry down to lower altitudes. If the plane were above 30,000 feet, there would probably be enough breathable air for the pilots to maintain consciousness, even without the air masks."

Aircraft engineers have likewise downplayed the ability of a few bullets to depressurize a plane.

"First of all, there already is a 'hole' in the aircraft, for regulating the cabin pressure," says Dan Todd, a licensed aircraft engineer for 20 years. "It's called the outflow valve. It modulates to maintain desired cabin pressure, in response to signals from a cabin pressure controller, which responds to inputs from a selector panel in the cockpit, all automatic when it's all working normally.

"There's also always pressurized cabin air leaking out past door seals and a few other places," Todd says. "Remember, the airplane is pressurized by a constant flow of compressed air into the cabin from the engines (via the pneumatic systems and the air conditioning systems).

"If one round, or two or three for that matter pierce the skin [of a plane], it's not necessarily catastrophic." Todd says that in such a case, "air will go whistling out the hole, and the outflow valve will close a little further to maintain the desired cabin pressure."

Having said all of the above, any argument against pilots carrying guns would also apply to Federal Air Marshals. But the fact is, pre-fragmented ammo can minimize the supposed risks of a bullet puncturing a plane's hull.

Pre-fragmented ammunition, such as Glaser safety slugs, expand upon impact and will usually fail to penetrate even wood doors. This kind of ammo also tends to have greater stopping power. At the same time, errant rounds are less likely to puncture surrounding walls (or airplane hulls).

MISGUIDED REASON #2: Dealing with terrorists is not the pilots' fight.

Another objection to allowing guns in the cockpit runs like this: "This is not the pilot's fight. They should not have to worry about fighting the battles, but rather, should be concerned only with flying the plane."

For beginners, one should note this objection ignores the obvious: a pilot can't fly the plane if he's got a knife to his throat. But the objection misses the mark because no one is necessarily saying the pilots have to "lead the charge" in disarming a hijacker or terrorist. Allowing pilots to have arms is simply a common sense approach to making sure the hijacker or terrorist does not gain control of the plane.

No matter what Congress says, pilots are going to arm themselves somehow. Shouldn't they have firearms for this purpose? As a result of the September 11 skyjackings, pilots are now resorting to extreme measures to defend themselves. Brad Rohdenburg, an American Airlines captain from Meredith, NH, says he has spoken with other pilots "who have sharpened their belt buckles, screwdrivers, pens, etc., so that they might have a prayer of defending their $30 million jets from guys with boxcutters."¹

That's pathetic. In the freest nation on earth, we have private citizens who must resort to sharpening their belt buckles to defend themselves! Congress and the FAA should stop forcing pilots to resort to such weak methods of self-defense. If not, then our nation must be prepared for more planes being used as human missiles.

MISGUIDED REASON #3: Making airplane cockpits impenetrable is enough to ensure the safety of pilots.

One idea which supposedly relieves pilots of any need to have guns is the notion that a reinforced door will be good enough to keep bad guys out of the cockpits. Actually, this is not a bad idea, per se. But no one should think this idea is a panacea. There are too many problems with this idea to rely upon it as a "silver bullet" solution.

First, one should note that the Senate's version of the Aviation Security Act recognizes the impossibility of complete impenetrability when it calls for the "strengthening" of the doors, but not that they be made "impenetrable."

Are we to assume that on a long trip the door will NEVER be opened? That pilots will NEVER take a bathroom break? That there is no one among the flight crew who will ever have the keys or security codes to open the door?

The answers to each of these questions suggest a potential problem. Make no mistake, securing the cockpit door would be a valuable tool. But that option is quite expensive, and it will not happen overnight.

Further complicating matters, Boeing has stated that there are safety concerns related to securing the cockpit door. On September 28, the New York Times noted that, "The door issue is complicated because sealing the cockpit from the cabin can cause safety problems. In case of explosive decompression on a Boeing 767, a one-pound per square inch difference between the pressure in the cockpit and the cabin would put 6,000 pounds of pressure on the cockpit floor, which might rupture and damage cables needed to fly the plane, Boeing said."

Again, securing the cockpit door can be a valuable tool in the fight against terrorism -- even after weighing the pros and cons. But it hardly negates the need to allow guns in planes for self-defense.

MISGUIDED REASON #4: Only qualified sky marshals should be allowed to carry guns on planes.

An idea which the Bush administration supports is placing sky marshals -- or Federal Air Marshals -- on commercial flights. Like the previous option, this one is not a bad idea, per se. But again, there are tremendous problems if our country hopes to rely on this solution as an answer to any potential terrorist threats.

For starters, there are too many flights and too few marshals. According to Dr. John Lott, formerly a senior research scholar at Yale University, there are currently only about three dozen marshals to cover 35,000 flights -- the number of daily flights that were occurring before the September 11 tragedy.

It's going to take some time to train the extra 34,000-plus marshals to cover all those flights. But of course, one must wonder if we really want to pay the price for manning every flight.

"Can you imagine the cost of putting marshals on every U.S. flight?" asks Dr. Chuck Baldwin in a WorldNetDaily.com commentary. "Allowing pilots, co-pilots, navigators, even stewardesses to carry firearms on board U.S. flights would cost taxpayers nothing and would be just as effective, if not more so."

So why do some people insist that only "professionals," such as sky marshals, should be armed on planes? Dr. Baldwin offers a possible solution.

Likewise, an article in USA Today (9/25/2001) reports that retired United Airlines pilot David Linsley not only favors the arming of pilots, he also believes passengers should be allowed to bring guns on board. Says Linsley: "Nobody will go into the cockpit facing three [or more] guns."

If our government were to follow the Constitution, it would follow Captain Linsley's advice. Congress should not get into the business of deciding what areas should be weapons free zones. Carrying a firearm is an individual decision. And private businesses should likewise be free to decide if their patrons can carry in their establishments.

Why shouldn't the airlines be free to decide if passengers can carry on their flights? Citizens used to be able to carry their firearms onto planes along with their other carry-on items roughly 50 years ago. Yes, some airlines might ban firearms on their flights; other airlines might allow them. Based on this, individual passengers would decide which airlines they want to fly.

The Brady Bunch crowd would, most likely, feel more comfortable on airlines that ban firearms. Pro-freedom Americans would choose to fly with an airline that allows the carrying of firearms. We'll see which airline has fewer incidents of thugs, hijackers and terrorists invading their planes.

The argument that says pilots and others can't be trusted to have a firearm in the sky is exactly similar to the argument we hear about gun owners on the ground. Gun haters NEVER think that private citizens should have guns. They always say that we should leave guns in the hands of professionals only. So why should we be surprised when they shift their argument from the ground to the sky?

Unfortunately, some advocates only favor arming pilots after they have been trained. But how much training does it take to, basically, shoot fish in a barrel? Pilots will only need to shoot those people who try to crash through the door or blow it off.

Many pilots are former military and have received training anyway. Not that "training" is absolutely necessary to defend one's life. Yes, training is a good thing, but thousands of untrained people use guns in self-defense every day.

By the way, for those legislators who will only support guns in the hands of sky marshals, they should know what the Sierra Times is reporting. As stated by Michael Parker in his September 27 column:

MISGUIDED REASON #5: An "innocent bystander" might get shot.

Similar to the previous objection, the notion that people should not have guns because an "innocent bystander might get shot" is a common refrain one regularly hears from the Brady Bunch. In fact, anytime a state passes a new concealed carry law, the gun haters cry that innocent people are going to be gunned down in the streets by friendly fire.

Of course, those baseless predictions have never materialized. Back in 1987, when Florida legislators were deciding whether to let citizens carry guns, opponents warned that doing so would turn the Sunshine State into the Gunshine State.

It was a cute jingle, but it was way off the mark. Their predictions never came true. Florida's murder rate, which was well above the national average before the law passed, fell 39% during the next 10 years.³

In 1996, Lott published a comprehensive national study that found violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. Specifically, states which passed concealed carry gun laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%.⁴

This is good news. But, back to the original question: could an innocent person get shot if a good guy on a plane tries to defend the lives of others against a bad guy? Yes, of course, it could happen. That scenario can play out even if the good guy with the gun is a sky marshal. After all, cops shoot innocent bystanders. Soldiers are killed by friendly fire.

If the government wants to make sure that no "innocent bystander" is ever killed, then it should start by disarming its own government agents, because they are not immune from firing errant shots that kill innocent people.

As far as planes are concerned, however, once it becomes well publicized that pilots are packing heat on planes, it becomes even less likely that such a need to wield a firearm in self-defense will ever exist. Once terrorists know that their boxcutters will be no match against bullets, they will be forced to resort to another form of terrorizing the public -- no doubt, they will look for other gun free zones (such as schools?) to apply their trade.

This is the reason that concealed carry laws have helped cut the crime rates in the jurisdictions that have enacted such laws. This is the reason that in places like Israel, where citizens live with enemies all around them, they have one of the lowest murder rates in the world. Why? Because deterrence works.

Israeli citizens are frequently armed. Their government does not look at armed citizens as a problem, but as a solution. Whenever Palestinian terrorists have tried to gun down Israelis on a street corner, they have been met with a barrage of return fire. Now as a result, terrorists usually resort to detonating bombs, which do not require the villain to dodge return fire.

Consider just one such episode in 1984, when three terrorists opened fire with machine guns and hand grenades at a busy intersection in West Jerusalem. According to the Los Angeles Times, "One of the attackers was killed in a hail of answering fire from the owners and customers of nearby shops." The terrorist attack was met with gunfire from Israeli citizens, leaving one terrorist dead and another wounded. No Israelis were killed!⁵

Had that scene occurred in America, could we be sure that no Americans would have been killed?

How ironic, the only way these terrorist cells could get their thugs to commit these crimes was to lie to them (or withhold the truth) about Israeli citizens being armed. The obvious inference is that had the terrorists known Israelis were armed, they would not have attempted to spray bullets on a crowded street corner.

Deterrence works. As Dr. John Lott says, more guns do mean less crime. And guns in planes will serve as a deterrent to terrorists and like-minded thugs, who will be dissuaded from trying to hijack a plane. This, of course, means that no innocent bystanders will probably ever get shot.

At least that's the track record of Israel's El Al airlines. After a spate of hijackings many years ago, they started arming their pilots and stewards. The result? Passengers can fly without the fear of being hijacked, and innocent bystanders aren't getting shot.

Let's introduce guns back onto planes -- and put them in the good guys' hands. It's an idea that works.

¹ Captain Brad Rohdenburg, The Wall Street Journal, September 21, 2001, cited in Jeffrey Tucker, "Airplanes and Property Protection," September 27, 2001 at http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?record=792&month=36 on the Ludwig von Mises Institute website.

² Dr. Chuck Baldwin, "Arm the pilots (and everyone else)," Worldnetdaily.com, October 1, 2001.

³ In the ten years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, there were nearly half a million people who received permits to carry firearms. [Memo by Sandra B. Mortham, Secretary of State, Florida Department of State, Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report (10/1/87-12/31/97).] FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida fell 39% during that 10-year period, placing it about even with the national average. [Compare Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports, (1988): 7, 53; and FBI, (1998):15, 77.]

⁴ One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the study's findings in John R. Lott, Jr., "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000).

⁵ Norman Kempster, "3 Terrorists Wound 48 in Jerusalem," Los Angeles Times, April 3, 1984.

⁶ Clayton E. Cramer and David B. Kopel, "Shall Issue": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws, Independence Institute, p. 53.

I agree with most of what is said here, but I think we are fooling ourselves if we think we can prevent incidents like this in the future. In at least one of the hijackings on September 11th, one of the terrorists was flying in the cockpit behind the crew. He had the uniform and credentials of an American Airlines pilot.

Besides, passenger jets were used only because they were opportune targets. The next attacks could just as easily be carried out using something else as a weapon.

Oh, without a doubt. Things like this will happen even if every person was to carry a gun. There is no guarantee of safety, ever.

That said, I want to have a bit more input as to the outcome of any incident I might be involved in. That's the reason I carry a gun every day around town. There is no way the cops, be they air marshalls or whatever, can protect everyone. They can't be everywhere, in fact, the supreme court has ruled that the government has no duty to protect an indivdual. Everyone must take on that responsibility themselves.

However, we have been denied that right while flying for so long it has become ingrained in our society. And anyone pointing out the falsity of that feeling of security is labled a whacko or an extremist.

Ok, I guess I am an extremist when it comes to my safety. I like to have a little more input in what happens to me and mine.

However, we have been denied that right while flying for so long it has become ingrained in our society.

I don't look at this in these terms. I view air travel as an arrangement between two consenting parties -- if you don't like the terms of this agreement (i.e., no guns on the aircraft), then you just don't fly. I guess the real issue is whether the FAA has the right to order a blanket gun restriction on all airplanes instead of letting each airline determine their own policy.

I've only flown about five times in my life (I drive to any place I can reach by car in one long day), and I'd be surprised if I flew five more times over the next 20 years.

My objection to arming pilots has little to do with the above arguments. My concern is that once pilots are armed, it creates a situation where a terrorist can hold a passenger as hostage and force a pilot to choose between giving up the gun and allowing a passenger to be killed. For instance, a terrorist could hold a knife to a passenger and the pilot would be forced to either surrender his gun or watch the passenger (perhaps passengers) be killed. Once the terrorist has the gun there is no contest.

Unlike federal marshals, pilots are not trained to deal with these situations and it takes the confrontation out of the hands of the only people capable of safely landing the airplane. I don’t care how much it costs to place federal marshals on domestic flights. I am sure that the people flying in the plane would gladly pay for that level of protection.

I think your argument should give weight to the following:

1) Pilots already have access to the most effective weapon they could have; the controls of the plane. Until 9/11 standard procedure was acquissence. Now the Pilot can disable any threatening passenger via acrobatics, oxygen control, etc.

2) At least a large minority of pilots don't believe they have a need for guns(due to #1, above),are not comfortable using guns, or don't want a gun on board that can fall in the wrong hands while the pilot is preoccupied. Their concerns need to be addressed also.

If one or more pilots are armed and the rest of the crew is comfortable with that, it's ok with me, but I want my crew to be working together as a team on this if it is going to happen.

I think we would be generally safer if most people carried guns most of the time. That being said:

Pilots aren't the ones that should have to both protect themselves and fly the plane. Pilots should be protected by others so that they can give full attention to their primary duty: get the plane safely on the ground.

The pilots will be the last people on the plane to find out that a hijacking is underway. The MOST important time to keep the cabin door locked and secure is DURING a hijacking event. If a crewmember has to open the door to confront a hijacker, he or she has just compromised the security of the cockpit and is at an extreme tactical disadvantage. The protectors of the plane should be in the cabin already.

It's not about "disarming" pilots, its about having a tactical plan that will be most effective.

Well done. Thoroughly researched and documented.

The real reason they don't want to arm pilots is because people have an irrational fear of guns. They are just plain ignorant and scared, and it will take tremendous amounts of enlightenment to change that. Unfortunately it seems that even the events of 9-11 aren't enough to convince people of how wrong they are.

Some are also just downright cynical. Some people may think arming pilots is a good idea, but fear that the next stop is to simply allow everyone to be armed, everywhere. What about all the poor and frail people who need practical self defense? Minority communities under siege by gangs? Innocent women at the ATM machine at night, etc. Terrorists are criminals of the worst order, but criminals of all stripes should be met with lethal force when appropriate. The police can't possibly protect you. Airport security can't protect you. You are, and have always been, on your own. It's time for us all to recognize that.

A "little" more damage to the fuselage than a bullet hole and it was still able to land!

Damage to Airplane
A major portion of the upper crown skin and structure of section 43 separated in flight causing an explosive decompression of the cabin. The damaged area extended from slightly aft of the main cabin entrance door, rear ward about 18 feet to the area just forward of the wings and from the left side of the cabin at the floor level to the right side window level.

ALOHA AIRLINES, FLIGHT 243

Actually, I am not for arming only pilots, I think everyone who wants to be armed should be allowed to carry.

My problem with only arming pilots is kind of the same as yours. A pilot may not be in the best position to take on an assailant. He is normally seated facing forward in a headroom restricted area. In order to bring a gun to bear, he would have to draw the weapon, twist around and be in an awkward position if he needs to use the weapon. If the airplane has a second officer (flight engineer) then he would be in a better position to use a weapon.

That said, I think that the crew and/or passengers in the main cabin are in a better position to use a weapon. They are talking about making the cockpit doors stronger and basically make the cockpit a stronghold. If that happens, then the standard procedure is to not let any assailant into the cockpit, therefore making the passengers and the other crewmembers vulnerable to the attackers. Then it becomes a hostage situation in which the cockpit crew have to make a decision whether to surrender in order to save crew and passengers, or maintain their stronghold in the face of a slaughter of the people in the back.

A single air marshall will not be enough of a deterrant in some situations, it might help in a general kind of way, but not to a determined and multiple hijacker situation. They might keep one of their own back as a safety net to see who the air marshall is when he shows himself and use that person to take out the marshall.

The only true way to protect against these kinds of attacks is to have multiple armed people on board. Anything else is just "feel good" measures, and have shown to be totally ineffective.

Here's an interesting angle that doesn't get much play: Cockpit door security works both ways.

We assume that if the cockpit door is impenetrable that hijackers will never gain access (say, for example, the ideas about having no door at all and a separate outside door for the crew to use). This is yet another tactical mistake. Don't assume anything. The same cockpit security can be used to keep the hijackers perfectly safe in the cockpit with no way for the good guys to regain control of the airplane.

There must be a cockpit door. It needs a good quality locking mechanism and it should be difficult to break open, but not impossible.

For instance, a terrorist could hold a knife to a passenger and the pilot would be forced to either surrender his gun or watch the passenger (perhaps passengers) be killed. Once the terrorist has the gun there is no contest.

So rather than let one passenger(s) die, the pilot should let the hijackers kill them all and more on the ground?

Yeah, for far too long the gun grabbers of all stripes have been telling us how it is the government's job to protect its citizens. And we, generally, have bought their lies.

The government has a duty to provide a "general" protection through a deterrant through law enforcement, but they have no duty to protect any individual. The supreme court has even ruled in that direction and, it is indeed every individual's right and duty to provide their own protection.

Too many people have been in a rush to look to the government for that protection, and we are suffering the consequences.

It's not my arugment, but I liked the article for its rebuttal to many of the objections to guns in an airplane moreso than it's argument for arming pilots.

I work with pilots, I am a flight simulator engineer for a major cargo airline. I know these guys and for the most part, they are great guys. Many of them are indeed veterans, but there are a large number who are not, and have never held a gun, much less are profecient in the use of them. They are like members of just about any other profession, doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. Ok, they do have a bit higher incidence of having ex-military in their ranks.

I still firmly believe that allowing anyone who wants to be armed to be so is the best solution. It works on the street, it can work in the air. In fact, many of these rebuttals shows that the danger is way overblown, and that is the main reason for posting this article.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.