 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Drawing a bead on guns in the cockpit
By ELLIOTT HESTER A few weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, during a memorial service at American Airlines Arena in Miami, a pilot walked to the podium and waved a petition. In a crisp, clear voice, he urged the crowd of sobbing crew members from American, United, Delta and other carriers to support a measure that would allow firearms in the cockpit. The crying came to a halt. I turned to the flight attendant sitting beside me. We shook our heads and stared at the podium in disbelief. Because a memorial service seemed an inappropriate venue for hawking agendas, the pilot's petition drew more glares than signatures. But he may soon get his wish. This month, the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly to arm commercial airline pilots. The House voted 310-113 in July for a similar measure. Although the top executives of 21 U.S. airlines and a large minority of pilots disagree, firearms may soon become commonplace in the cockpit. Among the issues that must be resolved before the measure takes effect: How much training will gun-toting pilots receive? Will weapons be required to fire special bullets that will not pierce the fuselage? What's to be done if the captain on a given flight detests the idea of handguns while his subordinate, the co-pilot, insists on carrying one? What happens when an armed pilot lands in a country that does not allow handguns? To this last question, Jan Deiset, deputy leader of the Norwegian Pilot's Union, told the Associated Press, "The Americans are a little out of step with the rest of the world." Although I'm proud to be American, I agree with the Norwegian pilot. U.S. pilots want to use handguns as a last line of defense against terrorists. Though arming the cockpit crew may seem reasonable to some, opponents worry that such pilots may do more harm than good. A pilot's job is to fly the aircraft. It is a demanding, complicated task that requires attention and split-second decision making, especially during takeoff, landing and inclement weather. By arming pilots, we would divert their attention from their essential chore, for which they have been extensively trained. Put an air marshal in every cockpit if we have to. Make the cockpit door impenetrable. But let's not ask pilots to double as security guards. At the first sign of a hijacking, the pilot's initial response should be to land the aircraft. But armed pilots would have two immediate decisions: where to land the aircraft and which pilot is going to turn away from the controls and point the gun at the cockpit door. Attention to flying would be cut by 50 percent. And the chance that an innocent passenger or crew member would be shot goes up exponentially. Before 9/11, fewer than 50 air marshals provided protection on all U.S. flights. Most were dispatched to international flights regarded as at high risk for terrorist threats. Each marshal was required to complete an advanced marksmanship test. The test is timed and requires the shooter to fire rapidly at several short-range targets. A former marshal told USA Today, "If you miss it by a tenth of a second, you flunk. If you miss the target by a quarter of an inch, you flunk." Since last September, a large but undisclosed number of additional air marshals have been hired. According to that former marshal, perhaps three-quarters of the new marshals were not required to take the advanced marksmanship test. Because of this, the USA Today article said, "many of the proficient marshals are reluctant to team with marshals who haven't passed" the test. In a pressurized aircraft, a miss by a quarter-inch or a tenth of a second could mean life or death for everyone onboard. If the experienced marshals do refuse to fly with members of their own outfit with less training, how would they feel about flying with gun-carrying pilots who've had even less training? Consider what happened aboard Delta Flight 442 in August: During the flight from Atlanta to Philadelphia, an air marshal restrained a man who was looking through passenger's luggage. According to the federal Transportation Security Administration, at least one marshal pointed his weapon at passengers for a half-hour because some had refused to stay seated. While pointing his gun, the marshal stood with his back to the cockpit door. Imagine for a moment that this had taken place on a plane in which the pilots are armed. You are the air marshal on this flight. Chaos is erupting. Your job is to keep the pilots and cockpit secure by maintaining control. For whatever reason, one or more passengers ignore your commands to stay seated. You draw your weapon, and with your back against the cockpit door, you train it on the passengers, all of whom are now suspects in a possible hijacking. Nobody moves -- not even the flight attendants, who have yet to inform the pilots that everything is under control. The pilots, however, know that something is wrong: They have heard screaming coming from the cabin. The co-pilot pulls his gun and points it at the cockpit door -- and your back. Surely the air marshals do not want guns pointed in their direction. Instead of giving guns to pilots, let's redouble efforts to thwart potential hijackers at airport security checkpoints. In the words of Werner Schubert, spokesman for the Swedish Pilots' Association, "We have to stop these lunatics on the ground. There's not much we can do once we're up in the air." -- Elliott Hester has been a flight attendant for a major U.S. airline for 16 years.
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
From the Times Travel page Letters
From the AP |
