Armed Pilots: A Risk Worth Taking?

It is now just over a month since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and new and drastic measures have been proposed to strengthen America’s airline security. Beyond increased oversight at airport metal detectors and reinforced cockpit doors, some industry leaders and lawmakers have, irresponsibly, proposed arming pilots as a deterrent against terrorism. Testifying before a congressional subcommittee, Duane Woerth, the president of the Air Line Pilots Association, America’s largest pilot union, advocated a plan to do just that—to equip pilots with firearms.

Under Woerth’s plan, the FBI would train pilots and then deputize them as federal agents, allowing them to carry guns onboard. However, such a plan is much more dangerous than other, more sensible, alternatives. And Congress can’t seem to figure out what to do. The chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation, John L. Mica (R-Fl.), who presided over the hearing, was sympathetic to Woerth’s argument. Tom Delay (R-Texas), the House majority whip, however, is more skeptical. According to The New York Times, Delay said, “I don’t want any cowboy pilots going back to fight hijackers and leaving the plane unattended.” Across the aisle, House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) indicated that strengthening cockpit doors is more sensible. The New York Times reported that Gephardt said, “I don’t think we need pilots trying to be security officers.”

Firearms and airplanes are a dangerous mix. Even the best-trained professionals can miss their targets, and a well-intentioned shot aimed at a hijacker might easily find an innocent passenger instead. Just imagine a firefight on a crowded passenger jet. A few shots ring out and hysteria sets in. It would be close to impossible to take out a hijacker without at least the risk of a few civilian deaths.

While those in favor of arming pilots with firearms may argue that a few dead passengers is a fair price to pay to prevent another tragedy like Sept. 11, they are ignoring much more sensible alternatives that would be just as effective. We can arm pilots with stun guns, which would still present a deterrent and would stop terrorists in the air without the risk of killing civilians.

So why ought we put the lives of so many people at risk when there are less dangerous policies?

Considering the possibilities, it is almost absurd to think that pilots—many of whom have no experience with close range weaponry—will be effective deterrents to terrorists after a few weeks at FBI training camp. Quite frankly, it scares me to think that on my next flight home to Los Angeles, an air marshal may be sitting next to me with his finger on a trigger. With that image in mind, it is downright terrifying to think of an inexperienced, armed pilot. We hire pilots to fly planes, not to guard them.

Clearly, giving pilots firearms would be an irresponsible and dangerous first step in our efforts to make air travel safer.

—Stephen W. Stromberg