Coffee, Tea—or Bullets at 30,000 Feet

Aviation sources tell Time that more than 4,000 pilots are authorized to carry guns, and each day they fly armed on more flights than do air marshals. The gun-toting pilots, who fly unidentified, now constitute the fourth-largest federal law-enforcement group in the U.S. Pilots in the program, as well as the Transportation Security Administration (tsa), which runs it, claim it has been a big success.

In the past two years, reports Time, the only problem has been the arrest of a single pilot who may have shown up for work drunk.

Whole story here.

Comments

[james]

It's about freaking time! I don't see this happening under a Democratic administration.

[Warren]

All very good, until somebody pulls one of those guns out of the holster. Then the Pols will have to do something about it.

[Nobody Important]

In the past two years, reports Time, the only problem has been the arrest of a single pilot who may have shown up for work drunk.

Posted by Nick Gillespie at February 6, 2005 08:13 AM

Police officers are twice as likely to be alcoholics as members of the general population (due to the stress of their job; they also suffer from high suicide and divorce rates).

How many police officers have shown up for work (or even drive off-duty) while under the influence of alcohol, but are not arrested due to "professional courtesy?"

By comparison, "Alcohol abuse and dependence affects approximately 5-8% of all pilots, similar to the proportions in other professional occupations such as law, medicine and ministry."

(In one instance, rates are compared to general population, and the other as a % of the profession. I'm not sure how the two compare, and I don't feel like searching any more right now. If anyone knows, it would be appreciated).

[D Anghelone]

I guess that federal laws are overriding local laws (within the US) regarding gun possession/carry. But does that extend to overseas flight?

Overseas incidents became an issue with Sky Marshals and caused them, for the most part, to be given ground duty. "GUN TOTING LOUTS" was a New York Daily News headline when covering the problems with the Sky Marshals.

[thoreau]

One drunken pilot with a gun out of 4000?

This calls for the immediate creation of a new federal bureaucracy!

The Aviation Security and Sobriety HOmeLand Enforcement Department.

That's right, the A.S.S.H.O.L.E. Department! 😉

[kwais]

I am all about the pilots being armed.

One good thing this administration did is to make it legal for police officers to carry wherever they go in the US. I like that.

Now if we could get a federal concealed handgun licence for the public, that would be really cool. The places where you most need to carry a gun are the places where it is illegal.

[huskermet]

I would be all for pilots being armed if I could be sure they wouldn't miss and pop a hole in the cabin, causing me to be sucked out of the plane in little bloody pieces. That would tend to spoil my day and affect my customer satisfaction.

How about all of the nifty new non lethal gizmos (like tazers, bean bag guns and quick hardening foam) I keep seeing on the Discovery Channel? Seems like that might be a safer alternative, plus we get to question (and maybe even torture?) the baddies once the plane lands.

[Twba]

You won't be sucked out of a bullethole. The cabin will begin to lose pressure and the oxygen masks will fall from overhead. Strap it on your face and then look around to see if you can help anyone else. The pilot will bring the plane to a lower altitude and then make a safe landing. No problem.

[kmw]

The gun-toting pilots, who fly unidentified, now constitute the fourth-largest federal law-enforcement group

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't pilots private sector employees? At least, the airlines trade stock, but I don't know if that means anything anymore.

Maybe Time just can't stomach the idea of stating private citizens can carry guns, so they print a lie to make it easier to tolerate.

[Isaac Bartram]

.... aren't pilots private sector employees?

I believe that in order to overcome liability and other legal problems that both the airlines and FedGov had it was necessary to establish the Federal Flight Deck Officer program. This in effect deputized pilots as a special class of Federal Law Enforcement Officers.

But does that extend to overseas flight?

European countries have been unwilling to accept armed pilots.

[crimethink]

I suspect that pilots would be using the same aluminum bullets that sky marshals do. These bullets can penetrate human flesh but not the fusilage of an aircraft.

[Anon]

The piece sends a strange mixed message. On the one hand, the suggestion is that the TSA has thoroughly checked and efficiently armed thousands of pilots (TSA looks professional), while on the other hand it has provided little follow-up training and ,most crucially, no access whatsoever to intelligence reports (TSA looks incompetent, at least in my opinion). I assume that there have been few accidental discharge type incidents because pilots, on the whole, have had little reason to access their guns (I don't assume they wear holsters while flying, given their undercover status) -- that, combined with the lack of follow-up training makes me wonder just how prepared these pilots would be to deal with a potential incident at 30000 feet. At the very least I would like to know what they are trained to do under hostage-taking circumstances -- Surely that's got to be in their primary training, right?

Overall, the reinforced door option still sounds better to me, just from the point of view of simplicity and effectiveness. Armed pilots with good training would be a good second line of defense. I'm not sure what armed pilots with bad training would be.

Anon

[moonbiter]

Pilots in the program, as well as the Transportation Security Administration (tsa), which runs it, claim it has been a big success.

A question: What, exactly, constitutes "success" in this context?

Have these armed pilots thwarted any hijackings? Or is the "big success" here the fact that they simply haven't accidentally shot themselves or someone else or discharged a weapon into some important piece of avionics? What is the success here?

Also, what's up with calling pilots a "law enforcement group?" Does being allowed to carry a weapon now translate to legal authority to enforce the law? If so, I'm going to start pulling people over for reckless driving ...

[thoreau]

Overall, the reinforced door option still sounds better to me, just from the point of view of simplicity and effectiveness. Armed pilots with good training would be a good second line of defense. I'm not sure what armed pilots with bad training would be.

Actually, vigilant passengers are the first line of defense. Even if unarmed, we've seen that Americans will no longer comply with terrorists on airplanes. On the first few flights of 9/11, people still thought that if you complied you'd almost certainly live long enough to be released after landing in Cuba. On the fourth flight, however, they knew what was coming and fought back. They died, but they stopped the terrorists from reaching their target and killing even more people.

And when that thug tried to ignite his shoes, the passengers fought back again and restrained him.

Anyway, the lines of defense are:

1) Vigilant passengers
2) Reinforced doors
3) Hopefully an armed pilot with training

As to what an armed pilot with no training would constitute, my understanding has always been that there's nothing in this world more dangerous than a person who has a weapon but no clue about proper usage and handling. My uncle taught me that right after he taught me that every gun is always assumed to be loaded. It's been a long time since I handled a gun, but I still remember those 2 things.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Dirty Harry finds a new career.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Isn't it a little weird to trust a pilot with a giant superjet but then get bent out of shape because he might be armed with a little pistol?

[Adrian]

As a colorful friend of mine who used to fly for a major airline put it, "I'm already in a position to kill everyone on the plane, give me a gun so I can just kill some of them."

My point? My point is that Mr. Fletcher has a good point. The pilot already has the lives of everyone on the plane in his hands, so giving him a tool to disable or kill a passenger trying to hijack the plane shouldn't be that much of a stretch. I think it's certainly preferable to the options pilots have now: either throwing the plane into a nosedive and killing everyone, or handing his plane over to a terrorist.

[Isaac Bartram]

Also, what's up with calling pilots a "law enforcement group?"

I believe that in order to overcome liability and other legal problems that both the airlines and FedGov had it was necessary to establish the Federal Flight Deck Officer program. This in effect deputized pilots as a special class of Federal Law Enforcement Officers.

Does being allowed to carry a weapon now translate to legal authority to enforce the law?

I think that demonstrates one of the potential legal problems that led to Congress writing the legislation the way it did.

Isn't it a little weird to trust a pilot with a giant superjet but then get bent out of shape because he might be armed with a little pistol?

There are some people who find guns so frightening and dangerous that all reason departs.

[smacky]

On the first few flights of 9/11, people still thought that if you complied you'd almost certainly live long enough to be released after landing in Cuba. On the fourth flight, however, they knew what was coming and fought back. They died, but they stopped the terrorists from reaching their target and killing even more people.

In the interest of accuracy, weren't there only three planes involved in 9/11? And wasn't it the third plane that resisted, and not the fourth, like you mentioned?...I recall the third one crashing in a PA field somewhere...don't remember a fourth...

[Isaac Bartram]

Two planes hit the WTC. One to each tower.

One hit the Pentagon.

That makes three.

The fourth crashed in PA.

[Isaac Bartram]

Should have said:

The fourth crashed in PA after the passengers resisted.

[smacky]

I realized that, after I posted my question. Thanks, Issac.

[keith]

Smacky,

Flight AA 11: World Trade Center South Tower
Flight UA 175: World Trade Center North Tower
Flight AA 77: Pentagon
Flight UA 93: Crashed in PA

[SPECTRA]

huskermet at February 6, 2005 04:07 PM
"...causing me to be sucked out of the plane in little bloody pieces. That would tend to spoil my day and affect my customer satisfaction.

Twba at February 6, 2005 04:20 PM
You won't be sucked out of a bullethole...

moonbiter at February 7, 2005 12:29 AM
" Does being allowed to carry a weapon now translate to legal authority to enforce the law? If so, I'm going to start pulling people over for reckless driving ...

Adrian at February 7, 2005 04:52 AM
I'm already in a position to kill everyone on the plane, give me a gun so I can just kill some of them."

lmao
thats some funny shizzzz, i don't care who you are.
get'er done

Isaac Bartram at February 7, 2005 10:39 AM
...One hit the Pentagon.
keith at February 7, 2005 11:32 AM
...Flight AA 77: Pentagon

still waiting for evidence that proves a passenger size plane crashed into the Pentagon!!!

[Ayatollah Usoe]

Some people find guns scary. I find them all over the house.

I always giggle when I hear the hoplophobes worry about the 9mm hole in the plane made by a pilot, but in the same breath think the solution is the much bigger hole made by the F-16.

[gaius marius]

The pilot will bring the plane to a lower altitude and then make a safe landing. No problem.

if all goes well....

The pilot already has the lives of everyone on the plane in his hands, so giving him a tool to disable or kill a passenger trying to hijack the plane shouldn't be that much of a stretch.

i think the salient point is that -- and armed polits area stupid idea because -- the armed pilots will accidentally kill more airline passengers than they are likely to intentionally save. trained american police kill some 300 people annually by accidental discharge -- the residue of thousands of accidental on-the-job discharges. put in a confined place like an airplane, the ratio of shootings-to-discharges will be higher than regular police use. and what level of gun-safety certification do these pilots go through vis-a-vis the police?

i'd be interested to see any statistical evaluation (or even evidence of someone's consideration) of likely accidental discharge rates in airliners as a result of arming pilots, crew, or marshals on civilian airliners.

[Waz]

Just took some hand gun training in PA last week. Owner of the shooting range said he used to let the local law enforcement use it for training but decided that their training methods were flawed and that most of the recruits were just dangerous with a firearm. He sent them packing.

i think the salient point is that -- and armed polits area stupid idea because -- the armed pilots will accidentally kill more airline passengers than they are likely to intentionally save. trained american police kill some 300 people annually by accidental discharge

I'd like to see some statistical evidence of the 300 people killed annually. However, that's really not a bad percentage, especially if you include the 80,000 or so armed officer working for the federal government. There are over 18,000 police agencies in the US. I think we could easily get to over 1 million armed officers. So that puts the odds at about 300,000 to 1 or so. I'd say you're pretty safe that the pilot isn't going to off you by mistake. If he has to take out a few passengers to get the terrorist I'd still say it's a net win versus losing all the passengers and possibly even a few thousand folks on the ground.

[D Anghelone]

I think the pilots are expected to defend the cockpit with their guns and not to go Matt Dillon in the passenger section.

The other Matt Dillon.

[kwais]

" trained american police kill some 300 people annually by accidental discharge"

For the sake of the children, lets take their weapons away from them. Even if it just saves a few net lives it would be worth it.

Lets give their weapons to 7-11 clerks who are the forfront of the figh against crime.

[gaius marius]

I'd say you're pretty safe that the pilot isn't going to off you by mistake.

i'd concur, mr waz -- in fact, i'd say you're ridiculously safe from it. but then, you're also ridiculously safe from being involved in a terrorist attack when aboard an airliner, and that apparently hasn't stopped anyone from going off the fucking deep end about it, has it? 🙂

this entire affair seems to be a textbook example of how terrible people are at evaluating risk.

I'd like to see some statistical evidence of the 300 people killed annually.

lol -- so would i. put no faith in the number -- i'm hoping someone here can debunk it. an unevidenced post at free republic is the best i can dig up quickly. and i'm compelled to cite it because i can't find any statistics on the actual national event rate.

[smacky]

Some people find guns scary. I find them all over the house.

Classic! Should be a bumper sticker.

[gaius marius]

fwiw, the cdc tallied 27,470 accidental shooting deaths from 1981-2000 -- 1373 a year -- and 776 in 2000 -- as opposed to 270 killings as a result of legal intervention that year. i can find no statistic on what number of such killings are associated with law enforcement weapons. isn't that bizarre...?

a study published in jama estimates 17,000 injuries of accidental discharge every year.

[gaius marius]

there's also apparently only 300 or so justifiable homicides by civilians in the united states a year, fwiw.

[Stevo Darkly]

i think the salient point is that -- and armed polits area stupid idea because -- the armed pilots will accidentally kill more airline passengers than they are likely to intentionally save.

I dunno about that. If someone tries to take over the plane and crash it into a building, I'd rather have an armed pilot and take the chance of being hit by a stray bullet. That's still better odds than the hijacker succeeding, killing 100% of everyone aboard. Plus, there's the deterrent effect -- the number of people saved by persuading a hijacker not to bother.

trained american police kill some 300 people annually by accidental discharge

That seems like quite a low figure to me. That's about the number of toddlers killed each year by swimming pools.

[Stevo Darkly]

there's also apparently only 300 or so justifiable homicides by civilians in the united states a year, fwiw.

I think that means that when civilians successfully defend themselves with a firearm, only a minute percentage of those successful defenses actually require the death of the attacker.

[gaius marius]

Plus, there's the deterrent effect -- the number of people saved by persuading a hijacker not to bother.

for suicide bombers, i think this disincentive must be small, mr darkly.

If someone tries to take over the plane and crash it into a building, I'd rather have an armed pilot and take the chance of being hit by a stray bullet.

oh, i agree completely -- what i mean is the inevitable thousands of times that the weapon will accidentally discharge with there being no threat in sight (getting up to go to the restroom, buckling safety belt, etc.)

once a suicide hijacker is there, i'm sure it won't hurt to have an armed pilot. but that's an impossibly rare circumstance. consider that since 2001 there have been something like 3 billion air passengers in america, and a few hundred were killed by terrorists.

not exactly a compelling case for accepting regular accidental discharge deaths, however well intentioned.

[Anvilwyrm]

what i mean is the inevitable thousands of times that the weapon will accidentally discharge with there being no threat in sight (getting up to go to the restroom, buckling safety belt, etc.)

Bullshit.

Have you ever *owned* a firearm? Seen one? Guns do not just go off. One must pull the trigger. Which is covered by the holster. Firearms do not go off when you go to the bathroom, or when you buckle you seatbelt. Honest. I have hundreds of hours of training on this.

Accidental discharges are HIGHLY uncommon, and are always caused by someone screwing up, and badly. A firearm is a very simple device, and pilots who can fly a 747 are among the most competent people in the world.

I will bet you any money you like that we will not see inevitable thousands of times that the weapon will accidentally discharge caused by airline pilots in your lifetime. Hell, I would bet there will be less than 1 a year.

Yes, the police have trouble with accidental discharges, but with a few exceptions cops can't shoot, and have minimal firearms training. Most don't care about firearms at all. Some do, and are among the best in the world. Others forget to take their fingers off the trigger when holstering the weapon, and shoot themselves in the foot. (this is acutally a very common type of AD)

And with all do respect, police are not as technically competent as pilots.

Now if you wish to complain about the armed air marshals I might be willing to discuss it with you.

But it is clear from your post that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Stevo Darkly]

OK, I see what gaius is saying: A hijacking would be statistically so rare, it's less likely than the pilot's gun going off accidentally and hurting someone.

But I think that can be true only if accidental discharges (per hour spent carrying a gun around) would be expected to be fairly common.

Anvilwyrm argues that they should not be expected to be common, but rare.

Darkly: Plus, there's the deterrent effect -- the number of people saved by persuading a hijacker not to bother.

gaius marius: for suicide bombers, i think this disincentive must be small, mr darkly.

I think otherwise, at least in a 9-11 sort of scenario. Suicide bombers may not be deterred by death, but they would be deterred by failure. Even a terrorist willing to die would not throw his life away for nothing. If he knew he was likely to be shot dead before he could successfully commandeer the plane and crash it, it would remove his incentive to try.

By way of analogy: A fanatic WW2 Japanese pilot might be willing to crash into an American warship for the sake of striking a blow against the USA and defending Japan. But if the American ships had some kind of laser weapon that almost always shot down the kamikazes a hundred miles away, denying them the ability to crash into American ships, a kamikaze mission would be pointless.

The point of a suicide mission is not the suicide, but the mission.