Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company The Boston
Globe
July 24, 2002, Wednesday ,THIRD EDITION
SECTION: OP-ED; Pg. A15
LENGTH:
745 words
HEADLINE: SCOT LEHIGH; GOOD SENSE PREVAILS ON GUNS FOR PILOTS
BYLINE: By SCOT LEHIGH, Globe Staff
BODY: REASON SCORED AN UNEXPECTED VICTORY TWO WEEKS
AGO WHEN THE US HOUSE BROKE WITH THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND VOTED, 310 TO 113,
TO ARM AIRLINE PILOTS.
A second surprise
came yesterday, when Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said the
Transporation Security Administration, once opposed, was now actively exploring
the option of letting pilots have guns in the cockpit.
Will the Senate prove as susceptible to common sense? Although he
opposes guns in the cockpit, US Senator Ernest Hollings, who chairs the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, has agreed to hold a hearing
on the matter tomorrow.
"It's looking
stronger each day," says Republican Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire, who,
with Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California, is leading the charge. The
legislation now counts four other Democrats as cosponsors: Montana's Max Baucus,
Arkansas's Blanche Lincoln, South Dakota's Tim Johnson, and Georgia's Zell
Miller.
Here's another Democrat who supports the idea
of arming pilots: John Kerry of Massachusetts. "I am in favor of it, with proper
training and proper protocols for their use," says Kerry.
"If a pilot comes to a conclusion that this is the only way to remedy a
dangerous situation, it seems to me they ought to have a gun."
Meanwhile, despite the previous judgment by John Magaw (who resigned
suddenly last week as head of the Transportation Security Administration) that
pilots shouldn't be armed, Captain Phillip Beall, who chairs the Allied Pilots
Association's Committee for Armed Defense of the Cockpit, says he is reliably
told that the FBI concluded last fall that after five days of firearms training,
pilots would be well prepared to defend the cockpit against hijackers. (The FBI
could not provide any information on the matter. Certainly in
the face of the facts, the arguments against guns in the cockpit fade like a
contrail in gusty wind. Two seem rooted in a basic misunderstanding of planes
and flying: The worry that an errant bullet piercing the skin of the aircraft
would lead to a catastrophic depressurization and the concern that having to
defend the cockpit would prove such a distraction that pilots could no longer
fly the plane. Actually, experts say, a number of bullet holes in the
pressurized envelope of the aircraft would do little to affect the performance
of the plane. As for the second concern, it takes only one pilot to operate an
aircraft, leaving the other to use his weapon to repel would-be hijackers.
The latter also amounts to a curious confusion of cause
and effect. "If someone gets into the cockpit, that is the real distraction,"
notes Smith. The odds of intruders gaining entry are far less if the pilots can
greet them with a lethal dose of lead. (In an emergency, the protocol is that
pilots would remain in the cockpit, not roam the aircraft to police matters
there. Then there's the contention that airborne security is
better left to air marshals. Well, consider the experience of American Airlines
pilot Darik Day, who flies three flights a day, 15 days a month. "Since
September 11, I have flown with air marshals twice," Day reports.Other pilots
also report a similarly low incidence of having marshals on their flights.
Several other arguments have yet to give up the ghost.
One: The best way to proceed is to keep pilots unarmed but have them land the
plane immediately if trouble occurs. Reality check: Even if directly above an
airport, a plane at cruise altitude takes 15 minutes to land. Out over the
ocean, the nearest airport could be hours away.
But
oddest of all is the fear that pilots somehow can't be trusted with weapons.
"We trust the pilots with a $100 million aircraft with
300, 400 people on them," Kerry points out. "If that isn't the ultimate trust, I
don't know what is."
Here's one other extra thing
Congress should do: vote funds to spur the development of a smart gun that would
fire only for authorized users. That kind of weapon, which experts says could be
developed within two years, would eliminate any chance that a cockpit firearm
might somehow be wrestled away and used by a hijacker.
But make no mistake, we need the deterrence and protection that would
come of arming pilots now. It's time for Senate Democrats to recognize that
these are unique circumstances, put aside their instinctive antigun ideology,
and let reason be their guide.
Document 32 of 142. 