Boston Globe: "Good Sense Prevails On Guns For Pilots"

[WyldOne]

Almost a great editorial. Except for one or two sentences towards the end.
####

Source

Good sense prevails on guns for pilots


By Scot Lehigh, 7/24/2002

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.

Scot Lehigh's e-mail address is lehigh@glboe.com.

This story ran on page A15 of the Boston Globe on 7/24/2002.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.

[D.W. Drang]

The proper place to put the "thirty" would have before the penultimate paragraph.
However... I can't BELIEVE the Bahston Globe printed this!

[Blackhawk]

I looked at the attribution 3 times while reading this. Incredible for the BG!

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.

Then there's the Rohrbaugh MS-9, a 9mm P-32 sized pistol with a magnetic trigger lock tuned to the owner's ring. Supposed to be available in October, 2002. www.rohrbaughfirearms.com

Thanks for posting a most interesting article, Wyld!

[foghornl]

Good no-nonsense straighforward atricle, except for the smartgun paragraph.

Smart Guns = The Least Intelligent Gun Idea, short of confiscation

[hps1]

Is this THE Boston,....you know, the one in Massachusetts?

Time to fax, e.mail or call our Senators and the White House and apply a little pressure to encourage enactment of this bill.

Thanks for the post, Wyldone.

Regards,
hps

[Futo Inu]

Bob Smith and Babs "Gun Ban" Boxer side by side? Now THAT's strange bedfellows!