Are we disarming pilots?
posted at 9:39 am on March 18, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
After 9/11, the US began a new program allowing airline pilots to arm themselves in order to defend the cockpit against terrorist incursion. Along with air marshals, the armed pilots formed a last line of defense against hijackings and worse, such as the al-Qaeda actions that killed 3,000 Americans by using commercial jets as guided missiles. The Washington Times reports that the Obama administration has decided to end the program without letting anyone know about it:
After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.
Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.
The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.
It’s not just a diversion of funds from training, either. The Times editorial accuses the new administration of hostility towards the program and using bureaucratic red tape to kneecap it. The pilots who want to defend themselves and their passengers cannot speak out publicly for fear of retribution:
Since Mr. Obama’s election, pilots have told us that the approval process for letting pilots carry guns on planes slowed significantly. Last week the problem went from bad to worse. Federal Flight Deck Officers – the pilots who have been approved to carry guns – indicate that the approval process has stalled out.
Pilots cannot openly speak about the changing policies for fear of retaliation from the Transportation Security Administration. Pilots who act in any way that causes a “loss of confidence” in the armed pilot program risk criminal prosecution as well as their removal from the program. Despite these threats, pilots in the Federal Flight Deck Officers program have raised real concerns in multiple interviews.
The only people wanting to disarm pilots, as the Times notes in its editorial, are anti-gun extremists … and terrorists. It costs next to nothing to have a pilot arm him/herself. The $2 million in training directly contributes to airline safety. Compare that spending to Porkulus, where $5 million of the $700 billion in government money will go to buy snowmakers. In Duluth.
Only about 3% of all flights have air marshals. That makes for a good deterrent for a single hijacker, but AQ and other organized terrorists can overcome that by using multiple attacks, just as they did on 9/11. Cockpit doors have been reinforced, but they are not impenetrable. An armed pilot, properly trained and equipped, can make the difference between life and death, and not just for the people in the air.
If the Obama administration is pandering to the anti-gun lobby with this initiative — and it’s hard to see why else Obama would shut down this program — then gun owners should dread what comes next out of the White House.
Update: Radio Vice Online is skeptical, and takes a look at the money — which is still flowing to the program.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Actually, the reinforced doors bother me. Realistically speaking, the door only has to be strong enough to slow the attacker down until the passengers get up out of their seats and restrain him. Stronger than that, and all we are doing is providing protection for a terrorist who has managed to trick his way passed the lock.
Count to 10 on March 18, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Heh, yeah, I guess the new lefty anti-gun meme will be “pilots kill” or some crap like that.
Liberty or Death on March 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM
BINGO….ding….ding….ding….we have a winner!
Liberty or Death on March 18, 2009 at 11:55 AM
IIRC, only about 2% of pilots can carry a firearm in the cabin, don’t know how many of those actually do either.
In any case, a secure cabin door is a far more effective deterrent.
starfleet_dude on March 18, 2009 at 11:55 AM
What if the assailant gets passed the door when it is open?
Count to 10 on March 18, 2009 at 11:58 AM
A secure cabin door with a firing port for the pilot would be even better.
pseudonominus on March 18, 2009 at 11:58 AM
The circumstance where a firearm would be loaded or unloaded pn board the aircraft would never, let me repeat, NEVER occur.
Viper1 on March 18, 2009 at 12:01 PM
I’d assume they’d give up to whomever took the door off its hinges and passed it to them.
We can do movie-plot scenarios all day folks, but I’m just pointing out what is in fact the most effective deterrent with regard to the safety of the cockpit.
starfleet_dude on March 18, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Is there a difference between the two?
Both want power without giving a flying fornication about the safety and security of law-abiding citizens..
Okay, maybe that’s wrong…..at least the terrorists would care about the citizens if they were abiding Sharia law.
NMRN123 on March 18, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Really off topic, but I haven’t seen anything mentioned about this at HA, or did I miss it?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/189282
Knucklehead on March 18, 2009 at 12:28 PM
starfleet_dude on March 18, 2009 at 12:11 PM
A reinforced door might slow down a committed individual but it won’t stop them. Further, they don’t hermetically seal the crew in the cockpit Even if you think a door is the answer – that doesn’t argue why the redundancy of an armed pilot is a bad idea. Armed pilots (no matter the number) are an inexpensive deterrent – actually and psychologically.
The most important factor for a hijacker is not his own death – it accomplishing the mission. Shouldn’t we do everything in our power to be at least as committed to their failure?
batterup on March 18, 2009 at 12:32 PM
starfleet_dude on March 18, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Are you serious? An armed flight crew acts as an additional deterrent and in the most extreme circumstance as a last line of defense. Please beam yourself into reality…..fruitcake!
dmann on March 18, 2009 at 12:45 PM
knowing the democrats and obama / peloiz / murtha and the rest of these TERRORIST SUPPORTING DEMOCRATS..
I wouldnt be surpirsed if they passed a new lkaw
REQUIRING THE PILOTS TO HAND OVER AL THEIR WEAPONS
to the first muslims they find on the aircraft..
and if there arent any then to throw the weapons out the window..
Morons..
jcila on March 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM
IIRC, only about 2% of pilots can carry a firearm in the cabin, don’t know how many of those actually do either.
In any case, a secure cabin door is a far more effective deterrent.
starfleet_dude on March 18, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Del Dolemonte on March 18, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Only After they apologize to the moose limbs for having them in the first place!!!!
NMRN123 on March 18, 2009 at 1:17 PM
If you hit vital wiring, pneumatic or hydraulic tubing or rigid flight-controls it could be very bad. But the rapid decompression like from Goldfinger is a myth and a simple hole in the fuselage wouldn’t be any more dangerous than say riding in a Kennedy’s car.
Scratch that, less dangerous than riding with a Kennedy.
As a matter of fact, I’d rather be shooting the sh@t out of a presurrized jet cabin with my pistol than being within a ten foot cattle prod of a Kennedy and his car.
hawkdriver on March 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM
I always though it was a bad idea to arm the pilots since if terrorists try anything their first priority is to make sure the plane maintain its defiance of gravity. The ones who should be armed are the stewardesses. Not the male flight attendants, the female stewardesses. Just imagine how embarrassed a terrorist would be when he takes a bullet between the eyes by a blonde named Buffy. He’d be the laughingstock of Terrorist Hell.
AaronGuzman on March 18, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Or a gay flight steward!
pseudonominus on March 18, 2009 at 1:43 PM
We can trust the pilot with a $billion dollar aircraft and 300 lives, but not a gun.
Liberal logic is an oxymoron
Bevan on March 18, 2009 at 1:53 PM
LOL!!
Buffy the Terrorist Slayer!!!
NMRN123 on March 18, 2009 at 2:42 PM
1. Tape bacon strips to the cockpit door.
2. Serve BLTs.
3. Hike up the stewardess’s skirts a bit.
4. Allow card carrying conservatives to pack heat.
Problem solved.
Bubba Redneck on March 18, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Even during the Bush administration, the Federal Flight Deck Officer program was run in such a way that it was clear that the TSA would rather not have any armed pilots. There is only one training facility, in Artesia, New Mexico, hundreds of miles from the nearest major airport (Albuquerque). Pilots had to pay their own way there, and for their room and board.
The TSA bureaucrats never liked the program. A new anti-gun administration will be a perfect excuse for them to let it quietly die.
Jobius on March 18, 2009 at 4:00 PM
I was searched not once, not twice but each time i went through a major airport
and during all of those searches (which i gleefully complied)
I never saw one
Arab
Muslim
pakastani being searched
and i was always searched by either a minority (read a big black broad) or a muslim…
and i am ex military????
I need to start carrying
a BIG CARD stating
ARAB REPORTER..
LIBERAL
TERRORIST
hell then i might actually make my flight on time..
jcila on March 18, 2009 at 4:09 PM
TIME FOR THE 9-11 CHANNEL IN HD, IT’S THE ONLY WAY DIPSHIT DEMOTARDS WILL BE ABLE TO REMEMBER WHAT WAS DONE AND WHY WE DO WHAT WE DO TODAY. PLAY VIDEO OF THE PLANES CRASHING INTO BUILDINGS AND PEOPLE RUNNING DOWN THE STAIRS OF WTC 24/7 FOR ALL TO SEE FOREVER. SMALL PRICE TO PAY FOR ALL THE TSA BULLSHIT WE DEAL WITH AS TRAVELERS AS WELL.
lasertex on March 18, 2009 at 4:13 PM
iF YOU SEEK OBAMA HEY BRITNEY..
lasertex on March 18, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Fox News is reporting the story is inaccurate:
However, it is worth noting that the original editorial did not claim that it was an official policy, but just that funds are being diverted and the approval process is “slowing down”. Sounds to me more like bureaucratic bass-ackwardness, but I suppose it could be a nefarious plot.
JackOfClubs on March 18, 2009 at 5:21 PM
With 20 of the so called “Freedom Fighters” dissappearing off the radar screen in Minnesota this is wonderful news.
Dire Straits
Not ta mention Obama’s AG Holder saying he will releases terror suspects in side the USA
DSchoen on March 18, 2009 at 6:38 PM
“Only about 3% of all flights have air marshalls.”
Boy that 9/11 sure made us a serious nation.
/sarc
profitsbeard on March 18, 2009 at 8:54 PM
The pistol is issued by the US Government. It is a H&K USP Compact .40 S&W. Reference wikipedia
Mike Morrissey on March 18, 2009 at 9:36 PM
Only a liberal would trust a guy to fly him miles above the earth almost at the speed of sound, then land again thousands of miles away, trusting the guy’s judgment………..
…and then go ballistic in demanding to know why that same guy was allowed to have a gun in the cockpit.
manofaiki on March 18, 2009 at 9:39 PM
What an idea, pilots must be armed. Arming pilots so they can be on the front line in defending aircraft from BASH. The pilot takes out those pesky birds in the front that can take out the entire plane with out any weapons or explosives. While, the Marshals in the back kill the terrorist that get past the inspection(s).
MSGTAS on March 19, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2