The pilot's union has requested permission for pilots to be allowed to carry guns in the cockpit. There are several reasons why this is a bad idea.

First, as the NY Times reports, a former pilot explains that he wouldn't fly as a passenger on a jet where the pilot was armed, as some pilots are the type who might use a gun without sufficient provocation.

Second, I think that the pilots should be behind secure cockpit doors, and they should land quickly if there is a disturbance in the cabin. They shouldn't hop up and roam the cabin settling scores.

Third, I think there should be air marshalls to keep order or subdue hijackers while the pilots are busy with the emergency landing.

Fourth, when these pilots are not flying, these guns would have to be kept somewhere. If the pilots keep them at home, this increases the chance of accidental shootings in their homes. I don't want to even contemplate what happens if dozens or hundreds of guns are stored at the airport, surrounded by ground workers who have never even submitted to a background check.

I just can't tell you how surprised I am by the pilots' union's position. The best thing for pilots would be air marshalls on all flights, and I have heard several pilots say so. This latest request is an invitation for Congress to bypass the air marshall program in favor of guns in cockpits.

As for me, I'll take an air marshall over an armed pilot any day of the week.

Another vote for Air Marshalls. Just add the $5 to my ticket.

First, if they're the type to use a gun without provocation, I don't want them flying the plane!

Second, they aren't behind secure doors. If they're into "settling scores" I don't want them flying the plane!

Third, air mashalls, I'm all for that. It's gonna be more than $5 per ticket.

Fourth, if the pilot can't prevent his white trash family members from shooting each other or their calssmates with his sidearm, then I don't want him flying the plane! How often do you hear about police officers, who bring their sidearms home, having their family members get hold of the gun and shoot the place up? It's Billy Bob getting hopped up on Maddog and taking his kids out back for some squirrel huntin' with an AK-47.

I'll take as many people as possible on a plane who are trained in the use of a fiearm and trained in handling conflict situations.

If you can trust a pilot with the lives of 500 or more passengers, surely they would have the ability, the common sense and the judgement to know when and when not to use a firearm. I can't even believe that this is a debate. I would guess that a pilot has spent a lot more time in the air, flying the plane, using his judgement, etc than air marshalls. I say that, because there is an all out recruitment effort right now to find air marshalls and train them. That might be a good plan too but in the meantime give my pilot and gun and a holster.

It would seem I have two choices: have an unarmed pilot but hijackers with knives or cutters and claiming to have a bomb who kill or injure flight personnel; or have a pilot with a gun who can as a last resort defend himself and by extension all of us who are depending on his retaining control of the plane and maintaining his own safety so that he may fly it safely to an emergency landing. That is an easy choice!!! As far as gun storage, why store them? Have the air marshall in charges of the pilot's gun ... presumably he or she is qualified to handle a gun .. surely the gun could be given to the pilot before passengers board. Each marshall thus is responible for two guns: his own and the one for the pilot of each flight he or she protects. The gun would be collected once on the ground and after all passengers have disembarked. Compared to what occurred on the 11th, give me an armed pilot ... and please, explain to me how I would be in greater jeopardy than those poor souls on those four planes. Ciao

Cowboy I agree 100%. It would be just one more thing to have to worry about a pilot and what they interpret as a threat.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001213

This is the account of an El Al pilot --without a gun -- who foiled a hijacking in progress.

I'm not opposed to the air marshal idea, but neither am I opposed to the idea of arming pilots.

First, in pilots you have a group of people who've already undergone tight fitness tests, so it's not as if they'd be handing weapons to convicted felons.
Second, if you don't want pilots taking the guns home, they could hand them in to a secure spot at the airport, and then pick them up when they're ready to fly out. Worried about the secure spot? Well, hell, if that's your feeling, you probably don't want weapons at your National Guard armory, either.
Third, I am in favor of gun control, but this situation meets my criteria for "control": responsible, qualified people who have a reason to carry a weapon.

I think the armed pilot idea has some superficial appeal, but I'm not on board.

Let's assume a locked, secure cockpit door. Under those circumstances, it seems to me that you have to figure out where you want your defenses to be on a plane. I think you need someone armed in the cabin who can put down a hijack. The marshall in the cabin has the eyes and ears to know what is going on in the cabin; the pilots do not. The marshall has the "space" to retrieve and use the gun effectively; the pilots may not, as the cockpit is tiny and they wear shoulder harnesses. Even if the marshall is somehow disarmed and the hijackers get his/her weapon, the cockpit crew is still protected and can just land the plane.

We have limited resources. Let's make securing the cockpit doors and training air marshalls our top priority, and not divert resources to training pilots.

By the way, if we arm pilots, we would be the only country in the world to allow commercial pilots to be armed (I believe). If even El Al doesn't do this, then I really think it is probably an overreaction and unnecessary to airplane security.

I would like my pilot to first and for most worry about operating the plane AT ALL TIMES! I do not want them to worry about being a policeman in the sky.
We need to find a way to make the cockpit inaccesable. As far as Air Marshalls are concerned I think its a good idea and I would be willing to pay extra to feel safe as long as him taking out the bad people wouldnt harm others.
Here are my alternate ideas. If the pilots need something to arm themselves how about stun guns. Or find a way for the pilot to release a sedative through the air system to knock the whole plane out and land the plane. Oh and the pilots would put on oxygen masks prior to the sedative so they could land the plane. Just some thoughts.

An American Airlines captain makes these points in a letter to today's Post (see Page A-22):

Most pilots tend have military backgrounds complete with weapons training ... and all have background checks and security clearances.

Pilots are charged with responsibility for safeguarding passengers, flight personnel and fellow citizens on the ground.

As the last line of defense onboard, pilots need all the tools for carrying out their responsibilities. Calling 9-1-1 from the cockpit will not help.

If the President may order military jets to shoot down American commercial aircraft, surely the US can accept that all airline pilots must be armed to prevent this from becoming a reality.

This is a pilot's views. His union now endores an idea that the FAA has banned. Paraphrasing the NRA, if the government bans guns for pilots, then only criminals will have weapons onboard.

Ciao

Your`e worried a trigger happy pilot might shoot someone who broke into a locked cockpit? Give those pilots who want them guns, and lets have the air marshalls too. Anyone hear of any El Al pilots who have shot anyone? You trust your life to the pilots anyway. Those El Al pilots don`t come out of the locked cockpit under any circumstances.

As the wife of a federal law enforcement officer who frquently flies armed, I have no problem with armed air marshalls on board. I do have a problem with giving all pilots guns. If the pilots are subject to very strict background checks (much like the military or federal law enforcement personnel) AND they receive proper ongoing training in the use of the weapons including textbook learning and range shooting, I would consider it a pretty good idea. However, I doubt airlines are going to drop the cash for this proper instruction and until they do, I am against it!

So what happens when a pilot tries to shoot someone who is trying to take over the plane and misses? Will the bullet puncture the cabin? Will that hole cause the cabin to become decompressed? What about the terrorists with pilot licenses? Do we give them a gun as well? Why not arm everyone on the plane?

I don't think anyone should have a gun on a plane. The pilots should have a secure door that only they can open. There should be marshalls on all flights with mace, stun guns, or something other than a gun. They should also be trained in hand to hand combat and should know how to take someone who is armed out. Give the pilots mace and stun guns as well so that if the marshall goes down they can defend themselves.

But whatever is decided, there will be holes and terrorists or anyone who wants to take control of a plane will be able to with proper planning just as they have before.

Three points: 1) As one poster has already stated, most pilots have military backgrounds, so firearms shouldn't be alien to them. 2) Pilots already undergo pretty extensive background checks (not to say that the checks can't be improved). 3) the bullets that are being discussed are not the type that can (in most circumstances) pierce the airplane. (there are no guarantees in life.)

I really recommend that you check out that earlier post of the El Al article in Opinion Journal: www.opinionjournal.com. Astonishing...an amazing story.

Key point is that _m_o_s_t_ pilots have military background , not all and for many that was some time ago. I think Bethany is referring to ongoing training maybe like police officers where one must qualify with the firearm every 3 months or so. Further, I am sure pilot background checks are nothing compared to one you would have to go through to be an FBI agent, US Marshall, Serest Serviceman, etc. These are the background checks _I_ would like to see for any pilot (or even anyone for that matter) openly carrying a loaded weapon for my supposed protection.

Observer,
You seem to have missed my last paranthetical: there are NO guarantees.
Obviously, you want guarantees.
I'd rather we take steps to improve the system and try our best to get it right. However, we must recognize that there are people who are evil or fanatical enough to bypass ANY system we install. Fundamentally, we all want to feel safe. We should weigh all the suggestions and try the best we can. I'm not sure where there is any harm in letting competant, trained, and approved pilots have guns in the cockpit. We have become a nation that has demonized the handgun. [Personally, I hate guns. I hate hunting. I don't own a gun.] Having said all that, I think seeing a pilot, or a sky marshall, carrying a firearm MAY be a deterrant to SOME people. Not all. And why not all? Because there are no guarantees.

Now, lets all say it together: if we give the pilot a gun, he or she will remain in a locked cockpit, no matter what is occurring in the cabin. Someone keeps suggesting OK Corral in the passenger cabin. Only, and I do mean only, with The Duke, God rest his soul. The pilot will shoot the hijacker only if the hijacker breaks into the cockpit in order to harm the pilot and commandeer the plane. In other words, pilot shoots only as a last resort. Now, shall we vote on whether a. the hijackers take over from the unarmed pilot, and the passengers and people on the ground are going to die .... or b. the pilot shoots at the hijacker, possibly harming him and prevents the hijacking, and retains control of the plane and attempts to land. Lets see ... hmmmm, by golly, option "b" looks better to me .... how about you? Ciao

Consider human nature, L. The rules say the pilot is supposed to stay in the cockpit. If they are unarmed, they will. They will not be tempted to use their weapon to subdue highjackers who can hurt a lot of passengers in the time it takes to bring a flight down from cruising altitude.

If they are armed, they might decide to come into the cabin and "save lives." They are humans, and the sound of a FA being tortured and murdered might be too much for them. Indeed, the pilot is the "captain of the ship," and always has the authority to take whatever measures he/she deems necessary to protect the passengers, right?

Let me ask this: If we have El-Al secured cockpit doors, why do pilots need guns at all?

Even if this proposal is passed, I'll bet few pilots will arm themselves. Submit to all that training and then keep it up to date? Go to the shooting range and re-qualify all the time? Figure out a way to deal with your gun on an international flight, when you aren't going to be allowed to take it to your hotel?

Nah. When the hysteria dies down, pilots will be happy to let the air marshalls subdue terrorists while the pilots fly the planes.