Cargo aircraft pilots will be allowed to carry weapons in the cockpit after the US Homeland Security Department warned police that al-Qaeda may be plotting to fly cargo planes from another country into US nuclear plants, bridges, dams or other targets.
That warning prompted the Senate to pass a bill that would allow cargo pilots to carry guns, according to bill sponsor Sen. Jim Bunning. Congress last year gave passenger pilots, but not cargo pilots, the right to carry guns in the cockpit if they volunteered and underwent a week of training on their own time.
The airfreight industry has lobbied to allow cargo pilots to carrying guns. Cargo pilots say their aircraft are more vulnerable than passenger airliners – only a small percentage of freight is checked before being shipped, marshals don’t fly aboard cargo planes and freight handling areas at airports are not as secure as passenger terminals.
In September, Charles McKinley packed himself in a crate and flew undetected on a cargo plane from New York to Dallas
By: Whiskey Delta - 27th January 2004 at 02:44
Only one US carrier will grant pilots time off from their work schedule to attend the training. All the rest require the pilots to do it in their time off which can be hard to do considering the length of the training.
It seems that the TSA may have ticked off it’s last politician recently. Here’s an article about it.
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=Nationarchive200401NAT20040126b.html
It will be interesting to see what results of this.
By: steve rowell - 27th January 2004 at 02:29
A 40-year-old Federal Aviation Administration rule that allowed commercial airline pilots to be armed was inexplicably rescinded two months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, leading aviation security experts to lay at least some of the blame for the tragedy at the feet of airlines, none of which took advantage of the privilege while it was in effect.
The FAA adopted the armed pilot rule shortly after the Cuban missile crisis of 1961 to help prevent hijackings of American airliners. It remained in effect for four decades.
But in July 2001 – just two months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks – the rule was rescinded.
According to FAA officials, the rule required airlines to apply to the agency for their pilots to carry guns in cockpits and for the airlines to put pilots through an agency-approved firearms training course.
The aviation agency said, however, that throughout the life of the rule not a single U.S. air carrier took advantage of it, effectively rendering it “moot,” according to one agency official.
“In the past, FAA regulations permitted pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit provided they completed an FAA-approved training program and were trained properly by the airlines,” FAA spokesman Paul Takemoto told WND in a voice-mail message. “That was never put into effect because no requests for those training programs were ever made. …”
Takemoto said the newly created Transportation Security Administration is now responsible for deciding whether pilots can be armed. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act signed into law by President Bush Nov. 19, 2001, has a provision allowing pilots to be armed, but the law does not mandate that the right be granted.
The FAA failed to return numerous follow-up phone calls requesting to know why the rule was rescinded, who was responsible for the decision, whether a particular incident spurred the decision and whether the aviation agency believes the airlines share some culpability for never taking advantage of it in the first place.
Some security experts speculate that had airlines taken advantage of the rule, it likely would not have been rescinded by the FAA. And if it had been implemented by the airlines, they say, the Sept. 11 hijackings – which led to the deaths of nearly 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. – may never have occurred.
“It’s hard to say,” said Capt. Robert Lambert, a commercial airline pilot and founding board member of the Airline Pilots’ Security Alliance. But in lieu of the attacks, he said he can’t understand why airlines still refuse to support arming their pilots.
“We’re convinced there was a myriad of reasons why the airlines refused to allow pilots to be armed” before the attacks, said Lambert. He said the airlines were likely concerned about liability issues, but “of course, they have a lot of liabilities after Sept. 11, too
By: Whiskey Delta - 27th January 2004 at 02:04
FFDO is the title of a pilot trained to carry a firearm.
By: wysiwyg - 26th January 2004 at 19:57
Does that mean that the guy is actually located in the flightdeck? 😮
By: Whiskey Delta - 26th January 2004 at 02:27
I flew with my first FFDO (Federal Flight Deck Officer) this week. I’m impressed.
By: kev35 - 25th January 2004 at 20:51
So US pilots checklists will now go something like this….
Passport
flight bag
maps
charts
keys
sunglasses
…M16
Regards,
kev35
By: wysiwyg - 25th January 2004 at 20:28
If the pilot wanted to commit a terrorist act he wouldn’t need to be armed. He is already surrounded by suitable weapons in the flightdeck (eg fire axe). If he wants to just take out the aircraft and its occupants all he has to do is push the stick forward when near the ground. A pilot does not need a gun to take control of the aircraft…he has control already!
By: andrewm - 24th January 2004 at 16:53
I would think the pilots would be vetted.
By: EAL_KING - 24th January 2004 at 13:04
but what if one of the pilots was contracted by al queada to kil the other pilot and put it into e.g white house its easier now all they have to do is shoot the other guy
Sign In
January 24, 2004 at 9:02 am