A Pilot Speaks Out On FAMs

——————————————————————————–
Armed pilots are a better defense than sky marshals
By KURT WOLZ

I am a pilot with a major airline who would like to express concerns
regarding the FAA?s remedy of using sky marshals to make our skies safe,
and present a solution involving ?arming? pilots without actually arming
pilots.

First of all, where on the airplane will the sky marshal sit? In which
class? When is the right time for him to jump into action against the
one, three or five terrorists? How does he know how many there really
are?

Today we deal with terrorists with well- thought-out plans for
accomplishing their objectives. A future revision to their plans will
include the method to defeat the sky marshal and get his gun. When they
do get his gun and are on their way to the cockpit, we pilots have no
other choice than to crash the airplane. We will be defenseless to do
anything to stop them from eventually commandeering the airplane, killing
us with the sky marshal?s gun in the process, and killing innocent people
on the ground with the airplane.

I suppose we can rest assured that our military will shoot the airplane
down before it reaches its target!

How will terrorists defeat the sky marshal? Simply by having one or two
?sleepers? among their team who will keep low-profiles during the initial
minutes of the takeover, and will then either sneak up on the now-visible
sky marshal, or innocently offer assistance. One way or the other, they
will overcome the sky marshal and get his gun. If the sky marshal sits in
the coach class, he will be unaware of what is happening behind the
curtains up front. If he sits in business or first class, he is
vulnerable to anyone coming up from the rear of the airplane, whether it
be a legitimate passenger offering assistance or a ?sleeper.? He could
have terrorists sitting on all sides of him and not know it! So, how is
he to know who is a terrorist and who is not?

Another consideration in this scenario is the proper time to act. Does
the sky marshal jump into action after three terrorists have passed him
on the way to the cockpit? He has no way of knowing how many terrorists
are on board.

Having more than one sky marshal on board does complicate things for the
terrorists, but the possibility still exists for them to get the sky
marshals? guns. This makes the FAA?s sky marshal remedy a bad idea! The
only time sky marshals are 100 percent effective is when there is only
one hijacker/terrorist! This is a perfect example of our government
instituting a politically-correct. feel-good solution that didn’t involve
much thought, if any. Using sky marshals is not the solution ? they are a
$2 billion waste of taxpayers? money!

Had it been known to all that we pilots were ?armed? and there was no gun
to be had courtesy of the sky marshal, any attempt to take over our
airplane would not be successful. With a hardened cockpit door and guns
in the cockpit, we pilots would be ready for the terrorists. It?s our
airplane to defend!

A new policy involving guns in the cockpit and attempted cockpit
takeovers should be as follows. It should instruct the flight attendants
to step aside ? stay out of harm?s way. There is nothing they can do to
stop today?s terrorists anyway. A courtesy call to the cockpit is all
that is necessary. Unless the terrorists are coming to the cockpit with a
gun, they are guaranteed failure. And considering the fact that the
majority of major airline pilots have prior military experience, ?arming?
us should not be of any real concern. Firearms training can be added to
our annual recurrent training for those who need it. Besides, what
special training is needed to shoot from point blank range?

In my solution to arming pilots, guns would become part of standard
cockpit emergency equipment. There would be no gun-toting pilots in
airport terminals! Two titanium lockable gun boxes with guns would be
installed in the cockpits of our airplanes ? one on each side panel near
the oxygen mask ? another piece of emergency equipment that is there
should we ever need it. Pilots would be the only ones issued keys and the
boxes would be unlocked when the cockpit door is closed at the beginning
of the flight and locked when the cockpit door is opened at the end of
the flight. The guns would only be used to defend the cockpit from
takeover attempts.

Guns could be permanently attached by steel cable lanyards to the gun
boxes to insure that they are not taken into the passenger cabin by
pilots to quell a cabin disturbance. In the event of a breach of the
cockpit door, pilots would be sitting ready with the autopilot engaged
(altitude hold), guns drawn and aimed at the cockpit door, and oxygen
masks and goggles on in case of a depressurization. Any person attempting
to break the door down would be considered hostile and would be shot upon
entry. There would be no mistaking a friendly passenger for a
hijacker/terrorist.

Another possible option to ensure the security and the proper use of the
guns would be an airplane system where several conditions must be met to
unlock the gun boxes. Gun boxes unlock when an engine is running, and the
squat switch on the landing gear is open (landing gear is up), and the
transponder is set to the hijacking code. This would also alert air
traffic control at the same time. Boeing and Airbus could offer the
titanium gun box option with the reinforced cockpit door modification and
mass-market it to all the airlines, thus making it also an economically
viable solution. Reinforcing cockpit doors, installing two gun lock-boxes
with two guns per airplane, and freeing up the revenue-passenger seat
that the sky marshal would occupy, is not only the best way to prevent
the horrific events that occurred on Sept. 11 from ever happening again,
but is also the cheapest to the airlines and taxpayers, too!

If the FAA insists on going forward with the sky marshal program, then
the proper seat for him is the cockpit jumpseat.

? Kurt S. Wolz, an airline pilot, is a resident of Bedford NH