Posted July 23, 2002 This article appeared in the July 23, 2002 edition of the Miami Herald.

Congress is finally getting serious about airline security. In a nearly 3 to 1 vote last week the House passed the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act, which would allow qualified commercial airline pilots to use firearms in the cockpit to repel a terrorist threat.

The scenario addressed by the bill is grim, but simple. If terrorists make it past ground security measures, overcome the cabin crew, and breach the fortified door to the flight deck, the pilot or copilot would be able to stop them (yes, that means kill them if necessary). Let us recall that the threat here is aimed at the ground target selected by the terrorists, as well as the crew, the passengers, and the aircraft.

Aside from the fact that congress members are frequent fliers acquainted with the weaknesses of airline security, why was the House vote so one-sided in favor of arming pilots? One senses that the nation sees the need for a new level of security based on a rational risk assessment, rather than emotion.

The bill has built-in protections against the most obvious pitfalls. The type of firearm allowed in the cockpit would be specified, as would the type of ammunition.

Frangible ammunition was developed years ago for in-flight use by air marshals, and development of that technology has been given a boost since September 11. Concerns about loss of cabin air pressure, with passengers being sucked out of a bullet-damaged cabin, are based more on movie drama than reality. In any case, the bill calls for an analysis of the risks to the aircraft's systems posed by an accidental discharge of an on-board firearm.

As serious as the prospect of a cockpit gunfight is, there is ample precedent in law-enforcement training for similar scenarios. Hostage rescue training is one example. Shoot-don't shoot drills, close-quarters combat, and weapon retention are core competencies for many specialties of law enforcement. They would likely be part of the pilots' training.

Training would be set to the current standards of air marshals and would be tightly controlled by the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security. Participating pilots would have to requalify often with their firearms. Many airline pilots have military experience and firearm training. The House bill recognizes that advantage in a section that gives them preference in the trainee selection process.

Before passage the bill was amended to address the concerns of cabin crew, who worried that the original bill neglected them and their passengers. The bill as passed requires airlines to provide cabin crews training in recognizing on-board threats, subduing attackers, and improving communication between the cabin crew and the flight deck.

The bill also limits airline and pilot liability for injuries and deaths from in-flight defensive actions, but allows a procedure for claims against the federal government.

The opposition of the gun control lobby was predictable, and it repeats much of the same old hand wringing. A Violence Policy Center spokesperson worried that a dropped handgun might fire, or that a terrorist may take away the pilot's gun. These mishaps are unlikely, and practically irrelevant considering the gravity of the threat.

What is less understandable is the resistance of the Bush administration to arming pilots. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and the Transportation Security Administration's John McGaw both oppose the idea, preferring to beef up ground security and to increase the number of air marshals. Unfortunately, they have nothing else to offer between those half-measures and an Air Force fighter jet shooting down a hijacked airliner.

Until now a zero tolerance mindset toward lethal weapons on airliners has shaped both government and corporate airline policy. Like similar strategies for "weapons" in schools (e.g. kids pointing their fingers as make-believe guns) this policy has been driven more by fear than logic.

But a parallel development over the last 15 years has proven that a zero tolerance policy toward carrying guns is not only ineffective, but can cause even more deaths and injuries. State laws allowing responsible, qualified people to carry self-defense firearms have proved the same benefits over and over again — gun mishaps among carry license holders are rare and violent crime goes down. This lesson, driven home repeatedly, has diminished opposition to self-defense firearm carry laws.

Similarly, the public seems ready to accept armed pilots as one more layer of security in the vulnerable environment of a passenger jet. The understanding is dawning on us that armed and qualified good guys not only are trustworthy, they also provide the most potent weapon available against the threat of deadly force. This is just as true at 30,000 feet as it is on the ground.