Part 1:  Statement of position

Government Has Failed Us Again

Flight Crews Must Be Involved In The Solution

The Solution

Part 2:  Detailed Description

Introduction

The Facts

Other Peoples' Ideas

The Real Solution

Why?

Objections

Comments and Conclusion

Author Bio

Part 1: Statement of position

Government has failed us again

Flight crews must be involved in the solution

As an example, Duane Woerth, President of the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) testified to congress that arming airline pilots would help to deter hijacking.  Regardless of how people feel about arming airline pilots, the FAA is unilaterally imposing rules that prohibit such an action.  Thus, no airline will be able to test that method, whether they like it or not.  If another hijacking occurs, the FAA will likely not be held responsible in any tangible way for it even though they may have caused it via this legislation.  This is just one example of the FAA’s commitment to imposing bureaucracy rather than improving safety.

The Solution

The result of such action would be airlines being both completely free and completely responsible for all aspects of operation including safety and security.  I believe that freedom and responsibility will result in the best feasible airline safety and security and I am willing to bet my life on that proposition.
 
 
 

Part 2: Detailed Description

Introduction

The airline industry has been dramatically changed by the events of September 11, 2001.  How, we may not know for years, but the damage has been done.  Amidst the mourning, fear, and uncertainty, we must consider what comes next.  We cannot undo the past; we can, and will, affect the future.  The question is, how?

Today I have a particular interest in aviation security.  I have that interest because I regularly travel as a passenger on commercial airlines all over the world.  I also have that interest because I am an active airline pilot.  The changes that will occur in security will directly affect me in every way imaginable.  I intend to do what I can to influence the direction of aviation security for the better.

I believe ending government involvement in aviation is worth national, even international consideration.  I believe my ideas provide for the very best solutions available.  For that reason, I ask you to be careful in your reading of this article and careful in your reading of other articles promising solutions to this problem.  I hope you will agree that this is the very best solution available today.
 

The Facts

Lets begin by examining some important facts concerning aviation security.
 

• Government is not the answer.  For longer than I have been alive, government has been in control of aviation security.  For longer than I have been alive, government has failed to provide what they promise.  I entered the aviation industry in 1992.  In that short time, I have watched government regulate, legislate, tax, and more, in the name of aviation security.  Every time an accident or security violation occurs, the government responds with some new program only to have another violation occur.  Despite their money and efforts, they could not keep New York safe from people who cut wires in the cockpit of a parked Pan-Am Airbus in 1997, nor could they keep Miami free from drug smugglers in 1999, nor could they keep the skies safe from numerous hijackings, including the 4 on September 11, 2001.  Government cannot solve this problem and they have just given us more proof than we ever needed.

• Evil cannot be prevented in all cases, at all times, in all places.   People are asking “how can we prevent this from happening again?”  Unfortunately, the answer is “we cannot.”  I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news but as long as one evil person is willing to die for his or her cause, significantly evil events will result.  Anyone proposing a solution to aviation security promising that it will prevent suicidal madmen is lying to you.  My solution will not prevent evil things from happening and neither will theirs.

• It is possible to reduce the effects of such evil deeds.  Evil deeds can be reduced in frequency and in severity.  Ease of access can redirect terrorists to easier targets.  Some airlines, for example, have armed guards on each of their flights.  El Al has not had a successful hijacking since putting armed guards on their airplanes.  During the last serious attempt at a hijacking on El Al, in 1970, the hijackers were subdued and/or shot by stewards and passengers.  However, let us be careful not to presume that armed guards have solved the problem.  What they have done is redirected the hijackers to easier targets.  This is good for El Al who, without armed guards, would likely be targets of a disproportional number of hijackings.  Unfortunately, the path of least resistance led the terrorists to U.S. Airliners on September 11, 2001, where the crews and passengers are disarmed prior to boarding.

• The existing idea of aviation security is expensive and ineffective.   Those calling for increased screening, prohibition of any kind of blade, passenger profiling, etc. fail to mention that large amounts of money are spent on security already.  Security has been ‘improved’ progressively for many years, and our government has promised you safety when you fly only to have problems over and over again.  Today's ideas about aviation security must go.  They have not worked in the past.  They did not work on September 11, 2001.  They will not work in the future any better than they have before, regardless of how much money we throw at it.  Billions of dollars haven't been enough, what leads us to believe trillions would be?

• The existing ideas about security infringe upon our freedoms individually and as a nation.  One by one we have had freedoms revoked by our government in the name of security.  These freedoms have not been revoked by the airlines, not by the unions, not by consumer groups, but by our own government.  Certainly there are sound reasons for some of the rules in place today and I do not propose that all rules are inherently bad.  Not allowing explosive devices on airplanes, for example, seems like a good rule to me.  However, government directed screening of our persons and belongings erodes away our freedoms in a very real and damaging way.  The reduction in freedom has been real.  The increase in security has been an illusion.

Other Peoples’ Ideas

Before I get into the specifics of the ideas being proposed today, let me address a critical factor.  Airlines and their employees must understand and agree with any solution if it is ever to work.  Without the support of the people who own and operate the airliners, any system is doomed for two reasons:
 

• In principle, any system that violates the freedom of airlines and their employees from acting responsibly is wrong.  It is already illegal for airlines to use their business to violate human rights.  Further restricting their freedoms violates the airlines rights to operate as they see fit and relieves them from the responsibility associated with those restrictions.  That is why we have the poor security we have today.  Though airlines may pay for it, they are not ultimately responsible if something goes wrong because they are not allowed to set their own policies.

• In practice, any system imposed on airlines without the approval of the airlines and their staff will not succeed in the long run.  This is illustrated in the history of airline violations of existing regulations.  Airlines (and even occasionally flight crews) violate regulations on a daily basis.  This is because they either don't understand the regulations or don't agree with them enough to ensure their compliance.  Though accidental violations occasionally occur, the vast majority of violations occur because of the overwhelming volume of regulations that grind operations to a halt if completely complied with.  Security is no different and, when it comes to security, one hole is all the hijackers need to perform another deadly deed.

Furthermore, in theory, when the government imposes the rules, the government assumes the responsibility. However, in practice, the government imposes the rules, but the government frequently avoids the responsibility. It is extremely difficult to sue the government for the bad results of the rules it has imposed.  Further, if such a lawsuit is successful, taxpayers ultimately pay the bill for the government's irresponsible actions.

Having reviewed these facts, how do we address the issue of aviation security going forward?  Because of my interest, I have exposed myself to several ideas.  Some ideas have come from my own reading.  Coworkers and friends have passed on other ideas to me.  What are some of the leading ideas out there?
 

• Armed guards on board our airliners.  To be honest, I think this is a good idea.  Unfortunately, the promoters of that idea suggest a tax funded “Sky Marshal” program wherein some number of government employees who are armed travel aboard every airplane.  This solution would cost billions of dollars each year if implemented completely.  Would it be worth it?  Some people seem to think so.  That's a debate I don't think is even necessary, though.  The idea presumes the guards would disable the hijackers.  Suppose the hijackers were the guards?  Several police officers were in on the drug smuggling ring in Miami in 1999.  It could happen again with the marshal program.


Furthermore, consider the consequences of the hijackers, previously unarmed, obtaining one (and then all) of the weapons.  Now our own security force has armed the hijackers, and no further defense is available.  The only solution to that issue is to ensure a sufficient number of armed individuals are aboard each flight.  If they are to be paid marshals, the more we have, the higher the cost.

• The panic button.  Remarkably, many people have been contemplating this idea.  The crux of it is that by some means the aircraft itself is alerted to the fact it is being hijacked, presumably with one or more panic buttons.  Once the button is pushed, neither the pilots nor the hijackers would be able to further fully control the aircraft and crash it into a target.  It would, instead, land itself somewhere.  This is an interesting idea to say the least, but it would cost hundreds of Billions, possibly Trillions of dollars to implement because the majority of airliners would have to be replaced.  Would this stop hijackings?  It might deter hijackers who want to do this specific type of damage.  Would this stop someone from blowing up or shooting down an airliner, or from hijacking it for other purposes?  Nope.  Neither does it address the issue of the possibility that the hijackers could legitimately become airline pilots and, thus, circumvent those systems altogether.  For such an expensive system, it would have to be completely secure.  As we have discussed earlier, no such system will ever exist.

• Better screening and more restrictions on who and what is allowed on airplanes.  This is the current mindset.  Unfortunately, it will never work.  Since September 11, 2001, there have been several cases of contraband being carried through security in spite of the very strict and inconvenient ‘improved’ system now in place.  If it won't work, the cost is irrelevant, though the measures in place today, if continued long term, will cost Billions to tens of Billions of dollars annually due to the direct costs of screening and the indirect cost of the delays to the passengers.

Furthermore, keeping contraband off the airplanes won't work if, after clearing security, the passengers are exposed to items that could be used as weapons.  Unfortunately, those items are already on board the aircraft.  It's pointless to take away nail clippers when Coke is served in a can, wine in a bottle, and access to emergency equipment like oxygen bottles and fire extinguishers is available.  In fact, a properly trained team could likely hijack an airplane simply using their bare hands.

• Stronger cockpit doors.  There are some benefits to this idea and it is already being implemented.  There are also some flaws to this idea.  As long as there is a door to be opened, a motivated and trained hijacker (as these were) can open it.  Unless we redesign all aircraft with separate cockpit compartments that contain complete lavatory, rest, and eating facilities, the pilots will still have to have access to the cabin.  While this access can be controlled to a point, it is access none the less.

Again there is a less obvious problem.  It appears at least one of the airplanes had a hijacker in the cockpit prior to takeoff.  If we make it more difficult to access the cockpit, we run the risk that we lock the hijackers in rather than out.  That would make it more difficult for armed intervention from the back of the airplane to occur.  In a linear battlefield, as airplanes have now become, it's probably not wise to put the bad guys and their target (the flight controls) together on one side of a barrier and the good guys on the other..

The Real Solution

So, again, what do we do?  I propose we:
 

• End all government involvement in aviation.  Doing so would not impose any specific solution onto the airline industry.  Instead, each airline could decide for itself how to handle safety, including security issues.  This would move the responsibility for security to the airlines and away from the government who, we know, refuses to truly be responsible.

• Consider the idea of armed flight crews and/or passengers.  Ending government involvement in aviation would allow these kinds of ideas to be discussed and implemented.  As long as government makes it illegal for flight crews and/or passengers to carry weapons aboard aircraft, these ideas cannot be part of the solution.  I believe an armed defense aboard the aircraft is important.  I also believe that armed flight crews and/or passengers would be far more effective and inexpensive than an air marshal program.

Why?

There are two issues here.  First is government involvement.  Second is the idea of armed flight crews and/or passengers.

First, we need to end government involvement in aviation for two reasons.  These are the same two reasons we need to have the support of the airlines and flight crews for any workable solution.

• Principle:  Government intervention restricts the freedom and responsibility of airlines.  Doing this is a form of theft.  If an airline wants to confiscate the guns from its passengers, that's a right the airline should be afforded.  Conversely, if the airline wants to encourage their crews and even passengers to carry guns aboard their airplanes as a form of defense, they should be allowed to do that.  To limit their freedom limits their responsibility and ultimately limits their ability to pursue safety.

• Practice:  Government intervention has not eliminated accidents or hijackings.  Government sets goals and promises safety and yet fails to deliver.  Not only is government incompetent to understand and legislate safety, it cannot completely enforce the legislation it creates.  Though fines are issued and operating procedures are affected, daily violations of aviation legislation still occur.  We aren't receiving perfect protection and we're not even receiving all the protection the government says we are.  In other words, it's a lie to say government makes aviation safe.  Airlines and flight crews make aviation safe.  Government makes  aviation less convenient and more costly.

Second, the idea of armed flight crews and/or passengers has some benefits.  This is a good idea for several reasons.
 

• In principle it conforms to the idea that more freedom is better.   We would not be giving up yet more liberty but, rather, regaining freedoms we should have had all along.  The right to bear arms is constitutionally protected: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  The debate over the meaning of that statement rages on.  Nevertheless, airliners are private property owned by airlines, banks or leasing companies and should be afforded private property rights.  Giving up the right to bear arms for the appearance of security may have cost thousands of lives in an hour in the worst attack on America in history.

• It would likely be effective.  I stated at the beginning that it will not be possible to completely eliminate evil from our skies.  I do believe, however, that an army on every airliner based in America would do enough to deter hijackers that we would see fewer attacks in our airliners.  Attacks on airplanes would likely occur elsewhere in the world where they would not yet allow armed flight crews and/or passengers.  That kind of security is more powerful than any x-ray machine, metal detector, or facial recognition technology can ever provide.

• It would be cheap.  No longer would we need to screen passengers the same way we do today, nor would we have to pay inflated prices for government employed marshals.  Airlines would be responsible for screening who is allowed on and what kinds of weapons and ammunition they could carry.  They would still specify what other items like bombs, and other hazardous materials would be prohibited as they have been all along.  If the airlines wanted to, they could eliminate millions of dollars in cost of security by ending screening for knives, nail files, scissors, and other absurdities.  Also, passenger profiling at the expense of civil liberties (not to mention millions or billions of dollars) would not be necessary.

• It would be voluntary.  Airlines could decide to participate or not.  Some may allow anyone with any weapon to board, some may allow only flight crews to be armed, and some may even go so far as to prohibit law enforcement agents from carrying guns, a currently legal process.  Airlines could implement policies about what kinds of weapons would be allowed, what kind of ammunition could be used and how guns are to be used on board aircraft.  Training or, at the very least briefing, would be important to ensure safety.  However, any cost associated with that would ultimately be paid by the passengers in the form of ticket prices rather than by the taxpayers and victims whose lives are lost due to incompetent security.

• It would have far reaching positive effects on our country and our world.  I won't detail my opinion about the many ways guns on airplanes would help America.  I do believe, though, that our fight against crime, terrorism, tyranny, and other such evils would be greatly aided by an armed America protecting our airplanes in an up close and personal way.

Objections

There are certainly some objections to this idea.  I can't possibly address them all but I will try to address some key ones.
 

• What if there is an army of hijackers larger than the army of armed flight crew and/or passengers?  That many hijackers would surely overwhelm any security screening or/and air marshal program the government could ever implement. Again, there is no way to stop evil from happening.  We can simply minimize it or redirect it.

• What about careless or drunk people?  Certainly airlines would think twice about serving alcohol to passengers if they posses guns just as they don't serve alcohol to the crewmembers or to passengers who are already obviously intoxicated.  Careless mistakes could happen but the results of carelessness would pale in comparison to the results of yet another intentional hijacking like we saw on September 11.

• What about empty flights?  If the crew were armed, this would go a long way towards preventing a problem on empty flights.  Airlines who desired additional security could certainly post their own guards if they so desired.  Again, though, we cannot completely prevent, we can only discourage, minimize and redirect.  An armed crew, in addition to guards, is more defense than even El Al has at the moment.

• What about gun control?  This idea inevitably engages us in the gun control debate.  The ideas herein would most certainly apply to a home, a workplace, a church, a government building or anywhere else.  As long as there are armed citizens around, criminals (terrorists among them) will think twice about committing their crimes.  This has been demonstrated repeatedly by the strong correlation between high gun ownership rates and low crime rates.  Having said that, I will leave it to the untold numbers of groups already supporting gun ownership and the second amendment to deal with the gun control issue.  My goal is simply to convince you that government can't solve the security problem and that the fundamental idea of armed crews and/or even passengers is a valid, effective idea.

• What about international flights to countries who don't allow guns?   This idea is global.  If America were the only country to adopt this idea we would have to come up with a creative solution to that problem.  However, my hope is that airlines and governments all across the world would embrace this idea as the premier method for curtailing terrorism using aircraft.  This would, naturally, mean a dramatic change in the global mindset regarding gun ownership.  Considering the unlikely nature of that goal, the airlines could certainly come up with an international program that may still be effective without spending huge amounts of money on it.  Remember, though, the aircraft used in the September 11, 2001 tragedy were all on domestic routes.

• Will it work?  The answer is that we cannot know what will work best in advance. That is true if the airlines are free and responsible for airline safety and security. However, it is also true if the government usurps the freedom from the airlines, and then imposes its bureaucratic will on the airlines. And remember, the government usually does not actually live up to the responsibility it pretends to assume.  However, one of the beauties of this approach is that the customers will get to decide. And their judgment is certainly better than the government's judgment.

Comments and Conclusion

Before I close, let me make some personal comments.  I am an airline pilot who flies domestically and internationally.  Whatever system is implemented will apply to me as I travel around the globe.  I trust our airlines and the American citizens, who have proven themselves through these tragedies, more than I trust a government who has failed us repeatedly.

I am not in favor of violence.  I do not now, nor have I ever owned a gun, though someday I may (if they aren't outlawed altogether).  My motives are not to promote violence, but rather, to reduce it.  There are cases where the only way to prevent violence is with force.  Retaliation does far less to prevent violence than the threat of forceful prevention.  I would welcome that kind of protection on my airplane if my airline were to approve it.

It's time we all realize we, as individuals and as a nation, should no longer abdicate our responsibility for security to our government.  We need to protect ourselves in our airplanes as we do in our homes and elsewhere, with our own weapons.  The Second Amendment authorizes it, our founding fathers recommend it, and this industry insider sees it as the best option for enhancing the security of our skies.
 

Varrin Swearingen is a current, active airline pilot working as an MD-11 First Officer for a domestic and international airline.  He has over 4,500 hours of flight time, holds an Airline Transport Pilot certificate and is type rated in CL-65 and MD-11 aircraft.  He is 27 years old, resides in Fresno, CA., with his wife and son, and considers himself a Christian Libertarian.  He may be reached at varrin@varrin.com .
 
 
 

(c) 2001 - Varrin Swearingen, Varrin@Varrin.com , all rights reserved
This article may be freely distributed in whole or in part provided credit is given to the author.  Contact Varrin for more details.