House considers guns for pilots

Support builds on Capitol Hill, but questions remain

ASSOCIATED PRESS


WASHINGTON, May 2 — Momentum is building in Congress for a proposal to arm America’s commercial airline pilots to protect against terrorist hijackings, even though Bush administration officials have opposed it.

AT A HEARING Thursday before a House aviation panel, some members of both houses endorsed legislation that would allow pilots to have guns available to foil a takeover.
“Arming trained and qualified flight crew members is a necessary step to ensure the safety and security of the flying public,” said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the House Transportation aviation subcommittee and sponsor of a bill to arm pilots. “Nothing else can provide the deterrence or effectiveness of a weapon wielded by a highly trained individual.”
Four senators — Republicans Bob Smith of New Hampshire, Frank Murkowski of Alaska and Conrad Burns of Montana and Democrat Zell Miller of Georgia — are writing their own bill to arm pilots.
Other lawmakers, however, said arming pilots would detract from their main job.
“Their primary duty is to see that the plane is flown and landed safely,” said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas.
Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge have said they oppose arming pilots, but John Magaw, undersecretary for transportation security, said a final decision hasn’t been made.
“Let’s let all the information come forward,” Magaw said.
Mineta has said that guns are not needed because cockpit doors have been reinforced, preventing terrorists from commandeering airplanes.

‘POTENTIAL’ FOR EFFECTIVE USE

Transportation officials also are reviewing whether to allow nonlethal weapons, such as stun guns, in the cockpits. A study by the National Institute of Justice found that such weapons could allow flight crews to stop a hijacking.
“These weapons have the potential to interrupt an attack, control the aggressor or delay an attack while the flight crew safely lands the plane,” said Sarah Hart, director of the institute’s Office of Justice Programs. “However, substantial testing is required before informed decisions can be made as to whether these weapons should be deployed on commercial airlines.”
Pilots’ unions have been lobbying for guns in the cockpits, sending a letter to President Bush and launching a petition drive that attracted more than 44,000 signatures through Wednesday, according to the Web site of the Allied Pilots Association.
“Our pilots have requested the ability to defend themselves,” Mica said. “They are our last line of defense and should have at least a fighting chance.”

from this link

U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. Rep. Don Young, Chairman

Contact: Steve Hansen (Communications Director) (202) 225-7749
Email: Steve.Hansen@mail.house.gov
Justin Harclerode (Communications Assistant) (202) 226-8767
Email: Justin.Harclerod@mail.house.gov

To: National Desk/Transportation Reporter
May 2, 2002

Providing Pilots With Weapons To Defend The Cockpit From Terrorists Supported At Congressional Hearing

Washington, DC – Representatives of the aviation industry and the Department of Justice testified before a Congressional subcommittee today on issues related to arming pilots in order to defend the cockpit from terrorist attacks.

The Aviation Subcommittee, chaired by U.S. Rep. John Mica (R-FL), heard from four witnesses today – the Honorable Sarah Hart from DOJ’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ), Captain Stephen Luckey of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), Captain Hank Krakowski of United Airlines, and Ron Hinderberger of Boeing. Witnesses discussed providing pilots with both lethal weapons – handguns – and less-than-lethal weapons, such as stun guns.

“Pilots Have Asked For The Ability To Defend Themselves, And Congress Should Meet That Request”

“Arming trained and qualified flight crew members is a necessary step to ensure the safety and security of the flying public,” said Chairman Mica. “Nothing else can provide the deterrence or effectiveness of a weapon wielded by a highly trained individual.”

“Pilots know best that they can both control their aircraft and defend their cockpits when necessary. They have asked for the ability to defend themselves, and Congress should meet that request,” Mica stated.

Yesterday, Mica and Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska) introduced H.R. 4635, the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act. The bill establishes a program for volunteer pilots who undergo appropriate training and background checks to be provided with handguns for use in defending the cockpit.

“The events of September 11th have dramatically changed how we must defend our planes and passengers,” said Young. “I strongly believe that under today’s circumstances, we must allow trained and qualified pilots to serve as the last line of defense against potential terrorist attacks.”

The Use Of Stun Guns On Aircraft

As directed by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, NIJ recently concluded a study of the effectiveness of less-than-lethal weapons on airplanes and submitted its findings to the Department of Transportation. NIJ recommended that the results not be made public to protect sensitive information about potential weaknesses of the weapons.

Director Hart was able to discuss some of the study’s findings at the hearing, and stressed that more study was needed to more accurately assess the effectiveness of less-than-lethal weapons.

“Most less-than-lethal weapons are designed for use in an open air setting or inside a house or other structure, so further testing of these weapons may prove their use inside an aircraft in flight to be impractical,” said Hart.

“The maximum range of the dart-firing electrical shocking device [stun gun] is 15 to 21 feet. The barbs can be discharged at very close range, but the recommended minimum distance is three feet, according to the manufacturer. Effectiveness at shorter ranges is not known with any acceptable certainty.”

“The most important unknown fact about the use of these weapons, however, is the effect such a weapon could have on aircraft avionics or other critical systems.” See UNCTUOUS posts at this thread (reproduced below)

According to Captain Krakowski, United Airlines has successfully tested the use of TASER stun guns on airplane flight decks. United is proposing to deploy two TASERs on each of its aircraft and is currently training its pilots in their use.

Arming Pilots With Handguns

Captain Luckey, representing the nation’s largest pilot union, advocated arming pilots with handguns as a deterrent and a last line of defense against terrorists.

“More than 3,000 people were murdered, billions of dollars of property damage was incurred, the nation’s economy was rocked and is still suffering, thousands of people were laid off, and billions of dollars of new spending will be allocated to security both in this country and around the globe for years to come – all because eight pilots were killed,” said Captain Luckey. “It is obvious, or should be, that protecting the flight deck and its occupants against hijackers is now tantamount to protecting our national economy.”

Captain Luckey outlined reasons for arming pilots as part of an overall aviation security plan.

“While we strongly support the installation of a new, hardened flight deck door on U.S. aircraft as an additional layer of security, we should not fool ourselves into thinking that they are sufficient to protect the flight crew under all circumstances.”

Other pilots’ groups have recently expressed support for arming pilots. Prior to the hearing, the Airline Pilots’ Security Alliance presented Chairman Mica with a petition with over 40,000 signatures in support of arming pilots with handguns.

At the hearing, Mr. Hinderberger addressed concerns over the potential effects handgun fire could have on an aircraft’s structure.

“The risk of loss of the aircraft due to a stray round from a handgun is very slight,” said Hinderberger. “Boeing commercial service history contains cases of gunfire onboard in-service airplanes, all of which landed safely.”

“Commercial airplane structure is designed with sufficient strength, redundancy and damage tolerance that single or even multiple handgun bullet holes would not result in loss of the aircraft. A single bullet hole in the fuselage skin would have little effect on cabin pressurization.”

“On fourteen occasions Boeing commercial aircraft have survived and landed after an in-flight bomb blast.”

from this link

Denied guns, miffed pilots undercut new safety agency

At a time when the federal government is struggling to make air travel secure, the last thing it needs is unions undermining its mission. Yet instead of respecting the authority of the fledgling Transportation Security Administration (TSA), six pilots unions are attempting an end run around the agency so pilots can carry guns in cockpits.

If they succeed, the power to make airline-security decisions will be taken from the professionals and thrown into the political arena, where potent lobbies hold considerable sway. That same kind of behavior, most often by the airline industry, helped neuter the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as an effective security watchdog in the years before Sept. 11.

Airline pilots started down this path because Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta opposes gun-toting pilots. TSA chief John Magaw is clearly skeptical, too, and likely to say no.

There may be good reason for pilots to carry guns as the last line of defense on a hijacked plane. But lethal weapons in cockpits pose as many security risks as they settle. For instance, who'd fly the plane during a crisis? Even the initial reaction from the president of the Air Line Pilots Association was negative: ''We can't be Sky King and Wyatt Earp at the same time,'' Duane Woerth told Congress last year.

Woerth changed his mind, and now the unions are unwilling to accept the TSA's likely veto. So they're appealing to higher authorities. Last month, they wrote to the White House. This week they're making a case to Congress, complete with a Washington public relations firm, a petition drive and a potent ally, the National Rifle Association.

Even if Congress had a stellar record on air security, this second-guessing would be dangerous. But Congress has a long history of giving in to airlines and other lobbies seeking to weaken security measures:

* After Sept. 11, Republican House leaders, heavily lobbied by private security firms, first sought to keep the same security companies that had failed so dismally. When the effort wasn't successful, lawmakers kept open the prospect of returning to private baggage-screening companies after three years under a new federal system.

* After the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103, Congress ordered regulators to move speedily to screen checked baggage. Slowed by airline-industry reluctance and lobbying, Congress didn't get around to providing adequate money to start the job until the mid-1990s -- one reason the U.S. must now spend billions in a race to screen all bags.

After Sept. 11, the FAA was stripped of its security mandate, in part because it was seen as pliable in the hands of the airline industry. Passengers won't be any safer if the TSA proves just as powerless.

Congress placed responsibility for security with a new federal agency because public safety has a better chance when the pros, and not the politicians, make the nitty-gritty security decisions.

Pilots, of all people, should respect that logic, and Congress should remember its reasoning before doing an about-face because of lobby pressure.

Today's debate: Air security Move echoes past lobbying that carved holes in safety net.

http://204.29.171.80/framer/navigation.asp?charset=utf-8&cc=CA&frameid=1565&lc=en-ca&providerid=113&realname=google&uid=3803252&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

See comments by UNCTUOUS and DAGGER DIRK on the dangers to aircraft systems of stunguns (highlit below)

from this link

PPRuNe Forums » Flight Deck Forums » Tech Log » Plugging laptop into 747 airframe power

Rating:

Pages (2): 1 2 »

Author

Topic: Plugging laptop into 747 airframe power

Eboy
Member

posted 25th March 2002 01:39

Plugging laptop into 747 airframe power

I'm not talking about those new seat-side 12-16 VDC adapters in business and first class. On the upper deck of a United trans-Pacific 747 flight, I observed a passenger plug a laptop computer AC adapter into an airframe socket near the floor next to the left-side exit door. (You have to lift up the cover to get to it.) I think the socket said 110 volts and 400 Hz. While these computer adapters can go from 100-240 volts, all the ones I have seen are rated for 50-60 Hz. Made me wonder because capacitive reactance goes down at higher frequencies, and inductive reactance goes up -- but, I don't know what all goes on in those adapters. Thought it might be a possible safety issue but the passenger and flight attendant did not seem too concerned.