This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
Mesa Air and Armed Pilots by Kurt Amesbury, J.D. October 27, 2001 The following is an exchange I had with a
representative of Mesa Air Group on the issue of arming cockpit crews. I provide
it for your information to do with as seems fitting. If you choose to contact
MAG, please be courteous. I think these people are trying to strike a balance
between doing something to make people comfortable flying again (marketing) and
not terrifying people who have an unreasoning fear of guns -- whomever they may
be -- but do not really understand either the problem or the solution. The one
point that Ms. Wilson makes with which I agree is that the odds of a hi-jacking
of any particular aircraft is somewhat remote. However, so is the likelihood
that one of their aircraft will crash -- and no one treats that issue lightly. Most importantly, I think the people running
the airlines should understand that there are quite a number of people (perhaps
enough to make the difference between profitability and bankruptcy) who do not
appreciate being rendered helpless while traveling -- especially when there are
simple steps (arming the flight deck crew) that can significantly improve the
level of protection against hi-jacking. I just read this on line. Mesa Air Group said Friday that it
plans to train its pilots how to use non-lethal stun guns ... Jonathan Ornstein, chairman and
chief executive of the Phoenix-based company, said the training was
necessary to help the airline industry recover in the wake of the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "We need to do everything we
can to regain the confidence of our passengers in order to ensure
the future of commercial aviation,'' Ornstein said. ``We believe
that enhancing on-board security will go a long way toward reaching
that goal.'' Please tell Mr. Ornstein that
"stun guns" remind me of the "security" on the
ground that let 19 armed hi-jackers on board. Issuing stun guns just
tells me your airline wants the APPEARANCE of improved security, not
the SUBSTANCE. Stun guns are a joke. They are
notoriously unreliable. No cop in his right mind would trust his
safety to one. (If they could, why would they need pistols?) In a best
case scenario, you can control maybe one terrorist. What are you going
to do about the other 4? When you arm your pilots with
firearms, then your passengers will begin to take you seriously. Not before. There was some outfit offering to train
pilots in combat shooting for free. Suggest you take them up on
their offer. Kurt Amesbury, J.D. Dear Mr. Amesbury: Thanks for your note on our plan to
arm our pilots with stun guns. Every airline has felt the pain of
lower passenger loads since 9/11 and Mesa decided to be proactive
ratter than reactive in trying to get passengers back in the air. Now
will any of our aircraft be targeted for terrorist attacks? Probably
not. But the perception by passengers is that it could happen, so we
decided to announce our security measures to deal with that passenger
perception. We took an informal poll and found that 86% of those we
surveyed said they'd fly on an airline that offered increased
security. And as for guns in the cockpit, we
felt more comfortable with providing non-lethal weapons. And as for
cops and Tasers, I have to disagree. My own sister is a 10+-year
veteran of the Sacramento Police Department, which happens to use the
Tasers we're considering for our pilots, and those officers are
pleased with their Tasers, and find they have been an effective
crime-fighting tool. Also, I guess I have more faith in passengers and
crew post-9/11 about being much more proactive in the wake of a
potential terrorist attack. Again, thanks for your letter. Sincerely, Ms. Benét J. Wilson Dear Ms. Wilson, If stun guns were as effective as you
appear to believe, cops would not need guns. Please ask your sister
which she would want to have in her hand if facing one to five
attackers with failure meaning she and a hundred other people would
die in a flaming explosion of twisted metal. One more question: Which do you think
air marshals carry? Firearms? Or stun guns? K. Dear Mr. Amesbury: Stun guns are another choice given to
cops as a compliment to their guns. Of course they would choose a gun
over a taser, but there are times when a taser could be more
appropriate to a situation. As for the airlines, guns could cause
damage to an aircraft depending on its altitude. Plus there are many
people who wouldn't feel comfortable carrying a firearm. Sky Marshals
are armed, but they go through extensive training. I guess we'll just have to agree to
disagree on this matter. Sincerely, Ms. Benét J. Wilson Ms. Wilson, "Stun guns are another choice
given to cops as a compliment to their guns"? You make my point
for me. No cop in his right mind would try to use a stun gun as a
primary self-defense weapon. But you are suggesting your pilots should
do what no cop would ever choose to do: Leave the firearms at home and
rely on stun gun technology to defend not only their own lives, but
the lives of hundreds of people on board and potentially thousands on
the ground. The danger to aircraft of firearms on
board is grossly overblown. I had hoped that a representative of an
airline would be more technically savvy than to fall for the Hollywood
version of what happens when a bullet penetrates the hull of an
aircraft. Contrary to popular belief, the result is most likely to be
a small hole that whistles a bit... not wholesale eruption of the side
of the airplane with attendant ejection of the cabin contents. The
pressure differential at the maximum altitude at which commercial
aircraft fly is only about 7-10 psi. Even large caliber bullets leave
holes smaller than .25 square inches. Consequently, a bullet hole
would allow air to leak at a low rate. With 2-2.5 pounds of pressure
over an area the size of your fingertip, one could probably patch the
hole with a piece of bubble gum, or even a wet napkin. Not that it
would matter. Most of the larger aircraft can lose several entire
windows and still maintain cabin pressure. All modern pressurized
aircraft are designed to compensate for far larger air leaks than even
dozens of bullet holes would produce. You haven't identified the people who
would "not feel comfortable carrying a firearm" -- but I
assume you are referring to some flight crew members. Have you polled
your pilots to ask how many are confident that a stun gun could defeat
a gang of determined terrorists? My suggestion is to teach them how to
use the firearms, put handguns in the cockpit and when their lives and
the lives of hundreds of other people are hanging by a thread, let
them decide then whether having the gun is a good idea. After all,
your pilots make life and death decisions all the time. You have a
crash axe for emergencies... why not a gun? We have had four recent examples of
hi-jackings where a stun gun would have done little or no good, but
where a single firearm in the hands of a flight crew member might have
saved the lives of thousands. Until airlines like yours learn that the
appearance of doing something is not the same as actually doing
something, passengers will continue to feel at risk and many will
simply refuse to fly. At
some point your airline -- and others -- will come to the realization
that faux security won't fool enough people to keep you in business.
How much financial suffering you endure between now and then is
entirely up to you. Thanks for your time. Kurt Amesbury Related Reading Airplanes & Guns
Archives |
|||||||||||||