Airline Pilots Should Be Armed

Argumentation Paper
There are many ways to travel from one location to another. In America, people travel y
icycle, car, train, suway, oat, foot, and airplane! to name a few. In America, it is easy for
people to travel, ut transportation can also e dangerous. "n Septemer ##, $%%#, #& terrorists
overtoo' four airplanes. Two of the airplanes struc' the Twin Towers, one struc' the Pentagon,
and the final airplane crashed in rural Pennsylvania. Terrorism is a very real thing around us, and
on &(##, terrorism struc' America. As a response to this horrile event and to prevent history
from repeating itself, airline pilots should always e allowed to volunteer to carry a firearm in
the coc'pit.
An airline pilot flies an airplane from one location to another. "n the airplane is
passengers and cargo. These passengers and cargo want to get to their destination safely and in a
timely manner. To achieve this goal, a pilot must ma'e difficult decisions and e alert aout
what is happening on the airplane and in the s'ies around them. )eep this in mind! once a person
oards an airplane and it is airorne, then the person*s life is in the hands of pilot and the staff on
the airplane. If a terrorist tries to overta'e the airplane, it is them against the people on the
airplane. A pilot should e given the opportunity to volunteer to e armed in the coc'pit. An
armed pilot is the last line of defense against a terrorist +,ase-.
The history of armed pilots is rather interesting. .hen planes first egan to commercially
fly passengers from one location to another, pilots were armed in the coc'pit. Also, at the start of
commercial flights, passengers weren/t screened for weapons. In the #&0%s, the security at
airports was stepped up and passengers were no longer allowed to ring any form of a weapon
onto any airplane. In #&10, pilots were also searched y security. As a result of this, pilots were
no longer allowed to carry firearms in the coc'pit +,ase-. If the security and screening of pilots
had never changed in #&10, history could have een written differently. The horrile events of
Septemer ##, $%%# could have een avoided y allowing pilots to e armed in the coc'pit.
2or instance, pilots should e armed in the coc'pit ecause there are not enough 2ederal
Air 3arshals to protect the airplanes. In $%%1, on the average day $1,%%% commercial airline
flights were in the s'y. 2ederal Air 3arshals were estimated to e on $1% to #,4%% flights5
2ederal Air 3arshals are on one to five percent of all flights +6riffin-.
That is outrageous7 Planes are at ris'. 8ives are at ris'. 9istory is at a high ris' of
repeating itself. Pilots must e armed to 'eep the airplane safe from terrorists. The odds are too
strongly in a terrorist/s favor that they will not interact with a 2ederal Air 3arshal. Pilots must e
given the opportunity to accept or decline the call to volunteer to e armed in the coc'pit. An
armed pilot is the last line of defense against a terrorist attempting to overta'e an airplane.
In addition to the fact that 2ederal Air 3arshals are rarely on flights, the cost to fund the
2ederal Air 3arshals is very e:pensive. In $%#$, the cost to have one 2ederal Air 3arshal on
one flight was three thousand dollars. At a much lower cost, a pilot that has volunteered to carry
a firearm in the coc'pit only costs fifteen dollars per flight. The cost to have a 2ederal Air
3arshal is so high ecause of the cost of the compensation and the wages that the Air 3arshal
earns. The pilot is strictly paid fifteen dollars and does not earn compensation through the funds
for armed pilots +3eyers-. The ottom line is5 it is more cost effective to arm pilots. Also, the
odds are etter that a pilot will accept the call to e armed in coc'pit than chance that a 2ederal
Air 3arshal will e on the airplane.
9ere is some more heart drenching information aout the 2ederal Air 3arshal program.
In $%%1, the udgets for the 2ederal Air 3arshals was ;0$% million. The udget to train pilots to
volunteer to carry a firearm in the coc'pit was ;$< million. As you loo' at these numers, there
is a ig difference. The most cost effective solution is udgeted ;=&< thousand less than its more
e:pensive e>ual +3yers-. It doesn/t ma'e sense to invest more money into the program that is
only present on one to five percent of all airplanes each day. It ma'es more sense to put our
money into the more cost effective solution and then leave it up to the pilot to decide if he or she
will accept the call to e trained to carry a firearm in the coc'pit.
There are dangers to pilots eing armed. 2or e:ample, in $%%1, there was an accidentally
fired shot y a pilot in the coc'pit. ?o one was hurt, ut the airplane did ta'e a ullet si@ed hole
in the coc'pit floor. The airplane was ale to land safely +Ahlers-. This event helps stress the
importance of training pilots the proper way to use, store, and operate their firearms. Accidents
do happen, ut an accident li'e this is not a good enough e:cuse to not allow pilots to e armed
in the coc'pit. The firearms that pilots have with them in the coc'pits are there to defend the
airplane from terrorists who want to overta'e the airplane and are the last resort to 'eep the
airplane safe.
If a pilot has a weapon in his or her coc'pit, the weapon would e used to defend the
airplane. The airplane and the s'y is where a pilot wor's. A pilot would not let a terrorist
overta'e and destroy their airplane. Pilots, stewardesses, and 2ederal Air 3arshals would rather
lay down their life in the act to protect the passengers on the airplane than let a terrorist overta'e
the airplane. 9ow do you stand on the issue of armed pilotsA
.or's ,ited
Ahlers, 3i'e 3. BPilot Suspected after 2iring 6un in ,oc'pit.B CNN. $= 3arch $%%1. .e. #0
?ov $%#C
The ,ase for Arming Pilots. Airline Pilots Security Alliance. .e. #$ ?ov $%#C.
6riffin, Drew and )athleen Eohnston and Todd Schwar@schild. Sources5 Air 3arshals 3issing
from almost all 2lights. CNN. $< 3arch $%%1. .e. #$ ?ov $%#C.
3eyers, Eessica. 9ouse wants more Airline Pilots to Pac' 6uns.Politico.com. #< Eune $%#$.
.e. #$ ?ov $%#C.