Defending nation’s airliners from repeat attack

March 11 marked the sixth-month anniversary of the murder of my good friend Capt. John Oganowski. John and his copilot, Tom McGuinness, were murdered by terrorists, who then crashed their B-767, American Airlines Flight 11, into the World Trade Center.

This terrorist act killed 10 more of my friends and coworkers and nearly 2,900 other innocent folks just going about their daily business. In the six months that have passed, our government has failed to do the one thing that may have prevented the Sept. 11 murders. That one thing is arming highly trained volunteer pilots and authorizing them to use lethal force to defend the cockpit from takeover. Had Capt. John Oganowski and First Officer Thomas McGuinness, and the other murdered pilots been armed and properly trained, today might be just another day.

I am a very concerned American Airlines captain. I am concerned that when airline pilots ask for the tools to defend their passengers, crew and aircraft from repeat Sept. 11 attacks, they are denied. Nearly 80 percent of airline pilots surveyed want the right to defend the cockpit with firearms, and so far our voice has been ignored.

I have written Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge with my concerns and did not receive the courtesy of a reply.

On March 4, Director Ridge’s commented on the front page of USA TODAY that “equipping our pilots with firearms … doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.” That same Monday morning I watched Director Ridge address a gathering of Florida law enforcement professionals and state, “the most important thing we can do is prevention.” Arming highly trained pilot volunteers and providing them with the proper authority to use lethal force to defend the cockpit against terrorism would be a highly effective and economical means of “prevention.”

I would hasten to guess that when Ridge travels his pilots might in fact be unarmed. But I would also guess he is protected, and rightly so, by taxpayer-provided, highly trained, well-armed security forces working diligently to protect him. I believe the American public deserves similar treatment when they board our great nation’s airliners. A highly trained pilot volunteer would be an effective, simple and economical layer of protection for the average American family traveling aboard an airliner.

The conflicting remarks that Ridge made on March 4 demonstrate a lack of commitment to do everything that is possible to protect the American public from another Sept. 11-type attack. History has repeatedly demonstrated that the side, which is most committed, will emerge victorious in conflict. Let there be no mistake, our enemy is committed, sophisticated and patient. We cannot afford a lack of commitment nor can we afford delay. By denying highly trained pilot volunteers the ability to defend the cockpit with lethal force, Ridge is contradicting his own mantra of “prevention,” and not doing everything possible to safeguard the traveling public.

Pilots are already among the most highly trained and scrutinized professionals in this country. No other group is held to the same standards of recurrent training, continuous performance checks, and twice-yearly evaluations of our physical and mental health. And for good reason, every day we make decisions as individuals that affect the collective well-being of hundreds of thousands of people.

To somehow believe that we would be easily distracted from our primary job of flight safety is to not understand our profession. Among pilots I know there are no John Waynes who want to rush to the back of the cabin and wrestle with bad guys. All pilots want is a last line of defense to protect the cockpit from takeover so we can prevent the murder of innocent civilians by the repeat use of a civil airliner as a guided bomb. Keeping our passengers, crew and aircraft safe will always be our main focus, we just ask for the tools to do the job.

To those in the administration who advocate tazers or stun guns, I say look closer. Tazers are limited by battery life; flimsy wires and most importantly have only two shots. In addition, their effects last at most 90 seconds. The 9/11 terrorists worked in teams of four and five, Do the math; a group five men, who are willing to die for their cause, will not be deterred by a two-shot tazer.

It would be highly unlikely that the cabin crew and passengers could restrain the stunned terrorists while simultaneously fending off the remaining “healthy” attackers. While stun guns and tazers may appeal to airline executives and the Administration’s Legal Counsel, they appear a dangerous placebo from my airline captain’s left seat. Tazers may be suitable for use in the cabin, but they are wholly unsuited as a last line of defense for the cockpit. To counter suicide terrorist with Tazers, demonstrates a lack of resolve to our enemy and is not the most effective “prevention” currently available. Highly trained Pilot Volunteers authorized and skilled in the employment of lethal force would provide an effective means of “prevention.”

I do not speak for American Airlines, the Allied Pilot’s Association or the Coalition for the Armed Defense of the Cockpit. I am just a very concerned major Airline Captain, As a Captain I believe we have a duty to do everything possible to protect the traveling public. Defending the cockpit from a hostile takeover is not a “nice idea to debate,” it is a responsibility we have to every passenger who boards an aircraft.

The FBI has already developed a rigorous training course for pilots and could rapidly implement it. To delay arming the cockpit with lethal weapons, or propose lawyer-approved eyewash, like Tazers, is irresponsible. I implore Director Ridge to reconsider his position on this critical homeland defense issue, and I encourage everyone who boards an airplane to let the politicians in Washington hear their voice as well.

Darik C. Day of New Gloucester is an American Airlines pilot.