The U.S. Department of Transportation announced Tuesday it is unalterably opposed to commercial pilots carrying firearms in the cockpit as a protection of last resort against hijackers. Rarely has a straightforward decision been so poorly explained, so ineptly justified and so certain to prolong a controversy that should be well on its way to being settled.

Such a blunt, unequivocal ban was hardly what Congress had in mind when, in passing the Aviation and Transportation Security Act shortly after Sept. 11, the matter of arming pilots was left to Transportation. The expectation was that the department would develop a comprehensive program – type of weapon, training regimen and protocol for use- that would allow pilots to be the ultimate defense of aircraft, passengers, crew and the innocents on the ground.

Instead of developing a comprehensive program, Transportation so far has merely eliminated the most obvious option and offered vague assurances that others are still under consideration. Stun guns perhaps – after further evaluation of their effectiveness. Steel batons are a possibility as well, provided they are found to be an improvement upon the crash axes and flashlights pilots already have at their disposal. Transportation’s reasoning, supported by the airline industry, that pilots are supposed to fly planes and not be shooting hijackers apparently does not extend to a prohibition on zapping or clubbing them.

Other reasons: the reinforcement of cockpit doors will keep hijackers from gaining control of an aircraft; armed air marshals are better trained to use firearms in the confined space of a airliner cabin; pilots, secure in their cockpits, can put the aircraft through maneuvers designed to incapacitate would-be hijackers; military aircraft can shoot down an airliner should the hijackers succeed.

Reasons those reasons don’t cut it with Congress (especially Republican leaders irate at their administration’s handling of this matter), pilots or, likely, much of the public: it will be several years before cockpit doors are reinforced throughout the industry; after they are, the image of a flight crew sealing itself off while terrorists slaughter passengers is incomprehensible; at full deployment, undercover air marshals will be on only about 1 percent of flights; barrel rolls and F-16s aren’t security measures – they’re acts of desperation.

In addition to faulty explaining, justifying and settling, Transportation’s timing is awful. Within a day of asserting that improved airport security negates the need for pilots to be able to defend their aircraft, a man with a shotgun wounded several people at the airport in New Orleans and a supposedly secure concourse at the airport in Fort Lauderdale had to be evacuated after it was discovered a metal detector had been left unplugged for several hours. The concourse was reopened even though it was not known how many passengers had slipped through unchecked.

Airports have become an even greater hassle since Sept. 11, but there is scant evidence they are substantially more secure. The influence of the airline industry – which Congress protected in the Security Act against liability for hijackings but not for use of weapons by pilots – had on this decision by the Department of Transportation also shows how little things have changed since that awful day.