Harrison

1
Benjamin L. Harrison
Ms. Hoffmann
English 1102-057
22 April 2014
Note to reader: In this draft, I completely rewrote my original paper. My first draft was a
satisfactory research paper but did not meet the standards for an inquiry project. I wrote this
draft to be an inquiry paper and provide information on possible deterrents of airborne
terrorism. I hope the paper does not include personal opinions or try to persuade you to support
one method over another, but simply provide a brief look at the possibilities Americans have in
their fight against terrorism. Enjoy.

It was a nice, sunny day and my class was listening to our teacher, Ms. Pitts, as she read
to us out of one of the usual picture books. We were in first grade and like all first graders we
tried to listen as much as we could with our non-existent attention spans. Suddenly, there was a
firm knock on the door and our principal entered and asked to speak to Ms. Pitts in the hallway.
We could tell something was not right but had no idea what to expect. Ms. Pitts came in, white as
a ghost, and didnt really say much. She tried to pick up where she left off reading but struggled
to get the first few syllables out. After begging her to tell us what was wrong, she said, someone
bombed the World Trade Center and killed a lot of people. We were all shocked but didnt
really know how to feel because we were too young to really get the impact of what happened.
We were just sad because we saw Ms. Pitts was hurting and figured thats how we were
supposed to react. I immediately looked down at my journal to avoid awkward eye contact with
our teacher and my eyes caught only one thing I had written. I saw the date: 9/11/2001, and knew
that date would be stuck in the back of my head as long as I lived.
After 9/11, once more details came out and people realized it was planes not bombs,
Americans became aware that change needed to occur in airline security. There is no reason
terrorists should be able to take control of a plane and use it as a weapon against the nation.
Harrison

2
Many people suggested more Federal Air Marshals or pilots armed with guns while they fly, but
every proposed solution either substantially increased the federal budget deficit or introduced
legitimate new security threats to airplanes and their passengers. This inability to make decisions
to put together a new line of defense against such a threat as we faced on September 11
th
made
me wonder what are the most effective ways to stop terrorists from taking a plane? How can we
really be safe?
Im writing this inquiry paper not to argue one solution over another or satisfy a personal
political debate, but to simply look at possible ways to defend planes and see what could truly
save lives without further endangering Americans.
The most obvious line of defense for an airplane is the Federal Air Marshal Service
(FAMS). This service was created in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy after the first hijacking
of a US airliner. (Grabell) The service trains federal agents that fly on specified flights and are
able to provide protection to a plane if its security is questioned. In 2013, the FAMS was
appropriated $906,849,000 by the government (113
th
Congress). With a massive portion of the
federal budget, a 2008 CNN article states that Of the 28,000 commercial airline flights that take
to the skies on an average day in the United States, fewer than 1 percent are protected by on-
board, armed federal air marshals. (Griffin, Johnston, Schwarzschild) This low percentage of
flights that are protected raises many red flags from Americans as it should. I believe that the
FAMS is a great institution in theory but it is impractical economically and therefore inefficient
in practice. How can America protect more planes and spend less money?
To answer this question, many have turned to the notion that arming a pilot with a gun
would not only protect a much greater amount of flights but be comparatively inexpensive to the
FAMS because a pilot has to fly on a plane anyway and no extra employees are required. In
Harrison

3
November 2002, as part of the Homeland Security Act, the Federal Flight Deck Officer program
was created (Fact sheet) to train and arm willing pilots with a government issued .40 caliber
handgun so they can stop a terrorist from taking a plane. The FFDO program as its known costs
a fraction of the FAMS and covers a much greater portion of flights. The federal cost to have a
deputized FFDO on board is approximately $17; the cost incurred for each FAM onboard is
approximately $3000. (Fact sheet) With such a low cost and high effectiveness, many would
wonder why anyone would oppose the program. While the FFDO program is much more cost-
effective than the FAMS, it also introduces many new security threats to passengers on an
airplane. The main critique of the program coincides with the fear that a misplaced bullet could
not only hit a passenger, but possibly leave the fuselage of the plane through a window or other
fragile area creating a great difference in pressure that could potentially rip the plane to pieces.
(Brain) The Obama administration seems to agree with those who oppose arming pilots and have
in turn cut federal funding of the program substantially. (Ahlers) Until Americans are insured of
their safety in flight, the government and citizens in general must continue to search for more
effective ways of defending airlines that does not put passengers lives in jeopardy.
One popular alternative to arming pilots is reinforcing cockpit doors to guarantee that a
hijacker cannot get to the cockpit. This idea was created from the notion that a pilot should not
be distracted by a duty to protect the plane and should only be focused on flying and landing
safely. Though many people want to believe that this could save lives, it cannot be the only
added security on a plane. Many have raised the obvious question of where to draw the line
between staying in the cockpit and protecting passengers. If a terrorist cannot get into the
cockpit, they may likely begin to hurt or threaten passengers. This problem is very realistic and
Harrison

4
extremely concerning. If I were on a plane, I would hope that a pilot would not be locked in the
cockpit as terrorists have their way on passengers.
As more and more concerns with reinforced cockpit doors are introduced, it becomes
apparent that alternative measures should be taken to protect an airline. One such alternative
could potentially work with a pilot locked in the cockpit. This is the possibility that law
enforcement officers and other armed employees of the State be allowed to carry their weapons
onboard a plane in case a threat does come up while the plane is in flight. Those who support the
idea believe that not only would an officer be able to defend a plane better than anyone else due
to experience, but the threat of someone possibly being onboard a plane that could stop terrorist
acts would make terrorists rethink their plans altogether. In 2009, the Transportation Security
Administration amended US policy to allow such officials to fly armed when needed. (Burns)
When an officer needs to fly armed they must get an identifier code and provide both their
credentials and the id code at any TSA checkpoints. This line of defense is great in the sense that
it is virtually costless and can provide protection for many flights. However, a law enforcement
officer with a gun poses that same security threats as a pilot with a gun and does not ensure that a
stray bullet would not endanger the lives of passengers.
Another proposed line of defense is arming a pilot with a stun gun rather than a firearm.
This idea began when United Airlines, which lost two planes in the hijackings of 9/11, began
arming its pilots with high voltage stun guns that could temporarily incapacitate anyone trying to
force their way into the cockpit of a plane. United Airlines Chief Operating Officer Andrew
Studdert defended this move saying that Tasers will incapacitate an attacker without
endangering the airplane." (CNN Money) This alternative to using deadly force benefits
American society in many ways. One great benefit is that each taser only costs about $12.18.
Harrison

5
(CNN Money) Also, it not only keeps passengers safe from the risk of a misplaced bullet as well
as terrorists, but keeps the perpetrator alive and allows the justice system to do its job. As with
the death of Osama Bin Ladin, many people want those who do harm to America put on trial in
court to directly face their crime and punishment. This option allows courts to do with a terrorist
as they please which typically doesnt end well for the terrorist. Though a pilot with a stun gun
would pose the same possibility of distraction from flying as a pilot with a handgun, it minimizes
the danger passengers are put in and is one of the least costly defenses against airborne terror.
As America searches for the right way to defend its airliners from terrorist takeover, there
will always be disputes over what method is most beneficial to society and should be used. As
we get closer to implementing a long-term solution, one must consider all the ways each
proposed solution benefits as well as threatens America. Money, danger to passengers, and
effectiveness must all be taken into account when deciding how to deter terrorists from taking
over a plane and creating nationwide chaos as they created on September 11
th
, 2001. It will not
be an easy bridge to cross but it is time Americans put their political ambitions aside and thought
about each other. Its time to end the debate and solve the threat of airborne terror once and for
all.
Works Cited
Ahlers, Mike M. "Budget Ax Falls on Armed Pilot Program." CNN. Cable News Network, 13 Feb. 2012.
Web. 22 Apr. 2014.

Brain, Marshall. "What If Someone Shot a Gun on an Airplane?" HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks.com,
04 Dec. 2007. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.

Burns, Bob. "The TSA Blog: Law Enforcement Officers Flying Armed." The TSA Blog: Law
Enforcement Officers Flying Armed. The TSA Blog, 30 Sept. 2009. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.

CNN Money. "United to Give Pilots Stun Guns - Nov. 15, 2001." United to Give Pilots Stun Guns - Nov.
15, 2001. Morningstar, Inc., 15 Nov. 2001. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.

Harrison

6
Fact Sheet on The Federal Flight Deck Officer Program. N.p.: Airline Pilots Association, n.d. PDF. URL:
http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/deptpages/govtaffairs/issues/FactsheetFFDO_4-2013.pdf

Grabell, Michael. "History of the Federal Air Marshal Service." Top Stories RSS. Pro Publica Inc., 13
Nov. 2008. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.

Griffin, Drew, Kathleen Johnston, and Todd Schwarzschild. "Sources: Air Marshals Missing from Almost
All Flights." CNN. Cable News Network, 28 Mar. 2008. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.

113th Congress. "House Report 113-091 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2014." The Library of Congress. LOC, n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.