• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Whom Do You Trust More: Pilots or a Door?

    Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano told Congress whom she trusts on February 15 when she responded to Congressman (and former Federal Flight Deck Officer) Chip Cravaack’s (R–MN) question at a House hearing. The exchange is exemplified with these remarks:

    Cravaack: “Is a Federal Flight Deck Officer the last line of defense for our travelling public?”

    Napolitano: “I think the armed cockpit door actually is.”

    The term “armed cockpit door” must have been a mistake; she likely was referring to the armored or reinforced cockpit doors installed after 9/11. However, the mistake illustrates that she doesn’t understand the difference between a merely passive defense mechanism (a stronger door) and an active defense mechanism (a firearm that can wound or kill the attacker). That lack of understanding is likely a large part of why the Administration is trying to strangle this effective and cheap last line of defense.

    After all, Federal Flight Deck Officers are estimated to be on five times more planes then air marshals. They are mostly ex-military and have prior experience with firearms. Finally, they are already in positions of immense trust—if Secretary Napolitano doesn’t trust them with a gun, why does she trust them with a plane? Not to mention that despite long-standing concerns about accidental discharges of firearms, the only incident of accidental discharge was a result of Transportation Security Administration Rules.

    To be fair to the Secretary, that isn’t the reasoning she gives, though hers is only slightly less illogical. She asserts that between the reinforced door and the department’s new “risk-based” system, the Flight Deck Officer program is no longer needed.

    That reasoning can be refuted in three ways. First, it assumes that the TSA’s “risk-based” system is effective at preventing terrorists and those with weapons from boarding. This is plainly false, with many stories of the lapses in the TSA’s screening process. Second, it is assuming that the cockpit door is strong enough to withstand determined terrorists. Finally, it assumes that even if the risk-based system was effective and the door was strong enough, having armed pilots wouldn’t be worth it as an additional security measure.

    The simple fact is that the Federal Flight Deck Officers program is exactly the kind of program Homeland Security should be pursuing. It is cheap, involves stakeholders taking primary responsibility, and provides a great last line of defense. The United States needs to emphasize programs like this and intelligence gathering instead of the current emphasis on screening.

    Aaron Greenberg is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to Whom Do You Trust More: Pilots or a Door?

    1. KJinAZ says:

      Could it be they are planning another attack? Maybe San Francisco this time.

    2. Mike Sealy says:

      It should be who not whom. You're using it as a subject. This author is a hack!

      • Bobbie says:

        Don't worry government elite. If perfection is what you're looking for, government control is your answer!

      • Kevin says:

        "Whom" is correct, as "You" is the subject. (And it's great to see, thank you.)

    3. Bobbie says:

      Homeland security? trust less the thinking of all the Janet Napolitanos'! She'd trust a door stop over the dignity and integrity of men!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.