[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 136 (Thursday, October 11, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10500-S10502]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            THE NEED FOR PILOTS TO HAVE GUNS IN THE COCKPIT

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it was my intent to call up two 
amendments. But there is objection. As a consequence, I will use this 
opportunity to discuss the merits since I will not be offering the 
amendments now. They have already been filed at the desk. It is my 
intent, at the appropriate time, without objection, to ask for a 
recorded vote on the amendments. I want to speak on the application of 
the

[[Page S10501]]

amendments and the importance of the amendments.
  One of the amendments seeks to address the issue of what we do with 
our commercial aviation safety relative to the reality that we do put 
our lives in the hands of the pilot in command--and the copilot, to a 
degree, depending on who has control of the aircraft. With the limited 
knowledge that we have relative to the two aircraft that went into the 
World Trade Center, and looking back at the apparent effort by 
passengers and, perhaps, some members of the crew, to try to take over 
the aircraft that went down in Pennsylvania, one clearly can project 
what the outcome might have been had the captain of any of those 
aircraft had a handgun in the cockpit, available for such a set of 
circumstances.
  It reminds me of an occasion with a little different circumstance. I 
will try to put it in the vein in which it was communicated to me. It 
is not an exact parallel, but it represents a reality associated with a 
handgun emergency. My wife and I were in New York a number of years ago 
and had been to the theater and were going back to our hotel in the 
financial district. As the taxicab came to a stoplight with several 
other cabs, there was a policeman with his baton tapping on the 
windows.

  The cabbie rolled down the window and the policeman said: How is your 
fare?
  He said: Fine. And then the window was rolled up and the taxicab went 
on.
  I asked the cabbie: What was that all about?
  He said: We have had a number of robberies and a couple of taxicab 
drivers have been murdered in New York, so we are tightening up 
security.
  We went on for a while, and I casually said: Have you ever had a 
problem?
  He said: Only once.
  I asked him what the problem was. He said he was taking a couple 
somewhere and felt a little uneasy because they didn't seem to know 
where they were going. He took them to an area, and he decided the best 
thing he could do would be to let the fares out. There were two women 
and a man. As he told them to get out of the cab, suddenly he felt a 
razor at his neck. They said: Turn over your wallet, and all the money 
you have.
  He said: I can't until I get out of the cab. They had to move at that 
time so they could get out of the back seat and he could get out of the 
front seat. As he did, he reached under the seat and pulled out a 
pistol. The next time they confronted him, they were looking right at 
the end of his barrel.
  I asked him: What did you do then?
  This is the part of the story that is really not apropos.
  He said: I lined them up to the fence and robbed them.
  I thought that was an interesting turn of events.
  I said: Did you report it?
  He said: Well, no, I didn't have a permit for the gun.
  That is a little story that I think applies, at least in the sense 
that had the pilot in command had the availability of a gun, things 
might have been entirely different. One of my amendments seeks to arm 
pilots of commercial aircraft with handguns, and I think the 
justification for that speaks for itself.
  We put our lives in the hands of a pilot. Aviation security is of 
vital importance to our Nation's security, our economy, and we have 
learned a lot since the tragic events since September 11 about how much 
our Nation depends on our freedom to move about our country. We also 
rely, obviously, on our lifeline of shipments and products. Most 
importantly, our citizens rely upon the airlines for safe transit 
around the country and throughout the world.
  I think it is our duty to ensure that they are traveling safe and 
secure, and their confidence by our efforts will decide the future of 
air travel in our Nation and, in turn, the health of our country. 
Throughout this debate, we must remember that, as each passenger boards 
a commercial airliner, they first look toward the cockpit. They look 
toward the cockpit and the flight crew for their immediate security, 
because we all know that they, indeed, have our lives in their hands 
and they are trained and competent. When the plane rises into the sky 
and the wheels tuck away into the underbelly of the aircraft, it is the 
pilot, copilot, and sometimes the navigator--the entire flight crew--
who serve as the last line of defense and security for that aircraft 
and the passengers therein.
  So we as legislators, and as passengers, trust the flight crew with 
our safety and security. We must ensure that they have the tools to 
compete, if you will, and to complete the task. For this reason, I have 
an amendment at the desk, which I will not call up at this time, but I 
intend to do so when there is no objection. This amendment would be to 
the Aviation Safety Act, and it would allow pilots, copilots, and in 
the case of navigators on commercial aircraft the ability and authority 
to carry a handgun while in flight for the defense of the plane.
  We are talking about putting air marshals on the aircraft, aren't we? 
We are talking about allowing them to be armed. The authority of an air 
marshal currently on an aircraft indeed suggests that that individual 
is armed. You can't put air marshals on all flights, but you can 
provide the authority for the captain and copilot to carry a handgun in 
the cockpit.
  I think this is, first and foremost, really an effort to increase the 
level of safety aboard our commercial fleets. It is intended to give 
crew members the weapons and the necessary skills to thwart future 
hijacking attempts and to assist Federal sky marshals assigned to 
commercial aircraft.
  I don't take this amendment lightly. My amendment does not cavalierly 
attempt to hand out guns to flight crews and simply wish them the best. 
Because of the September 11 tragedy, and the tactics used by the 
hijackers that day, we must change the way aircraft and passengers are 
protected, and I believe my amendment contributes to that 
effort because it provides for strict and thorough background checks on 
all individuals who would be armed under this provision.

  Secondly, it would require that flight deck personnel attend a 
training program approved by the Secretary of Transportation in 
consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies.
  My amendment also requires annual recertification to ensure that 
flight deck personnel maintain a high level of training.
  Third, this amendment deputizes flight deck personnel who have passed 
training certification. This is a critical component, and this 
amendment is necessary because it is imperative to keep the crew 
protected and in control of the craft, but it is carefully tailored to 
limit authority to cockpit protection.
  As many in this Chamber are aware, there is a large percentage of 
pilots who have served in the military. Many have served in law 
enforcement. In fact, many also serve as Reservists in different 
branches of the military. These pilots have been trained in the use of 
weaponry. Why not utilize the trained personnel we already have?
  I am not alone in this. The Airline Pilots Association supports this 
concept. They have written to the FBI requesting a program to train 
cockpit personnel, and I have heard from many pilots, particularly in 
my State of Alaska and around the country, who support it.
  Frankly, many of our aircraft in Alaska fly in the bush and carry 
guns on the aircraft in control of the captain. It is done for a number 
of reasons, primarily not associated with terrorism, but simply the 
reality if you have an accident, if you go down in an isolated area, 
you damn well better have a gun for your own survival and that of your 
passengers. Why not further enhance the chances of passenger and 
aircraft survival.
  I applaud the administration and this Congress for moving quickly to 
secure the cockpit cabins and adding the sky marshals who, obviously, 
will have guns, improving airport perimeter security, training 
screening personnel, and increasing flight deck security. But we must 
also afford passengers the utmost security after the plane has cleared 
the runway. Arming pilots is not the only solution, but it is an 
important component because it might have resulted in those aircraft 
not reaching the tragic end they did.
  The pilots know what they need. The pilots have spoken. The 
passengers certainly will support it, and the Congress should pass it. 
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment

[[Page S10502]]

when it does come up and is not objected to and the entire Aviation 
Security Act.
  There is one other amendment I wish to talk about but which I am not 
prepared to offer because of the objection, but I plan to offer an 
amendment that would repeal the Federal Aviation Administration rule 
which requires pilots who fly under part 121 to retire at age 60. It 
might be a good thing if we had to retire around here at age 60, but 
obviously there is no check and balance on the Senate, but there is on 
pilots.
  If you are 60, you are through. How ridiculous is that? This was 
something that was done many years ago. I would much rather fly with an 
experienced pilot who has lived to 60, and the fact that suddenly he 
turns 60 and he is no longer fit to fly is totally unrealistic. The 
hours gained and the experience gained provides a level of safety with 
which we all feel more comfortable.
  If you fly with a person who has limited hours, who may be very young 
and very quick, they may not have the experience to know what to do 
under certain conditions, mechanical, weather, or otherwise.
  This amendment seeks to end blatant age discrimination against our 
Nation's commercial pilots. Under the amendment I propose, pilots who 
pass the physical and are in excellent health will be allowed to 
continue to pilot commercial aircraft until their 63rd birthday. This 
is optional. They do not have to. They can retire at 60. We are 
offering an extension.
  The amendment will also allow the FAA to require pilots to undergo 
additional medical and cognitive testing for certification as well as 
established standards for crew pairings. In many European countries you 
can fly until 65. What is the difference?
  This measure was the subject of a full Commerce Committee hearing and 
was voted out of committee by a majority in March of this year. This 
issue has had a hearing.
  Why does the FAA mandate pilots retire at 60? Good question. 
According to the agency, it is because of ``medical uncertainties 
concerning pilot health after the age of 60.'' That was a long time 
ago. We live longer. We are in better health. We have regular 
physicals.
  There are other theories. While public comments were accepted, no 
public hearing to debate the issue was ever held. Think of that. While 
public comments were accepted by the FAA, no public hearing to debate 
the issue was held. Despite broad industry, pilot and union opposition, 
the rule went into effect in 1960. The union supported it then. They 
wanted the pilots to be allowed to fly longer.
  Since that time, we have seen studies sponsored by the FAA. None 
produced concrete evidence that pilots over 60 years of age are a 
threat to the flying public. In fact, the studies have not even 
included pilots over 60. Why? The FAA believes it lacks scientific 
consensus, whatever that means, in favor of changing the age 60 rule. 
The argument exists that there is no test that can determine the 
medical and psychological fitness of a pilot to fly after 60. However, 
advanced physiological and neurobehavioral testing methods do exist to 
test pilots of any age.

  Today, simulator training data estimates the risk of incapacitation 
due specifically to cardiac complaint as only one event in more than 20 
million flight hours. Sudden in-flight incapacitation is clearly a far 
less threat to aviation safety than are mishaps due to, what? 
Inexperienced pilot error, those pilots who are younger and who simply 
do not have the time, experience and know-how to recover from 
situations that can occur.
  Medical science has vastly improved since 1959 with improvements in 
diagnosis which include early detection, prevention, health awareness, 
exercise, and diet. All of these factors have increased life expectancy 
since 1959.
  Airline pilots consistently demonstrate superior task performance 
across all age groups when compared to age-matched nonpilots. Pilots 
are also subjected to comprehensive medical examinations, when? Every 6 
months.
  In the 42 years since the rule was promulgated, there has not been 
any evidence shown that pilots over age 60 are not fully capable of 
handling their flight responsibilities. As many of my colleagues are 
aware, up until the end of 1999, pilots were allowed to fly past the 
age of 60 in commuter operations.
  This amendment also brings to mind several other pieces of 
legislation. During the debate on the Senior Citizens' Right to Work 
Act of 2000, Senators supported the notion that workers today live 
longer, are healthier, and live more productive lives, and that senior 
workers are an invaluable resource to our Nation.
  When enacting the Experienced Pilot Act of 1978, Congress stated that 
the age 60 rule is arbitrary and discriminatory on its face. It 
deprives qualified individuals of the right to continue in their 
occupation and, at the same time, deprives the airlines of their most 
qualified and experienced employees.
  The time has come for Congress to repeal the age restrictions for 
commercial pilots. We have had the hearings, and we have the need. 
Years of medical and safety data have failed to support the position 
that the chronological age of 60 represents a passenger safety concern. 
Therefore, as long as pilots can pass the rigorous medical exam, he or 
she should be allowed to fly.
  We are proposing this only until age 63. We will evaluate the 
program, obviously, after that time. Air service is critical, as we 
know, to keeping commerce alive. Experienced airmen are especially 
critical in rural States. In my State of Alaska, we have a huge land 
mass, one-fifth the size of the United States. Many of our smaller 
carriers provide the training ground for pilots and then suddenly those 
pilots leave to go work for the larger airlines. We are constantly 
experiencing a level of experience that lends itself occasionally to 
accidents as a consequence of the inexperience. We want to keep pilots, 
and if we could even bring some back who are over 60 and want to keep 
flying in the commuter area, I think it would be beneficial.
  It is time we end age discrimination once and for all and keep 
experience in the cockpit. I recognize some of the unions are a little 
jumpy on this one, but those pilots in the right seat, the copilots, 
are going to want to fly a little longer when they get a little older, 
too. So this thing can all level out.
  The difference between the unions on this issue and the airlines is 
it is a business decision, a matter of retirement. What we are talking 
about is a need for these pilots to fly. They are healthy. Give them 
another 3 years, evaluate the program, and get the benefit of 
experience.
  I thank the Chair for the attention and the courtesies of allowing me 
to finish, and at an appropriate time I want to advise the floor 
managers I intend to offer the amendments that are at the desk for a 
formal introduction and ask for rollcall votes at that time.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter dated October 1, 2001, from Alaska Airlines pilot Carroll John 
Campbell.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                    Chugiak, AK, October, 1, 2001.
     Hon. Senator Robert Smith,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: I am writing in response to a 
     conversation I had with one of your staff members concerning 
     aviation safety. My name is Carroll John Campbell. I am an 
     airline pilot with Alaska Airlines. The recent change in the 
     tactics of hijackers aboard our aircraft have necessitated a 
     change in our response as an airline crew and as a traveling 
     public. Today, one has to believe that if a terrorist 
     breaches the cockpit, which is easy, they are going to kill 
     everyone on board the aircraft and any number of people on 
     the ground. Our current security procedures lack the ability 
     to stand in the way of these atrocities. New, stronger 
     cockpit doors are a must, and even those may be compromised. 
     In this event, the only thing standing between the airplane 
     and our friends and families on the ground is the flight 
     crew.
       Lethal weapons are the surest means of defense. Handguns 
     are our best option. Non-lethal weapons such as stun guns are 
     of limited value in a phone booth sized compartment when 
     fighting a knife. I would much rather have the knife.
       Current FAR's (108.11) authorize crews to be armed. 
     However, the FAA and airline policy double team the pilot to 
     keep us unarmed. We need new fool proof legislation that 
     guarantees any pilot who wants to be armed, can be armed.
       I will be happy to work with your office to draft this 
     legislation. The public is finally demanding our incapable 
     security system be fixed after these horrendous attacks on 
     Sept. 11, 2001. Please don't let them down.
           Sincerely,
                                            Carroll John Campbell.




                          ____________________