Security Aboard Commercial Aircraft

Security Aboard Commercial Aircraft

Airline Security Analysts

Rebecca Neal

Beth Schuetz

Brad Steinfeldt

Andrzej Stewart

Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics

The University of Texas at Austin

Austin, Texas 78712

December 7, 2003

1

Executive Summary

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States of America scrutinized the security of the commercial airline industry. Major security breaches allowed terrorists to board four commercial flights, which eventually led to the aircrafts’ hijacking and demise. In response to these flaws in the nation’s security, the United States Congress passed House Resolution 5005, The Homeland Security Act of 2002. Included in the number of initiatives set forth in this act was a program allowing pilots to carry firearms while in the cockpit following their certification as Federal flight deck officers.

Pilots carrying guns in the cockpit pose many problems. Firearms that have lead-core bullets have the potential to cause destruction to an aircraft’s systems and structure. Furthermore, firearms may fall under terrorist control because they are not bound to a single person. Another concern is the ability for guns to distract pilots from their primary purpose—to fly the aircraft.

When the government selected guns as the primary defense in the cockpit, they failed to undertake a comprehensive analysis of alternatives. Pilots and airlines have access to numerous alternatives, ranging from pre-fragmented bullets to total cockpit isolation, which provide the same or better protection when compared to guns. Hence, the Airline Security Analysts recommend new legislation that supercedes the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The new legislation would eventually phase out guns in the cockpit, temporarily replacing them with one or more of the available alternatives, and fund further research into aircraft security.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Table of Contents

List of Figures

List of Acronyms

Legislation Abbreviations

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Discussion

2.1 Background: Regulations and Legislation

2.1.1Preexisting Federal Regulations as Legal Basis for Arming Pilots

2.1.2Congressional Resolutions

2.1.3Modification of Federal Regulations

2.1.4Federal Regulations as Legal Basis for Alternatives to Arming Pilots

2.1.5Summary of Regulations

2.2 Problems

2.3 Alternatives

3.0 Conclusions

4.0 Recommendations

5.0 References

Appendix A: Relevant Sections of the Code of Federal Regulations

A.1Code of Federal Regulations

A.1.114 CFR 121.538

A.1.249 CFR 1544.201(d)

A.1.349 CFR 1544.219

A.1.449 CFR 1544.223

A.2United States Code

A.2.149 USC 44912

A.2.249 USC 44918

A.3Note on Currency of Regulations

Appendix B: 107th Congress, House Resolution 5005, Title XIV

Appendix C: 107th Congress, Senate Bill 1444

List of Figures

Figure 1—Types of Rubber Bullets

Figure 2—Construction of a Frangible Bullet

Figure 3—SmartLock Magnetic Firearm Lock

Figure 4—Schematic of a Stun Gun

List of Acronyms

ASA—Airline Security Analysts

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations

FAA—Federal Aviation Administration

HR—House Resolution

S—Senate Bill

USC—United States Code

Legislation Abbreviations

The legislation presented throughout this report is abbreviated in the following manner:

1

1.0 Introduction

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 have inspired a national debate regarding how best to heighten security at U.S. airports and on commercial flights. In this critical time, the Airline Security Analysts (ASA) understand the fears of airline pilots, passengers, and crew following the horrific hijackings, and support finding reasonable solutions to increase aircraft and airport security. In addition to the dramatic increase of security at airports occurring after September 11 (for instance, intensified passenger and luggage screening [1]), alteration of existing acts and regulations would make our homeland safer.

Congress has proposed many legislative bills geared toward augmenting security on commercial flights. A specific focus of this report will be Title XIV of House Resolution 5005 (HR 5005), the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act. The resolution lays the groundwork for the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program. Under the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program, pilots of commercial passenger aircraft become eligible for deputizing as Federal flight deck officers following training. Once deputized, Federal flight deck officers are able to carry traditional firearms to defend the aircraft, including firearms employing lead-core bullets and lacking a mechanism to prevent an unauthorized person from firing a weapon. The Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act omits pilots aboard air cargo, commuter, and on demand flights, which are outside the scope of this report.

A number of issues need to be addressed before any security programs can proceed. Guns cannot be guaranteed to stay within a pilot’s control. Also, firing a gun within an aircraft could compromise the integrity of its systems or structure. Pilots carrying guns could be distracted from their primary task of flying. Furthermore, alternatives exist that provide better protection with less of a risk to aircraft and passengers.

The current Federal Air Marshal Program provides an additional response to stopping terrorism in the air. Air Marshals are law enforcement officers who continually receive training in firearm safety, appropriate use of force, psychology of terrorists, and worst case scenarios. Trained Air Marshals have one purpose, which is to monitor the airplane and protect the passengers and crew. However, they are currently only deployed to a small fraction of the flights in the United States.

The Antihijacking Act and Air Transportation Security Act of 1974 provided the outline for screening used by American carriers prior to the September 11 tragedy [2]. These acts amended the already existing Federal Aviation Act of 1958 in order to put into practice the “Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft.” Interestingly, these amendments sled to a sharp decline in the number of occurrences of hijackings on American carriers, including a complete lack of hijackings from 1991 until September 11, 2001 [3].

Models presently exist for preventing terrorism on aircraft without arming pilots. One such example is El Al, the Israeli airlines. Only one successful hijacking of an El Al aircraft has occurred since its inception in 1948. Additionally, they have had none since its current passenger screening system has been in place [4]. While exact parallels cannot be drawn between El Al and the entire U.S. airline industry, such models should be closely examined, as lessons can be learned from their experience.

Please note that this report is intended to apply only to the issue of pilots of commercial airliners. While some discussions in this report may be misconstrued to argue against Marshals carrying traditional firearms, it should be noted that the arguments presented within are not intended to apply to the Federal Air Marshal Program. Pilots and Federal Air Marshals experience different roles and responsibilities aboard an aircraft, and the discussion of Marshals would require an analysis separate to the one presented hereafter. Scrutiny of the Federal Air Marshal Program is outside the scope of this report and may therefore be considered a viable alternative to the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program for the purposes of this report. Similarly, cargo, commuter, and on-demand operations differ substantially from commercial flights, and therefore also require separate analysis.

2.0 Discussion

2.1 Background: Regulations and Legislation

Although the Homeland Security Act of 2002 is the most recent legislation concerning the issue of arming individuals aboard commercial aircraft, the issue of air piracy is not new, and many regulations concerning aviation security existed at the time of the passage of the act. Many of these regulations are relevant to the discussion of arming airline pilots, and therefore provide a preexisting legal basis for the implementation of the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program set forth in Title XIV of the Homeland Security Act. Examination of these various regulations reveals not only the rules governing the program, but also gives insight into the implementation of the program. Any attempt to discontinue the carrying of traditional firearms by pilots must invariably include modification of these laws. In addition, the laws also provide for various alternative security methods, which would be necessary if pilots were not allowed to carry traditional firearms.

With the exception of 14 CFR 135, 28 USC 570, and 49 USC 44921, Appendix A contains all of the laws discussed in this section. 28 USC 570 and 49 USC 44921 were recently passed in Congress and were not available at the time of the creation of this report. Appendix B contains 107th Cong. HR 5005 Title XIV, the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act, which sets forth the text of 49 USC 44921, the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program. Appendix C contains 107th Cong. S.1444, the Federal Air Marshals and Safe Sky Act of 2001, which sets forth the text of 28 USC 570.

2.1.1Preexisting Federal Regulations as Legal Basis for Arming Pilots

The Federal Aviation Regulations that make up Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations are a logical starting point for the analysis of any topic concerning aviation. ASA’s report is concerned with the arming of pilots aboard commercial airliners, and the part pertaining to this issue is 14 CFR 121, which dictates the operating requirements of commercial airline operations. 14 CFR 121.538 reveals that the security requirements for Part 121 operations are dictated entirely by regulations within Chapter XII of Title 49, the transportation regulations.

Chapter XII of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations discusses a wide array of issues and procedures applicable to the Transportation Security Administration and the Department of Transportation. In particular, 49 CFR 1544 deals with the security of commercial aviation operations. Several specific sections within this part lay the foundation for the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program. 49 CFR 1544.201 is the most important of these. It prohibits individuals from carrying weapons or explosive devices on board aircraft, but it also lists sections that provide exceptions to this rule: 14 CFR 1544.219, which exempts Federal law enforcement officers (excluding Federal Air Marshals); 14 CFR 1544.221, which exempts law enforcement officers escorting prisoners; and 14 CFR 1544.223, which exempts Federal Air Marshals.

14 CFR 1544.219 is particularly important because it lays the precedent for the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program. It begins by reinforcing that Federal law enforcement officers are exempt from the prohibition of carrying weapons aboard commercial aircraft. Next, it lists the requirements that an individual must meet in order to be considered a law enforcement officer under this section. Additionally, it sets forth the requirement that the officer must identify himself to the aircraft operator, and it discusses the requirements that constitute proper identification. Finally, the section sets forth requirements for carrying and concealing weapons and prohibits officers from consuming alcohol while armed. Because of this regulation, 107th Cong. HR 5005 (the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act) did not need to create any new exception to 49 CFR 1544.201. Instead, it focused on the procedures of deputizing pilots to Federal law enforcement officer status and of analyzing the potential dangers resulting from arming pilots.

2.1.2Congressional Resolutions

The regulations discussed previously set the basis for 49 USC 44921, the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program, which was set forth in 107th Cong. HR 5005, Title XIV. As stated in the earlier discussion of 49 CFR 1544.201, HR 5005 did not need to create any new exemptions to the prohibition of weapons aboard aircraft prescribed in 49 CFR 1544.201. Rather, it described the manner in which flight crew may be deputized in order to become Federal law enforcement officers and conform to existing regulations.

HR 5005 began by providing the text of 49 USC 44921. The section mandates that the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security shall establish a program to deputize flight crewmembers. It establishes a timeline for commencement of the training program, and it presents the topics that the program must address. The section suggests that the training be based on the program already in place for Federal Air Marshals, with minor differences made to take into account the differing roles and responsibilities of Federal Air Marshals and flight crew. However, it allows the Under Secretary to make decisions regarding specific training, qualification, and requalification requirements. The section grants the participants of the program the authority to purchase and carry a firearm for use in their role as a Federal flight deck officer, as well as the authority to use lethal force to defend an aircraft’s flight deck. Finally, the section defends aircraft operators and Federal flight deck officers from liability in damages resulting in the defense of a flight deck, and it outlines the procedure to be followed in the event that an accidental discharge of a firearm occurs.

After presenting 49 USC 44921, HR 5005 excluded operations under 14 CFR 135, which concerns commuter and on-demand flight operations, from the application of 49 USC 44921, as officials and crewmembers involved in these operations are already authorized to carry firearms by 14 CFR 135.119. The resolution also defined which individuals are considered pilots for the purpose of the resolution. It acknowledged the importance of Federal Air Marshals, and assured that the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program would not interfere with the Federal Air Marshal Program. Next, the resolution amended 49 USC 44918, which concerns the training of flight crews to handle threatening situations, in order to clearly define the requirements expected of flight crews to deal with air piracy. It also outlined plans for various studies to examine the issues concerning the deployment of Federal law enforcement officers aboard aircraft and the feasibility and effects of arming other crewmembers, such as flight attendants, with non-lethal weapons. Finally, it closed with technical amendments changing the designation of various regulation subsections for the purpose of clarification.

2.1.3Modification of Federal Regulations

In order to end the carrying of traditional firearms by commercial pilots, simply analyzing risks and proposing alternatives is not sufficient. To completely enforce the removal of traditional firearms from flight decks, the laws authorizing their presence would need to change. Changing 49 USC 44921 would be the most important modification. As the regulation that sets forth the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program, it is the primary regulation allowing pilots to be armed with traditional firearms.

In addition to changing 49 USC 44921, some other modification to the regulations would have to be made in order to explicitly prevent pilots from being included in one of the exemptions of 49 CFR 1544.201. This could be accomplished in two ways. Creating an addition to 49 CFR 1544.201 barring pilots from carrying traditional firearms regardless of whatever exemption regulations might apply to them is one possible solution. Placing an exemption in 49 CFR 1544.219 barring individuals from serving as Federal law enforcement officers while serving as pilot in command of a commercial aircraft is another solution, as it is highly unlikely that a pilot would fall into any of the other exemption categories (prisoner escort or Federal Air Marshal) while in command of an aircraft.

2.1.4Federal Regulations as Legal Basis for Alternatives to Arming Pilots

The Federal Flight Deck Officer Program was instituted as a measure to combat the threat of terrorism and air piracy. While this report argues that arming pilots creates an unacceptable risk to flight crew and passengers, the threat of aircraft hijacking remains. If the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program were changed, other security plans would need to be implemented to supplement it. Fortunately, just as laws exist that created a foundation for the program to be built upon, laws also exist that form the basis for the creation of alternatives of security and defense aboard commercial aircraft.

The Federal Air Marshals Program is possibly one of the most publicly well-known alternatives to arming pilots. The current program, which was recently passed in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, is set forth in 28 USC 570. The regulation was introduced in 107th Cong. S.1444, the Federal Air Marshals and Safe Sky Act of 2001. Federal Air Marshals fall under the regulation of the United States Attorney General, and they serve to enforce Federal laws at airports and on board commercial aircraft. As stated earlier, 49 CFR 1544.223 authorizes Federal Air Marshals to carry weapons aboard aircraft.

Federal regulations encourage research and development of new aviation security technologies. Specifically, 49 USC 44912 mandates the existence of a research, development, and implementation program for aviation security technology to be established by the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security. The law requires the creation of yearly reports on the program’s progress and periodic reassessments of threats to aviation security. The law allows the Under Secretary to give research grants to institutes of higher learning and to make agreements with other government agencies to achieve the objectives of the program. The law also creates a Scientific Advisory Panel to review the program and to offer recommendations to modify the program if necessary.

Finally, 49 USC 44918 sets forth a requirement for a training program to prepare cabin crewmembers to deal with terrorism. The training program is required to instruct crewmembers on terrorist psychology and how to evaluate and respond to hostile situations.

2.1.5Summary of Regulations

2.2 Problems

Traditional firearms do not provide a sufficient resource of safety and only increase the risk to an aircraft and people aboard it. Occasionally, Federal Air Marshals dressed in civilian clothes protect an aircraft. The government enacts laws to provide safety in all possible situations, but in the instance of traditional guns, it attempts to ensure the security of an aircraft at the potential expense of the safety of the passengers, making it counterproductive. As Dorey mentions, since 1958 all efforts to remove these conventional weapons were dispelled and a movement to protect aircraft began [2]. Each pilot must be deputized as a Federal flight deck officer by the Federal government, a procedure consisting of written and physical tests, before being equipped with a gun. The major motivation for the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program is preventing attackers from taking over an aircraft if they attack the aircraft’s flight deck. However, in unpredictable situations, traditional weapons can lose effectiveness, penetrate the cabin and harm passengers, distract pilots, and be removed from a pilot’s possession.