Order Code RL31674
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Arming Pilots Against Terrorism:
Implementation Issues for the Federal
Flight Deck Officer Program
Updated March 25, 2003
Bartholomew Elias
Specialist in Aviation Security, Safety, and Technology
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Arming Pilots Against Terrorism:
Implementation Issues for the Federal Flight Deck
Officer Program
Summary
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296, H.R. 5005) contains
provisions to arm pilots of passenger aircraft and gives deputized pilots the authority
to use force, including lethal force, to defend the flight deck against criminal and
terrorist threats. Participation in the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program, established
under the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act contained in P.L. 107-296, is limited
to pilots of air carriers providing passenger air transportation or intrastate passenger
air transportation. Pilots of cargo air carriers may not participate in the program.
However, legislation (H.R. 765; S. 516; amendment to S. 165 by Sen. Boxer) seeks
to include all-cargo air carrier pilots in the program.
During debate over legislation to arm pilots, proponents argued that the potential
benefits of deterring or thwarting terrorist and criminal acts against passenger aircraft
outweighed the inherent risks associated with arming pilots. However, opponents of
policy allowing pilots to be armed with lethal weapons argued that such a program’s
safety risks and monetary costs significantly outweighed these potential benefits.
Risks cited included potential distraction to the flight crew, dangers that a weapon
discharge could pose to the aircraft or its occupants, and security concerns associated
with carrying firearms in secured areas of the aviation system. Proponents countered
that these risks could be effectively mitigated, but recognized that these are important
issues to be addressed for successful implementation of the policy to arm pilots.
With enactment of this legislation, focus on the issue of arming pilots has turned
to implementation of the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program. The law specifies
that the program is to commence within 3 months of enactment and identifies several
issues to be addressed in implementing the program. These implementation issues
fall into four broad categories: 1) pilot selection and screening; 2) equipment (i.e.,
firearms and ammunition and the risks they may pose to aircraft and passengers); 3)
training; and 4) operational procedures. This report describes several implementation
issues within each of these areas that may require continued legislative oversight and
possible clarification regarding the intent of the legislation. The report also examines
cost issues associated with the program and explores policy options regarding
potential future expansion of the program to other pilot groups such as air cargo
carrier pilots.
This report will be updated as warranted by events.

---

Contents
Legislative Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Implementation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Pilot Selection and Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
What types of screening and selection criteria are needed for
volunteer pilots prior to and while participating in the program? 3
Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
What are the tradeoffs between firearms effectiveness and
risk to the aircraft? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Who should conduct the training? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
What will the training consist of ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
How will the effectiveness of the training be evaluated? . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Operational Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Storage and Transportation of the Firearm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Airport Security Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Flight Deck Operational Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
What will the costs to the Federal government be? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
What will the costs to participants and airlines be? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Scope of the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

---

Arming Pilots Against Terrorism:
Implementation Issues for the Federal Flight
Deck Officer Program
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) contains provisions to
deputize volunteer pilots of air carriers providing passenger air transportation or
intrastate passenger air transportation as Federal law enforcement officers, permitting
them to carry firearms and use force, including lethal force, to defend the flight deck
against acts of criminal violence or air piracy. These provisions are collectively
known as the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act. The program to be established
under this Act is the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program and qualified pilots
deputized under this program will be referred to as Federal flight deck officers. The
provisions of the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act are limited to pilots of air
carriers providing passenger air transportation and have not been extended to pilots
of cargo air carriers. The law specifies that within three months of enactment, the
Under Secretary of Transportation for Security (the Under Secretary)1 shall begin the
process of training and deputizing qualified pilots under this program. Pilot
organizations have estimated that as many as 30,000 eligible pilots may volunteer to
participate in the program.2 However, the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) expects that number may be much lower once details of the program are
released.3
Legislative Background
In May 2002, Representative Don Young and Representative John Mica
introduced the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act (H.R. 46354). At that time, the
Bush administration voiced initial opposition to the concept of arming pilots with
lethal weapons. As amended by the Aviation Subcommittee of the House Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure on June 19, 2002 (and as ordered reported by the
1 The Undersecretary of Transportation for Security is the title used in the law to refer to the
head of the Transportation Security Administration. Under the provisions of this law, this
position will be located in the newly formed Department of Homeland Security.
2 Sara Kehaulani Goo. “Pilots Press for Firearms Instruction,” The Washington Post, 15
November 2002, pg. E1; Alan Levin, “Armed Pilots Are Months Away,” USA Today, 25
November 2002, pg. A1.
3 Sara Kehaulani Goo. “Pilot Gun-Training Deadline Set,” The Washington Post, 25
November 2002, p. E3.
4 All referenced bill numbers cited in this report are from the 107th Congress.

---

CRS-2
full committee on June 26, 2002), the bill contained a provision that capped
participation in the program at 2% of eligible pilots and limited the program to a two-
year test period. On July 10, 2002, Representative Peter DeFazio offered an
amendment on the floor to remove the 2% cap on the number of pilots who could
participate in the program and also deleted the 2-year sunset provision contained in
the bill. The amendment was adopted twice by large majorities and H.R. 4635
passed by a vote of 310-113. On May 25, 2002, Senator Robert Smith introduced the
Arming Pilots Against Terrorism and Cabin Defense Act of 2002 (S. 2554) which
contained similar language to the final version of H.R. 4635 passed by the House.
On September 4, 2002, Senator Smith offered an amendment to the Senate
version of H.R. 5005, a bill introduced to create a Department of Homeland Security,
that included provisions for arming pilots similar to those contained in H.R. 4635.
On November 12, 2002, Representative Richard Armey introduced H.R. 5710 as a
new vehicle for establishing the Department of Homeland Security and for other
purposes which contained provisions for arming pilots. However, in response to
lobbying efforts by the air cargo industry, the language in this legislation limited
participation in the program to pilots of passenger air carrier aircraft. On November
19, 2002, the Senate amended H.R. 5005, incorporating provisions virtually identical
to H.R. 5710. The House agreed to the Senate amendment to H.R. 5005 on
November 22, 2002. H.R. 5005 was signed by President Bush on November 25,
2002 and became P.L. 107-296.
Debate over the issue of arming pilots focused on the benefits, risks, and costs
associated with implementing the program. Proponents, principally pilots and pilot
unions, argued that the potential benefits of deterring or thwarting terrorist and
criminal acts against passenger aircraft outweighed the inherent risks associated with
arming pilots. Opponents of policy allowing pilots to be armed with lethal weapons,
including the airlines and several prominent aviation safety experts, argued that such
a program’s safety risks and monetary costs outweighed these potential benefits. Key
risks cited by critics of the program include:
! Added workload and responsibilities associated with participation
in the program that may distract pilots from primary flying duties
and safety-related functions;
! Risks of a firearm discharge to innocent passengers or aircraft
structure and systems; and
! A proliferation of firearms on aircraft and in secured areas of the
aviation system that is counter to other security objectives.5
Many of these concerns raised by critics of the plan to arm pilots have been
recognized by both Congress and proponents of the plan as key issues to be addressed
in program implementation.
Current debate in Congress has focused on whether pilots of all-cargo aircraft
should be included in the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program. All-cargo pilots were
5 See GAO-02-822R, “Information Concerning the Arming of Commercial Pilots”, for a
detailed outline of reasons presented by those favoring and opposing the arming of pilots.

---

CRS-3
excluded in the final wording of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296).
On February 13, 2003, Rep. John Mica introduced H.R. 765, and on March 5, 2003
Sen. Bunning introduced S. 516. Both bills seek to include cargo pilots in the
Federal Flight Deck Officer Program. On March 13, 2003, in a markup session of
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Sen. Boxer
offered an amendment to S. 165, the Air Cargo Security Act, to include all-cargo
pilots in the Federal Flight Deck Officers Program. S. 165 was ordered reported
favorably with amendments, including the Boxer amendment to arm all-cargo pilots
by the committee.
Implementation Issues
Implementation of the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program will require
assessments of the standards and guidelines for: 1) pilot selection and screening; 2)
equipment; 3) training; 4) operational procedures; and 5) costs. The TSA has formed
a task force to address these issues and develop a plan for implementation of the
program. While Congress has noted that the Under Secretary’s decisions regarding
the methods for implementing procedural requirements of the program shall be
subject to review only for abuse of discretion, continued legislative oversight of the
program is likely to be an issue for the 108th Congress. Furthermore, the 108th
Congress may engage in debate regarding the scope of the program to consider
whether other pilots, particularly pilots of cargo air carriers, should be allowed to
participate. Legislation to include cargo air carrier pilots in the program has been
recently introduced (See H.R. 765).
Pilot Selection and Screening
What types of screening and selection criteria are needed for
volunteer pilots prior to and while participating in the program?
Issues to be addressed in implementing the program include the process for
selecting and screening of volunteer pilots seeking to become Federal flight deck
officers. The legislation requires further assessment to determine whether additional
background checks should be required beyond that specified by section 44936(a)(1)
of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.6 Additional selection and screening criteria
could help to ensure that pilots selected to participate are physically and
psychologically capable of carrying out the duties and responsibilities associated with
participation in the program and maintain the standards set forth by the program
while serving as Federal flight deck officers. Screening measures could be used to
assess whether a pilot poses a security or safety threat by possessing a firearm on the
flight deck or by being trained in the use of lethal force.
Proponents of this new law point out that pilots already undergo rigorous pre-
employment evaluations and screening throughout their careers with an air carrier.
6 This section describes requirements for criminal history record checks and reviews of
available law enforcement databases and records of other governmental and international
agencies for certain airport and airline employees.

---

CRS-4
Captain Stephen Luckey, chairman of the National Fight Security Committee of the
Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), International noted that:
Pilots are undoubtedly the most highly scrutinized employees in the
work force, submitting to a battery of pre-employment evaluations, a flight
physical every six months, random drug and alcohol testing, and a criminal
history records check, among other formal examinations. Additionally,
pilots are constantly interacting with and undergoing de facto monitoring
by their airline’s management, their peers, FAA personnel, and others.7
On the other hand, despite pre-existing measures for screening and evaluating pilots,
recent examples of confirmed and suspected suicides and sabotage of aircraft by
flight crew personnel suggest a potential need for more detailed background checks
of pilots wishing to participate in the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program.8
However, there is little agreement on whether additional screening including
psychiatric evaluation of pilots would be able to detect pilots who would pose a risk
by participating in the program. Some argue that current screening and peer
monitoring of pilots are insufficient, and detailed psychiatric screening and
psychological testing is needed to adequately assess the mental health of pilots.9
Others argue that many common mental health conditions can be masked during
these evaluations. They assert that the costs of implementing such elaborate
screening measures would far outweigh the marginal improvement in assessing the
mental health of pilots beyond that obtained through the scrutiny pilots already
undergo. Proponents for arming pilots also argue that by having access to the flight
deck, a pilot intent on causing harm already possesses the means to do so, and
introducing a firearm on the flight deck does little to add to that already existing
capability. They argue that, historically, incidents of deliberate acts by pilots to
harm the airplane and its occupants are extremely unusual and current background
checks, screening, and evaluations of pilots are more than adequate for assessing
their fitness to participate in the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program.
7 Statement of Captain Stephen Luckey, Chairman, National Fight Security Committee, Air
Line Pilots Association, International Before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, U.S. Senate, on Aviation Security, July 25, 2002.
8 Examples of confirmed deliberate acts by flight crew personnel to crash commercial
aircraft include an intentional crash of a Japan Airlines DC-8 in 1982, an attempted hostile
takeover of a Federal Express DC-10 in 1994 by an off-duty flight engineer who intended
to crash the airplane into FedEx headquarters, and the 1999 theft and intentional crash of
an Air Botswana ATR-42 into two other Air Botswana aircraft. Additionally, there have
been other high profile crashes of passenger air carrier aircraft, such as the 1997 crash of a
Silk Air Boeing 737 in Indonesia and the 1999 crash of an EgyptAir Boeing 767 off the
coast of Rhode Island, where intentional pilot action was suspected but never conclusively
determined. It should, however, be noted that none of these crashes involved flight crews
of U.S. flag carriers providing passenger air service.
9 See, e.g., James N. Butcher. “Assessing Pilots with ‘The Wrong Stuff’: A Call for
Research on Emotional Health Factors in Commercial Aviators,” International Journal of
Selection & Assessment, 10(1-2), March 2002, 168-184.

---

CRS-5
The Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act specifies that pilots who are former
military or law enforcement personnel should be given preference to participate in
the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program. This could be one way to mitigate the risks
identified above, at least among the initial cadre of deputized Federal flight deck
officers by giving preference for participation in the program to persons that were
already deemed fit to carry a firearm. It is also of note that the law does not limit
participation to U.S. citizens. Therefore, another implementation issue is whether
additional background checks will be required for non-U.S. citizen pilots
volunteering to participate in this program. While provisions for waiting periods and
background checks have been established for foreign pilots seeking certain types of
advanced flight training in the United States since September 11, 2001, it is uncertain
whether additional background checks and waiting periods would be needed for
foreign pilots seeking to participate in the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program,
particularly if the pilot has an extensive employment record flying for U.S. air
carriers.
Initial implementation plans disclosed by TSA in early February, 2003, would
require that pilots undergo additional psychological screening, background checks,
and a medical examination beyond those already required of airline pilots. The
Airline Pilots Security Alliance (APSA), a grass-roots organization supporting efforts
to arm pilots, has called the TSA screening requirements unacceptable and redundant
with many existing FAA and airline screening requirements.10 However, the TSA
asserts that the proposed screening measures are similar to those used in selection of
federal law enforcement officers, including federal air marshals, to determine an
individual’s fitness to carry a firearm and act in a law enforcement capacity and are
necessary to ensure that participating pilots meet these same standards.11
Equipment
What are the tradeoffs between firearms effectiveness and risk to
the aircraft?
The legislation identifies the selection of firearms and ammunition as an issue
to be addressed in developing procedural requirements for the program. The
legislation also specifies that an analysis shall be conducted to assess the risk of
catastrophic failure of an aircraft as a result of the discharge (including an accidental
discharge) of a firearm into the avionics, electrical systems, or other sensitive areas
of the aircraft. The legislation further specifies that information developed in this
analysis shall be treated as classified information and not disclosed. If significant
risks are determined to exist, the Under Secretary shall take actions to minimize these
risks.
The selection of firearms and ammunition for use in the program will be an
important consideration because the unique environment of the flight deck and the
fact that pilots are not primarily law enforcement officers make this program quite
10 See [http://www.secure-skies.org]
11 Keith L. Alexander, “Some Pilots Oppose Gun Rules.” The Washington Post, 13 February
2003, p. A13.

---

CRS-6
different than other law enforcement applications of firearms. Opponents of arming
pilots have argued that a stray bullet could cause serious damage to aircraft systems
and structures and jeopardize flight safety. Speaking before the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Captain Edward M. Davidson, Director
of Flight Safety and Quality Assurance for Northwest Airlines, cautioned that bullets
could pierce flight deck windows creating a potentially catastrophic cockpit
decompression, could strike one of the flight deck’s many multi-functional
instruments putting at risk numerous safety critical systems, or could strike critical
electronic navigation equipment located beneath the flight deck.12 A depressurization
of the airplane at altitude would necessitate that the flight crew use supplemental
oxygen and complete checklist procedures in response to the depressurization.
Similarly, loss of critical aircraft systems may require a flight crew’s immediate
attention. Accomplishing required safety-related tasks may prove difficult during a
struggle with intruders in the cockpit.
However, in testimony before the House Subcommittee on Aviation, Mr. Ron
Hinderberger, Director of Aviation Safety for the Boeing Company stated that “[t]he
risk of loss of the aircraft due to a stray round from a handgun is very slight. Boeing
commercial service history contains cases of gunfire onboard in-service airplanes, all
of which landed safely.” Hinderberger further noted that “[c]ommercial airplane
structure is designed with sufficient strength, redundancy, and damage tolerance that
single or even multiple handgun bullet holes would not result in loss of the aircraft.
A single bullet hole in the fuselage skin would have little effect on cabin
pressurization.”13
It has been reported that the weapon initially chosen for the program is a Smith
& Wesson .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol that is commonly used by law
enforcement agencies.14 As the program evolves, further research and development
of firearms and ammunition more specifically tailored to the needs of Federal Flight
Deck officers and the unique environment of the flight deck may be needed. Factors
to be examined include enhancement of firearm effectiveness in the flight deck
environment and mitigation of the risks of accidental discharges, inadvertent
shootings of innocent passengers, and possible depressurization of the cabin or
disabling of aircraft systems from a firearm discharge. The law provides for
temporary suspension of the program if the firearm of a Federal flight deck officer
accidentally discharges due to a shortcoming in standards, training, or procedures
until the shortcoming is corrected.
12 Statement of Captain Edward M. Davidson, Director, Flight Safety and Quality
Assurance, Northwest Airlines before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation, July 25, 2002.
13 House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Press Release #253, May 2, 2002.

14 Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar. “In Test, Some U.S. Airline Pilots May Carry Guns as Early
as April. The Los Angeles Times, 20 February 2003.

---

CRS-7
Training
Who should conduct the training?
The law specifies that training of Federal flight deck officers shall commence
within three months after enactment. Thus, the initial training class should be
underway by the end of February, 2003. The TSA has indicated that they intend to
comply with the law and launch the program by the specified date. TSA has
convened a task force to define the training program and address other
implementation issues. The law provides that the training program may be
administered either by the Under Secretary or by a firearms training facility approved
by the Under Secretary. This leaves to the Under Secretary’s discretion whether the
training will be provided by TSA facilities and staff, by facilities and staff of other
Federal law enforcement agencies or organizations, or by contractor facilities. The
TSA has indicated that training pilots at existing facilities used to train Federal air
marshals is under consideration. One advantage of using TSA facilities is that doing
so could maximize standardization of training for pilots and compliance with the
standards and guidelines established by the Under Secretary. It could also improve
coordination of training and procedures between Federal flight deck officers and
Federal air marshals who will need to coordinate and communicate effectively when
dealing with in-flight situations that may arise. However, TSA training facilities may
become overburdened if large numbers of pilots wish to participate in the program.
TSA facilities and staff may lack the ability to administer training in a timely manner
that meets scheduling constraints of the pilots, especially given that the pilots will
need to complete this training during their time off.
One alternative that has been considered is to use Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) training facilities. In December 2001, the FBI released its
proposal for training airline pilots termed the “Cockpit Protection Program.” The
advantage of this plan is that it is already well defined and includes assessments of
the facility and staff requirements needed to administer the training. The
disadvantage of this program is that it removes the training from the direct control
of the TSA, who would instead assume an oversight role to ensure that training
standards established by the Under Secretary are maintained. Also, this arrangement
may not offer the opportunity for specific training regarding the coordination of
duties and responsibilities between Federal flight deck officers and Federal air
marshals. Another federal entity named as possible provider of training for Federal
flight deck officers is the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) which
has facilities in Glynco, Georgia; Charleston, South Carolina; and Artesia, New
Mexico. These facilities may provide capabilities to train larger groups of pilots at
locations that may be more convenient to some, but like the FBI facilities, these
facilities may have limited oversight by TSA and may not offer the opportunity for
training on coordination with Federal air marshals.
Using contractor facilities and/or contractor staff to administer training to
Federal flight deck officers are also options, but ones that pose several challenges.
Extensive oversight of contractor provided training may be necessary to ensure that
established curriculum and qualifications standards are maintained. If multiple
contracts are used to train Federal flight deck officers, standardization of training
across vendors may be difficult to maintain. One advantage of using contract training

---

CRS-8
for the program might be the reduction of capital investment for facilities and
personnel. The TSA has initially indicated that their preference is to conduct the
training using TSA facilities and personnel.
On February 5, 2003, The Under Secretary, Admiral James Loy, told the Senate
Subcommittee on Aviation that TSA will launch a prototype program by February
25, 2003. This prototype training program will use FLETC facilities to train an
initial group 48 pilots in a class scheduled to begin in late March, 2003. TSA is
currently asking pilot organizations, such as ALPA, to nominate pilots for the initial
class. Nominated pilots will undergo background checks similar to those used for
federal law enforcement officers before the training commences. Admiral Loy noted
that while the initial training is being conducted at federal facilities, as the program
evolves “...there very well may be a private sector opportunity...” to provide the
training.15
What will the training consist of ?
The Act specifies that the training of a Federal flight deck officer shall include:
1. Training to ensure that the Federal flight deck officer attains a level of
proficiency with a firearm comparable to the level of proficiency required
of Federal air marshals;
2. Training to ensure that the officer maintains exclusive control over the
officer’s firearm at all times, including training in defensive maneuvers;
and
3. Training to assist the officer in determining when it is appropriate to use
the officer’s firearm and when it is appropriate to use less than lethal force.
The Act specifies that the Under Secretary shall base the requirements for training
Federal flight deck officers on the training standards applicable to Federal air
marshals, taking into account the differing roles and responsibilities of Federal flight
deck officers and Federal air marshals. While many of the details of the Federal air
marshal training program are classified and cannot be disclosed, it has been reported
that the program consists of 10 ½ weeks of progressive training starting with basic
marksmanship, followed by reactive firearms training scenarios, followed by
advanced firearms techniques specific to the aircraft cabin environment, followed by
scenario-based exercises using wide-body and narrow-body aircraft mockups.16
Pilot groups including ALPA and the Allied Pilots Association (APA) have
suggested that initial training for Federal flight deck officers can be completed in a
48-hour training program. Such a training program was derived from details released
15 Hearing of the Aviation Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce, Science and
Transportation Committee on Aviation Security and Impacts Associated with the Regulatory
and Statutory Requirements of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA),
Wednesday, February 5, 2003. Transcript available at [http://www.tsa.gov]
16 J. Croft. “TSA Provides Rare Peek at Air Marshals,” Aviation Week & Space
Technology, 156(23), 10 June 2002, p. 54; Leslie Miller. “Pilots Anticipate Guns in Cockpit
by Spring,” Associated Press, Washington Dateline, 27 November 2002.

---

CRS-9
in December 2001 regarding the FBI Cockpit Protection Program that proposed a
five-day, 48-hour training course in firearms handling, legal aspects, tort law, and
policies regarding use of lethal force. The TSA prototype program similarly specifies
a 48-hour curriculum of firearms training and tactical drills.17
The legislation also specifies that Federal flight deck officers will have to
requalify at an interval required by the Under Secretary. The FBI Cockpit Protection
Program specified an annual requalification interval. The selection of a
requalification interval will need to strike a balance between adequately ensuring that
qualification standards are maintained while ensuring that the process does not
overburden TSA resources or place an undue schedule burden on Federal flight deck
officers who will need to requalify during time away from their flying jobs.
How will the effectiveness of the training be evaluated?
The law does not specify any criteria or guidelines for assessing the effectiveness
of the program or the training provided under the program. Given that the primary
objective of the program is deterrence of terrorism and criminal acts against the flight
deck, effectiveness of the program in this regard will be difficult if not impossible to
assess. Successful deterrence may be indicated by statistics regarding security
incidents aboard aircraft. However, it will be difficult to attribute any reduction in
security incidents directly to this program. This is especially true in consideration of
the fact that the Federal flight deck program is but one component of a larger effort
to heighten aviation security in response to terrorist threats that also includes
enhanced passenger and baggage screening and the deployment of Federal air
marshals. Nonetheless, the effectiveness of certain elements of the program can be
assessed. For example, the effectiveness of training can be assessed through
evaluation of performance during requalification. Also, effectiveness of the program
with regards to risk management can be assessed though analysis of data on incidents
of firearms mishandling, accidental discharges, lost and stolen weapons, and so on.
Operational Procedures
Storage and Transportation of the Firearm.
Should the weapon be stored at secure airport facilities or carried
by the Federal flight deck officer traveling to and from duty?
The legislation identifies storage and transportation of firearms as an issue to be
addressed in establishing the procedural requirements for the program. The
legislation specifies that particular attention should be given to storage and
transportation of firearms on international flights and when the pilot leaves the
airport to remain overnight away from the pilot’s base airport. Pilot groups have
argued for allowing Federal flight deck officer to retain the firearm, particularly at
the pilot’s home base, and further advocate that Federal flight deck officers be given
17 Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar. Op. cit.

---

CRS-10
the opportunity to train with the firearm to maintain proficiency in its use.18
Opponents of such a plan argue that pilots carrying weapons both in airports and to
and from work could be the target of terrorists and criminals seeking to steal their
firearms and increases the potential for mishandling of the firearm and accidental
discharges.
In February 2003, a TSA task force studying the implementation issues for the
Federal Flight Deck Officer Program recommended the use of lock boxes for
transporting the firearms. Pilot groups have voiced concerns that the use of lock
boxes undermines the intent of the legislation which they believe specifies that “...the
officer maintains exclusive control over his or her firearm at all times...”19 The TSA
has indicated that its decision is based on the very specific nature of the mission
outlined in the legislation which permits pilots to use their weapons only in defense
of the flight deck. The TSA considers the lock box as a means to minimize the risk
that the firearms will be used in other situations. However, the Airline Pilots’
Security Alliance (APSA) is concerned that the use of lock boxes to transport
firearms may make pilots particularly vulnerable targets for thieves seeking to steal
their weapons and provides pilots with no means for personal security to protect
against this threat.20
Should the firearm be concealed?
Concealment of the issued firearm is not specifically addressed in the legislation
but will likely be an issue debated in establishing the procedural requirements of the
program. Carrying a concealed firearm would prevent the flying public from
determining which pilots were Federal flight deck officers. Doing so could prevent
Federal flight deck officers from becoming targets of attempts to seize or steal
firearms. Concealing the firearms could also benefit pilots who are not participants
in the program since individuals intending criminal acts against a flight deck will not
have foreknowledge of whether the pilots on the flight deck are armed or not. On the
other hand, carrying a concealed weapon in the airport terminal, outside controlled
access areas of airports, and during travel to and from work could complicate security
screening and law enforcement efforts to establish a pilot’s status as a Federal flight
deck officer authorized to carry a concealed firearm. Pilot groups have also raised
the issue of whether Federal flight deck officers will be permitted to carry backup
firearms.21 It is common practice among law enforcement officers to carry concealed
backup firearms.
18 See, e.g., Allied Pilots Association, Committee for the Armed Defense of the Cockpit.
Report submitted to the National Officers and Board of Directors, Winter Board of Directors
Meeting, February 14, 2002. Available at [http://www.alliedpilots.org].
19 Air Line Pilots Association. “News Release: ALPA Criticizes Serious Deficiency in TSA
Firearms Carriage Recommendation.” Available at [http://www.alpa.org]
20 Sara Kehaulani Goo. “TSA Nearly Ready to Begin Gun Training for Pilots.” The
Washington Post, 20 February 2003, p. A8.
21 Ibid.

---

CRS-11
Airport Security Screening.
What identification will verify that a pilot is a deputized Federal flight
deck officer authorized to possess a firearm?
The legislation identifies methods for ensuring that security personnel will be
able to identify whether a pilot is authorized to carry a firearm under the program as
an issue to be addressed in establishing the procedural requirements for the program.
Methods for preventing forgery of identification and accounting for misplaced or
stolen identification will be needed to ensure that terrorists and criminals cannot
breach security checkpoints by impersonating Federal flight deck officers. The
Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA, P.L. 107-71) mandated the
establishment of a uniform system of identification for all State and local law
enforcement personnel for use in obtaining permission to carry weapons in aircraft
cabins and in obtaining access to a secured area of an airport, if otherwise authorized
to carry such weapons. Implementation of the program will have to address whether
this system can be used to validate the identity of Federal flight deck officer or
whether alternative means of identification are needed. The TSA currently has
several research efforts examining technologies for establishing a standardized
Transportation Worker Identification Card (TWIC) and for exploring the use of
biometric technologies for identification. Future deployments of systems using these
technologies may provide enhanced capability to assure positive identification of
Federal flight deck officers.
Where should screening and identification checking of Federal flight
deck officers take place?
If it is determined that concealing the identity of Federal flight deck officers
would be a desirable aspect of the program, then security screening of Federal flight
deck officers and other flight crew at security checkpoints in open public spaces may
diminish the effectiveness of the program. As previously noted, public identification
of Federal flight deck officers may have negative consequences for both Federal
flight deck officers who may be targeted in attempts to seize firearms and for pilots
not participating in the program whose flights may be targeted if it is determined that
a Federal flight deck officer is not on board. Screening of pilots in open view may
also compromise specific security procedures to validate the identity of Federal flight
deck officers. However, alternative arrangements for screening of flight crew may
be impractical, particularly at smaller airports where employee and passenger
screening are collocated.
Flight Deck Operational Procedures.
Where should the firearm be placed during flight operations?
The legislation identifies the placement of a Federal flight deck officer’s firearm
on board the aircraft to ensure security and ease of retrieval as an issue to be
addressed in developing the procedural requirements of the program. A holstered
weapon may present a safety hazard as it may interfere with the pilots full range of
motion and prevent performance of normal flight deck duties. A holstered weapon
may also be difficult to access from a seated position. However, alternative options

---

CRS-12
involving aircraft modifications for securing firearms on the flight deck would
require industry retrofitting of flight decks for all affected transport category
airplanes and FAA certification of these designs. Simple designs may be easily
approved and implemented. However, more elaborate designs for housing firearms
on the flight deck may require more detailed test and evaluation as part of the
certification process. Due to significant differences in flight deck layouts among
transport category aircraft, standardization across aircraft types in a manner that
optimizes positioning of the firearm may be difficult to achieve. These designs may
also have difficulty accommodating differences in physical dimensions and
handedness among Federal flight deck officers.
What coordination of flight crew and law enforcement personnel is
needed?
The legislation identifies interaction between a Federal flight deck officer and a
Federal air marshal on board the aircraft and methods for ensuring that pilots are able
to identify law enforcement officers authorized to carry a firearm aboard the aircraft
as issues to be addressed in establishing the procedural requirements of the program.
Such coordination will need to address concerns over concealing the identity of
Federal air marshals while allowing sufficient coordination between them and
Federal flight deck officers. Airlines have procedures in place for identifying armed
law enforcement officers and making these individuals known to flight crews. These
procedures may need to be enhanced and further standardized by TSA to ensure that
flight crews can easily recognize armed law enforcement officers on board and
coordinate with them if needed.
The legislation also identifies the division of responsibility between pilots in the
event of an act of criminal violence or air piracy for instances where either one or
both of the flight crew are Federal flight deck officers as an additional issue to be
addressed in implementing the program. This raises a question of what training and
educational materials regarding the Federal flight deck officer program will be made
available to non-participating flight crew. Air carrier flight crews already receive
initial and recurrent training in FAA mandated crew resource management (CRM)
training programs. Coordination of duties and responsibilities is a core element of
CRM training and principals. However, airlines are unlikely to address the subject
of division of responsibility when a pilot must perform duties as a Federal flight deck
officer, citing that this is a Federal function and possibly fearing liability issues if
such matters are addressed in training.22 Furthermore, there is no requirement in the
legislation for training or education of non-participating flight crew personnel
regarding the program. Thus, it may be left to the responsibility of individual Federal
flight deck officers to brief non-participating flight crew on the coordination of flight
duties if the flight deck were attacked. The coordination among multiple flight crew
members who are deputized Federal flight deck officers will likely be less
22 While the Act contains language limiting the liability of air carriers and Federal flight
deck officers for damages arising from a Federal flight deck officer’s use or failure to use
a firearm, there is ambiguity whether this protection would extend to other flight crew
actions, particularly actions related to flight operations, during periods when one pilot is
performing Federal flight deck officer functions.

---

CRS-13
troublesome as they will have undergone the same standard training and will thus
have a better understanding of the division of responsibilities during an attack.
However, the TSA will likely need to work closely with the airlines to ensure that
such training does not provide guidance that is counter to airline standard operating
procedures.
How should disturbances in the passenger cabin be handled?
The legislation specifies procedures for ensuring that the firearm of a Federal
flight deck officer does not leave the cockpit if there is a disturbance in the passenger
cabin as an issue to be addressed in establishing the procedural requirements of the
program. Implementation of such procedures will be an important component of the
program and training for Federal flight deck officers as many scenarios can be
envisioned where terrorists and criminals may create disturbances in the cabin or take
hostages in an attempt to gain access to the flight deck.
What procedures should be established for opening the cockpit
door and leaving the cockpit?
Additionally, the legislation specifies procedures for ensuring that the firearm of
a Federal flight deck officer does not leave the cockpit if the pilot leaves the cockpit
for personal reasons as an issue to be addressed in establishing the procedural
requirements of the program. Procedures relating to opening the cockpit door for
other reasons are not specifically addressed in the legislation but will likely be
considered in the implementation of the program. Reasons for opening the cockpit
door and leaving the cockpit during flight include flight crew meal and beverage
service, flight crew changes on long-duration flights, use of the lavatory, and
abnormal or emergency situations that require actions outside of the cockpit. Such
events may result in a physical separation between the Federal flight deck officer and
his or her firearm if the firearm is to be secured on the flight deck at all times.
Occasions when the cockpit door is opened and when the flight crew is moving about
may in fact be the most risky times with regards to a potential attack. Procedures will
need to address these various scenarios and mitigate the risks associated with opening
the cockpit door.
Costs
What will the costs to the Federal government be?
The law specifies that the Under Secretary shall be obligated to provide all
training, supervision, and equipment needed for the program at no expense to the
pilot or the air carrier employing the pilot. Thus, direct training costs will be the
obligation of the Federal Government. This will include initial training and
qualification as well as recurrent training and requalification of pilots in the program.
The Federal Government is also obligated to provide equipment needed for the
program. These equipment expenses will primarily consist of issued firearms and
ammunition as well as any equipment needed to maintain the firearms. This may
also include facilities to house firearms at airports. The Federal Government will
also incur the costs of additional background checks or screening that may be
necessary to determine the fitness of a pilot to participate in the program.

---

CRS-14
Total costs to the Federal Government for the program will be highly dependent
on the number of pilots that volunteer and qualify to participate in the program as
well as the rate at which pilots are trained and deputized. Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) cost estimates for the program were based upon earlier proposed
legislation (107th Congress, H.R. 4625) that limited participation to 2 percent of
pilots employed by air carriers. In this estimate, the CBO assumed that it would cost
about $8,000 per pilot annually to cover the costs of equipment, training, and travel.23
This figure does not include costs required to manage the program. In preparing to
implement the prototype program, TSA has indicated that it will cost about $10,400
per pilot for training and equipment. TSA has budgeted a total $500,000 to conduct
the prototype program.24 The President’s Budget for FY 2004 specifies a requested
funding level of $20M for the Federal Flight Deck Officer program. At this funding
level, about 1,500 pilots could be deputized as Federal Flight Deck Officers during
FY 2004 assuming TSA is able to conduct the background screening and training for
this number of pilots over the course of the fiscal year.
What will the costs to participants and airlines be?
The law specifies that pilots participating in the program shall not be eligible for
compensation from the Federal Government for services provided as a flight deck
officer. The law further states that the Federal Government and the air carriers shall
not be obligated to compensate the pilots for any training, qualification, or
requalification to carry firearms under this program. Consequently the pilot will not
be compensated by the Federal Government while attending training, qualification,
or requalification. While the air carriers employing pilots participating in this
program are not obligated to compensate pilots, such compensation may be a topic
for negotiations between air carriers and pilot unions. Consequently, policies may
vary from one air carrier to another. Similarly, indirect costs of training, such as
travel to and from the training site and lodging and per diem while in training, could
either be paid by the individual pilots participating in the program or by the air
carriers employing these pilots. While pilots may be able to use their access to free
airline transportation on a space available basis for travel to and from the training
site, it is likely that most other indirect costs arising from participation in the program
will be the responsibility of the pilots themselves. Given the airlines’ early
opposition to this program, it is unlikely that compensation for pilots and payment
of their indirect costs associated with participation in this program would be a
concession that airlines are likely to make in negotiations with pilots unions. This
is especially true in light of the economic difficulties facing many airlines that is
prompting them to request tax relief from the Federal Government and ask for
concessions from pilot unions and other labor groups rather than vice versa.
Consequently, in the current economic environment, pilots will most likely have to
complete training, qualification, and requalification during their own time and are
likely to pay the indirect costs for training and participating in the program out of
pocket. One issue that may arise is whether these out of pocket expenses incurred
by pilots participating in the program will be tax deductible.
23 Congressional Budget Office. “Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, H.R. 4635,
Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act.” Available at [http://www.cbo.gov]
24 Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar. Op. cit.; Sara Kehaulani Goo, “TSA Nearly Ready to Begin...”

---

CRS-15
While the law specifies that equipment cost is a Federal obligation, it is uncertain
who would pay for cockpit modifications if it is determined that such modifications
are needed to store or secure firearms used in the program onboard the aircraft. Even
if the direct costs for making such modifications are covered by the Federal
Government, air carriers may be burdened by indirect costs associated with removing
aircraft from service to make any needed modifications.
Scope of the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program
The Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act limits participation in the Federal
Flight Deck Officer Program to volunteer pilots of air carriers providing passenger
air transportation or intrastate passenger air transportation. The legislation defines
a pilot as a pilot-in-command (i.e., a captain), or a second-in-command (i.e., first
officer) when a second pilot is required, and does not include flight engineers or other
members of the flight crew not meeting this definition. From the time the legislation
was introduced, pilot organizations have argued that the program should be expanded
to include other pilots, principally pilots of cargo air carriers.
Should the Federal flight deck officer program be expanded to
include other pilots?
Proponents for arming pilots have voiced concerns that the legislative language
of the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act was not inclusive of all air carrier pilots.
Specifically, the language limits inclusion to pilots providing passenger air
transportation or intrastate passenger air transportation. Consequently, pilots of
cargo flights may not participate in the program. However, legislation (H.R. 765; S.
516; amendment to S. 165 offered by Sen. Boxer) seeks to include all-cargo air
carrier pilots among those eligible to participate in the program.
Proponents for including cargo pilots among the cadre of Federal flight deck
officers note that layers of security protection similar to those in place to protect
passenger air carrier aircraft are not required for air cargo operations. They argue that
this leaves cargo flight crews vulnerable to potential terrorist threats against cargo
aircraft, including large and heavy aircraft that could be used in an attack similar to
that launched on September 11, 2001. They suggest that this vulnerability can be
mitigated by allowing cargo air carrier pilots to participate in the program. In a
statement issued November 15, 2002, Captain David Webb chairman of Air Line
Pilot Association’s FedEx unit, expressed the following view:
A cargo aircraft is devoid of cabin attendants and air marshals. However, at
airlines such as FedEx, employees and vendors are routinely boarded. Political
maneuvering by the cargo industry has shielded them from the level of security
screening mandated for the passenger terminal. The entire burden for the security of
the aircraft rests on the two or three pilots in the cockpit. There is little we can do to
defend the aircraft against a terrorist attack. Stripping us of the ability to carry
firearms in the post-9/11 environment is an appallingly irresponsible act. And the

---

CRS-16
worst part is that it is our own managements that did this to us, with no discussion,
no warning, no justification whatsoever.25
Opponents may argue that the general public does not have authorized access to
cargo aircraft and therefore, enhanced ground-based security measures to better
protect cargo aircraft and improve screening of employees authorized to access these
aircraft would make deputizing cargo pilots as Federal flight deck officers
unnecessary. Opponents of including cargo pilots among Federal flight deck officers
may also argue that costly training for Federal flight deck officers is not needed for
cargo pilots, because the operational environment of cargo aircraft does not introduce
the same risks associated with arming pilots of passenger aircraft.26 Consequently,
a separate program, with separate standards, training, and guidelines might be more
suitable for implementation in the air cargo industry.
Besides cargo air carrier pilots, other pilots, such as on-demand air charter pilots
and pilots flying for fractional-ownership programs, may also seek participation in
the program. Proponents for including these pilots in the Federal Flight Deck Officer
Program may argue that currently there are few, if any, security protections to guard
against threats of air piracy and criminal violence in these types of aviation
operations. Arming these pilots, they may argue, may serve as the most viable means
for providing security in these highly varied operations where control of access to the
aircraft and flight deck is more difficult. Opponents of such a proposal may argue
that the inclusion of these pilots in the Federal flight deck officer program would
significantly increase the costs of the program and would lead to further proliferation
of firearms in the aviation environment that may compromise other security
initiatives.
25 ALPA news release #02.101 November 14, 2002 November 14, 2002 chairman of
ALPA’s FedEx unit, Captain David Webb, see [http://www.alpa.org]
26 Risk factors in passenger air carrier service that are not applicable to cargo air carrier
operations include the presence of large numbers of passenger on board the aircraft, carrying
firearms in controlled access areas where large numbers of people are present, and
coordination of law enforcement duties and responsibilities with Federal air marshals and
other law enforcement officers on board the aircraft.

---