Arming Pilots Won’t Improve Security

“Arming Pilots Is the Best Way to Get Air Security” (Commentary, March 11), by John Lott, is misguided. Here are some simple questions: What’s a pilot’s job? Fly the plane. What’s not a pilot’s job? Dealing with passengers.

The cockpit door shouldn’t be opened--period. Should an “event” occur, putting the plane on the ground should be the highest priority. Providing a pilot with a gun just makes it more likely the door will be opened; to stop people from coming into the cockpit, the door just needs to be tougher.

If Lott really feels that putting a gun in a tight space filled with innocents will make travel safer, the flight attendants would be a better choice; they are the front line and would be aware of any disturbance before pilots.

This discussion is a distraction from making travel safer--another feel-good move like placing the National Guard at the airport. To be safer, for starters, how about giving the Guard a pink slip and using the money saved for more sophisticated X-ray machines and building a passenger database that integrates with the FBI, INS and CIA watch lists?

Andrew Wiens

South Pasadena

*

Re “The Fallout of Desperation,” Commentary, March 12: Robert Scheer claims that aircraft terrorism would best be met by “taking the modest steps of maintaining armed air marshals on civilian aircraft and employing better-trained airport security guards.” I wonder how long it has been since he lost touch with reality?

To put two marshals on each plane would require a force approaching the size of the Marine Corps. Turnover would be high because of the boredom. Airlines don’t want to give away seats they could be selling. It’s a pipe dream.

If Scheer himself trained for and took a job as a security guard and was paid $500,000 per year, within a short period of time we would find his performance to be no better than what we have now. The boredom of the work would degrade his best intentions.

Walt Miglinas

Marina del Rey