HOME / flatfoot: An NYPD detective's eye on crime.

Air TimeLet's put a cop on every flight.

By Lucas MillerPosted Thursday, Sept. 20, 2001, at 11:30 PM ET

Like everyone else, I have been trying to think of steps that could be taken to prevent future airliner hijackings. Here's an easy suggestion that lies within conventional law enforcement: Place an armed police officer on nearly every commercial airplane. The attorney general has already announced an increase in the assignment of sky marshals to flights. But with over 35,000 flights a day, the nation's 4,000 U.S. marshals will be able to man only a small portion of the planes in the air. Other federal agencies would lend a hand, but even the FBI has only 11,500 agents. In contrast, this country has 700,000 police officers.

RSS

This system would require training, clearance of a few legal hurdles, and a new coordination system, but those are relatively painless and inexpensive tasks. Other solutions proposed so far—replacing incompetent security guards, installing new passenger-identification technology—are expensive. Besides, most of these measures stop at the airport gate: If a terrorist slips past, the passengers and crew are completely exposed. This is why Israelis have, for years, placed an armed undercover agent on their flights.

Consider the approach taken by the Long Island Rail Road. In 1993, a passenger named Colin Ferguson shot 26 people, killing six of them, because of "black rage." Since then, police officers from New York have been able to take the train for free, identifying themselves to the conductors. There's already some precedent for a similar program on airlines: Right now, when a federal agent checks in for a commercial flight, he identifies himself and notifies the pilot that he is armed. With a little organization, we could build a system that would cover most major U.S. flights.

Cops are proficient in the use of firearms, which is what would be needed to face multiple hijackers armed with knives. It's harder to fight someone with a knife than you might think. I have been taught methods both in the police academy and in karate class: One can attack the knife-wielder when his arm is extended or use the meaty part of one's weaker forearm to absorb a strike—in other words, to get slashed—and then seize the weapon with the stronger arm. But both my academy and karate instructors ended such lessons with a warning: "Prepare to get cut."

The reaction of most police officers would be to shoot a knife-wielding attacker (the guidelines for the use of lethal force for every law-enforcement agency that I know of authorize such a reaction). Because of the dangerous nature of an airborne plane, I would venture to say that a cop could legally use deadly force in a greater range of incidents on-board. For instance, anyone physically attacking the pilot would be fair game.

Police officers involved in shootings hit their targets with roughly one out of three bullets fired. This sounds like we are lousy shots, but that is much, much better than the general public, criminals included. And presumably an officer on a plane would not be facing well-armed assailants. In the case of Tuesday's attack, even a bad marksman might have saved many lives.

Of course, bringing a gun onto a plane is dangerous, no matter who's carrying it. The on-board cops would need special ammunition, designed to avoid breaching the fuselage (a brand called Glaser Safety Slugs is supposedly lethal to humans but not airplanes). And cops are already well-trained to prevent attackers from taking their guns. In short, you must secure the weapon in its holster and deliver a strike, perhaps to the eyes, taking advantage of the position of the attacker's busy hands. If an officer feels that he is in danger of actually losing possession of the weapon, using it on the attacker is justified.

Of course, these techniques aren't foolproof. The officer would have to ride in the cockpit or immediately outside, and stay there except when necessary. Contact with passengers would have to be limited so as to protect the cop from ambush. Or cops could check in discreetly and remain unidentified to the passengers. This would increase the deterrent effect of the program, though the terrorists might be savvy enough about American police officers to "make" one anyway (the drug dealers I used to chase had little trouble recognizing me as I strolled on their block trying to look nonchalant).

Police officers registered in this program would devote a period of time to the airline—perhaps a 48-hour period each month. In return, they would receive travel vouchers good for free flying (additional payment would help encourage participation, too). The airlines would have to maintain a national database of qualified police officers, including photos and other identifying information. Each officer would have to attend training both in the proper procedures for taking law-enforcement action on an airplane as well as the more mundane procedures of the conventional crew of an airplane. Laws would have to be changed to give the police jurisdiction in the air above states other than their own.

Having cops on planes would not make America immune to the dangers of terrorism. But such a program might well have prevented last Tuesday's attacks. Some might think my proposal is self-serving, but I can assure them that I will not be participating in my program; I was already afraid of flying.

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

Lucas Miller is an NYPD detective.

COMMENTS

Reader Comments From The Fray:

[Notes from the Fray Editor: Many posters were ready to volunteer for plane security duty, not all of them cops or military. William D. Strinden MD said: "Is there any doubt that if there were fifteen common citizens legally carrying concealed weapons that the hijackings would have been foiled?... Society trusts me to prescribe narcotics yet does not trust me to defend my fellow citizens in many cities in America." A few posters discussed the best place for an armed cop to be sitting.]

Marshals and flight crews should be equipped with weapons to temporarily disable hijackers and other miscreants--that way they won't be afraid to use them! Pepper spray, taser-like stun guns (with only a few charges in them) and other non-lethal, but quite disabling weapons could be freely used against hijackers to render them helpless long enough for the superior numbers of passengers and flight crews to overpower them permanently. A few innocent bystanders could quickly be comforted with standard first aid.

At the same time, the temporary and limited nature of such weapons would make them much less helpful to hijackers who need to keep a plane full of people controlled long enough to do something evil with it. I'd far prefer getting pepper-sprayed or temporarily stunned to riding a hijacked plane into a building. I bet I've got plenty of company. We don't need guns. We need common sense

--Ken Erfourth

(To reply, click here.)

When an idea seems so bright, there's usually a reason no-one has thought of it before. In our rush to make ourselves feel better by dreaming up 100 ways that, in retrospect, we can prevent last Tuesday's tragedy, isn't the best way to make policy. Tightened access to secure areas in airports? I'm all for it. Bullet-proofing the cockpit door? Well, unless the weight sinks the plane, I'm all for that too. But what I can't get behind is putting people with guns on planes on purpose.

Guns mean accidents, and accidents mean that flights may, statistically, be no safer with armed guards than without them. It seems to me far more likely that a disruptive passenger is going to get out of hand and get taken down than that a terrorist attack would occur. Further, if a terrorist were to get onboard, it's unclear to me that (1) it's true that the terrorist wouldn't disarm the guard and then be gifted with a gun; (2) that the terrorist would actually be taken down, or (3) that a lot of people on the plane aren't just going to get killed in the ensuing fray. Remember, the idea that killing a bunch of innocent American passengers is better than taking out thousands of innocent American workers on the ground is only an effective and fair decision when those are indeed the options; when, as is often the case in a hijacking, the hijacker wants the plane or the hostage rather than to give his life in a firery crash, the actual life trade-off may not favor an onboard gun battle.

Further, the Israeli analogy is inapt. To the best of my knowledge (and I confess that I am not a terrorism buff), the armed Israeli plane police have never disarmed, shot, or otherwise thwarted an onboard terrorist, so taking comfort in their presence is likely unwarranted…

--Deborah

(To reply, click here.)

I would suggest using retired cops, and maybe retired military. You would have well trained men and women in their late 40s to early 50s who would be ready to go with a short refresher course. Then you could place more than one on each flight and greatly reduce the risk of an attempted hijacking.

--Jerry

(To reply, click here.)

(9/24)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES