protect the security of the airplane.”

protect the security of the airplane.” He felt they had to provide enough security in front of the airplane and not depend on the pilot to subdue the hijacker.

Use of a gun requires a lot of training. As it is pilots go through a regular regime of training and schooling, and he wouldn’t want to add another whole level of training.

He was also uneasy for another reason. “ Maybe ten percent of the guys flying — I wouldn’t want them to have guns.”

He knew there would be no easy solutions for the whole airplane security issue.

Sky marshals are on airplanes and are armed.

That’s part of a solution.

He wasn’t sure stun guns with flight attendants were a solution and he saw lots of problems there as well. Views of current pilots

Several of the flight attendants and pilots living in Rappahannock and currently flying were not allowed to voice their opinion on this issue.

These two pilots didn’t have this difficulty and were willing to share their thoughts.

Jim Humbles of Washington, flies a United Airbus.

He thinks guns are a great idea in the cockpit.

The Government’s position, he said, is that pilots need to concentrate on getting the plane on the ground and not worry about defending the cockpit. Mr. Humbles feels that pilots are really good at multi-tasking.

He said that because pilots are being tested all the time as it is, the new weapons training and testing could be incorporated into the nine-month training cycle they’re on now.

As an economic reason he offered the possibility that pilots with weapons would reduce the number of sky marshals needed. He argued that it would be impossible to put a Marshall on every flight. “With over 40,000 flights every day, you'd need a force larger than the marine corps.”

“It would be so easy to do,” he said. As it is now on United, people from the forestry service or treasury can carry a gun on board with them as long as United has a letter

See PILOT, Page B10

S