Most, if not all, domestic US flights are to have 鈥渁ir marshals鈥� carrying firearms on board, President George W Bush confirmed on Thursday. This, and other airline security measures, follow the suicide hijackings on 11 September. President Bush made the announcement to airline workers in Chicago, but did not support the idea of arming pilots, as recommended on Wednesday by the US Airline Pilots Association. However, installing any weapons on aeroplanes is a gamble, say experts, and could actually increase the risk to passengers.
鈥淭he plans are perhaps going to cause an even bigger problem,鈥� says Edward Downs, a commercial aircraft pilot and editor of the industry publication, Jane鈥檚 Avionics.
鈥淥nce you have introduced weapons, they could get into the wrong hands and then you have armed the terrorists. We go to a lot of effort to make sure weapons don鈥檛 get onto planes,鈥� he says.
Advertisement
Punching holes
Ordinary firearms would cause an aeroplane to depressurise if its hull is pierced. Aircraft are not well armoured because they are designed to be light. If punctured, the aeroplane would have to drop altitude or even perform an emergency landing.
Air marshals may therefore be armed with bullets designed to restrict damage to the aircraft, by not passing through a target. The most widely used shell of this type, the Glaser Safety Slug, has a soft plastic tip and a compressed core. This design makes the slug travel more slowly and spread out, without splintering. These are thought to be carried by guards on El-Al flights to and from Israel.
鈥淣on-shoot-through鈥� bullets were first developed for use in a crowed area, so that a round would not pass through a target and hit an innocent bystander. But some weapons experts say even these bullets may still cause damage to an aircraft.
Eran Bauer, managing director of the Civil Defence Supply, which supplies weapons to the British military and police, says: 鈥淭he problem is that all parts of an aircraft is susceptible to puncture.鈥�
鈥淭here is also the possibility of hitting a vital person or vital electronics on the plane,鈥� he told New Scientist.
50,000 volts
Bauer suggests that electric 鈥淭aser鈥� stun guns may be more suitable. He says that some US airlines have been considering the use of these for some time. Taser guns fire two probes that deliver a 50,000 volt shock to an assailant up to 20 metres away.
Even these may be too much of a risk, however. Downs believes that Taser guns could cause serious disruption to an aircraft鈥檚 electronic navigation equipment if fired in the cockpit.
Instead, Downs suggests that airport security and passenger screening be improved. He also believes that more secure cockpit doors could improve on-board security.
These measures are included in the Bush administration鈥檚 plans. The federal government will be in charge of many aspects of passenger screening and airport security. Government funding of $500 million will allow cockpit doors to be redesigned and new access procedures put in place.