jetPilots.com

Congressman Cliff Stearns on Cargo Pilot Security March 4, 2003: Addressing the differences in security among cargo pilots.

​

Mr. Speaker, at few other times has national security been more important. In the 107th Congress, we enacted many pieces of legislation that sought to strengthen the weakness of our homeland security. That weakness was apparent on 9-11. Yet, Mr. Speaker, a lot remains.

I rise today to address the security of our airline pilots and the fact that there seems to be serious differences in the scope of security that exist between different types of pilots, namely the cargo pilots.

Tens of thousands of cargo pilots are not able to enjoy the same level of security that has been put into place for many of the pilots of our Nation's passenger airlines. Little attention has been given to thousands of cargo jets that dot American skies each day. Terrorists are going to look for the path of least resistance, much like water; and it is merely a matter of time before men realize that their chances for success are higher in the cargo wing of an airport, where security is significantly 
more relaxed.

With the passage of the homeland security bill, passenger pilots were given the right to carry arms, but for some reason this same security measure has not been afforded to our Nation's cargo pilots.

If compromised, some cargo jets could become significantly more dangerous than those of the planes used on September 11. With increased fuel payloads and oftentimes dangerous cargos in their hulls, the impact from one of these jets would be devastating.

In recent months I have received several letters from cargo pilots in my district. These men and women are concerned that they are not getting the same attention as their passenger airline counterparts.

Cargo pilots fly the skies alone without the protection of Federal sky marshals or the possible support of a flight crew or hundreds of passengers. These pilots are in dire need of a last-ditch defense that will protect the cockpit, their cargo, and potentially thousands of lives on the ground.

The pilots of major cargo carriers, like UPS and Federal Express, are concerned and have voiced the fact that they no longer feel safe. Many of these jets weigh upwards of 800,000 pounds and carry over 50,000 gallons of fuel. The impact created by one of these planes would be unimaginable.

I feel that the message has been sent to potential terrorists who realize this and that we need to do something to protect innocent lives.

The FAA desires one level of security for all pilots, and I feel it necessary we should provide it for the cargo pilots. 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 two or three pilots who are in that cockpit.

There is little cargo pilots can do to defend the aircraft against a terrorist [Page: H1476] attack. Stripping these men and women of the ability to carry firearms in the post 9-11 environment is not right.

It is time that we address this obvious loophole in cargo security. In a maneuver that seemingly took place at the eleventh hour, the word ``passenger'' was inserted in the House bill's provision for arming pilots, and a similar change took place in the Senate version shortly thereafter. The effect of this single-word change is that it exempts all cargo carriers from the Federal mandate to arm pilots in a bill intended to enhance the pilot's ability to protect the airplane.

I feel that this back-room deal defies the initial intent of the bill and the will of our Congress. This body voted overwhelmingly to mandate firearms for all airplane pilots, not just those in the passenger service. We displayed our bipartisan support for this mandate with votes of 310 to 113 in the House and 87 to 6 in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to fix this disparity and close the loophole once and for all so that all pilots in this country enjoy the same level of security. 
END