Shootout at the Victor Airway Corral

             The simplest solutions are often the most complicated. In the early morning of September 11th, 2001, four American airliners were hijacked and flown into the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon, and a small field outside of a sleepy Pennsylvania town. After the initial shock and rescue efforts had abated, the country reflected on how something like this could have happened. Some would say that the "knee-jerk" response to this problem of protecting our airways was to arm the pilots; but guns are not the resolution to every security problem. .
             The U.S. Department of Transportation and other federal agencies have always believed that allowing pilots to carry weapons onto their flights only served to place those weapons closer to anyone who might use them for a bad purpose. They figured that guns in the cockpit created more of a risk than a benefit (Hicks). Even the Air Lines Pilot Association's (ALPA) own Security Committee Chairman recommended in a 2000 newsletter on air rage to "not threaten someone with the crash axe or other dangerous object. The aggressor can take it away from you and use it to his or her advantage. If you must select a weapon to save your life and the lives of your passengers, be mentally and physically prepared to use it- (Luckey). .
             If authorities have long believed in keeping weapons out of the cockpit, why change their minds now? It is well known that the events of 9-11 changed many things about the way we look at aviation security, but why is the automatic response to tighten security on the plane and in the air? What about the security before take-off? It is certain that airport security should be the primary focus here, not guns in the cockpit. The tragic events of 9-11 reversed many assumptions, assumptions that should not have been made in the first place; but now, even more tragic assumptions are being made. The major assumption being that another hijacking will occur.