Benjamin L.

Harrison
March 25, 2014
ENGL-1102-057
Evaluative Bibliography


Coalition of Airline Pilots Association. "Airline Pilots Protest Loss of FFDO Program." Airline Pilots
Protest Loss of FFDO Program. Aero News Network, 19 Apr. 2013. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.

With Obamas 2014 budget is the complete cut of the Federal Flight Deck
Officer program which trains and arms pilots who volunteer to carry a gun on the job.
The FFDO program trains pilots and other crewmembers firearm use and safety, self-
defense, and many other survival tactics. Pilot unions call the FFDO the cheapest and
most effective airline security in place. Many members of the Coalition of Airline Pilots
Association are writing letters to congress with hopes of renewed funding for the
program. The Federal Air Marshall Service costs much more than the FFDO and covers a
fraction of the flights. Many airline representatives are working to restore funding to
programs such as the FFDO that arm pilots.
This article is relevant to my project because the FFDO is one of the major
programs that arms pilots so without them most pilots could not fly armed. Without the
support of the government armed pilots will never be a legitimate source of airline
security. I think it is surprising that a government that seems to want safety at low costs
would pull funding for such a seemingly effective program. This article makes me
wonder just how effective and inexpensive the FFDO was.
I honestly dont know how credible the source is. Its not from a big-name news
agency or a highly regarded author. I dont think it has ties to any actual government
agencies but I still find it very interesting and useful for my inquiry. A big part of the
issue of arming pilots is how the pilots feel and I think this article shows that pilots
support the voluntary program to be certified to fly with a handgun. While the
credibility of the article could be questioned, I think it is still a very useful source for
providing a new perspective on the topic.

Dougherty, Jon. "Too Expensive to Arm Pilots?" WND. World Net Daily, 7 Sept. 2002. Web. 25
Mar. 2014.
Many who support arming pilots as a last line of defense believe the cost
estimates of training programs are highly inflated. Many politicians against arming
pilots have reported cost estimates to be well over realistic values in attempt to
maintain a strict anti-gun agenda. These false numbers were presented to the senate
who in turn voted down TSA budgeting to allow for more armed pilots. The numbers
they saw were derived from inefficiently long training and the assumption that all pilots
will volunteer to be trained. The senate has allowed a solid foundation for the creation
of a long-term armed pilots program. Though the Bush administration backs the
programs, they want to look into further security concerns it could cause. To make
armed pilots effective, many measures must be taken to ensure passengers with the
highest level of safety.
This article is relevant to my topic because government spending has a huge
impact on society and the nation in general. If arming pilots will substantially increase
government spending, lines must be drawn to limit the costs of arming pilots. This
article rebukes claims that the government would spend far too much on arming pilots
and says that high expense reports are deliberate attempts to kill programs that arm
pilots. I think the article makes many valid points that if you want maximum security on
an airline and you dont have all the money in the world to work with, programs like the
FFDO are extremely efficient and will not increase national debt substantially. I think
this is my best source in terms of economic impact of arming pilots. It shows that arming
pilots might not be such a burden on the American economy after all.
I know this is a credible source because it is published on a legitimate news site.
Also, I did some research on the author and he seems to be a highly regarded journalist
and war veteran. I think when it comes to security, a war veteran will have a very helpful
opinion because they have seen what it takes to maintain safety. The article used real
sources and quoted many experts in the area of what kind of money it would take to
arm pilots. I definitely think this source is very credible for my inquiry.

Frank, Thomas. "More than 10% of Pilots Allowed to Fly Armed - USATODAY.com." More than
10% of Pilots Allowed to Fly Armed - USATODAY.com. USA Today, 31 Mar. 2008. Web. 24 Mar.
2014.

Over 10% of American pilots fly armed and according to the TSA that number
will keep rising. Though they wont release the actual number of armed pilots and
crewmembers, the TSA did reveal that 10.8% of airline crewmembers are certified to fly
with a firearm. The Federal Air Marshall Service does not disclose exact numbers, but
they say that 85 to 90 thousand crewmembers can fly armed which puts the number of
armed pilots just under one thousand. The TSA expects the number of air marshals to
grow by 16.5% by 2011. Many pilots and others who work in aviation did not expect the
number of armed pilots to be so high. Many people project armed pilot numbers to
continue to rise as fears of terrorist attacks grows.
This article is relevant to my topic because it shows the number and expected
statistics on armed pilots. If I am going to see how armed pilots could change things in
the world, I need to understand how many pilots already fly armed. I think this article
complements my research very well because I need to understand the numbers in order
to see what growth of armed pilot programs could do in America. I think the source
does a great job of pooling statistics from credible sources but I dont think they really
proved a point. As a source for inquiry, I would rather have something that really shapes
how I feel about my topic and this doesnt really do that at all.
I know this is a credible source because it is published on the website of USA
Today. USA Today is a national news network that would not publish anything that was
not written by someone with ability and experience. The article uses statistics from
legitimate agencies and organizations so I know the facts are there. Overall I think this is
a very good source for understanding the history of armed pilots.


Human Events. "Armed Pilots and Dead Terrorists." Human Events. N.p., 17 Nov. 2009. Web. 25
Mar. 2014.

The events of 9/11 created a new type of airborne terror. The airline community
must change to prevent further attacks. The Federal Flight Deck Officers (FFDO)
program was created by the Bush administration to amplify the efforts of the Federal Air
Marshall Service in its fight on airborne terror. The White House is rumored to have
plans to de-fund the FFDO program. This could really hurt national security and should
not happen. There are many other things that provide safety to plane passengers so
why not protect them even further? The media has fought the idea of arming pilots by
saying a bullet leaving the plane could destroy the plane under the pressure of flight but
that theory is proven wrong. Politics also plays a role in the opposition of arming pilots.
Anti-gun policy makers see armed pilots as something they dont want on their no-gun
agenda. Politics should not be able to affect the safety of citizens. Many pilots are ex-
military so they are trained with a firearm and understand the idea of the war on terror.
This article is very relevant to my topic in the sense that it provides an example
of an opinion on arming pilots. The article shares many opinions on why arming pilots is
necessary to fight airborne terror and addresses the concerns of many who oppose the
notion. The thing I wish the source had was more reasons people object to armed pilots.
The author(s) was clearly in favor of arming pilots and so they did not bring up many
ways people see armed pilots as a bad thing. I think this would be useful to make the
author seem less biased. A truly credible source should contain the least bias possible so
this article could definitely be improved for its use as a source of inquiry.
I do know that the article is still credible as a source for inquiry. Although it does
contain bias, the article still addresses many valid points and backs those points with
examples. The article was published on a very popular conservative news site so I figure
it was written by professionals who know the facts and are paid to write articles. I also
noticed ads on the site for the NRA and other significant agencies so someone legitimate
believes that this content reflects them well and spends the money to be associated
with them. This definitely makes the article more credible in my eyes.





Stromberg, Stephen W. "Armed Pilots: A Risk Worth Taking?" Armed Pilots: A Risk Worth
Taking? | Opinion |. The Harvard Crimson, 18 Oct. 2001. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
Now that 9/11 is in the past, people want to make sure to prevent a future
attack of similar nature. Lawmakers recently proposed arming pilots to combat
terrorism. The proposal by Air Line Pilots Association president Duane Woerth consists
of FBI training for pilots that makes them a federal agent that could carry a firearm
within the cockpit of a plane. This plan is far more dangerous than other, more thought-
through plans. Politicians agree that there are definitely better alternatives to arming
pilots such as reinforcing cockpit doors. In a plane, a gun is a terrible idea. If the pilot
missed or even fired it would put many passengers in danger because of the close
quarters of the plane. A pilot with a stun-gun eliminates the risk of shooting a passenger
and doesnt require killing anyone while being just as effective. A short FBI training
could not truly prepare a pilot with no close-range firearm experience. The thought of
flying on a plane where the pilot is the security guard is not a good one. It is terrifying.
This article is extremely relevant to my topic because it looks at my issue from
the opposition. This is one of the first sensible, well-written articles Ive read in
opposition to arming pilots with a handgun. The author does a great job of using quotes
from Republicans that oppose armed pilots so that people dont think democrats are
simply opposing to be on the contrary to a largely republican ideal. He makes his points
briefly but they have a lot of weight that comes with them. The author really makes his
points short but very on-topic. He never goes on about his ideas in angry opposition to
the notion of armed pilots. He simply writes his points and gets on with it. Ive never
read an article where I felt like Im listening rather than reading as much as this one. I do
wonder if he thinks more training could prepare pilots to be effective and not a danger
to passengers while toting a gun. He says the training is too short but never talks about
better, more extensive training as a possible solution.
I know this is a credible source because it is published on the Harvard Crimsons
website and was written by a well-known and widely liked journalist for Harvard
University. I can also tell it is a credible source because of the way it is written. While it
may not be the best indicator of credibility, when an article is clearly written by an
uneducated, misinformed author it loses a lot of credibility in my eyes. If Im reading
something and want to learn from it I want to make sure Im reading knowledgeable
information and not a mindless rant from a pissed of citizen. Though Im not saying
Americans are not educated enough to write a sensible argument on the topic, I just
think Stromberg does a great job of showing that he has a very good education in his
writing which makes him much more credible as an author.