Cravaack proposes doubling funds for armed pilot program

Minnesota Rep. Chip Cravaack wants to expand a program that allows specially-trained commercial pilots to carry guns in the cockpit.
Rep. Chip CravaackRep. Chip Cravaack

“This is a challenge for us: the FFDO program is not expanding,” he said. “We are introducing this bill and we will lobby hard for this program.”

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (5)

  1. Submitted by James Hamilton on 03/23/2012 - 02:23 pm.

    Can passengers choose not to fly

    with an armed crew? Perhaps Rep. Craavack would like to re-consider in light of recent vigilante events in Florida.

  2. Submitted by Rachel Kahler on 03/23/2012 - 04:06 pm.

    If pilots pay for the license, why should there be a governmental cost at all? The license should cover the costs. I don’t see where we need ANY federal money for this. Having been through airport security a handful of times since 9/11, I’d say we’re doing more than enough (read excessively) to make it reasonably safe to be a pilot. Pilots are behind locked doors now, anyway. It seems to me that being certified to carry a gun on a plane as a pilot is a personal choice. In fact, it seems to me that carrying a gun into the cabin of a plane is simply providing a weapon for a potential terrorist to use.

  3. Submitted by Bernice Vetsch on 03/24/2012 - 11:06 am.

    Guns are not necessary

    now that the doors to cockpits are heavily reinforced with steel and are kept locked. The 9/11 perpetrators were able to succeed only because the cockpit doors were open.

  4. Submitted by Patrick Tice on 03/24/2012 - 08:47 pm.

    An accident waiting to happen

    Carrying a firearm into the cockpit is not necessary, as Bernice suggests. The problem with firearms in general is that they are dangerous (duh) and thus must be handled with care. Sky Marshals whose job it is to provide security and who train regularly with their firearms should be the ones with the guns. Pilots, who would only carry guns incidental to their many other duties, are more likely to become complacent, which could cause an accidental discharge in the pressurized cabin.

  5. Submitted by Beryl John-Knudson on 03/25/2012 - 11:55 am.

    Talk about significant or self-indulgent legislation, Cravaak?

    And mine, sidebar issue maybe… but does Cravaack, former pilot, now carry a gun when he flies as a commuting congressman…and does he have a quick temper? Just wondering?

    Be it gun or box-cutter…if in the wrong hands, it’s a dangerous object. Used for protective purposes… or recreation where humans are not an intended object; another issue…but. it all comes down to the mind of the holder.

    Authorize as self defense in the cockpit assumes the same variables? The use and abuse of a gun depends on the ‘holder’ pilot, copilot or even over zealous passenger?

    Regulations, authorizations simply applied to an organization or individuals, also involves objective/subjective perceptions, evaluations by ‘authorities’ …and then too, like a necessary watchdog, come civil liberties abuse?

    Whee, I’m stopping before I rattle too many secondary cages and start to disagree with my original premise; which was what again?…have a nice day.

Leave a Reply