Atthat time, the Bush administration voiced initial opposition to the concept of arming pilots withlethal weapons. 107-296 . Debate over the issue of arming pilots focused on the benefits, risks, and costs associated with implementing the program. Proponents, principally pilots and pilot unions, argued that the potentialbenefits of deterring or thwarting terrorist and criminal acts against passenger aircraft outweighedthe inherent risks associated with arming pilots. Opponents of policy allowing pilots to be armedwith lethal weapons, including the airlines and several prominent aviation safety experts, argued thatsuch a program's safety risks and monetary costs outweighed these potential benefits. Key riskscited by critics of the program include: 
Added workload and responsibilities associated with participation in the program that may distract pilots from primary flying duties and safety-relatedfunctions;
Risks of a firearm discharge to innocent passengers or aircraft structure andsystems; and
A proliferation of firearms on aircraft and in secured areas of the aviationsystem that is counter to other security objectives. All-cargo pilots were initiallyexcluded from the program in the final wording of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 ( P.L.107-296 ). This provision expands the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program to includeother flight crew members such as flight engineers and to flight crew members flying for all-cargoair carriers. Implementation Issues

Implementation of the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program requires assessments of thestandards and guidelines for: 1) pilot selection and screening; 2) equipment; 3) training; 4)operational procedures; and 5) costs. The Act specifies that the training of a Federal flight deck officer shall include: 
Training to ensure that the Federal flight deck officer attains a level of proficiency with a firearm comparable to the level of proficiency required of Federal airmarshals;
Training to ensure that the officer maintains exclusive control over the officer'sfirearm at all times, including training in defensive maneuvers; and
Training to assist the officer in determining when it is appropriate to use theofficer's firearm and when it is appropriate to use less than lethal force. Simple designs may be easily approved and implemented. This will includeinitial training and qualification as well as recurrent training and re-qualification of pilots in theprogram. The Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2004 ( P.L.108-90 , 117 Stat. Proponents for arming pilots voiced concerns that the legislative language of the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act did not include all air carrier pilots. However, aprovision in the FAA reauthorization legislation ( P.L. There is little we can do to defend the aircraft against a terroristattack.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 ( P.L. 107-296 , 116 Stat. 2135) contains provisions to arm pilots of passenger aircraft and gives deputized pilots the authority to use force,including lethal force, to defend the flight deck against criminal and terrorist threats. Participationin the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program, established under the Arming Pilots Against TerrorismAct contained in P.L. 107-296 , was initially limited to pilots of passenger aircraft. However, aprovision in the FAA reauthorization act (Vision 100; P.L. 108-176 , 117 Stat. 2490) expanded theprogram to include flight engineers as well as flight crews of all-cargo aircraft.
During debate over legislation to arm pilots, proponents argued that the potential benefits of deterring or thwarting terrorist and criminal acts against passenger aircraft outweighed the inherentrisks associated with arming pilots. However, opponents of policy allowing pilots to be armed withlethal weapons argued that such a program's safety risks and monetary costs significantlyoutweighed these potential benefits. Risks cited included potential distraction to the flight crew,dangers that a weapon discharge could pose to the aircraft or its occupants, and security concernsassociated with carrying firearms in secured areas of the aviation system. Proponents countered thatthese risks could be effectively mitigated, but recognized that these are important issues to beaddressed for successful implementation of the policy to arm pilots.
With enactment of this legislation, focus on the issue of arming pilots has turned to implementation of the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program. These implementation issues fall intofour broad categories: 1) pilot selection and screening; 2) equipment (i.e., firearms and ammunitionand the risks they may pose to aircraft and passengers); 3) training; and 4) operational procedures. This report describes several implementation issues within each of these areas that may requirecontinued legislative oversight and possible clarification regarding the intent of the legislation. TheTSA has fully implemented the program over the last year. However, continued concerns voiced bypilot groups over the implementation of the program include: the extensive background checksrequired of applicants; the requirement to transport issued firearms in lock boxes; and theinconvenient location of training facilities. These issues, along with the possibility of using privatecontractors to provide recurrent training for deputized pilots may be the topics of continuedcongressional oversight.
This report will not be updated.