After the events of September 11, nearly every American has thought about what it would be like to be on board an airline flight during a terrorist attack. We imagine ourselves on one of the hijacked planes and feel a surge of fear. The adrenaline rushes, the heart pounds, we go pale. If we allow the panic to escalate, we begin to feel desperate: Somebody do something! These understandable feelings of fear and desperation have moved people to argue that we should arm commercial airline pilots. Certainly it is reassuring to imagine pilots as our protectors, the last defense against crazed passengers bent on harm. Certainly we should take all reasonable measures to safeguard flights. However, is it really a good idea to let pilots act as gun-toting cowboys in the sky? When one considers the possible consequence of arming pilots, this policy does not seem at all prudent.

Commercial airline pilots should concentrate on flying the plane rather than acting out a fantasy that may well turn into a nightmare. A well-trained extremist could conceivably disarm a pilot. A terrorist could also use a passenger as a human shield. In this case, what would the pistol-packing pilot do? Should he or she shoot the passenger in hopes of getting at the terrorist? Say the pilot did get a shot at someone who is bent on harm. What if the pilot misses and the stray bullet hits a passenger or else punctures the plane and causes decompression? Even though some pilots are war veterans trained to use guns, nobody can really predict what will happen in a deadly crisis situation.

What happened on September 11 occurred because pilots lost control of their planes. This could be prevented by measures that are less risky than providing pilots with guns. Cockpit doors should be kept securely barred during flights. Security checks need to take place just before passengers board flights. Flight attendants should be trained in hand-to-hand combat. At airport checkpoints, we need to use devices that can effectively detect explosives. What we don't need, however, is pilots firing on whomever comes into the cockpit, or pilots who leave the helm in order to fire off a pistol in a cabin filled with innocent bystanders.

Should all precautionary measures fail, we still do not need to provide pilots with guns: The terrorists who planned the September 11 attack did not anticipate resistance, and on some flights they did not meet with it. Their mission of terror failed, however, when on a plane flying over Pennsylvania, courageous passengers put up a fight. If the terrorists had anticipated such resistance, they probably might not have attempted that particular mission. Although a well-trained extremist may be capable of disarming a pilot with a gun, he or she will not likely subdue a cabin full of feisty passengers who are ready to spring into action. We are ready to do battle now. At the very least, we are primed to hurl purses and briefcases at anybody attempting to bring down our flight.

With all of these low-risk obstacles to terrorism in place, why court an unfortunate accident by arming pilots? If terrorists strike again, they will probably find a way to hit us where we're not anticipating it. The "success" of September 11 depended upon our inability to imagine the kind of hijacker who would give his or her life in order to bring about mass destruction. If terrorists strike again, they will most likely exploit a blind spot rather than attempting to strike where we have already become more wary. In conclusion, the move to arm pilots is possibly dangerous, and from a psychological standpoint, the measure embraces fear and paranoia.