GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Committees

September 2000 AVIATION SECURITY

Additional Controls 

Needed to Address 

Weaknesses in 

Carriage of Weapons 

Regulations

GAO/RCED-00-181

Page 1 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: Comments From the Department of

Transportation 26

Appendix II: Comments From the Federal Law Enforcement

Officers Association 39

Appendix III: Comments From the Fraternal Order of Police 42

Tables Table 1: Comparison of Key Provisions of the Existing and

Proposed Regulations Governing Carriage of Weapons

Aboard Aircraft 9

Abbreviations

ASRS Aviation Safety Reporting System

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations

DOT Department of Transportation

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

GAO General Accounting Office

ITS International Total Services
Page 2 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security
Page 3 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-285597 Letr

September 29, 2000

Congressional Committees

Federal aviation security regulations prohibit passengers from carrying 

firearms and other dangerous items, such as explosives and flammable 

liquids, on board commercial aircraft. The prohibition against these items 

is intended to protect the traveling public from terrorism and other acts of 

violence as well as from safety threats posed by substances that could 

ignite or explode in the pressurized environment of an aircraft. However, in 

some cases, law enforcement officers may have a mission-related need 

requiring them to travel with dangerous weapons, such as firearms. As a 

result, regulations permit federal, state, and local law enforcement officers 

to carry firearms and other normally prohibited items with them on 

commercial airlines.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recognizes that when firearms 

are on board aircraft, even when in the possession of trained law 

enforcement officers, there is the potential for the firearms to be misused. 

The agency’s guidance on the carriage of weapons notes that a misplaced 

bullet could result in fire, damage to an aircraft’s hydraulics system or 

engine, or injury to an innocent person. During the past 8 years, FAA’s 

carriage of weapons task force has been discussing how to make weapons 

carriage by law enforcement officers safer, and, in 1997, FAA proposed 

changes to the weapons carriage regulation intended to reduce the number 

of weapons carried on board by law enforcement officers and to clarify the 

requirements in the existing regulation.
B-285597

Page 4 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

In anticipation of FAA’s proposed weapons carriage regulations and in light 

of our recent work on aviation security, we are providing this information 

because of your jurisdiction over aviation security and law enforcement 

matters.1

 Our objectives in this report were to determine the frequency 

with which law enforcement officers carry weapons on board commercial 

aircraft and to determine if the weapons carriage regulations—both current 

and proposed—are sufficient to ensure the safety of passengers and the 

security of aircraft. To achieve these objectives, we interviewed 

representatives from FAA, the 10 major airlines, and 3 law enforcement 

officer associations.2

 We also reviewed FAA’s current and proposed 

weapons carriage regulations and the comments that FAA received in 

response to the proposed changes to the regulation. Finally, we searched a 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) database that 

contains voluntary reports of incidents related to aviation safety to find 

problems associated with weapons carried by law enforcement officers on 

board aircraft.

Results in Brief The number of law enforcement officers who fly while armed is unknown 

because neither FAA nor the airlines systematically collect this 

information. However, we obtained anecdotal information that provides 

some perspective on the number of officers who fly while armed. For 

example, one U.S. carrier reported to us that it carried over 3,000 armed 

law enforcement officers each month during a 3-month period. Another 

U.S. carrier reported to us that it carried about 100 officers each month 

during an 8-month period. We are recommending that FAA work with the 

airlines to collect and assess information on how frequently law 

enforcement officers carry firearms on board aircraft. At a minimum, this 

information will enable FAA to assess the extent to which the agency is 

achieving its goal of reducing weapons carried by law enforcement officers 

on commercial aircraft.

1

See Aviation Security: Vulnerabilities Still Exist in the Aviation Security System (GAO/TRCED/AIMD-00-142, Apr. 6, 2000) and (GAO/T-RCED-00-125, Mar. 16, 2000).

2

We interviewed officials from the following airlines: Alaska, America West, American, 

Continental, Delta, Northwest, Southwest, TWA, United, and US Airways. We also 

interviewed officials from the National Sheriffs Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, 

and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. 
B-285597

Page 5 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

Recognizing that weapons legally carried onto aircraft by law enforcement 

officers may present a threat to safety, FAA has proposed changes to 

strengthen the regulation governing weapons carriage and to minimize the 

number of officers carrying weapons on board commercial aircraft. When 

finalized, these changes should result in safety improvements in certain 

aspects of weapons carriage. However, we believe that neither the current 

nor the proposed regulation addresses several remaining problems, some 

of which may arise due to simple human error. Specifically, we identified 

the following weaknesses: (1) There are no safeguards to help ensure that 

firearms are removed from an aircraft when law enforcement officers 

deplane, raising the potential for these weapons to be used by unauthorized 

persons if they are left behind and thereby creating safety and security 

concerns. Our query of one aviation safety database and our interviews 

with FAA officials identified three incidents in which law enforcement 

officers left behind or misplaced their weapons on board aircraft or in 

secure areas of an airport. (2) Federal law enforcement officers are not 

required to document their need to fly while armed, despite some airline 

representatives’ concerns that federal law enforcement officers are flying 

with their firearms without having a legitimate mission-related need. (3) 

Law enforcement officers who have notified an airline that they will be 

flying with firearms are not required to have their carry-on luggage 

screened, enabling them to carry items that may be inimical to the safety of 

the flight, such as oxygen bottles, lighter fluid, or tear gas. Almost all other 

passengers, including the pilots of the aircraft, must be screened. (4) There 

is no procedure for verifying the credentials of law enforcement officers 

flying while armed; a recent GAO investigation found that falsified law 

enforcement credentials could be used to receive authorization from 

airlines to fly while armed.3

FAA is working with the law enforcement community and with airlines to 

implement a secure memory card system to better verify law enforcement 

officers’ identity. This technology, which is currently in use by other 

establishments, may provide a means to address several of the gaps we 

have identified. Information stored in the cards’ memory, which would be 

accessed through a specialized reader, could include the law enforcement 

officers’ name, employing agency, and firearms training status. This system 

would also enable FAA to document the extent to which firearms are 

carried on board aircraft. We are recommending that FAA work with 

airlines and the law enforcement community to implement a secure 

3

See Security: Breaches at Federal Agencies and Airports (GAO/T-OSI-00-10, May 25, 2000). 
B-285597

Page 6 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

memory card system. We are also recommending that FAA take proactive 

steps to help ensure that law enforcement officers do not leave their 

weapons behind on aircraft and that their carry-on baggage is screened for 

items that may threaten flight safety. 

We provided the Department of Transportation with a draft of this report 

for its review and comment. The Department agreed with the draft report’s 

recommendation that FAA work with law enforcement agencies and the 

airlines to implement a system to better verify law enforcement officers’ 

identity. However, the Department did not agree with the recommendations 

to develop procedures to (1) help ensure that officers do not leave weapons 

on aircraft because, as DOT stated, current disciplinary action taken 

against officers who misplace their firearms is sufficient to discourage such 

behavior. The Department also did not agree with the recommendation to 

screen law enforcement officers’ carry-on baggage because, among other 

reasons, once law enforcement officers have declared that they are 

bringing firearms on board an aircraft, all of their other carry-on items are 

logically accepted as well. We continue to believe that these 

recommendations are appropriate because of the potential that safety and 

security can be compromised if officers leave their firearms behind on 

aircraft or if they inadvertently carry hazardous materials on board. 

Therefore, we did not revise these recommendations. The Department also 

provided some clarifying information on its efforts to create more explicit 

criteria for what constitutes the need to fly while armed, the rationale for 

not requiring written authorization for federal officers, and airline 

personnel’s role in allowing officers to fly while armed. We incorporated 

this information into the report as appropriate. Finally, the Department 

provided additional technical clarifications, which we also incorporated 

into the report as appropriate. The Department’s comments and our 

responses are in appendix I. 

We also provided the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and 

the Fraternal Order of Police with portions of the draft report for their 

review and comment. Both associations stated that law enforcement 

officers’ ability to carry firearms on board commercial airline flights is 

important to carrying out their official duties and that the decision 

concerning when officers need to fly while armed is best made by law 

enforcement agencies. These associations also provided us with additional 

views on the weapons carriage regulations, which are reflected in the 

report. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association’s comments and 

the Fraternal Order of Police’s comments are in appendixes II and III, 

respectively.
B-285597

Page 7 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

Background Although federal regulations do not permit the general public to carry 

weapons aboard aircraft, under certain conditions, law enforcement 

officers have a mission-related need to fly with firearms. Such conditions 

can occur when officers escort prisoners or evidence, conduct hazardous 

surveillance or undercover operations, provide protective escort for 

individuals, or need to report to another location armed and immediately 

prepared for duty. The number of law enforcement officers who could 

travel while armed is high. At the federal level, traditional law enforcement 

agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Drug Enforcement 

Administration; and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms employ law 

enforcement officers. Other agencies, such as the Departments of 

Education, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban 

Development; the Food and Drug Administration; and the General Services 

Administration, also employ law enforcement officers. In addition, there 

are more than 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies. According 

to the most recent Department of Justice statistics (1996-98), there are 

more than 775,000 law enforcement officers in the United States.

FAA has developed regulations and guidance that specify the criteria that 

law enforcement officers must meet to fly while armed.4

 However, it is the 

airlines’ responsibility to implement these procedures. The 10 airlines we 

contacted have similar procedures for implementing the carriage of 

weapons regulation.

• At the ticket counter, law enforcement officers must notify the airline 

ticket agent that they will be flying while armed and present a photo 

identification card from their employing agency. Additionally, state and 

local officers should provide the agent with a letter from their 

employing agency attesting to their need to fly while armed and 

specifying their itinerary.

• All law enforcement officers must complete and sign the airlines’ 

authorization form, which requires the officers’ name, employing 

agency, and flight itinerary. Some airlines’ authorization forms specify 

the rules that armed officers must follow when on board aircraft. For 

instance, they may not consume alcoholic beverages or interfere in 

passenger disturbances unless directed by the flight crew.

4

FAA’s regulations governing the carriage of weapons by law enforcement officers are 

contained in 14 C.F.R. 108.11. FAA’s guidance on implementing these regulations is 

contained in FAA Advisory Circular No. 108-2 (Oct. 16, 1981).
B-285597

Page 8 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

• At the security checkpoint, the law enforcement officer must present 

the authorization form and photo identification card to the securityscreening supervisor or airport police officer. Armed law enforcement 

officers are not required to walk through metal detectors or pass their 

luggage though X-ray machines.

• At the aircraft gate, the law enforcement officer must present the 

authorization form to the gate agent; the gate agent and/or officer must 

notify the flight crew that weapons will be carried on board and indicate 

the officer’s seat location.

In 1992, FAA established a carriage of weapons task force to identify safety 

and security improvements that could be made to the regulation. The task 

force, consisting of representatives from FAA, airlines, aviation and law 

enforcement associations, and other federal agencies, recommended 

changes to the carriage of weapons regulation. For instance, the task force 

recommended that all law enforcement officers who fly while armed must 

first receive training on guidelines for such travel and what constitutes the 

need to have a firearm on board an aircraft. Subsequently, in 1997, FAA 

proposed changes to existing regulation intended to minimize the number 

of law enforcement officers carrying weapons on board aircraft and to 

strengthen and clarify existing requirements for weapons carriage. FAA 

expects to issue the final regulation by the end of 2000. A comparison of 

key requirements in the current and proposed regulations is provided in 

table 1. 

The proposed regulation will take a number of steps aimed at increasing 

the safety of weapons carriage, including (1) establishing more explicit 

criteria for determining the need to fly while armed, (2) requiring state and 

local law enforcement officers to present a letter from their employing 

agency stating their need to fly while armed on a particular flight, (3) 

requiring all law enforcement officers to complete a standard training 

program on flying while armed, (4) requiring law enforcement officers to 

keep their weapons on their person or within their immediate reach at all 

times while on the aircraft, and (5) extending the prohibition on the 

consumption of alcohol to an 8-hour period prior to the flight. 
B-285597

Page 9 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

Table 1: Comparison of Key Provisions of the Existing and Proposed Regulations Governing Carriage of Weapons Aboard 

Aircraft

Legend

FBI = Federal Bureau of Investigation

Source: GAO’s analysis of FAA’s current and proposed regulations. 

Subject Existing regulation Proposed regulation

Requirements detailing who 

may fly while armed

Law enforcement officers flying while armed must 

either (1) be an employee of the United States, a 

state, or a municipality who is authorized by his or 

her agency to carry firearms or (2) be authorized to 

carry firearms by the airline and FAA and have 

completed a training course in the use of firearms.

Law enforcement officers flying while armed must 

meet the following criteria: (1) be a federal law 

enforcement officer or a full-time, paid state, 

municipal, or county law enforcement officer; (2) be 

sworn and commissioned to enforce criminal 

statutes; (3) be currently trained and certified as a 

law enforcement officer; (4) be authorized by the 

employing agency to carry firearms in connection 

with assigned duties; and (5) have completed the 

FAA-required training.

Criteria for allowing law 

enforcement officers to fly 

while armed

Law enforcement officers must need to have 

firearms accessible in connection with the 

performance of official duties; the regulation does 

not specify how this need is to be demonstrated. 

The law enforcement officer must be acting in one of 

the following capacities: (1) providing a protective 

escort, (2) conducting a hazardous surveillance 

operation, (3) escorting a prisoner, (4) be employed 

as an FBI special agent, (5) be an FAA Federal Air 

Marshal on duty status, or (6) be on official travel and 

required to report to another location armed and 

immediately prepared for duty.

Additional requirements for 

state, county, and municipal 

law enforcement officers

 None. The law enforcement officer must present an original 

letter of authority from his or her employing agency 

confirming the need to travel while armed, detailing 

the itinerary, and stating that the law enforcement 

officer has completed a training program on flying 

while armed.

Training requirements for 

flying while armed

Law enforcement officers must be familiar with the 

airline’s procedures for carrying firearms on board. 

Law enforcement officers must complete a standard 

training program on flying with firearms, which would 

cover the basic procedures for flying while armed 

and the concerns associated with carrying firearms 

aboard an aircraft.

Identification of armed 

passenger to flight crew

The airline notifies the pilot in command and 

appropriate crew members that there is an armed 

person on board. 

The officer must identify him/herself and present a 

copy of the form required by the air carrier to a crew 

member prior to departure.

Location of firearms during 

flight

Not specified. Law enforcement officers, while on board, must keep 

firearms concealed and out of view either on their 

person or within immediate reach if they are carried 

in a case, pouch, or container. Firearms may not be 

placed in overhead storage bins. 

Limitations on consumption 

of alcohol by armed law 

enforcement officers

Law enforcement officers carrying firearms may not 

drink alcoholic beverages while aboard the airplane. 

On-board consumption of alcohol would continue to 

be forbidden; additionally, armed law enforcement 

officers would not be allowed to consume alcohol 

within an 8-hour period prior to a flight.
B-285597

Page 10 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

FAA and the Airlines 

Do Not Systematically 

Track the Frequency of 

Weapons Carried On 

Board Aircraft by Law 

Enforcement Officers 

The total number of weapons carried on board the nation’s airlines each 

year by law enforcement officers is unknown because FAA’s regulations do 

not require airlines to maintain this information or report it to the agency. 

However, we were able to obtain the following anecdotal information that 

provides some perspective on the number of officers who fly while armed. 

We contacted 10 major commercial airlines to determine whether they have 

information on the number of law enforcement officers who fly while 

armed. Although the airlines maintain copies of the authorization forms 

turned in by officers carrying weapons, none of them routinely tally the 

forms. Nevertheless, two of the airlines we contacted reviewed the 

authorization forms they had on file and were able to provide us with a 

count of the officers who flew while armed during a given time period. US 

Airways found that during the 3-month period from March through May 

2000, nearly 10,000 law enforcement officers flew while armed on US 

Airways flights.5

 Continental Airlines reported that during an 8-month 

period in 1999 and 2000, the airline carried approximately 100 armed law 

enforcement officers aboard its aircraft each month.

Data maintained by security-screening companies also show that many law 

enforcement officers carry weapons past security checkpoints. According 

to FAA and industry officials, most screening companies maintain logbooks 

of law enforcement officers who pass through checkpoints into secure 

areas. These logbooks include information on law enforcement officers 

who are ticketed passengers as well as others who need to enter the gate 

area for reasons other than boarding a flight. The logbooks may contain 

information such as the officer’s name, employing agency, and flight 

number. At our request, International Total Services (ITS), the largest 

security-screening company in the United States, provided us with 

examples of the number of law enforcement officers passing through 

security checkpoints at several U.S. airports. At the Fort 

Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport, ITS reported that about 300 

armed law enforcement officers passed through security checkpoints 

staffed by ITS personnel each month from January through April 2000. At 

the New Orleans International Airport, the monthly average for ITS 

security checkpoints was about 200 armed officers during the same time 

period. In addition, a logbook from Globe Security, another screening 

5

US Airways transported 3,176 armed law enforcement officers in March, 3,281 in April, and 

3,252 in May.
B-285597

Page 11 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

company, showed that a 1997 American Airlines flight out of Jacksonville, 

Florida, carried 30 armed agents from the U.S. Border Patrol. The agents 

had just completed training at the nearby Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center in Glynco, Georgia. 

FAA aviation security officials assert that, in the absence of past security 

problems resulting from the presence of weapons on airplanes, they have 

not required airlines to report data on the number of law enforcement 

officers carrying weapons onto aircraft. For the same reason, FAA officials 

said that they do not see any future benefit in requiring airlines to report 

data on the number of law enforcement officers who fly while armed. 

Current Regulation and 

Procedures Pertaining 

to Weapons Carriage 

Have Gaps That Will 

Not Be Solved by FAA’s 

Proposed Changes

FAA has proposed changes to its security regulations intended to improve 

controls over the carriage of weapons; however, we believe that neither the 

current regulation nor the proposed changes address several remaining 

problems. Specifically, the regulation does not sufficiently ensure that (1) 

officers do not leave firearms behind when they deplane, (2) federal law 

enforcement officers have valid justification for flying while armed, (3) the 

hand luggage of law enforcement officers flying while armed is screened 

for dangerous items, and (4) law enforcement officers’ credentials are 

verified. 

FAA’s Regulations Do Not 

Require Procedures to 

Ensure That Firearms Are 

Removed When Law 

Enforcement Officers 

Deplane 

FAA’s proposed carriage of weapons regulation will emphasize that 

firearms must remain in direct, personal control of a law enforcement 

officer. However, neither the current nor the proposed regulation details 

procedures for ensuring that firearms brought onto aircraft by law 

enforcement officers are removed when the officers depart. Accordingly, 

firearms legally carried on board could be inadvertently left behind, 

thereby creating potential safety and security hazards. Our query of a 

nationwide aviation safety database found reports of law enforcement 

officers who left behind or misplaced weapons on board aircraft. The 

extent of this problem is unknown because FAA does not systematically 

collect and analyze data on problems that have resulted from weapons 

carried on board aircraft by law enforcement officers.
B-285597

Page 12 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

The Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) is a nationwide database that 

compiles safety and security incidents reported voluntarily by aviation 

personnel. Our query of this database found two cases in which airline 

personnel had reported that law enforcement officers left behind or 

misplaced a firearm while on board a commercial flight.6

 In the first incident, a special agent with a government agency left his 

firearm behind on the airplane. The pilot provided the following account:

“Location: Gate at [Miami]. We got the paperwork at the gate in [San Juan] for an armed 

individual traveling alone . . . . He explained he was a special agent with the gov[ernment] 

agency and was transporting evidence. He was assigned seat XX7 as I recall. After leaving 

the [aircraft] in [Miami], I was [approached] by several [flight] attendants who explained 

they had found a gun in a seatback pocket. It was the gov[ernment] agency guy’s piece—still 

in its little black waist pouch. The agent was busy paging this guy to come back to the gate. I 

do not know if he ever came back for it.”

The pilot further stated that “an auth[orized] weapons carrier could 

intentionally leave [a weapon] hidden on a plane for a co-conspirator to use 

on a later [flight] and we would never know.” An incident such as this is 

dangerous not only because of possible criminal activities. It could also 

create a potentially ruinous situation if an innocent passenger, particularly 

a child, were to happen on the firearm. 

In another case, a crew member reported that a law enforcement officer 

had left behind a firearm in an aircraft lavatory. The crew member reported 

that the officer was “obviously a nervous flier and was sweating 

excessively” and was “mortified by the fact that he had left his gun behind 

while freshening up.” The crew member further stated that

“This could have been quite serious. Law enforcement officers are entrusted with the 

responsibility of carrying weapons on board [aircraft] and that responsibility is very serious. 

If a person is nervous about flying, that feeling might cloud his/her judgement should his 

[services] become needed. I have long been a proponent of everyone’s right to own and 

6

ASRS was established under a memorandum of agreement between FAA and NASA. NASA 

operates the program; FAA provides most of the funding and assists NASA’s administering of 

the program. The ASRS database consists of reports submitted by aviation personnel, such 

as pilots, air traffic controllers, flight attendants, mechanics, ground personnel, and others 

responsible for aviation operations. The identity of those who submit reports to ASRS is not 

available to users of the ASRS database. ASRS’ data are used to support FAA’s and the 

National Transportation Safety Board’s rule making, accident investigations, and other 

activities.

7

The passenger’s seat number was not included in ASRS’ report. 
B-285597

Page 13 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

carry a firearm, but I am very much against the carriage of loaded weapons on [aircraft] and 

this incident only underscores that feeling.”

An FAA official said that while the agency is aware of incidents in which 

law enforcement officers left behind their firearms, FAA does not believe 

that these incidents represent a growing problem. However, the agency 

does not have centralized or systematically maintained information on 

security incidents such as these. FAA receives reports from its regional 

offices on security violations, but it does not maintain all of these reports in 

a systematic fashion, nor is there any guarantee that these reports reflect 

all security incidents. For example, while FAA said that it did not receive 

reports on the two cases found in ASRS’ database, FAA did receive a report 

on a law enforcement officer who left a firearm in an airport restroom 

beyond the security checkpoint. Such an incident could pose a threat to 

aviation security because the firearm could have been found by another 

passenger and carried illegally onto an aircraft. 

FAA officials stated that proposed changes to the carriage of weapons 

regulation attempt to address the issue of officers’ misplacing their 

firearms by providing additional requirements for the control of weapons. 

First, the revised regulation will require that state and local law 

enforcement officers include a statement in their written authorization that 

they have completed an FAA-designed training program covering the basic 

procedures for flying while armed. Second, the revised regulation will 

require law enforcement officers to keep firearms on their person or within 

immediate reach and not store firearms in overhead compartments. FAA 

officials stated that a more proactive procedure—such as the use of lock 

boxes to store firearms during flight—would produce logistical problems, 

such as finding a secure location for the lock boxes. 

Additionally, FAA and law enforcement association officials stated that 

there are strong disincentives for officers to misplace their firearms. These 

officials told us that officers who lose their service weapons are subject to 

severe disciplinary action by their employing agencies. FAA may also levy 

civil penalties against parties who violate security regulations, including 

law enforcement officers, although an FAA official said that the agency is 

unlikely to take such steps because sanctions imposed by law enforcement 

agencies against their officers would be more severe. 
B-285597

Page 14 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

FAA’s Regulations Do Not 

Require Federal Law 

Enforcement Officers to 

Document Their Need to Fly 

While Armed 

The current FAA regulation on weapons carriage states that, in order to fly 

while armed, law enforcement officers must have a need for their firearms 

in connection with their duties during the time when the firearm would be 

inaccessible in checked baggage. Under FAA’s proposed regulation, the 

method used to verify officers’ need to fly while armed will differ for 

federal and nonfederal officers. The proposed regulation will require state 

and local law enforcement officers to present an original letter of authority 

from their employing agency confirming their need to travel while armed 

on a particular flight,8

 but it will not require federal officers to do so. 

According to FAA, the different requirements exist because state and local 

officers have limited jurisdiction and need to fly while armed only for 

mission-specific reasons, such as transporting a prisoner. Consequently, the 

proposed regulation requires that the employing agency make a specific 

determination of need and provide written authorization whenever its 

officers fly while armed. FAA officials said that, in contrast, federal law 

enforcement officers have national jurisdiction and broader mission 

requirements, which often require them to fly between cities with little 

advance notice. As a result, FAA officials stated, it would be impractical for 

federal law enforcement officers to obtain a written statement from their 

employing agency of their need to fly while armed. FAA officials, however, 

told us that the agency is urging law enforcement agencies to ensure that 

their agents fly while armed only when absolutely necessary.

However, several representatives from the airlines and the Air Line Pilots 

Association stated that many law enforcement officers—including federal 

officers—carry firearms on board aircraft without having a legitimate need. 

Representatives from several airlines cited instances where law 

enforcement officers appeared not to be on duty but asserted that they 

needed to have their firearms with them. According to airline 

representatives, armed officers have flown with their families to vacation 

destinations or have used free “buddy” tickets available to friends of airline 

employees. Other airline representatives cited cases in which law 

enforcement officers used intimidating behavior to assert their right to fly 

while armed despite their questionable need. According to representatives 

of the pilots association, ticket agents are under pressure to process 

passengers quickly and may relent to insistent law enforcement officers. 

8

This requirement is currently included in FAA’s guidance, “Security Rules—Carriage of 

Weapons and Escorted Persons” (FAA Advisory Circular No. 108-2, Oct. 16, 1981), to airlines 

for implementing the existing regulations. 
B-285597

Page 15 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

FAA’s Regulations Do Not 

Require Standard Security 

Screening of Law 

Enforcement Officers Who 

Are Flying While Armed

According to FAA and airline representatives, under both current and 

proposed regulations, law enforcement officers who have notified the 

airline that they are flying while armed are not subject to the routine 

screening procedures that almost all other passengers—including airline 

flight crews—must comply with before entering secure areas of airports. 

Routine screening procedures include walking through a metal detector 

and passing carry-on luggage through an X-ray machine. FAA’s standard 

security program for air carriers states that law enforcement officers who 

have met the requirements of the weapons carriage regulation and have 

notified the airline that they will be flying while armed are exempt from this 

screening.9

FAA maintains that the routine screening process is not appropriate for law 

enforcement officers because they have already declared that they are 

carrying a weapon and that screening these officers for additional weapons 

would provide no added security benefit. However, the screening of 

passengers is important not only to identify weapons that could be used to 

carry out acts of violence. It is also an essential step to identify hazardous 

materials that could threaten the safety of the flight. FAA has directed 

airlines not to permit passengers to carry on board certain items, including 

paints, lighter fluid, fireworks, tear gas, oxygen bottles, and radiopharmaceuticals.10 In flight, variations in temperature and pressure can 

cause items such as these to leak, generate toxic fumes, or start a fire. 

Accordingly, security checkpoint personnel are instructed not to allow 

such items to be carried beyond the security checkpoint. Because armed 

law enforcement officers are not subject to routine screening of their carryon baggage, they may inadvertently carry items into the aircraft cabin that 

could be hazardous to the welfare of their fellow passengers or to the 

safety of the flight.

FAA provided additional arguments against using the standard procedures 

to screen law enforcement officers, stating that these officers should not 

pass through metal detectors because their firearms would cause the alarm 

to sound, potentially distressing passengers and inappropriately revealing 

9

This standard security program states how air carriers are to implement the security 

requirements in the federal aviation regulations. The program has been adopted by all major 

U.S. carriers. 

10 There is an exemption for certain smoking materials and small quantities of medicinal 

items, toilet articles, and self-defense sprays (i.e., tear gas, pepper spray, and Mace). (See 49 

C.F.R. 175.10.) 
B-285597

Page 16 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

the officers’ identity. Furthermore, these officials noted that law 

enforcement officers have expressed concern about putting their carry-on 

luggage through X-ray machines because their luggage may contain 

important items, such as evidence, and they do not want to risk theft or loss 

of the items.

FAA’s Regulations Do Not 

Provide for Adequate 

Verification of Law 

Enforcement Officers’ 

Credentials 

Neither the current nor the proposed regulation provides a means for 

airline personnel to verify the credentials of passengers declaring their 

need to fly while armed. The regulations require law enforcement officers 

to present a photo identification card from their employing agency to the 

airline when checking in for a flight but do not require airlines to verify 

whether the identification is valid. A recent GAO investigation 

demonstrated the ease with which falsified credentials can be used to gain 

access to secure airports and federal office buildings. In May 2000, we 

reported the results of our investigation of the potential security risk posed 

by the use of counterfeit law enforcement badges and credentials. GAO 

special agents posing as New York police officers used counterfeit 

credentials generated with information downloaded from the Internet to 

successfully penetrate secure areas at Reagan National and Orlando 

International airports. The GAO agents presented themselves as armed law 

enforcement officers to airline representatives at the ticket counter, 

displayed their spurious badges and identification, and were issued 

authorization forms permitting them to carry weapons on their flight. 

Although the agents told airline employees they were armed, they were not 

actually carrying firearms. At the security checkpoints, the agents were 

allowed to go around metal detectors and did not pass their hand luggage 

through X-ray screening devices.

In response to the GAO investigation, FAA issued an interim security 

directive to airlines and airports in June 2000. This directive requires a 

uniformed airport police officer to check the credentials of all law 

enforcement officers who pass through security checkpoints, including 

those who are ticketed passengers as well as those who need to enter the 

gate area for other reasons, such as meeting arriving passengers. FAA 

states that airport police officers are more likely to recognize fake 

credentials and that the officers’ presence may deter passengers from 

attempting to use fake credentials. However, the airport security officials 

we contacted expressed concern about their ability to identify false 

credentials. They noted that it will be difficult for them to validate all 

credentials because there are thousands of law enforcement agencies in 

the country, and each has unique credentials. 
B-285597

Page 17 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

As a longer-term solution, FAA officials stated that they are considering the 

implementation of a secure memory card system for airlines to use to verify 

the identity of law enforcement officers. These cards contain an embedded 

microchip that could store a photo of the law enforcement officer as well 

as the officer’s name, telephone number, employing agency, and firearms 

training status. Additional information could be maintained within the 

system’s memory, such as a travel log indicating when and at which airports 

officers receive authorization to fly while armed and how often officers 

carry weapons on board aircraft. According to FAA, law enforcement 

agencies would be responsible for providing cards for all of their officers 

who might be called upon to fly while armed, and airlines would be 

responsible for maintaining the card readers at airport ticket counters or 

security checkpoints. FAA officials said that law enforcement officers and 

airlines support the use of this system and they are currently working with 

FAA to determine a funding source. 

Conclusions A goal of aviation security is to keep dangerous items such as firearms and 

explosives off aircraft in order to prevent terrorism and protect passengers 

from other acts of violence. Similarly, a goal of the law enforcement 

community is the prevention of crime and the protection of citizens. 

However, when law enforcement officers are called upon to carry their 

firearms on board an aircraft, these two important public safety goals may 

come into conflict. Consequently, the need for law enforcement officers to 

fly while armed must be balanced with the equally important need to 

protect the passengers who unknowingly travel with them. 

FAA’s proposed carriage of weapons regulation seeks to further protect 

passengers while preserving the rights of law enforcement officers. 

However, while these changes are steps in the right direction, they are not 

enough, as they fail to fully address several important safety and security 

issues. The secure memory card system that FAA has proposed would 

address two of the deficiencies that we have identified. It would provide 

airlines with a means to verify the identity of law enforcement officers, 

thus reducing the possibility that passengers could use fake law 

enforcement credentials to board aircraft while armed. The system also 

could provide FAA with data on how frequently law enforcement officers 

fly while armed by recording when and at which airports law enforcement 

officers check in to fly with their weapons. These data would enable FAA to 

assess the extent to which the agency is reaching its goal of reducing 

weapons legally carried onto commercial aircraft. 
B-285597

Page 18 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

Additionally, FAA needs to take steps to forestall certain unwanted 

situations that may arise due to simple human error. Even the best-trained 

law enforcement officers might inadvertently forget their weapons when 

they deplane or mistakenly carry items on board that could present a safety 

concern in-flight. FAA’s current actions on these two situations are not 

sufficient. First, neither the current nor the proposed regulation provides a 

method to help ensure that weapons will not be left behind on aircraft. FAA 

has proposed requiring that officers keep their weapons on their person or 

within reach at all times, and although this is a good, common-sense step 

that all law enforcement agencies should promote, it is a predominately 

passive answer to the problem. A proactive step—one that is minimally 

intrusive yet still effective—is needed to ensure that firearms are not left 

behind on aircraft. While we acknowledge the challenges that FAA would 

encounter in trying to develop an appropriate procedure, we encourage 

FAA to explore proactive means to ensure that weapons remain in the 

officers’ control, including the time when they exit the aircraft.

Second, law enforcement officers who have declared that they are flying 

while armed are not subject to normal screening procedures, as are almost 

all other passengers, including the flight crew. One purpose of screening is 

to prevent passengers from carrying hazardous materials—such as lighter 

fluid, fireworks, and tear gas—on board. In flight, items such as these may 

leak, generate toxic fumes, or start a fire, causing injury to passengers or 

damage to the aircraft. Because law enforcement officers’ carry-on baggage 

is not screened, officers could inadvertently carry potentially dangerous 

items on board. Screening law enforcement officers’ carry-on baggage 

would ensure that dangerous items are not carried into the aircraft cabin. If 

law enforcement officers have important items, such as evidence, in their 

baggage and wish not to be separated from it, they may choose to have a 

security screener perform a hand search of the baggage rather than send it 

through an X-ray machine. 

Recommendations As a means to collect data on how frequently officers carry firearms on 

board the nation’s commercial airlines, to provide positive means for 

verifying the identity of armed law enforcement officers entering secure 

areas of airports, and to better ensure the safety of passengers, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the Administrator, 

FAA, to do the following: 
B-285597

Page 19 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

• Work with the airlines and law enforcement agencies to implement a 

secure memory card system and publish a timetable for its 

implementation. 

• Require airlines to screen the carry-on baggage of law enforcement 

officers in order to detect items that could present a threat to flight 

safety.

• Develop procedures to help ensure that officers do not leave weapons 

on aircraft. 

Agency Comments We provided the Department of Transportation with a draft of this report 

for review and comment. The Department agreed with the draft report’s 

recommendation to work with law enforcement agencies and the airlines 

to implement a system to better verify the identity of law enforcement 

officers flying while armed. However, the Department did not agree with 

the recommendations to develop procedures to screen law enforcement 

officers’ carry-on baggage and to help ensure that law enforcement officers 

do not leave weapons on aircraft. Concerning our recommendation 

regarding carry-on baggage, the Department stated that because the intent 

of these officers to carry weapons is already known, additional screening 

serves little security benefit and could potentially endanger the mission and 

safety of the officers. We disagree. We recognize that a properly authorized 

law enforcement officer bringing a firearm onto an aircraft does not 

represent a direct threat to aviation security. However, the Department’s 

comments ignore the potential that a law enforcement officer could, as 

could any other passenger, inadvertently carry hazardous materials 

objects—such as tear gas, flammable liquids, or explosives—that are 

inimical to flight safety. We note that even airline pilots, whose greatest 

interest lies in protecting the safety and security of their passengers, are 

subject to the same screening requirements as are all other passengers. We 

therefore see little justification for treating law enforcement officers’ carryon baggage differently and did not revise our recommendation.

With respect to our recommendation that FAA ensure that law enforcement 

officers do not leave weapons on aircraft, the Department commented that 

instances in which law enforcement officers leave weapons on aircraft are 

rare because officers are trained in the care and handling of their weapons 

and are subject to severe disciplinary action by their parent organization in 

the event that a weapon is misplaced. Consequently, the Department stated 

that additional actions to prevent officers from leaving weapons aboard 

commercial aircraft are not needed. We disagree. Weapons left on planes, 

even in rare circumstances, are a clear threat to aviation safety and 
B-285597

Page 20 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

security. Despite the training that officers receive and the potential for 

severe disciplinary action, human error can occur, as is evidenced by the 

three cases we cited in which law enforcement officers lost their weapons 

on commercial flights or in secure areas of airports. If not for the diligence 

of the flight crew, the weapons could have been found by dangerous 

individuals or children. We continue to believe that procedures to verify 

that weapons have been safely removed will provide additional security 

benefits for the aviation community and the flying public, and we therefore 

did not modify our recommendation.

The Department of Transportation also made a number of additional 

comments relating to the report. The Department interpreted our report as 

recommending that law enforcement officers be required to walk through 

metal detectors. We are recommending that only carry-on baggage—not 

the officers’ person—be subject to screening. The Department also 

commented that airline personnel are not in a position to question the need 

for officers to fly while armed. We agree; however, if airline personnel 

observe situations in which regulations are not being complied with or 

safety and security are being compromised—such as if a passenger is 

displaying disruptive or dangerous behavior—we believe it is well within 

their position to intervene. Finally, the Department provided its perspective 

on its actions to improve controls over the carriage of weapons on aircraft 

by law enforcement officers. 

The Department also provided us with other technical clarifications, which 

were incorporated as appropriate. The Department’s comments and our 

detailed response are in appendix I.

We also provided the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and 

the Fraternal Order of Police with portions of the draft report. The Federal 

Law Enforcement Officers Association provided us with its views on FAA’s 

current and proposed regulations on weapons carriage. The association 

stated that all federal law enforcement officers should be allowed to carry 

their firearms on their person at all times, as long as they have successfully 

completed a training course on flying with a weapon and adhere to the 

rules regarding weapons carriage on board aircraft. The association also 

stated that it is the responsibility of the law enforcement agencies to decide 

who is authorized to carry weapons. Additionally, the association described 

problems associated with placing firearms into checked baggage. The 

association’s comments are in appendix II.
B-285597

Page 21 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

The Fraternal Order of Police supports FAA’s efforts to work with the 

airlines and the law enforcement community toward a method to better 

verify law enforcement officers’ credentials. The organization agrees with 

our statement that little data are available on (1) how often weapons are 

carried on board aircraft by law enforcement officers and (2) the problems 

that arise as a result of this practice. The organization further stated that 

the issue of greater importance is verifying officers’ identity before 

permitting them to fly while armed. The organization also stated that being 

permitted to fly while armed is important to law enforcement officers’ 

ability to carry out their sworn duties and that the determination of 

whether an officer has a need to fly while armed is most appropriately 

made by the officer’s employing agency. The Fraternal Order of Police’s 

comments are in appendix III.

Scope and 

Methodology

To determine how frequently law enforcement officers carry firearms 

aboard airline flights, we interviewed FAA officials, representatives of the 

10 largest commercial airlines, and representatives of a security-screening 

company and a company that provides training for security-screening 

companies. To determine the extent to which FAA’s proposed regulation 

addresses important issues surrounding the carriage of weapons on 

aircraft, we interviewed FAA officials and representatives of three law 

enforcement officer associations. We reviewed FAA’s current and proposed 

regulations on weapons carriage, as well as its published guidance on this 

issue, and interviewed airline representatives to determine how they 

implement the FAA’s regulations and guidance. To determine if there have 

been any reported safety or security incidents associated with the carriage 

of weapons by law enforcement officers, we interviewed FAA officials and 

representatives from the airlines and the Air Line Pilots Association. We 

also searched the Aviation Safety Reporting System’s database for incidents 

pertaining to weapons carriage. Our work was performed from May 

through August 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Rodney E. Slater, 

Secretary of Transportation; Jane F. Garvey, the Administrator, FAA; the 

Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget; 

appropriate congressional committees; and other interested parties. We 

will make copies available to others on request. 
B-285597

Page 22 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

If you have any further questions about this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-2834. Major contributors to this report were Heather Halliwell, 

Jack Schulze, and Richard Scott.

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.

Associate Director,

 Transportation Issues
B-285597

Page 23 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

List of Congressional Committees

The Honorable John McCain

Chairman

The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Commerce, Science,

and Transportation

United States Senate

The Honorable Slade Gordon

Chairman

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Aviation

Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation

United States Senate

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch

Chairman

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

The Honorable Jon Kyl

Chairman

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism,

and Government Information

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

The Honorable Bud Shuster

Chairman

The Honorable James L. Oberstar

Ranking Democratic Member

Committee on Transportation

and Infrastructure

House of Representatives
B-285597

Page 24 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

The Honorable John J. Duncan

Chairman

The Honorable William O. Lipinski

Ranking Democratic Member 

Subcommittee on Aviation

Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure 

House of Representatives

The Honorable Henry J. Hyde

Chairman

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

The Honorable Bill McCollum

Chairman

The Honorable Robert C. (Bobby) Scott

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Crime 

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives
Page 25 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security
Page 26 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

Appendix I

Comments From the Department of Apendxies

Transportation ApendxiI

Note: GAO’s comments 

supplementing those in the 

report’s text appear at the end of 

this appendix.
Appendix I

Comments From the Department of 

Transportation

Page 27 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

See comment 3.
Appendix I

Comments From the Department of 

Transportation

Page 28 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

See comment 4.

See comment 5.

See comment 6.
Appendix I

Comments From the Department of 

Transportation

Page 29 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

See comment 7.
Appendix I

Comments From the Department of 

Transportation

Page 30 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

See comment 8.

See comment 9.
Appendix I

Comments From the Department of 

Transportation

Page 31 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

See comment 10.

See comment 11.

See comment 12.

See comment 13.
Appendix I

Comments From the Department of 

Transportation

Page 32 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

See comment 14.

See comment 15.

See comment 16.

See comment 17.
Appendix I

Comments From the Department of 

Transportation

Page 33 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

See comment 18.
Appendix I

Comments From the Department of 

Transportation

Page 34 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Transportation’s 

(DOT) letter dated September 1, 2000. 

GAO’s Comments 1. DOT states that there have been no incidents in which law enforcement 

officers discharged their firearms in flight. However, officers discharging 

their firearms is only one concern raised by the presence of weapons on 

board aircraft. As we state in our report, there have in fact been reported 

incidents in which law enforcement officers have left their weapons 

unattended on aircraft where they could have been found and used by 

other passengers. Moreover, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has 

expressed concern about the number of law enforcement officers flying 

while armed because of the potential threat this poses to safety and 

security. 

2. DOT agrees with our recommendation that FAA work with the law 

enforcement and aviation community to implement a system to better 

verify law enforcement officers’ credentials; therefore, no change was 

made to the report. 

3. DOT disagrees with our recommendation that law enforcement officers’ 

carry-on baggage be screened. We believe that it is important for FAA to 

take steps to ensure that all passengers—including law enforcement 

officers—are not carrying hazardous items that could pose a threat to flight 

safety. Many items, while not weapons per se, have been deemed by FAA to 

be potentially dangerous and therefore are not allowed to be carried onto 

aircraft. Therefore, we continue to recommend that FAA require airlines to 

screen law enforcement officers’ carry-on luggage. 

4. DOT states that written authorization from federal law enforcement 

officers is not practical and that not requiring this authorization does not 

constitute a regulatory gap. We disagree. We believe that FAA’s failure to 

obtain some assurance from federal law enforcement agencies that their 

agents fly while armed only when absolutely necessary does represent a 

regulatory gap. We revised the report to state that FAA says it is urging 

federal law enforcement agencies to ensure that their agents fly while 

armed only when absolutely necessary. 

5. DOT states that airline personnel are not in a position to challenge the 

need for law enforcement officers with appropriate documentation to fly 

while armed. We agree. However, airline personnel are the first line of 

defense for aviation safety. Being aware of the weapons carriage regulation 
Appendix I

Comments From the Department of 

Transportation

Page 35 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

and noting that armed officers may not be in compliance with one of the 

regulatory criteria for permitting weapons aboard flights is well within 

their responsibility. Moreover, airlines may impose additional requirements 

or criteria on law enforcement officers’ seeking authorization to fly while 

armed. For instance, airline pilots have the right to refuse to carry 

passengers if, among other reasons, they believe a passenger’s presence 

might be disruptive or dangerous. One of the airline officials whom we 

interviewed cited instances in which pilots refused to allow law 

enforcement officers to fly while armed because it appeared that they had 

been drinking or demonstrated other unusual behavior. FAA’s current 

regulation does not state that officers who have been drinking prior to a 

flight are not allowed to fly while armed, but airlines may take it upon 

themselves to implement such a requirement. It is therefore prudent—from 

a safety perspective—and appropriate—from a compliance perspective—

for airline personnel to question if it is appropriate for law enforcement 

officers to carry firearms on board. 

6. DOT states that the report should make clear that FAA does not pressure 

airline employees to take actions that they believe could endanger aviation 

safety. The report in no way makes this suggestion and therefore we believe 

no clarification is required. DOT also states that the report should state that 

airline employees can work with airline management or FAA if they have 

concerns about law enforcement officers who appear to be flying while 

armed without sufficient need. Our report does not attempt to address the 

mechanisms that airline personnel could employ in this situation. 

Therefore, we did not revise the report. 

7. DOT interpreted our draft report as recommending that law enforcement 

officers should be screened by walking through metal detectors. We agree 

with DOT that law enforcement officers authorized to carry weapons 

through checkpoints should not be subject to the screening of their person, 

such as walking through a metal detector. We are recommending that 

screening be performed on law enforcement officers’ carry-on baggage 

only. DOT also commented that a physical search or the private screening 

of baggage is not practical because it would increase the number of times 

that airport law enforcement officers would be called to checkpoints. 

However, we note that FAA now requires airport law enforcement officers 

to be at the checkpoints to verify the credentials of all law enforcement 

officers authorized to fly while armed. Additionally, security-screening 

employees may also perform searches of passengers’ carry-on baggage. 

Consequently, we disagree with DOT that a bag search is not practical. 
Appendix I

Comments From the Department of 

Transportation

Page 36 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

8. The three law enforcement associations that we contacted—the National 

Sheriffs Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the Federal Law 

Enforcement Officers Association—are identified on page 4 of the report. 

(See fn. 1.) We contacted these associations as a courtesy to the law 

enforcement community to discuss their opinions on the regulation and 

FAA’s proposed changes. We did not contact individual law enforcement 

agencies during the course of our review because these agencies were not 

the focus of our work. Rather, our work focused on FAA and the extent to 

which its current and proposed regulations address certain important 

issues surrounding law enforcement officers’ carriage of weapons aboard 

aircraft. It was not an objective of our review to determine the actions 

taken by individual law enforcement agencies. 

9. We revised the report to clarify that some of the airlines we contacted 

believe that federal law enforcement officers abuse their privilege to fly 

while armed. 

10. We revised the report to indicate that secure memory card technology is 

currently available and that FAA is working with the law enforcement and 

aviation communities to implement this system.

11. We revised the report to include FAA’s comment that the identity of all 

armed law enforcement officers passing through security checkpoints 

should be verified—not only those officers who are boarding flights. 

12. We did not make this editorial change because DOT’s comment is not 

material to the substance of the report. 

13. We revised the report to clarify that FAA and the airlines do not track 

the frequency of onboard weapons carriage by law enforcement officers. 

14. We disagree that additional clarifications are needed. The purpose of 

the example was to show that a significant number of armed officers could 

be on a single flight. We make no assertions of how often this occurs, nor 

can we because FAA does not require that such data be kept or reported. 

15. We revised the report to indicate that FAA is working with the carriage 

of weapons task force to determine funding sources for a secure memory 

card system. 

16. We disagree. DOT’s comments fail to acknowledge that items that could 

be a concern to the safe operation of commercial aircraft might be included 
Appendix I

Comments From the Department of 

Transportation

Page 37 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

in carry-on baggage. Numerous items exist that may not be a security 

threat—that is, items used for the purposeful hijacking or destruction of an 

aircraft—but are nevertheless explosive, combustible, or otherwise 

inimical to the safety of an aircraft in flight, such as flammable liquids, tear 

gas, pepper spray, and flare pistols. Such items could be inadvertently 

included in carry-on baggage by law enforcement officers, as is sometimes 

the case with the general public. We believe that the X-ray screening of law 

enforcement officers’ carry-on luggage—or hand screening if the officer 

does not wish to be separated from the contents of the luggage—would be 

a simple and effective way to ensure that officers do not inadvertently carry 

dangerous items onto aircraft. 

We note that DOT states in its comments that law enforcement officers are 

trusted with protecting lives and are not seen as a threat to security. 

However, airline pilots are similarly entrusted with protecting passengers’ 

life and are not seen as a security threat, yet pilots must walk through metal 

detectors and pass their hand luggage through X-ray machines. We see little 

positive, and potentially significant negative, benefit in exempting law 

enforcement officers from the required screening of carry-on baggage to 

ensure that no dangerous items other than the declared ones are permitted 

past the checkpoints. We therefore did not revise the report. 

17. Because the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) ensures 

anonymity to those who submit reports, we were not able to verify the 

accounts regarding firearms found on board aircraft by contacting the 

reporters. However, ASRS personnel did contact the pilot who reported the 

incident in Miami in order to obtain additional information and found that 

the pilot also reported the incident to the pilot’s union and to the security 

department of his airline. The ASRS report did not indicate whether the 

pilot alerted FAA of this incident. 

Furthermore, DOT states that ASRS is not an FAA system and that these 

accounts are not verified, yet we note that FAA commissioned the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration to operate and maintain ASRS’ 

database and that FAA uses ASRS’ data to support regulatory actions and 

other activities. 

18. DOT states that our report should note that one goal of aviation security 

is to keep dangerous items in the possession of dangerous persons off 

aircraft. We believe that this statement diminishes the agency’s overall 

mission to protect passengers from any type of dangerous material and 

further contradicts FAA’s proposed weapons carriage regulation, which 
Appendix I

Comments From the Department of 

Transportation

Page 38 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

states that its goal is to reduce the number of firearms carried on board by 

law enforcement officers. We therefore did not revise the report. 
Page 39 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

Appendix II

Comments From the Federal Law 

Enforcement Officers Association ApendxiI
Appendix II

Comments From the Federal Law 

Enforcement Officers Association

Page 40 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security
Appendix II

Comments From the Federal Law 

Enforcement Officers Association

Page 41 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security
Page 42 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security

Appendix III

Comments From the Fraternal Order of PoliceApendxiI
Appendix III

Comments From the Fraternal Order of 

Police

(348232) Letr Page 43 GAO/RCED-00-181 Aviation Security
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of 

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to 

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit 

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list 

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, 

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at: 

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, or Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Letr

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00