"John R Weiss" wrote in
news:LwoIb.705548$Fm2.608202@attbi_s04:

"Gord Beaman" wrote...

So, if armed pilots thwart only ONE hijacking...

Quite true BUT. I worry about endangering those 'essential to
flight units'. Think of the ever present danger of a loaded
pistol in the comparatively small confines of an airliner cockpit
for years and years, while a steel door (or two) is fairly
innocuous. Also, as a matter of curiosity, what would you expect
to happen if a 9MM or so slug were to go through one of the
windscreens?. Aren't most glass and plastic laminated? (NESA?)

Given the circumstances under which a FFDO's weapon would be fired, I
suspect the damage done by an errant bullet would still be orders of
magnitude less than the alternative.

The program has been well thought out, the training has been given
great reviews by virtually all involved, and the sole "hard" issues
remaining are either administrative in nature or have to do with
on-the-ground subjects.

Windscreens are laminated, but I don't know if they all have glass
components. The curved windscreen in the 747-400 appears to be all
acrylic. Side windows are much thinner. A 9 mm hole in a side window
would probably be noisy. Given the angles and other factors present,
I can't accurately assess what would happen to a windscreen with a
shot from the inside. I suspect that in many cases the bullet
(especially if a frangible round) would be deflected, and the
windscreen would maintain most of its integrity.



Why would pilots be firing TOWARDS the windscreen? The attackers would be
coming from the REAR of the plane.Armed pilots would be firing
REARWARDS.They certainly aren't going to wait until the hijackers are fully
IN the cockpit.

Also,I've read that Sky Marshals use ordinary (premium)JHP ammo,as they
might have to penetrate a seatback or other barrier.
IIRC,the guns are .40 S&W caliber.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net