View Single Post
  #3  
Old January 2nd 04, 05:22 AM
Juvat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Jim Yanik
blurted out:

People seem to come up with any excuse or farfetched or unlikely
scenario in order to make an argument against armed pilots.Very
irrational.


To which I posted...

Ummm, if you intended that remark for me...you are mistaken.


That "should" have disabused you of any notion that I am opposed to
armed pilots. But there are risks. Perhaps that's one reason that ugly
divorces and personal financial difficulty are high interest items in
the FFDO screening process...hmmmm.

Clearly the following confused you just a bit...when I posted

I remember how farfetched or unlikely a total hydraulic failure in the
DC-10 was... until it happened.


To which Jim Yanik asked.

How's that an argument against armed pilots?


Ummm, it's NOT, it's a reminder that no matter how convinced you might
be that an armed pilot WILL NOT **** up and accidently shoot the other
pilot or a windscreen/window...I think you are in error.

Surely your flying career has vivid examples of guys ****ing up (when
nobody was threatening them). I witnessed two guys land gear up.

So...my initial post on how a window or other pilot COULD get shot by
a FFDO, is plausible...NOT probable...simply plausible.

If you are looking for somebody to argue with...count me out. I have
no interest.

Juvat