In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
I'm not opposed to pilots having the option of going armed as part of
the security system: I _am_ opposed to flight crew armament being the
entire security system.

Good point, but "being the entire security system" would entail stopping
airport gate security, stopping background checks on airline empolyees,
and tying all passengers into their seats so nobody could interfere with
possible hijackers.

So allowing pilots to be armed will completely and totally fix all
airline security issues?

I think the contribution may be overstated, but it may also save a
situation one day. There are issues to deal with but it's not a
showstopper.

But "better doors for the cockpit" strike me as a much more important
issue, regardless of the armament of the pilots: having failed to keep
the threat off the aircraft, it's better to keep the Bad Guys out of the
cockpit with the option of shooting the ones who get in, than rely only
on shooting them. And a better door means that many attempts won't get
in at all, with only those succeeding discovering the armament, skill
and determination of the flight crew (whose main job, after all, is to
Fly The Damn Aircraft)

Trouble is, that's more expensive and difficult to implement, even if
it's also more useful.

You see, the old terrorist plan included an assumption that nobody in
the plane would do anything out of fear for their own lives, while the
new plan has to assume that everyone on the plane will go absolutely
bat**** if someone tries to hijack the plane.

You noticed that too? Screw "sit still, keep your eyes down and wait
until you're rescued or ransomed" now... but what's that got to do with
the pilots having a handgun or two?

For that matter, why can't _I_ have a handgun on an airliner? I've got
the demonstrated skills and experience, and clearance out of the ears.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk