In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
So allowing pilots to be armed will completely and totally fix all
airline security issues?

Not only "no," but "nobody has claimed that."

"Not arming pilots" has been claimed to condemn thousands of innocents
to agonised fiery deaths; while giving them handguns is claimed to
guarantee safety. After all, reinforced doors can be broken down,
security bypassed, et cetera, but the idea that a handgun in the cockpit
might fail to stop 100% of hijack attempts is purest heresy...

If the Bad Guys are able to overwhelm the passengers (who these days are
a lot less likely to believe that sitting still and quiet while avoiding
eye contact will help save their lives) sufficient to break into the
cockpit they've got aboard with numbers, organisation and weapons: while
the flight crew are limited in numbers, stuck in a small and crowded
space, and busy with the key job of Flying The Damn Plane: while George
may handle routine tasks, how well does the autopilot cope with the
cockpit becoming a warzone and who recovers the aircraft afterwards?


I'd rather keep the Bad Guys off the aircraft, have them board unarmed
if they board at all, make them face a solid and tough barrier if they
_do_ get to the door (with a planeful of frightened passengers behind
them, aware that if the hijack succeeds they'll be payload in an
oversized Kamikaze), and then have them worry whether the first man
struggling through that door will get a crash axe in the head or a
chestful of JHP bullets; rather than use "the pilot might be armed" to
justify skimping on the other measures.


Trouble is, improving ground security and keeping it improved costs
money (and time and hassle for passengers). Restricting cockpit access
costs money. Saying to pilots "If you've got a handgun, you can carry
it" is extremely cheap. And the airline business isn't exactly a
high-profit business at the moment; carriers who can find corners to
cut, will eagerly do so.

I'm not opposed to arming pilots; I'm arguing that the assumption should
be they will be unarmed (because many will be, regardless) and that it's
a bonus rather than a dependable layer.

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.

That's something I've been wondering about, myself.

I've got the excuse that I had to hand mine in back in 1997... though
I'm willing to be issued one and sign for it as necessary.

A minor scenario: If a law officer (or qualified agent of the
government)

I might qualify for that

wants to fly on a plane, not only do they get to carry their
guns, they get a discount. A *big* discount. Maybe free. With perks.

Not only would _I_ like that, but my management would _love_ it if they
could get us analysts cheap/free air travel. I've had assorted
convolutions on overseas visits (when I went to the Canadian Maritime
Warfare Centre, I left on Saturday rather than Sunday because paying me
and the hotel for the extra day was cheaper, and I was flying economy
class[1])

All they have to do is show up sober, not drink on the flight, and be
ready to shoot someone in the right situation. A minor training course
on shooting people in planes (along with How to Recognize a Terrorist),
and you get a little card that makes all of this go smoothly.

We might quibble on how much a "minor training course" requires, but
probably not by too much.

Congratulations, Mr Irby, for once we seem to be agreeing with each
other!

Now stop this deviant behaviour at once and go back to arguing with
everything I say




[1] I'm apparently entitled to fly business class wherever I go.
However, with a finite travel budget, them as is willing to travel
cheaper are much more likely to get their travel requests approved.

--
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