In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

You're not going to see British or Japanese (to pick two nations with
draconian firearms controls) pilots carrying arms anytime soon; does
that not imply that the priority lies elsewhere?

Well, if they don't want to, they don't have to, but allowing pilots to
carry them seems like a fairly minor risk with a potentially huge
return. If you can't trust a pilot with a handgun, then why trust him
with a quarter-million kilogram plane and 400 lives?

What happens when "carrying a handgun" carries a five-year prison
sentence? I don't like the situation but that's the law of the land
here.

No argument about "trusting the pilot" either - but then think about the
odds of an unknown number of foes, armed in unknown fashion, attacking
at a time of their choosing... versus two men, strapped into seats
facing the wrong way.

One reason I'm not enthusiastic (though not opposed) about 'arming
pilots' is that the El Presidente shoot (which you start with your back
to the targets: draw, turn, fire) is very difficult even when standing
unconstrained and shooting at cardboard. From a "sitting, strapped down"
position with moving targets intent on slashing your throat with real
knives, I don't see it getting any easier.

Last line of defence? Sure, I can buy that. But plan and prepare on "the
pilots are unarmed", with an armed and skilled pilot being an unexpected
bonus for the Good Guys and a nagging worry for the foe.


Where does a UK pilot go to practice with a firearm? We haven't been
able to legally massacre paper targets with pistol fire since 1997.

And since the British have a Sky Marshal program already (one of their
airlines has already signed on),

And at least one more has explicitly rejected it, on the basis of "if
there's that sort of threat why fly?".

taking the decision of whether guns
will be on planes out of the pilots' hands seems like another choice.

It seems from anecdote that rather more US airline pilots are
ex-military than UK, so we don't have the "could at least pass USAF
firearms skills tests" to fall back on. British Army pistol APWT was not
demanding - I got a perfect score on my first try and (as I later
discovered) I was not a particularly fine shot, just taking an easy
test.

And to be quite honest, few UK citizens are experienced shooters with
_anything_, making it hard to find practiced shooters to carry weapons
in cockpits. (I wasn't a bad shot but nobody's trying to hire me).

I'm not opposed to the idea, just to careless or greedy implementations.

--
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