Forget the idea of a separate entry door for crew members which would go directly to the cockpit. The factors are cost, extra weight to the airframe, engineering problems and the amount of interior pax space that would be required for the installation.
It may be possible to devise a "dual use" door that can accomodate crew and pax but which can then be left in the pax mode only but this raise very serious evacuation emergency issues.
The strengthened cockpit door (repositioned to include a crew toilet on long endurance aircraft) is the most feasible idea. A double "airlock" type door would be best but once again the airlines are going to scream because it would probably cause them to need to remove some pax seats.
To get back to the theme of this post. I remember reading a report unconnected with recent events - probably by a police dept. somewhere, that stun guns were ineffective against very big people or people operating under a high state of arousal caused by drugs, boose or adrenalin etc. Anybody know the facts?
My bet is with a large caliber, low velocity soft lead bullet. It is understandable that people brainwashed to the "evils" of handguns feel uncomfortable about the idea of arming pilots but the basic logic is incontrovertible, it is the same as medical triage logic. Why let everyone die because you may have limited deaths or injuries due to misdirected bullets? What we are talking about here is not arming crews for immediate heroic intervention in a terrorist act but arming them as a last ditch defence should the flyability of the aircraft and the lives of the pax be undubitably in danger.
Non americans please consider that in the US the urge for individual action and self reliance is strongly ingrained. This is not just a psycho., macho reaction. Many americans, and a large proportion of pilots, are hunters and survivors in a way more restricted europeans cannot imagine (I know one fellow who hunts deer with a traditional bow - but only in winter on snowshoes to keep things fair). This will probably start a whole new comment campaign but after you have shot a few deer or elk etc. you tend to lose the undesirable excitement (called "buck fever" over here) that prevents you making a considered and accurate shot. Despite the comments from some respondents about poor shooting and inability to act sensibly during stress let me assure you I personally know several pilots I would not want to tangle with in a hijacking. This number includes some who, in previous jobs, were actually permitted to carry loaded firearms into the pax cabin of an aircraft but are now considered unworthy ("go figure" as they say over here).
The only real problem I see with using a firearm on the flight deck is that of adopting a firing position from a pilot seat. Consider, though, that with the new cockpit doors we are promised and improved access procedures we would have at least 30 seconds of warning to take up a commanding firing position. That is plenty of time to remove a pistol from your flight bag and get into position.
In case you think I am another american looney I should add that this is the opinion of a twenty year UK expat.
[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: BOING ]