Tripower455"
Surely, Tripower, the solution lies in preventing access to the cockpit in the first place.
Well, if the terrorists just agree to stay off our aircraft, wouldn't that be an effective solution? Why don't we just ask them not to hijack aircraft!
As I have repeatedly said, we can take all of the preventative measures one can think of, but it is all for naught once Abdul enters the cockpit..........
Frisking pilots (as well as other low threat passengers) at the gate, placing National Guardsmen (with unloaded weapons) at the "security" checkpoints, making people take their laptops out of bags to go throuh an X-RAY machine, checking the Captain's ID ON THROUGH FLIGHTS (!), checking the same fake ID 12 times, giving ramp workers unfettered access to secure areas/aircraft, etc, etc, etc, will DO NOTHING to prevent another tragedy like 9/11.
Stronger cockpit doors will increase the safety factor a lot. They just need to be installed in order to be effective........
Profiling possible terrorist passengers would likely be effective.
The sky marshall program is a zero equation. I'll (generously) give that a 50/50 chance of successfully thwarting a hijacking. A gun in the cabin is much more of a wild card than one in the cockpit. I'd prefer the sky mashalls were unarmed........THAT willl keep guns from the terrorists. While we're at it, why not restrict all of the other Federal LEO's from carrying guns on our airplanes. As I've stated before, how many USDA chicken inspectors, IRS agents or postal workers have had the much talked about (on Pprune, anyway) training to deal with jijackers on board an aircraft. They are not special forces
. Anyone that thinks that these fine individuals are OK in the back of a commercial airliner, CAN'T have a valid reason for keeping pilots unarmed........
Stun Guns? Give me a break!