And the majority who find it utterly mindless, it will all come down to a major incident , in which many people,s lives will be at risk, a dedicated nutter/ terrorist will have no problem disarming a person male/female constrained in a harness.
It appears to me, that the "majority" who find it mindless, are not thinking the problem through.
If the checks are done on the ground proffessionaly, there is no need for armed pilots it,s a no brainer. some of us on this site gained their education at places with quaint names like Forkhill, Goosegreen, wireless ridge, mostar and a few others.
If the terrorists don't fly on airplanes, then there will also be no need for armed pilots. I can't comment on the rest of the world, but in the US, the "professionals" (TSA) are NOT going to keep determined terrorists off commercial airliners. They'd do pretty well if they wanted careers as actors though......
BTW, I've never heard of the places mentioned, but I assume that they are military training ares. With all due respect, being trained in the military does not automatically make you an expert on hijacking or cockpit security.
And we value professional attitudes and practical solutions not knee jerk pancho villa tactics and mindset.
Since the bad guys will still get on the airplanes, regardless of how severely the passengers and crew are harassed, what do you suggest be done in a hijacking situation between the professionals searching the pilots bags at passenger screening, and the future new hire in the F-Teen? Right now, we are to "lock the door and land at the nearest suitable airport".......... do you see any holes in that procedure?
I find it interesting that my peers (mainly in the UK), who hold positions of great responsibility (pilots), feel that they are not responsible enough or posess the judgement to safely and effectively handle a tool as simple as a weapon. Do you trust yourself not to pull the fire handle in flight? If you can be trained start the engines properly, you can be trained to handle a firearm safely. I also find the "leave it to the sky marshalls" etc puzzling as well. While they are highly (?) trained to thwart hijackings, the mere presence of the gun in the cabin is a liability, since that weapon can be taken from them and used to take over the airplane. It's even more of a liability when armed leos other than marshalls are carried, for the same reason, even if they have gone through "training" to allow them to carry on the aircraft (I used quotes, because I have personally seen the training, and it consists of a 2 hour videotape).
The fact that it is somewhat easy for an armed leo to board an airliner in the US makes me a bit uneasy as well. Without going into detail, I believe that it would not be much harder for a bad guy to impersonate an armed leo and board my airplane than it is for ME to board my airplane.....
Tactically, the cockpit is a simple situation. The argument that a pilot can be easily disarmed is moot, since even if he IS disarmed, is he any worse off than he would be if he weren't armed in the first place? If the bad guys make it to the cockpit, I would place them in the "goal oriented" hijacker category, since they've managed to overcome the passengers and a somewhat reinforced door (think: maginot line). At this point, you are truly a sitting duck, and if you end up struggling with him, there is a better chance of overcoming him with a weapon than without.
edited for typos and grammar.