I use airpistols and other airweapons, as well as being quite skilled with firearms, and a pistol is not a "point and shoot" weapon. Its hard to shoot a pistol accurately without:
a. Standing up
b. Getting sightss in line
c. straight arms
d being still
A pilot in a cockpit is
a. sitting down twisting round
b. this would make it mhard to see the sights
c.strained arms
d. The assailant would try and stop the pilot.
e. What would happen if the assailant had a gun? a firefight would be awful.
I'm a firearms instructor certified by the Massachusetts State Police. I've had about 160 hours of firearms training, including shooting while seated. I disagree with much of what you have written.
First, it is quite easy to shoot accurately while sitting. In fact, it is harder to shoot accurately while standing than it is while shooting, simply because when you are standing, your body sways more than when you are seated.
Second, there is no need to have your arms straight. There are three main two-handed positions taught in the US these days a) isosceles, b) Chapman, and c) Weaver. In the isosceles position both arms are extended and the elbows not quite locked. In the Chapman position, the strong arm is extended and the support arm is bent, with the elbow pointed towards the ground. In the Weaver position, both arms are bent, with the strong arm pushing and the weak arm pulling. Stand up and get in an isosceles position, aiming straight out in front of you. Now, without moving your feet, rotate your body so that you are aiming 90 degrees towards your support side (left, for most of us). Your arms are now pretty naturally in a Chapman position. Keep rotating around until you are aiming to the rear and you are now in a Weaver position. There are quite a few learned trainers who argue that Weaver is superior to iso and Chapman. So your argument that both arms must be extended is quite simply false. Besides, you can always shoot with one hand.
Third, no one is still during a gunfight. Gunfights are not the same as target shooting. The bad guy moves and the good guy moves. Does that make it harder to hit the target? Sure does. That doesn't make it impossible.
Fourth, you can shoot while twisting around in a seat. Take your air pistol, sit down in an upright chair, now rotate your body around. You should be able to get into a decent Weaver position facing to the rear if you allow your hips to come off the cushion.
Fifth, cockpits are not big places. How far is it from the seat to the cockpit door? Not more than 10 feet I suspect, and in most cases much less than that. The hijacker must come through the cockpit doorway so the pilot knows where the attack will come from. There is a reason why doorways are termed "fatal funnels." This is an incredibly easy shot to take. It does not require Olympic skill.
the assailant would try and stop the pilot
That's the whole reason for shooting him, is it not?
e. What would happen if the assailant had a gun? a firefight would be awful.
This is the most illogical statement I have every seen. You mean that it would be better in such circumstances if the pilot was unarmed? If the hijacker has a gun and the pilots are unarmed, then we have 9/11 all over again, don't we? That would mean most likely everyone on the plane dies and quite possibly many more on the ground. Isn't that awful, too? If the pilots are armed, then they (and the pax on board and people on the ground) have a better chance, don't they?
As for the 9mm vs. .44 argument, get real. I know of no US law enforcement agency that carries either .44 Special or .44 Magnum. The US armed pilots are being issued semi-automatic pistols -- specifically Glocks chambered in .40 S&W. The .40 S&W round is somewhat more powerful than 9mm. Either will work if the shooter does his part. Either will fail if the shooter misses.