The U.S. Transportation Department announced that guns will not be allowed for aircrews to carry in commercial airliners saying that the reinforced doors to the cockpit area and armed sky-marshals should be sufficient deterrent to would-be hijackers.

Personally, I think that if aircrews were allowed to carry handguns in the cockpit, it would dissuade potential hijackers with pocket knives from even trying to kick in the cockpit doors.

If it were optional with the captain and first officer, some would elect to carry a weapon and some would not. The potential pirate would have to guess if the crew were armed.

Would you personally feel safer if you thought that the aircrew were armed?

I might feel safer, but on the other hand it would concern me. What if a hijacker armed "only" with a knife gets into the cockpit and gets hold of a gun? I know, it's not a very likely scenario, but still...

[corrected typo]

[ May 21, 2002, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Lo78 ]

I believe in a deterrent and I think that all Aircrews from the Captain down are all responsible people. Arm them with the best possible weapons and let them decide when and where they need to be used.
My family and myself were on a vacation in New York and Washington one week before the tragic attack. We flew home from New York on the 5th of September then there was no worries but if I flew back today I'd have more peace of mind if I knew that the captain was armed.

tecwyn

quote:

---

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush

---

Since there seems to be a problem with some people (not on this site, I mean in general, in public) having problems with pilots being armed, then why not use stun guns?

I would be very worried about anything that might be capable of piercing the aircraft skin at altitude although I understand we could be talking about something which would be safer.