It’s not a trust issue. It’s an issue of spending a ton of money on a program that is “voluntary” and creates a semi-federalized private employee classification while accomplishing nothing.
If you want pilots to “defend” the cockpit you will have to seal them in like tuna in a can because trained attackers will overrun them whether they are armed or not if they can access them. They can still access them, BTW.
If you want pilots to “defend” the cockpit you will have to seal them in like tuna in a can because trained attackers will overrun them whether they are armed or not if they can access them. They can still access them, BTW.
Nonsense. The cost can be next to nothing. Let the pilots buy their own guns, and let them get their own training. If you want to go whole hog, make up a lesson plan for a 8 hour course and distribute it to the network of police and private firearms trainers already out there. He11, most of them would volunteer their time.
Allowning the pilots to be armed complicates the planning for a plane takeover enormously. Even a lightly fortified door makes it just about impossible to get into the cabin without getting killed when you don't have access to firearms or explosives. Even with firearms or explosives, the most likely event is the downing of the plane, which doesn't give you much you couldn't have got without taking over the cockpit.
If we make part of the safety breifing the information that the passengers are responsible to secure the passenger area while the crew are responsible for securing the cockpit, the possibility of another plane takeover is reduced to almost nothing.