The "what if" scenario in your editorial (Flight International, 6-12 January) is disingenuous in purporting to present arguments both for and against the arming of pilots. It only presented the case against.
In the first example, where armed terrorists storm the flightdeck door, you say that armed pilots may not win a shoot-out. But you do not explain how being unarmed would be preferable. The crucial point is that armed pilots have a chance of survival. Unarmed pilots have none.
With armed pilots, terrorists would need to get guns past security. With unarmed pilots, all they need are knives, available inundetectable kevlar or ceramics: a much easier proposition and one demonstrated effectively on 11 September when the "what if" scenario played for real and 3,000 people died.
On the question of sky marshals, I would agree that they could be easily overpowered, which is why armed personnel should not be in the cabin. They should be behind the reinforced flightdeck door to provide last-resort defence.
Opposition to armed pilots is not based on a rational assessment of risk, rather it is driven by fear and prejudice. Civilian pilots who have never handled guns fear them.
David Lonsdale Malaga, Spain
Your front cover (Flight International, 13-19 January) asks "if we feel safer with air marshals" on civilian air transport carriers; the answer must surely be an unqualified "no".
The carriage of armed security officers is anathema to anyone with an interest in aviation security. Ground-based security systems and intelligence should be used to ensure that all passengers are fully screened. In circumstances where doubt may exist as to the safety and security of an individual service, then the option of cancelling the flight remains. Guns have no place on aircraft.
The air marshal programme was implemented in Australia with indecent haste and no public debate. There was barely a whimper of protest from either the travelling public or the relevant aircrew associations. It is wrong to suggest that this represented an acquiescence with the imposition of a politically expedient government policy.
It is encouraging to read that pilots associations and European governments are questioning the wisdom of authorising the carriage of weapons on public transport aircraft. US aviation security policy is a matter for the US government. European carriers and their governments should strenuously resist having this policy, and its attendant gun culture, imposed upon them.
Michael Green Heathcote, New South Wales, Australia
As far as guns aboard aircraft are concerned, the assertion by Ron Hindenberger, Boeing Commercial Airplanes director of aviation safety (Flight International, 13-19 January) that "Boeing's commercial service history contains cases of gunfire on board in-service aircraft, all of which landed safely" is, so far as I recall, not strictly correct. On 4 December 1977, a Malaysian Airline System Boeing 737-200 was brought down in Malaysia, with the loss of all on board, by a hijacker with a gun, although this involved the crew being shot and fatally wounded rather than the pressure hull being breached.
Tony Kilbride Newdigate, Surrey, UK
We spend millions on "security'" to stop firearms getting through airports and on to aircraft, and now the USA insists we put guns on aircraft (admittedly, with sky marshals) to save the terrorists from the hassle of smuggling them in. Now it's a much simpler "who's got it?" matter! Has the USA gone mad?
John Wallinger Upton Grey, Hampshire, UK
Source: Flight International
