J
JLMEMT
Junior Audioholic
You would be surprised. They are very good at what they are trained to do. And that is fly the aircraft within its specified limits under all weather conditions. But in my professional experience the majority of the unscheduled maintenance that is performed is the direct result of pilots flying the planes out of their rated spec. Whether it be overspeeding the engines, or passing the rated "G" spec.
You kind of make my point with your example of the wife and kids thing. Combat experienced soldiers are proficient in combat because they have come to accept death and do not crumble under extreme situations. I don't think most people realize how hard it would be to pick out a 6 inch target on a moving aircraft while in a crisis situation. It would be nearly impossible especially for someone that shoots at static targets from solid ground for practice once a year . I'm not saying that I agree with the decision at all, just offering a little more insight
See above post.
I think the best solution would be to equip all pilots with some sort of less than lethal weaponry. Such as a high velocity beanbag gun or an electric stun gun. Something that would not be able to penetrate the skin of the aircraft and would not kill someone which would certainly be the case with the discharge of a firearm in close proximity. Even if you hit the target its still a good chance the round would pass through and hit a civilian.
That would be great when you A; Get the terrorists to agree to only attack one at a time or B; create a new super less lethal weapon.
Tasers are worthless against multiple targets.
Beanbags, etc require a shotgun or 40mm type launcher. So now you want them to operate a long gun in the space that you argue they can't effectively use a handgun( designed for close quarter combat)??