Another question about not arming airline pilots
The administration's decision to forbid airline pilots to use firearms as a last resort to save the plane makes less sense the more I think about it. They want the aircrew and the cabin crew to use non-lethal means. My question is: why do we insist that terrorist hijackers survive an attempt to take the plane?

Suicidal terrorists are obviously not dissuaded by the threat of death. But they are disssuaded by a significant chance of failure. They may be determined to take over the plane or die trying, but if the chances of dying trying are pretty high, they are much less likely to try at all - best to find a different target with a greater chance of success.

Now, though, the Bush administration has decided that "die trying" will never even enter the picture. This means that hijackers' odds of success are considerably better. The decision to leave pilots helpless makes hijackings more likely, and that means flying is more dangerous with unarmed pilots than armed ones.

Oh, the Transportation Dept. says that armed sky marshals on airliners have all the deadly force needed. Sure, of course - when the sky marshal corps becomes the size of the Marine Corps. Right now it is so small that only a tiny fraction of flights are covered, and no plans have been announced (that I am aware of) to expand the sky marshals' numbers.

I am flying to another state tomorrow, and I and my fellow passengers will be just as helpless as those of Sept. 11.