"Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote...

In
extreme cases, rapid pressure loss (or perhaps
more accurately, an internal pressure differential) can
lead to major structural failures, especially around
bulkheads that are insufficiently vented -- the pressure
differential is enough to make these collapse -- or in
fuselages that are already 'tired'.

AFAIK, all current airliners have sufficient blow-out doors in interior
bulkheads to prevent that sort of structural failure.


There is also the risk of bullets bouncing around inside
the plane and doing damage to power lines, fuel systems,
etc. Historically, fire has been the major killer of
aircraft following projectile damage.

Since almost everything aft of the cockpit in an airliner is "soft" (aluminum,
fabric, plastic, fiberglass...), the likelihood of multiple ricochets is
extremely low. Also, the likelihood of hitting a pressurized fuel line in a
low-wing airliner is negligible. Even in a high-wing airplane like a BAE-146 or
ATR, it is also unlikely in any credible scenario I can think of. A single
inert bullet into a fuel tank would not likely cause a fire.


The worst problem is the prospect of a gun battle in a cabin
packed with people. Almost every stray bullet is going to
hit someone; even if the sky marshall hits the right man
(or woman) the bullet seems likely to hit others as well.

Considering the alternative of an uncontrolled crash into the ground, which do
you prefer?


I don't
think it is wise at all to give guns to pilots after
minimal training.

First, the training is NOT "minimal"! It is intense and specialized.

Second, the pilots' use of their weapon is restricted to the case where the
terrorist already has gained access to the cockpit (likely in an airplane where
there are NO Air Marshals). Again, there is only one credible alternative
today. Which do you prefer?