When he was flying the training was different, echoing

When he was flying the training was different, echoing Bob Anderson that “cooperate” wa^ the key word.

It was not worth endangering passengers just because someone was trying to get to Cuba or someplace else.

Once the hijackers began thinking out of the box with the attack on Sept. 11, everything changed.

“Crash action” maneuvers (sudden movements of the plane designed to throw the hijackers badly off balance) are still part of every pilot’s basic training for protecting the plane and its passengers.

He worries about the guns. When he was flying, the majority of pilots had come from the military. Not so today, he said. They are lacking the training in proper judgment in the use of a weapon as well as the physical training necessary.

He also allowed that pilots, yesterday’s and today’s, aren’t perfect. There are as many “quirks” in pilots as in the general population.

Personally, Mr. Metcalfe wouldn’t hesitate to use a weapon. He just questions it.

Roger Andrews of Washington, would be flying tomorrow if they’d ask him, and he’s definitely in fqvor of letting the pilots have weapons in the cockpit.

“You’ve got very responsible people up there to begin with,” he said.

He’s heard people argue that the pilot should be flying the plane and not having a shoot out.

His response is that they’d be trained properly and would act as a deterrent.

He said 100 percent of the current and retired pilots he’s spoken with about this are in favor of arming the pilots.

Bob Lane from Huntly, a Navytrained pilot says no to guns in the cockpit. “Not a good idea.”

A weapon in the cockpit just creates problems.

Whose gun is it?

Who’s responsible for it?

Does it come and go with the pilot?

Does that make pilot more of a target?

How to get through security?

Additional training would be needed.

“I wouldn’t want the hassle and responsibility of being armed. There have to be better ways to