Considering how many rounds they carry, it wouldn't be a problem. But you wouldn't know that because you don't know any details of the program. Nothing like someone forming an opinion on something they don't really know or understand.

I have a scenario.....we can all come up with far fetched scenarios where crowbars are used to take doors off and knives can overpower all the passengers on an on airplane to Hawaii. Normally you plan and spend according to likely scenarios not far fetched ones. I would love to live in a risks free world but that's not possible. We have a debt crisis and all extraneous programs need to be cut from the budget. ALL OF THEM. If no one will die in FY2014 without the FFDO program it doesn't pass the test and should be dropped. I know this displeases some of you so you should lobby the legislators to raises taxes to pay for these lesser programs.

Aircraft have de pressurized that's why we need o2 masks. And although terrorist have succeeded in the past 9/11 changed the playing field. Now the passengers are your best layer of security once on board.

Does that sentiment include our country's nuclear deterrent?

USDA?

DEA?

DHS?

Fire bottles for the engines of the plane you fly?

Smoke detector in your house?

Do you have *any* concept of what "deterrence" and "value" mean?

No, I just realize "one shot one kill" is a fallacy. It helps with shot placement and is better than not having the goal, but reality is going to be different.

I did see Air Force 1 and Executive Decision.

My sentiment applies to any extraneous expenditure to include frivolous wars in the name of a mysterious moral code that serves to strengthen the military industrial complex this country seems to have become irrationally addicted too. It would take a lot of time too go through each section of government highlighting waste and unnecessary expenditure. The FFDO program is not the highest on the list but its up there. Another one is money for small market terminal makeovers while the communities they serve suffer with budget shortfalls.

Surely they can't be serious ?
Talk about hide in plain site ,what's the deal with vests nowadays ?

Ally

However if you consider the recent scenarios given, 3 rounds per hijacker, one would have to reload.

That is not the reason for my post however, I think the last part of your post is the most important in regards to the FFDO program. With the little information given to the non-FFDO pilot in regards to the program, it is little wonder that there are those who doubt the validity or importance of the program. Unfortunately, "trust us, it's worthwhile" doesn't cut it when dealing with tax payer money, even though many in our government believes it does.

In my opinion, the greatest threat to funding the FFDO program comes from within our own ranks. If our fellow pilots don't know enough about the program to feel it is necessary then that sentiment will make it out to the general public. For the program to be successful we need to have the support of our own people first.

It is a delicate balance between informing the masses and keeping sensitive material secret. However, we should be trying to educate our fellow pilot into why the program is worthwhile than attacking them for questioning the program. The later will only help to solidify their beliefs that the program should be defunded.

Here is a quick fact for those who believe in defunding the program:
Cost to Protect 2% of flights with Air Marshals: $700M/year
Cost to Protect 100% of flights with Armed Pilots: $15 M/year

APSA - Airline Pilots Security Alliance

Combine that with a recent GAO report that stated: "The 2013 duplication report estimates the government can save about $46 billion annually by implementing the GAO's recommendations for eliminating duplicate initiatives and another $48 billion annually by addressing additional areas identified by the report for potential cost savings, according to an executive summary released with the report."

GAO Report Finds $95B In Government Waste - Law360

Making the FFDO program one of our least concerns in terms of government spending.

With that, mate, you have nailed the very heart of the issue.

Those who decry the program simply don't know enough, and speak in ignorance. The issue is one of communication insofar as able, and education of those who unknowingly doubt.

Let us return to the pre-1968 standard: any pilot may carry the pistol they desire at any time in any way they desire.

No funding required.

It may be useful to publish desired tactical goals and limit size/caliber, but beyond that let the pilot decide if he can meet those standards. This would provide all the deterrent required at zero cost to the public.

While we are at it we might also make most other public programs strictly voluntary.