Let me clarify my position on the subject. I am very much against the placement of a taser or other non-lethal device on the flight deck/cockpit as the sole or primary defense; I believe it represents a clintonesque viewpoint. It's politically correct, but a dangerous mistake. It comes from the same non-realistic thinking that suggests people should shoot to wound.
If lethal force is required (and it is in the event of a breach of the cockpit), then it's all or nothing. Either it's unwarranted, or it's warranted. A pilot in the cockpit does not have the training or experience, and won't get it from the cockpit, to make a snap decision on the use of force continuem. That is, if an assault on the cockpit is made, there isn't time to recognize a point at which an impact weapon is no longer viable, at which non lethal electrical or chemical weapons are no longer viable, and at which point lethal force should be employed. It's asking too much, and there simply isn't the time or maneuvering room.
On the subject of stopping a determined attacker: the FBI determined years ago (and it's a popular real-life training clip on film) that an attacker with a knife at 21 yards could still kill his victim, even though the victim put eight rounds of 230 grain .45 ACP hardball through the attackers heart. This sounds fantastic to some folks; many people believe that it's a fools errand to bring a knife to a gun fight. Often it's the other way around. If someone is determined, and knows what they're doing, experience and training often wins hands down. The choice of weapon doesn't matter. Read that again. The weapon does NOT matter. THe circumstances are often the deciding factor.
Where does this leave us in the cockpit? With only a few feet of protective distance and a disadvantaged defensive position (strapped into a chair facing the other way), the pilot needs something decisive to end the conflict NOW. There is no room for single shot, see if it works type thinking. Something which will immediately incapacitate is required. This will require SOMETHING which will interrupt the central nervous system. Unless the pilot has the ability and training to effectively employ an impact or edged weapon (will take 10-15 years of daily training to accomplish), then really only two effective choices remain.
A gunshot to the head or pelvis is most effective, but seldom employed in close quarters defense; at least two shots to the upper chest cavity ("center mass") is the most viable and immediate target, but does not accomplish interruption of the central nervous system, and may or may not stop an attacker. (Remember that even shot through both lungs and heart, an attacker may complete the attack and develop a fatal blow, at close quarters).
The other choice is to electrically interrupt the CNS. This is the intent of the taser. It may or may not work. Generally the state of the attacker is not relevant to the use of the TASER. It is supposed to drop the attacker immediately. It is supposed to work through clothing. It is supposed to do many things. Do you want to be the test pilot who finds out when someone is attempting to slice your throat from ear to ear or put a pick in the back of your neck or behind your ear? When someone rolls a thunderflash grenade of a homemade popper with semtex or C4 (smuggled in their shoe) in your door or blows off the hinges during an entry, will you have the presence of mind to aim, squeeze, and hold the trigger on the taser for the first, second, third, and fourth attackers through the door?
A taser has some very bonafide uses. It's an outstanding way of neutralizing an aggressive individual or incapacitating someone in certain tactical situations. In an assault, personally, I would much prefer a firearm with which I have trained a LOT and regularly, and with which I'm comfortable. A Kahr or Glock with no external controls, a slick clean external surface that doesn't grab clothing, and the reliability of a fine dog, is ideal. No thinking, no disharmony, ergonomic, simple to use, reliable to the extreme. In most cases, so is a revolver.
Remember that a defense of the cockpit isn't going to be a long protracted battle; it's a rapid blitzkreig action; it's begun and ended in time measured in seconds, not minutes or hours.
On the subject of chemical defenses, don't compare them all to what is used in the bar. There are much more effective weapons in terms of concentration, makeup, size, etc. A few things to consider; powders and gasses are out. Use them in a confined space against an attacker, and the defender and attacker are breathing the same air. Generally you must be close and must apply it directly to the eyes and potentially airway of the attacker. In a law enforcement setting, it's usually used as a control while restraining someone. It's used to temporarily blind an attacker, and to take some of the fight out of them. It's not intended to stop the attacker.
A very effective compound today uses foaming action to retain the concentrated formula on the subjects face, in the mouth and airway, etc. It is physically blinding, and any effort to remove it by rubbing or wiping only makes it worse. It's available in a variety of delivery methods, from sprays to projectiles.
Chemical spray (OC at 20%) is often used and recommended for defense against bears; the probability of success is much higher than using a firearm, in many cases. However, I may be old fashioned, but while I'm all for carrying a large canister of OC with some range to it, nothing beats the reassurance of a .44 magnum. (Except possibly a .454).
Tasers and chemicals have a place, in the event a situation can be neutralized and mop up and arrest is immenent. One does not attempt to handcuff a fighting prisoner, and one does not tap an attacker on the shoulder to make him stop. First and foremost in stopping a cockpit assault is to STOP the assault, and there's no room to **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** foot around or play. It's a deadly serious mission. If the potential to retain an attacker alive after the situaition has been neutralized remains, then it will certainly prove valueable to intelligence agencies after the fact, and should be considered. It should NOT be considered during the assault, especially with untrained troops (pilots) making the call. Pilots shouldn't have to decide or worry about tactics; it's no time or place for such things.
I'm not against United or Mesa keeping a TASER on the flight deck, but it's use is very limited. There are better choices
for critical defense. Those choices still need to be addressed. The overwhelming voice of pilots in this country is leaning toward a defensive firearm. If the voice of the working industry is that united and prevelant, then my gut feeling is that this is a direction we very seriously need to consider moving. If that's to happen, it's going to take a proactive effort on the part of every concerned individual; letter writing, signing petitions, etc. It's not a politically correct action, and that needs to change.
Is your life worth a stamp and a signature? I'd think so.
