The article pretty much spells out my expectation for arming pilots, which is that if you are going to put anybody on a plane with a gun, they ought to have a certain level or demonstrated proficiency with that firearm in that context so that the question of response vs responsibility is moot.

Otherwise, let's agree that every flight should have an armed security contingent aboard it, who's purpose is not only to deal with threats in the cabin, but also to provide a threat response defending the cockpit, that way, pilots won't need to worry about being armed. The flight crew can then enter the plane separately and isolated from the cabin, and once in flight, no one in the cabin can get to the flight crew or the cockpit. Sure, it might cut down on the conveniences a bit, but it would also solve a major problem with access to the flight crew such as what occurred on 9/11. Then it doesn't matter if the flight crew are armed or not anymore, the most that a terrorist could hope to do is blow the plane up mid air. That is something neither the flight crew nor any armed contingent is going to be able to stop anyways.

If you aren't going to physically isolate the cockpit from the cabin, then you have to consider that there is virtually no door, and therefore no isolation between the cabin and the cockpit area, as any door you put in can and will be breached rather easily. That being the case, and the fact that there is no armor in the walls of the cockpit preventing terrorists from simply shooting through upon first denial, the notion that the pilot and co-pilot are somehow going to remain separated from any terrorist activity in the cabin is senseless, and the need for armed response by them to any threat whether behind the door or after a breach is undifferentiated. Therefore, to say that they need only be armed and ready to respond once they are in the cockpit and behind a veil of security is nothing more than an illusion, and basing a training plan on that premise is to invite disaster.

In short, the TSA's approach to cockpit secuity is really not much better than it always has been.

I would much prefer that anyone who's going to be armed and responsible for the security aboard a commercial flight better dang well have adequate training regardless of their position aboard the plane. To say that the pilot/co-pilot should only have training necessary to deal with a threat within the cockpit seems to me rather irresponsible. I am not saying that pilots don't have the propensity to learn how to respond properly, only that the directives governing their training and allowable response to a threat are ludicrous and unrealistic in such an environment. If they wait to deal with a threat until a breach is imminent, then in my opinion they've already been defeated. Either you arm them and train them to do the whole job, or else you make the cockpit wall bulletproof and unbreachable short of blowing the plane apart. This middle ground is just a stop gap to appease the public and give the flight crew the equivalent of a teddy bear.