Greetings all,
without entering into the pros and cons it is very apparent this topic generates significant interest from all involved.
There has been much argument about the hows and whys of how the weapon came to discharge. Like others here I too am familiar with the H&K and Glock range of products and each have multiple safeties as redundancy. The accepted position is that something had to make the weapon discharge.Be it a finger, or manipulation of the weapon during storage procedures, the discharge of the round is the last action in a series of events that allowed it to happen.
Whilst it is easy to apportion blame on the actions of the individual handling the weapon (and he may have to accept some liability), it is the final event in a chain of errors or faulty systems that allowed it to occur.
Most, if not all of you, are familiar with the human factors approach used in accident investigation. This is no different. An examination of the agency policies adopted, training and refresher systems, the procedures for carrying and rendering the weapon safe, the method of securing the weapon in a holster by way of a trigger lock (that may have inherant risks in installation), safe weapon storage on the aircraft, other human factors issues, the list goes on for ever.
Be it bending 400 tonnes of metal, or letting a stray round go, the outcome is usually the result of a series of risks, many that probably weren't properly assessed or treated, lining up to allow the incident. Or in the simple explanation, the holes in the Swiss cheese lined up.
Don't let the value of a potentially effective security programme be lost because of one incident. This incident should stand alone as an incident. We don't cancel other aviation activities based on a single incident or accident, we modify systems as required to improve safe work practices. One Unintentional discharge should not having any relevance to a debate on the benefits/risks of FFDO's.
Ppruners are the first to scream our collective heads off when the industry is maligned by the media over perceived poor or biased reporting. This is no different. Be reasonable in how you interpret the facts as we know them, and remember that safety cultures are rarely improved by lynching people publicly. Examine the entire issue and move on. I suspect a full and thorough investigation would reveal a systemic failure of training, equipment selection and operation policy, rather than one individual being left to carry the can.
Returns space to pro gun/anti gun lobby to continue to slug out!