Pardon the Loud Noise, Captain...

[AKAAB]

We all knew it was inevitable. Well, it finally happened. Let's see how this gets whitewashed in the next 24 hours.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

By DIANA RUGG / WCNC
E-mail Diana: [email protected]

CHARLOTTE, N.C.-- A US Airways pilot’s gun accidentally discharged during a flight from Denver to Charlotte Saturday, according to as statement released by the airline. The statement said the discharge happened on Flight 1536, which left Denver at approximately 6:45am and arrived in Charlotte at approximately 11:51am. The Airbus A319 plane landed safely and none of the flight’s 124 passengers or five crew members was injured, according to the statement. It was a full flight. And airline spokeswoman said the plane has been taken out of service to make sure it is safe to return to flight. A Transportation Safety Administration spokeswoman reached by WCNC Sunday said the pilot is part of TSA’s Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program, which trains pilots to carry guns on flights. Andrea McCauley said the gun discharged in the cockpit, but she could not release how the gun was being transported at the time. She did not release the pilot’s name, but said he was authorized to carry the weapon and was last requalified in the FFDO program last November. A statement from TSA said the airplane was never in danger, and the TSA and the Federal Air Marshals Service are investigating the incident. WCNC reporter Diana Rugg is following up on this story. If you or someone you know were on that flight, please e-mail her at [email protected].

...

[411A]

Yep, have to agree, it was inevitable.
Guns and pilots together on the FD is a very bad idea, as boys and their toys do not mix well.
Wonder what he was doing...playing quick draw McGraw?:rolleyes::}

[GlueBall]

This F/O with an apparent siege mentality must have had the trigger cocked; the only way for the gun to fire, albeit accidentally!

Thank goodness for the armor plated cockpit door to protect the persons outside the cockpit. :eek:

[ImageGear]

As most of us know it does not take the hammer to be cocked before a discharge can occur. Simply dropping the weapon onto a cockpit floor is enough to cause a discharge if you have "one up the spout".

(Speak to my colleague with the shattered ankle bone if you have any doubts, albeeit done when his shooter fell from the seat between his legs in the car, and before you ask it was legal and in Joburg)

I wonder what the chances are of a single discharge starting a cockpit electrical fire. Seems to me that the risks of taking out your partner or worse must also outweigh the advantages ?

Imagegear

[Valerijs]

TSA’s Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program,
How long does the program go,when did it start?:ugh:

[Dan Winterland]

Having one in the chamber is just as irresponsible as having one in and the thing cocked IMHO. In fact, why did the 'flying leatherneck' think it was acceptable to have the thing on board in the first place?

[Unwell_Raptor]

It's the whole American gun obsession thing, isn't it?

A pro-gun person said a while ago "An armed society is a polite society".

They must have beautiful manners in Baghdad then.

[SeldomFixit]

Reminds me of Chickenhawk, when Bob Mason blew out the bubble "dryfiring" someone's personal toy after being badgered to do so. Commanding Officer, handing Bob the remains of a VOR and asking, " So, Bob, did the VOR draw on you first?" :D :D :D

[kimcam]

Slightly off-topic I know (blame SeldomFixit), but wasn't Chickenhawk a great read!

Cam

[topjetboy]

We can only hope this knocks sense into the chaps who condone this type of nonsense. I have a funny feeling that's very wishful thinking.

[Sonic Bam]

Only in America ........ :rolleyes:

[overstress]

Does anyone know the make of weapon they use, or does one get qualify for the licence then pop down to Wal-Mart and tool up with whatever you fancy?

[ManaAdaSystem]

I can't wait for the report on this one. That is, if there will be one?

BTW, don't blame the Effoh. It doesn't say who carried the gun.

[Wile E. Coyote]

As most of us know it does not take the hammer to be cocked before a discharge can occur. Simply dropping the weapon onto a cockpit floor is enough to cause a discharge if you have "one up the spout".

A modern weapon in good working order, such as a CZ-75, Browning Hi-Power, Glock 17, Smith & Wesson 29 ("Dirty Harry Gun"), etc. will not go off if dropped even with one up the spout. The design of the gun makes this impossible, as the firing pin is physically blocked from making contact with the primer until the trigger is pulled. Some firearms, such as a CZ-75, are safe to carry even with one in the chamber and the hammer back, with the safety on and the user is properly trained, especially with regard to holstering and drawing the weapon. On occasion, I would carry a CZ-75 in this condition.

Some older weapons (e.g. single action revolvers, original Colt 1911) can easily be made to discharge if dropped. A fault in a modern weapon can also render them liable to accidentally discharge if dropped.

I would hope that a pilot permitted to carry a loaded firearm onto an aircraft would be issued with a modern well designed firearm, and more importantly, be trained exactly how to handle the firearm safely. Alas, many "trained" firearms users that I've come into contact with scare the holy crap out of me with their unsafe gun handling.....

I'd be very interested to know exactly what type of firearm was being carried, and what the training requirements are....

[cheesycol]

Whilst stretching to reach the chart holder, the pilot's spurs caught the clasp of the gun case which spilled open. As the gun fell out, the first officers trusty steed, which was teathered to the jump seat, stretched his aching hooves. The gun caught Silver's front right hoof and was launched against the Captains seat back where the weapon discharged, scaring the bejesus out of all on the flightdeck. Silver left a horse shaped hole in the flightdeck door as it bolted to the aft Lav, taking the jumpseat assembly with him.

[Just a spotter]

Out of curiosity, does the “TSA’s Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program” prescribe which side arms can and can not be carried and the types of shells are they allowed to use?

(a simple yes or no would suffice, not looking to breach security!)


JAS

[Huck]

OK, gents, you lot seem to need some reassurance, so let me do my best.

I am not a member of the program, but I've flown with some who are. Here's what I feel comfortable telling in public:

- The training is thorough. It is done by the federal government, at the same school that teaches Border Patrol officers.

- They don't take everybody. They certainly don't take "cowboys." Those are the first ones scratched off the list. Screening is very thorough, takes awhile and involves face-time with at least one psychiatrist.

- The weapons/ammo are standard issue, very modern and quite safe. Don't know what happened in this case but it was most certainly not dropped. I would suspect the FFDO was checking the chambered round - not a standard maneuver but I've heard some guys do it.

- There are more FFDO's now than federal skymarshals. The program costs the government next to nothing. And we haven't had an aircraft attacked in six-and-a-half years. Would you have thought this a good thing on September 12, 2001?

- We know it's an american thing. Got it. You don't understand. Got that too. If you want you can do a search and read some of the thousands of PPrune posts on guns and america in the archives.....

[Sallyann1234]

Huck,
I'll take your last point first and not restart the old controversy. But as to
- There are more FFDO's now than federal skymarshals. The program costs the government next to nothing. And we haven't had an aircraft attacked in six-and-a-half years.
are you suggesting that these are cause and effect, i.e. the lack of attacks is due to the FFDO's? Or should we conclude that the the lack of attacks mean they are not needed?

[FerrypilotDK]

A pro-gun person said a while ago "An armed society is a polite society".

They must have beautiful manners in Baghdad then.


That was an interesting observation. Obviously, being armed alone is not enough. I have thought about this on occasion, when thinking about armed Vikings, armed knights, armed Indians and settlers....... In addition to being armed, there were rather strict customs regarding the use of these arms. Nowadays, we seem to have no customs or honour, and so you get these mindless killings for an ipod or a cap or a pair of shoes.....or just because one feels like it. A 16 year old killed the other day on his paper route in Copenhagen. Another knifed on the street. In each case, 3 against one unarmed.....and for no "reason" other than being violent.

But then the non-armed have to choose whether they are going to arm themselves for self-defence.

Then the armed may become more "polite," or they may choose to be even more violent initially, assuming that their victims are now armed...

Interesting circle here........

But this has to do with one particular incident. Personally, I cannot see how a "well-trained" person could "accidently" discharge a firearm. Spontaneous combustion? It should never have been out of its case, holster or where-ever it is normally kept while in flight, unless it was thought to be used. He shouldn´t have been "checking it," loading it or showing it during routine flight. That seems simple enough...

[fox niner]

Well, I would say that the lack of atacks is because the real terrorists get the message. Namely, that trying to hi-jack an airplane is not worth the effort.
Hey, wait a minute.......That would mean that the number of hi-jacks in Europe, where pilots are not armed, should be on the rise. But as this is not the case, I would conclude that arming pilots is unnecessary from a deterrence point of view. (or any other point of view for that matter)

[Huck]

Personally, I cannot see how a "well-trained" person could "accidently" discharge a firearm. Spontaneous combustion? It should never have been out of its case, holster or where-ever it is normally kept while in flight, unless it was thought to be used. He shouldn´t have been "checking it," loading it or showing it during routine flight. That seems simple enough...

Certainly I agree with you. What an embarrasment. I hope the retribution is swift and harsh. Can you imagine how the non-FFDO crewmember sitting next to him felt?

As to comparisons US vs. EU, oh now stop. If your ground screening, etc. were as pathetic as ours, you'd be begging for a pistol too....

Let me give you the bottom line: we've got all the guns in the world, and civil rights laws that will stop any confiscation. Given that set of initial conditions, can you really argue against the good guys arming themselves as well?

[PAXboy]

At what stage of the flight, was the gun fired?

Huck. Your last point - We know it's an american thing. Got it. You don't understand. Got that too. Is one of the best remarks in the debate and so I shall make no debate with your other points. The USA is a very young country, in it's present form only since 1959. Looking from a country that can trace lineage for more than 1,000 years we know that it takes time for each country to find - and make - it's own balance. By further comparison so that you do not feel unduly criticised, South Africa is one of the youngest countries and is in a real mess.

[sikeano]

Damm, I say God Damm,

Accidents do happen, Hot coffee gets poured over SLF's who hardly moan (allegdly ) Guns get fired , Bombs get dropped , It is all about learning from our mistakes :ugh:

Let us not judge the Gun culture in Baghdad, US, or the Knife culture in UK, How about giving the benefit of doubt to the poor chap who fired his gun, Now he/she knows for certain the gun works :p

Carry on Flying

[mid_life_pilot]

I'm picking up a lot of anti-US sentiment / stereotyping on here. I would be geniunely interested for those people to explain what experience led to them holding such a view and whether this was media driven or from personal experience.

Over the last number of years I've done quite a bit of research into Jihad and Islamism to try and get an understanding for myself rather that what was reported in the media of why they feel compelled to destroy the west and one thing that keeps cropping up is media control and the Eurabian alliance (far too in depth to go into on here but worth a google if you're interested).

Disturbingly you find that there is a media culture of anti-americanism and lo and behold, the readers are slowly suckered into believing that the americans are the oil stealing bad guys and the jihadis are oppressed freedom fighters. This 'laziness' of readers beliefs brings the reader round to this view in such a way that they aren't concerned about looking for the flip side of the report. I personally was finding myself to come to the same conclusion which what prompted me to go digging because I have spent a lot of time in America and have many friends there and have always been in awe of the people and the country and it was disturbing to find myself at odds with this long held view.

Anyway, back on topic, this event on an american plane where an FFDO's weapon has somehow discharged is a classic example. Read the report again and its very neutral. The fact is the gun has been fired, nobody was injured, and the plane landed safely. But before you know it, its out on the net before any investigation has happened and people are free to let their imagination run wild and drag up the first stereotype that springs to mind and from there it propogates from a non-event to a full blown 'those dumb yanks and their guns nearly downed a jet after playing with a gun in the cockpit' story.

By the time the results from the investigation are released everybody has already had time to file the story under 'S' for stupid yanks and is therefore meaningless. If the results clear anyone of any wrong doing it will be a cover up (as AKAAB framed it at the start of this thread) or simply not reported because its not 'juicy' enough.

In summary, think about your motivation for your judgements - sometimes a double check can reveal the reality rather than the myth you are being led to believe.

Peace!

[tristar 500]

No body has said yet where the bullet went. The thought of a gun being fired in the flight deck fills me with alarm. With all the critical items in there, not least of which are the operating crew!!

I know "It`s an American thing" but if they must take one with them it should be locked away. There will be time to grab it if need due to the time that will be taken to get thoroug the dlight deck door

Tristar500

[fade to grey]

I'd certainly take the opportunity to carry one if it was legal in the UK, I had a UK FAC for five years and with the appropriate training do not see a problem:we have a general issue with guns in the UK, they are not the devil in disguise just tools to be treated with the upmost care.

Personally I'd want something with a little more va va voom like an MP5K....Ooh better stop I'm scaring myself now:ooh:

[ZAGORFLY]

cowboys should not fly, they should take care of horses not horse power.
if I would have be a passenger I would sue the airline to endangering my flying with on board guns.
Passengers Wake up!!!!!!!!!

[beemerbloke]

Does the program specifically train in the use of 'firearms' or is there an option/training for the use of Non-lethal weaponry ?

Aside from the obvious issues around stopping power and effectiveness surely non-lethal weaponry might be a happy medium for all ?

[AKAAB]

- They don't take everybody. They certainly don't take "cowboys." Those are the first ones scratched off the list. Screening is very thorough, takes awhile and involves face-time with at least one psychiatrist.

- Personally, I can think of at least three pilots I know that are in the program and many of their cohorts feel they don't have the maturity or self-control to be empowered with a firearm.

- It may have changed, but previously the psychiatrist eval was over the phone.

- Sadly, there are a number of FFDO's that admit they are in the program to make it less of a hassle to get through the TSA screening.

- I have one F/O that likes to make a big production of pulling out his weapon, placing it on the tray table while sorting out his lock box and reloads, then finally putting the damnable thing on his belt or back in his bag. (Just unzip and show everyone what you have if you need that kind of validation, Kimosabe.)

[Sportbiker]

Passengers can't sue the airline for allowing the pilot to have a gun. The government runs the program and the airline has no say who can carry and who can't.

[Capot]

The last weapon that was inclined to go off if you dropped it was the mass-produced WWII Sten gun, and that was because the bolt operated more or less freely in its cylinder on a spring, due to its design for simplicity and cheapness. So if it fell with the barrel pointing upwards the bolt could move backwards, pick up a round on the way forwards again, and fire it with the fixed firing pin (cheapness again) thus starting the automatic sequence of recoil against spring > forward, collect next round > fire > recoil.....etc.

It is inconceivable that any firearm made since, other than home-made ones, would fire accidentally if dropped, unless it is loaded and cocked with the safety off, and the trigger is somehow operated in the fall, and it is an urban myth that any could.

The weapon in this incident MUST have been loaded with the safety off to have fired. And that says it all about the so-called "training" that these people have evidently received.

[mephisto88]

I believe there is a saying: "If something can go wrong, it will go wrong" according to a Mr Murphy from the land of potatoes who has been proved correct on many occasions.

The circumstances will no doubt be investigated by the appropriate authorites. If the damage had been significant, I would contend the information would already be in the public domain.

So it seems it comes down to nothing more than "Bang, oops, what went wrong, lets learn", now lets get back to keeping the bad guys out.

All of this should not detract from the fact that we should be able to protect ourselves and our fare paying guests from those that wish us, and our western lifestyle, significant harm. That a firearm was discharged should not be vindication for the anti gun lobby to assert that firearms in an aircraft under the control of crew are more dangerous than allowing MustaffaFlyOfThePlane and his band of virgin seeking mates to seek access to the flight deck without the real fear and reality of meeting said heavenly bodies were he to try and gain access.
Where I fly, we are not allowed to carry firearms in the flt deck. We are also told that if Air marshalls are placed on board, we may not be told of that fact. Both circumstances elevate the potential risk to both crew and pax.
For what its worth, I believe the US has it right in as much as they not only allow suitably screened and trained members of crew access to a weapon, but make it enough public knowledge to additionally serve as a deterrent.
Keep up the good work guys (but maybe a little easier on the trigger finger?)

[Contacttower]

- Personally, I can think of at least three pilots I know that are in the program and many of their cohorts feel they don't have the maturity or self-control to be empowered with a firearm.

- It may have changed, but previously the psychiatrist eval was over the phone.

- Sadly, there are a number of FFDO's that admit they are in the program to make it less of a hassle to get through the TSA screening.

- I have one F/O that likes to make a big production of pulling out his weapon, placing it on the tray table while sorting out his lock box and reloads, then finally putting the damnable thing on his belt or back in his bag. (Just unzip and show everyone what you have if you need that kind of validation, Kimosabe.)

That all sounds rather worrying. As a passenger, or indeed if I was a commercial pilot I wouldn't have any problem at all with guns on the plane provided that the training (not just the physical handling of the weapon but also the "attitude" towards the weapon) was of the highest standards and the strictest procedures were followed at all time. Reading the above though, it looks like things need to be improved.

Guns have their place aviation security, but the users of them must be well trained. It's only if they are not that incidents like this become "inevitable".

[MAUMAU]

I'm picking up a lot of anti-US sentiment / stereotyping on here. I would be geniunely interested for those people to explain what experience led to them holding such a view and whether this was media driven or from personal experience.

Over the last number of years I've done quite a bit of research into Jihad and Islamism to try and get an understanding for myself rather that what was reported in the media of why they feel compelled to destroy the west and one thing that keeps cropping up is media control and the Eurabian alliance (far too in depth to go into on here but worth a google if you're interested).

Disturbingly you find that there is a media culture of anti-americanism and lo and behold, the readers are slowly suckered into believing that the americans are the oil stealing bad guys and the jihadis are oppressed freedom fighters. This 'laziness' of readers beliefs brings the reader round to this view in such a way that they aren't concerned about looking for the flip side of the report. I personally was finding myself to come to the same conclusion which what prompted me to go digging because I have spent a lot of time in America and have many friends there and have always been in awe of the people and the country and it was disturbing to find myself at odds with this long held view.

Anyway, back on topic, this event on an american plane where an FFDO's weapon has somehow discharged is a classic example. Read the report again and its very neutral. The fact is the gun has been fired, nobody was injured, and the plane landed safely. But before you know it, its out on the net before any investigation has happened and people are free to let their imagination run wild and drag up the first stereotype that springs to mind and from there it propogates from a non-event to a full blown 'those dumb yanks and their guns nearly downed a jet after playing with a gun in the cockpit' story.

By the time the results from the investigation are released everybody has already had time to file the story under 'S' for stupid yanks and is therefore meaningless. If the results clear anyone of any wrong doing it will be a cover up (as AKAAB framed it at the start of this thread) or simply not reported because its not 'juicy' enough.

In summary, think about your motivation for your judgements - sometimes a double check can reveal the reality rather than the myth you are being led to believe.

Peace!


Thank you for your well balanced and mature response. It is quite refreshing to hear from a individual that has the ability to think on his own.

I would share a cockpit with you anytime.

[barit1]

Only in America ........

Hardly.

KAL crews have worn sidearms for years, as did US aircrew many decades ago when they were duty-bound to protect the mail after a forced landing.

:rolleyes:

edit: I've often thought that airlines should advertise the percentage of their crews carrying heat. Some pax might be put off by this, but inasmuch as the bad guys avoid such flights, it's a good thing... :}

[KiloMikePapa]

My guess is the guy was told his plane was fitted with cartridge starters :}

[mickjoebill]

If it can happen to this guy it can happen to anyone.
He took it in the foot.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/46491/police_officer_accidentally_fires_a_gun_in_a_classroom/


The owner of a shooting range in the UK once pointed a loaded shotgun at me. He was excited at the clay torsos he had just shoot and forgot that he had loaded two rounds, he spun around to us in surprise because the French police shotgun round (like six ball bearings) splattered clay all over the place.

Apart from the presence of a film crew both experts were not under the kind of duress a pilot would be under facing a real threat.

Mickjoebill

[FerrypilotDK]

Crap.....just when I was thinking that I was wrong, you had to go and stir up my thoughts and get me going again. I had never heard of

http://gatesofvienna.*************/2006/10/eurabia-code_19.html

before, but Eurabia as a conscious political decision sounds more true than false when looking at recent history. Hmmmmm

explains more than a few things, in fact.

[lomapaseo]

Let's see we start with approval to arm pilots based on positive benefits outweighing negative risk. Risk considers minimial risk of disabling damage to aircraft should gun discharge in flight aimed at bad guy.

Unplanned event occurs where gun discharges accidently and confirms original presumptions of positive benefits outweighing negative risk.

[Dan Winterland]

With 19 years in the military, having been a firearms instructor, a qualified range officer, run two shooting clubs and having shot competatively for my country, I know however many safety features the weapon has had, or however many safety checks the user has, there is still a very real element of risk. It's a very rare case where firearms have a place on a civilian aircraft, particularly in the flight deck.

In my humble opinion.

[DesiPilot]

When I was flying in States I flew with some captains who were FFDO. Honestly, most of the first officers hated flying with FFDO. Not because they were pain to fly with, but becauseof the fact that we had to take extra steps everytime we opened the cockpit door. Before we could let anyone in the cockpit he'd have to put the gun away and lock it. Too much work just to go and take a piss. So we tried to avoid the FFDO's.

I guess it is a good programme, but than again, never heard an FFDO using his/her authority.

[Anotherflapoperator]

Capot, sorry mate, you are miles off track. Most older sub-machine guns operate on API, advanced Primer Ignition. You have to be very unlucky to drop it butt first enough to get the bolt to fall back enough to clear the back of the top catridge but not enough to reach the sear. If you did manage that feat, then yes, it might fire ONE off, but the recoil would actually be slightly more thna usual, due to the reduced momentum of the bolt accelerating for a shorter distance, and thus would easily clear the sear and stop in the loaded and cocked back state.

Many other SMGs will do precisely the same, from UZI, to Ingram M10/11, L9 sterling of even MP38/40 types. The MP5 Heckler&Kock series will not as they have a closed bolt delayed recoil action.

Revolvers generally do not have a heavy enough hammer to be able to fall back and operate the cylinder rotating mechanism as well. The worst I'd expect any revolver dropped hard butt first to do was half cock.

Self loading semi-auto pistols are also difficult to discharge by dropping, even M1911 colts. However it is easier to achieve with older guns. M1911 types use a firing pin that is shorter than it's hole, so the lowered hammer will push it flush with the chamber face. The momentum of the pin carries it through to fire the cartridge, and it will then retract to allow the rear of the cartridge to fall with the barrel in the short recoil swinging link action that the colt uses. The (Modern?) 1926 designed Browning Hi-Power uses a cam but similar pin.

Newer designs with interlocks that positively lock the pin from moving under impulse, inclue Walther types like the P38, and earlier models too. It's not just fancy half plastic ego-9mm weapons that are well designed, plenty of old museum quality weapons were thought out properly and designed to be carried safely too.

I've been out of it too long to really understand the workings of modern Glocks and Smith&wesson Semi autos, but don't knock the older guns (literally) unless you know them well.

I'd also wonder about a possible ammunition fault in this case. Too easy to blame the handler, especially if he's American. The jolt from loading, or the jolt from dropping a safety lever which would lock the pin in place then drop the hammer on a modern double action gun, shouldn't cause a cap to ignite, but it has been known.

If it was handled properly, I'd expect a flat slug and mess of sooty paper in the bottom of his flight case.......

[Capot]

Anotherflapoperator..

I think you're saying almost what I was saying! A properly designed weapon will not fire if dropped for the reasons you state.

The Sten, which I trained on as a boy before the Stirling replaced it, was a cheap and cheerful wartime expedient that any workshop could make. It's still "home-made" in Asia, I believe. It had a sear, of course, but on occasions the only way of stopping it if the sear was very worn was to pull the magazine off.

[Tigs2]

Anotherflap...

'd also wonder about a possible ammunition fault in this case. Too easy to blame the handler, especially if he's American. The jolt from loading, or the jolt from dropping a safety lever which would lock the pin in place then drop the hammer on a modern double action gun, shouldn't cause a cap to ignite, but it has been known.

There should not have been a round in the chamber! Simple really.

[wileydog3]

I hope the retribution is swift and harsh.

Huck, what will that accomplish?

[warp factor]

The plane was never in danger....wonder where the round went?

[wileydog3]

411A as boys and their toys do not mix well.

If they are 'boys' and the guns are 'toys', neither should be in the cockpit.

[wileydog3]

Having one in the chamber is just as irresponsible as having one in and the thing cocked IMHO. In fact, why did the 'flying leatherneck' think it was acceptable to have the thing on board in the first place?

So, you would suggest that you may carry a weapon but not be ready to use it?

As for why he had it, you may remember 9-11 when suicidal thugs invaded a defenseless cockpit.

[wileydog3]

Well, I would say that the lack of atacks is because the real terrorists get the message. Namely, that trying to hi-jack an airplane is not worth the effort. Hey, wait a minute.......That would mean that the number of hi-jacks in Europe, where pilots are not armed, should be on the rise.

Classic non sequitur but nice try.

[wileydog3]

I know "It`s an American thing" but if they must take one with them it should be locked away. There will be time to grab it if need due to the time that will be taken to get thoroug the dlight deck door

Tristar500

And how much time do you think it takes to breech a door? Minutes, seconds, a second or two? Before you answer, i would suggest unless you are former EOD or are very familiar with some of the tactics used to defeat doors, your estimate may be terribly inaccurate.

[Finn47]

One year ago I read an article about the FFDO program by the Belleville News-Herald, now unavailable. Supposedly about 8000 pilots have completed the voluntary training - in their own free time. Heckler & Koch .40 handguns provided by the TSA, to be worn at the hip when inside the locked cockpit, to be stowed away for toilet breaks & such.

[wileydog3]

- Personally, I can think of at least three pilots I know that are in the program and many of their cohorts feel they don't have the maturity or self-control to be empowered with a firearm.

- It may have changed, but previously the psychiatrist eval was over the phone.

- I have one F/O that likes to make a big production of pulling out his weapon, placing it on the tray table while sorting out his lock box and reloads, then finally putting the damnable thing on his belt or back in his bag. (Just unzip and show everyone what you have if you need that kind of validation, Kimosabe.)

You have avenues to address this problem. Just notify the FFDO office of such antics and it will be taken care of. If you have concerns about certain individuals and their lack of maturity, just make a call. The program is too valuable to let a few lone rangers screw it up.

Now retired and out of the program, I can say training was VERY focused, very professional and no one was willing to take any crap. I can also say everyone I knew in the program were not qualified over the phone.

[Capt.KAOS]

What's the need of a gun on the flight deck if you have a closed armoured door? Do they storm out of the cockpit if something happens in the cabin?

[AKAAB]

What's the need of a gun on the flight deck if you have a closed armoured door? Do they storm out of the cockpit if something happens in the cabin?

No, they do not. And, that is the fallacy of the argument where they ask what would the world be like if the pilots had been armed on 9/11. Back then we were trained to cooperate with hijackers, so the pilots let them into the cockpit. Today, we don't. We are supposed to stay locked in the cockpit and get the plane on the ground as fast as we can. No Rambo's need apply.

Have you ever wondered why the bank doesn't station a guard inside the vault at night? It's because the vault, for all intents and purposes, is made impenetrable when it is locked. The same needs to be done with the cockpit door.

[Chugalug2]

In an effort to emphasise the positive, might I commend the attached two videos. They both include some exemplary lessons in good gun handling. Perhaps they could be worked into the FFDO programme to some advantage?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7KtEdoelqA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXcJ1kAgNw

[preduk]

I don't agree with pilots carrying fire arms...

However, if the US are that scared of men in caves then I wouldn't mind having armed security officers on board the aircraft pretending to be normal airline passengers. They could switch from flight to flight so that the "terrorists" wont know which flight they are on board. I believe t hat would be a deterrent.

It wouldn't work in the UK anyway... Ryanair would require all crew to purchase their own weapon :ugh:

[wileydog3]

Have you ever wondered why the bank doesn't station a guard inside the vault at night? It's because the vault, for all intents and purposes, is made impenetrable when it is locked. The same needs to be done with the cockpit door. AKAAB

And just how does one do this installing of an impenetrable door?

[DocSullivan]

For what it's worth, here is the link to info on the FFDO program on the TSA website. It might answer some questions about what the training entails:

Federal Flight Deck Officers (http://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/programs/ffdo.shtm) - TSA website

And here is the TSA's public statement about the US Airways incident:

TSA Statement on US Airways Flight #1536 (http://www.tsa.dhs.gov/press/happenings/usair_1536.shtm) - TSA news release

Looks like that newspaper article quoted directly from the TSA statement.

[Captain_djaffar]

A pro-gun person said a while ago "An armed society is a polite society".

They must have beautiful manners in Baghdad then.


Analysis of armed society in the past century,not necessarily only in the USA,but everywhere,includes more 'honourable' use of arms (knifes and guns)

Nowadays you eat 2 or 3 bullets in the skull for few quids,stab because you had the latest ipod,or simply someone testing his new beretta.

I still remember someone who went to afghanistan in the past well before war, relating how a 10 year old kid painted his grandmother with an AK-47 owned by his dad,the reason being he was refused more food.

I can understand understand societies differ in mentality and geographically,but at the end,the result is the same: death.

[gadgetjunkie]

FFDO's have 1 accidental discharge on an aircraft since the inception of the program , and no deaths ,that is a very good saftey record when compared to other US law enforcement agencies .

In 2001 there were five deaths in special weapons and tactics training exercises in this country as cited by the National Tactical Officers Association. These officers were very experienced and well trained .

Below are some more facts from the US Dept of Justice. Their departments had a total of 102 accidental discharges in just 3 years . Not to knock them , just shows how easy it can happen , and to show that FFDO's are doing a great job .

The LEOs who enforce federal laws generally carry firearms. During FY 2000 through FY 2003, the components reported that 267 shooting incidents occurred during enforcement and other operations, including training, cleaning weapons, and while acting as Peace Officers.16 (http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/plus/e0410/intro.htm#16) Of these 267 shooting incidents, 105 were intentional discharges at suspects during enforcement operations, 14 were unintentional discharges during enforcement operations, 60 were intentional discharges at animals (e.g., vicious dogs, injured deer), and 88 were unintentional discharges during non-enforcement activities

[Two's in]

See you all in Jetblast...

[gadgetjunkie]

Exactly ! How quickly everybody forgets .

[Conan The Barber]

Who would be more likely to open the cockpit door to help a pax/FA or engage the baddie. Those with a gun or those without?

[Capt.KAOS]

No Rambo's need apply.

Have you ever wondered why the bank doesn't station a guard inside the vault at night? It's because the vault, for all intents and purposes, is made impenetrable when it is locked. The same needs to be done with the cockpit door.I'm sorry if my irony wasn't apparent. Again, the question was: why a gun in the cockpit with a locked armoured door?

[gadgetjunkie]

The flight deck door must come open during the flight at some point in the flight (food , drinks , etc ) that is the time of vulnerability . I'm sure the bank vault door must come open at some point and when it does there will be plenty of armed security nearby.

[Dogma]

I gather he was suffering from A319 ecam rage, having earlier had to have his gun x-rayed by an over zealous TSA officer.

Pilots should be allowed to pack heat, I have seen a yank glock land side in Manch, the Pilots just carried them through on the coach to the Hotac.

Surely this is a one off incident in Gods own country. Come on UK Dft make Pilots part of the front line! Not the f:mad:ing suspects!

:ok:

[jimt33]

This pilot, who was sitting in the left seat, last re-qualified on Nov. 7, 2007.U.S. Airways said it is cooperating with law enforcement authorities investigating the incident.The Federal Air Marshall service said this is the first time anything like this has happened. Federal Flight Deck Officers use Heckler and Koch universal self-loading 40-caliber pistols and are allowed to carry these weapons ready to use -- like any other law enforcement officer. The Federal Flight Deck Officers need to be re-qualified twice a year.A federal aviation security source told ABC the discharged round hit the side of the Airbus A319 and did not hit any sensitive equipment. The round likely exited the bulkhead but did not result in depressurization. The incident occurred on final approach.TSA said passengers were not aware that the weapon was discharged and flight 1536 landed without incident.The jet has been taken out of service for inspection.

Must be part of a new approach procedure....... Check pistol, cleared to land

[galaxy flyer]

TSA said passengers were not aware that the weapon was discharged and flight 1536 landed without incident.The jet has been taken out of service for inspection.

Does US Air hand out earplugs to pax now? I've been in a building when an accidental discharge occurred, believe me, everyone knew it.

GF

[Mark in CA]

Getting back to the actual incident for a moment, the latest report I read says the aircraft has been taken out of service. No word on damages, if any.

=====
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The gun carried by a US Airways pilot accidentally went off on a flight from Denver to Charlotte on Saturday, causing the plane to be pulled from service, the airline said on Monday.

No one was injured by the shot, and the aircraft landed safely in Charlotte. Flight 1536 had 124 passengers, two pilots and three flight attendants aboard, US Airways said.

The pilot was a Federal Flight Deck Officer, permissioned by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration to carry a firearm.
=====

We now return you to the previously scheduled programming....

[Smudger]

We knew it was going to happen, it happened. When will they (they = airline management, regulatory bodies, whoever - anybody who can stick their oar in) start listening to pilots - the people that actually know what they are talking about? The problem is a difficult one to solve and I don't have all the answers but guns on the flight deck is a BAD THING. Anybody listening?

[Fergus Kavanagh]

Run this by me again?

You have to lock the gun away when you open the door to go for a slash.?

So, when the door is open, the time of max vulnerability, you have the gun
locked away, but when the door is locked, and there is little threat, you
can take it out and .......

Nah, that cant be right.....

But it probably is.

[Blues&twos]

A statement from TSA said the airplane was never in danger

a weapon was accidentally discharged in the cockpit of a passenger filled aircraft, in flight. I'd like to see the logic behind TSA's statement.

[crg28]

Catch23 ?
Run this by me again?

You have to lock the gun away when you open the door to go for a slash.?

So, when the door is open, the time of max vulnerability, you have the gun
locked away, but when the door is locked, and there is little threat, you
can take it out and .......

Nah, that cant be right.....

But it probably is.


This has to be the funniest post ever....:D

[AKAAB]

Run this by me again?

You have to lock the gun away when you open the door to go for a slash.?

So, when the door is open, the time of max vulnerability, you have the gun
locked away, but when the door is locked, and there is little threat, you
can take it out and .......

Nah, that cant be right.....

But it probably is.

Precisely the discussion I had the first time an FFDO showed up to fly with me. We were given very little information and it was the first time I heard what the protocol was. BTW - they have to lock it away so a bad guy can't take it from them if they get into the cockpit when the cockpit door is open. (How about designing it so the door is never open to the cabin?)

Frankly, at this point I'm more concerned about someone tossing something into the cockpit through the open door. A broken bottle of Chanel #5 will take me down in a second!

[pasoundman]

Sonic Bam
Only in America ........

Oh SO true.

What on earth was the F/O thinking of ? An imminent attack by 'camel jockeys' as I gather they're called over there ?

Christ, guys like that are a hazard to us all !

[Fergus Kavanagh]

Fortunately, not a problem on my aircraft;
No cockpit door, in fact, no cockpit, :p

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=b_0jtfMIilM

[pasoundman]

Huck
And we haven't had an aircraft attacked in six-and-a-half years.

And the rate WITHOUT gun toting nitwits on the flighdeck is ........ ?

[Huck]

And the rate WITHOUT gun toting nitwits on the flighdeck is ........ ?


you can google as good as I can, but this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cuba-US_aircraft_hijackings)will get you started......

[kayger12]

Just a few words--

In the firearms training community the saying goes that there is no such thing as an accidental discharge-- we call them negligent discharges because that's what they are. Calling them accidental discharges is like having a pilot forget to lower the gear and calling it an accidental belly landing. Nothing accidental about it.

The firearms which pilots are allowed to carry can only be fired by pulling the trigger- period. The gun doesn't go off by itself, and it doesn't go off if dropped, hit, kicked, slammed, jolted, or otherwise displaced with (insert euphemism of choice).

One of the primary firearms safety rules goes as follows: do not place your finger on the trigger or inside of the trigger guard unless you are on target and have made a conscious decision to fire. If this rule is followed, the gun won't go off.

As for the shots at the American gun culture-- I know it's terribly untidy and offensive to your high-browed sensibilities, but it's served us well since the mid 1700's-- and I don't seem to recall too many complaints from your side of the pond during the last century while the products of our gun culture in uniform were making your part of the world safe for afternoon tea.:mad:

If someone finds their way into your little Valhalla in flight, feel free to bestow upon them the merits of reconsidering their hostile activities in lieu of a more respectable moral code-- I'll hope the guy flying the plane I'm on will be aerating the intruder's vital organs-- but there I go being American.:ugh:

[pattern_is_full]

[JOURNALIST WARNING!]

Just to let you know, while I post here usually as a pilot, in this case it is a local Denver story so I 'm wearing my editor hat today. But just reading for deep background information - nothing for publication, no specific questions to ask.

Our story has a quote from a denver aviation official to the effect that the Tv show "Mythbusters" has demonstrated that a gunshot to the airframe skin or a window will not EXPLOSIVELY decompress a pressurized plane: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(season_3)#Explosive_Decompression

On another point, Denver Airport official said it must have happened "near Charlotte", since the plane "did not return to Denver".(Yeah, I know - I'm just quoting him!) But that ties in with the news report quoted previously here that it happened on final approach.

[update - our story for tomorrow says the incident occurred at 9:50 Denver time, 11:50 Charlotte time, and the flight was due to land (according to FlightAware) right about 11:50 - so final approach sounds correct (and a bad time to be distracted by loud noises!)]

[Two's in]

It's easy to laugh this time when it was only a handgun - next time it could be more than 3 Fluid ounces of hand lotion.

[Jaxon]

If the assigned procedures are observed, it is impossible to have an accidental discharge on an aircraft. The pilot is in deep poo.

[Mark in CA]

If this did occur on final approach, then wouldn't it be unlikely that a round penetrating the fuselage would result in decompression because the plane was likely at or below the cabin altitude anyway? What would happen if this occurred at a much higher altitude?

[joelnthailand]

As an American, I am quite unfomfortable saying this, but we definitely have it wrong. The US has a problem.

There are too many guns, and that now, unfortunately, includes the cockpit. I cannot imagine how they would help in the cockpit. If guns made people safer, the US wouldn't have the number of murders (by guns) that it has.

The solution is a compromise that limits access with reason. Guns only to those that are instructed, certified and licensed; and most certainly not in an airplane where there is absolutely no need for them.

[Jaxon]

Mark in CA,
A bullet hole will not upset the pressurization situation at any altitude.
J

[West Coast]

I'm sorry if my irony wasn't apparent. Again, the question was: why a gun in the cockpit with a locked armoured door?


I no more want to rely on the door for the security of the aircraft than the French should have relied on the maginot line. I have to be careful knowing a journo is in the debate, but the door has its limits. I'm not having a go at you Kaos with my abbreviated answer, I save that for JB. I'll leave it to say for every measure there's a counter measure.

Fade to grey
Can you elaborate on the UK program? I am not familiar with it. Thanks.

[znww5]

I'm just relieved that the aircraft had an armoured door to protect the pax from the aircrew !

[DutchRoll]

I no more want to rely on the door for the security of the aircraft than the French should have relied on the maginot line.
......somewhat of a logical fallacy.

The Maginot line had obvious flaws and an even more obvious way of bypassing it. A terrorist is hardly going to sneak in an open side window (or pretty much any other way) to get to the cockpit these days.

For those arguing about the "lack" of terror attacks in the US: to attribute that to armed pilots is even more of a logical fallacy. The lack of terror attacks is equally true in the huge majority of countries who do not arm their pilots. Could there be a common cause for this perhaps (he asks, already knowing the answer)?

[birrddog]

As a pilot and a gun-owner I have mixed feelings and answers to this. But for the sake of pprune I will answer with my pilots hat.

We have learned from many aviation incidents, fatal and not-fatal alike.

The idea being to take a procedure and make it safer. For better or for worse we live in a world that is complicated, and we don't have the right answers.

As of today the FFDO program has not yielded a success story, but what if it had and then this happened?

In aviation we face an unnatural challenge every day trying to keep something not meant by nature to fly in the air. We also do many things to make people feel comfortable, even if only for appearance sake.

Let's not quibble over the right or wrong of carrying a firearm in the cockpit, but if necessary (for what ever reason) how to make it more practical (like not making one stow it away when going opening the cockpit door) to make it practical and safe to have it ready for use.

Why this would happen during finals is beyond imagination, but one incident should not ground an issue, otherwise we will never fly another aircraft again if the nay-sayers of aviation have their way.

Let's follow the pilot creed and use this to make the procedure and aviation in general safer, and not further look for ways to stop pilots from keeping passengers safe.

I for one would rather have armed, suitably trained folk on board for what ever deterrent factor it serves than live in a society where we are too pacifist or scared to try and protect our society and let the wacko's win.

We have so many challenges in this industry; let's not knock attempts to address them and further handicap our ability to address them.

It is better to embrace an approach and make it more practical, than less and further hinder as all towards progress.

<open myself to flame>
For those nay-sayers out there, why don't you try and solve world piece first, then try and stop those trying to protect everyone else.</close open to flame>

It ain't easy; but then no-one said it would be.

[birrddog]

s/piece/peace

[skiingman]

Run this by me again?

You have to lock the gun away when you open the door to go for a slash.?

So, when the door is open, the time of max vulnerability, you have the gun
locked away, but when the door is locked, and there is little threat, you
can take it out and .......

Nah, that cant be right.....

But it probably is.

I think this needs to be repeated a couple dozen more times. The perception of security and the genuine article are two completely different things, and most TSA initiatives are squarely aimed at the former.

[LittleMo]

With regards to the argument of 'why do you need a gun if you're behind an armoured door?', what people fail to realise is that the cockpit door is no undefeatable barrier. Access can be gained by obtaining a key (in todays society with todays technology not unfathomable for a determined terrorist cell) or perhaps by breaching the bulkhead in the forward lavatory?

In my humble opinion a suitably trained, armed flight deck memeber is an asset to security. Just because of one incident which we dont even know the outcome of the investigation yet, there are no grounds to slate it. We are all pilots, qualified to the stadards our respective lands have set out and we have all made mistakes and had incidents in aviation (big or small) but yet we see them as lessons to our selves. Lets do the same here. As pilots it is our duty undertake the flight in the safest way possible, unfortunately in this day and age maybe this has to extend beyond our airmanship to other avenues.

Unfortunately we live in a world where there are armed threats against us. You cannot counter an armed threat if you are unarmed. The cockpit door will not always save you. In the US as in South Africa where I am from we understand this. Perhaps in the EU and UK where armed threats agaist you are not as a common occurence/historical occurence it is harder to understand the need to carry a firearm.

I for one would love to live in a gun free state, thats why many of my countrymen have immegrated, but I choose to live here so as long as the criminals are armed, my .45 will be by my side. If our CAA allowed armed flight deck and if my country and airliner was under constant terrorist threat as in the US, it'd be there too.

[SeldomFixit]

And for today's flight, Captain Wyatt Earp will be played by Billy the Kid :sad:

[mr Q]

The pilot has been grounded, according to the TSA, and no one was hurt. Passengers were unaware the gun had been fired.
By Ben DuBose, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 25, 2008
WASHINGTON -- A gun carried by a US Airways pilot accidentally discharged in the cockpit Saturday during a flight from Denver to Charlotte, N.C., the Transportation Safety Administration said Monday.

The incident, which occurred as Flight 1536 was preparing to land, marked the first time that a weapon issued under a federal program to arm pilots had been fired.

A statement posted by the TSA on its website noted that "the pilot was authorized to be in possession of the weapon and he completed the appropriate training."

Citing the investigation, officials of the TSA and US Airways declined to identify the pilot or provide information about the position of the gun or what the bullet struck. TSA spokesman Dwayne Baird said the pilot had been grounded.

The Airbus A319, which landed safely and without any injuries to the 124 passengers, two pilots and three flight attendants, has been pulled from service, also pending the investigation. According to the TSA, passengers were not aware of the incident.

"Our safety record is superb," Bob Hesselbein, chairman of the national security committee of the Air Line Pilots Assn., said in an interview Monday. "This was truly an anomaly. At a minimum, 130,000 flights a month are protected by armed pilots. We are an integral part of the protection of airlines in our sky.

"After 9/11, we became convinced an armed flight deck was the ultimate deterrent to stopping a hijacking plan. From a terrorist standpoint, the hardest thing to do is take control of the cockpit. That's why the deterrent value of this program is just staggering."

The Federal Flight Deck Officer program, created in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, trains eligible flight crew members in the use of firearms, use of force, legal issues, defensive tactics, the psychology of survival and standard operating procedures. Officers who carry firearms are required to requalify for the program twice a year.

"The training is very rigorous and extensive," Baird said, adding that crew members who completed the program were issued Heckler & Koch .40-caliber semiautomatic handguns. Some pilots carry guns that are loaded and ready to go, he said.

The pilot whose gun discharged Saturday last requalified on Nov. 7, according to the TSA statement.

"They go through same process it takes to join the FBI or other federal law enforcement organizations," Hesselbein said. "It's a stringent program. This was an accidental discharge -- no one wants to see this happen again. But it's a known risk, and they're going to see what they can do to make sure it doesn't happen again."

[email protected]

Times staff writer Mary Forgione in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

[pasoundman]

LittleMo
With regards to the argument of 'why do you need a gun if you're behind an armoured door?', what people fail to realise is that the cockpit door is no undefeatable barrier.

Do you seriously expect the pax (sorry SLF !) to allow a sustained attack on the cockpit door after 9/11 ?

Those who think guns are needed on the flight deck have some crazy 'Wild West' mentality.

[pasoundman]

LittleMo
Unfortunately we live in a world where there are armed threats against us.

When was the last time a gun got past PROPER x-ray and metal detector security ?

NO potential hijacker should be able to carry a gun onto a plane. If you think he can, then you need to fix ground security, not arm pilots !

[Supersport]

> Anti American - I think a lot of you are missing or confusing the point. I think the majority of posters here are expressing an ANTI-GUN opinion not an Anti-American one.

In my opinion, firearms should not be allowed onboard any flight, whether or not the people carrying them are considered to be suitably trained or not. In this case the crew were lucky, next time an 'accident' like this happens someone might cop one in the face.

I feel that the security on the ground has to be where the focus is. Don't get me wrong, I think that the extremes of Biometric ID cards are a bad idea, but more thorough checks of what passengers and crew are carrying is a must, security I have seen in some airports is laughable. For sure, more thorough checks / searches may cause a considerably longer waiting time for passengers and a bit more hassle, I'm sure there would be a lot of moaners (especially here in the UK!) but, surely a longer wait on the ground is better than winding up dead?

[na-at6g]

No,I do not fly for a carrier that allows the guns onboard, my question has to do with crewing, what if the Captain is of the belief that this program is more of a threat and the F/O is involved in the program, dose the gun come onboard?

[LittleMo]

psasoundman: By armed I refer to any weapon, knife,incendiary device, gun, boxcutter etc. I totally agree with you, security on the ground should be such that these items never get aboard. Wht i'm saying is when all these measures fail and a weapon of sorts gets through, i'd rather be the guy who brought the gun to the knife fight than the other way around

[Bobbsy]

Skiingman wrote:

I think this needs to be repeated a couple dozen more times. The perception of security and the genuine article are two completely different things, and most TSA initiatives are squarely aimed at the former.

I can only speak for myself, but my personal perception is that I am LESS secure on a flight where anyone--even a trained pilot--has brought a gun aboard. The possibility of an accident (like the one that started this thread) or a hijacker managing to steal the gun...or even a pilot having a nervous breakdown and using the gun...seems to me to be more likely than the gun serving a useful purpose in the unlikely event of a hijacking.

Bobbsy

[old,not bold]

At the risk of repeating something posted a year or wo ago on pprune;

I had to chair a discussion with a group of an Arab carrier's flight deck aircrew in 2000 on the subject of airborne security and prevention of hijacking.

The irony was that several of the people in the room were past practitioners, reformed into law-abiding aircrew.

The single conclusion that they came to, with no-one dissenting, was that the ONLY way to ensure that airborne piracy fails is to have an impenetrable barrier between cabin and flight deck and never to open it while the engines are running, FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER.

Thus there needs to be facilities for peeing or worse, food and water, and an ability on the part of the crew to ignore whatever is happening in the cabin, including murder, while they get to an airfield for landing, land, and wait until the authorities arrest or kill the terrorists.

Quite a tall order, really, but they were absolutely right. They knew, as we all do, that an aircraft can only be taken over by gaining control of the flight deck. Armed pilots may kill or injure a terrorist, but are more likely to be killed themselves before they achieve that. If an armed and fanatical terrorist breaks into a flight deck he or she can probably shoot the people there before they even begin to react. If the terrorist is slowed down or prevented by the barrier, then that proves the point about the barrier being the key.

Arming pilots achieves very little. Arming cabin staff would be a lot more effective.

EDIT: But please don't even begin to think of arming cabin staff; I just said that to make the point!

[Wino]

Old, not bold,

I am with you on this one. I was part of a team that looked at security for aircraft as well and the conclusions that we came to was that there was no longer any need whatsover of access to the cockpit from the passenger cabin. There is NOTHING that we need from the cabin that can't be done with a camera.

All new aircraft should be designed they way the 757pf (package freighter) was with a solid bulkhead between the cockpit and the main cabin, and the only access to the cockpit is from a door on the outside of the aircraft. (if you look at UPS's 757s you will see the front doors are further forward than i the pax aircraft) Put a lav and a galley in the cockpit (just like the PF) and be done with it. Then there is no need for guns in the cockpit. It doesn't matter what rude things you do to the passengers you are not getting controll of the aircraft.

At that point the use of aircraft as weapons would be over. You could still blow em up, but thats about it.



But unfortunately as it stands now, the armored door, only represents time, and not as much of it as you would think. The gun behind the armored door represents some MORE time to get the aircraft on the ground and turn it into a building instead of a cruise missile.

Guys will whine about how they need to see the pax etc. but thats just ego talking. The cabin crew are trained to handle the cabin, there is nothing for you to do back there.


Cheers
Wino

[gadgetjunkie]

Dateline: WASHINGTON The Transportation Department inspector general found airport security screeners on several dozen occasions failed to catch guns and simulated explosives, even after the September terrorist attacks, a person familiar with the report said Monday.
Inspector General Kenneth Mead's report found screeners missed knives 70 percent of the time, guns 30 percent of the time and simulated explosives 60 percent of the time, said the source, speaking on condition of anonymity.


You will never stop guns from getting through security period .The ramp agents , caterers , mx , etc all have free access to the airplane without going through security . How are you going to stop that from being a threat ?

[Cytherea]

I'm not going to get into the merits or disadvantages of having an armed cockpit crew.

What I would have thought is if you are happy that the person in the seat next to you is sound enough of mind to be in control of the aircraft whilst you go to the toilet then he/she is sound enough of mind to carry a weapon! If you don't feel that way then all this CRM has been for naught!

[EcosseYYZ]

By intercepting threats on the ground, preferably before they get themselves anywhere near an airport terminal - and investing in such an ingelligence approach is the only answer.

The vast majority of us in the Great White North find the prospect of firearms on our aircraft unnecessary, unpalatable, and the FFDO programme a US knee jerk reaction which increases risk rather than reducing it.

[Dani]

1. Decompression:

I'm surprised that pilots here think that a bullet can cause a decompression. I'm sure everyone of us has seen lightning strikes and other "holes", which cause whistling noises, but no decompression.


2. Guns in the cockpit:

I'm pro guns in the cockpit. But as it looks, not only FFDOs are cowboys, but also the TSA specialists that wrote down the regulations. Why are the guns worn at the hips??? Isn't that the part of your body under your seat belt? I'm pretty sure that you are faster in grabbing your gun in your crew bag or a dedicated bunk next to you. How about safety in case of a crash and you in your seat and the gun gets pinned into your lower body?? :eek:
Those TSA guys are just officers and they think that a gun is always at the hip...

3. In my military carrier I have seen several accidents with unwanted release of guns.


Conclusion:

The gun belongs in a sealed containment in the aircraft, the magazine inserted, but not locked, and of course no bullet in the chamber. The FFDO is only allowed to draw when there is apparent danger. He draws, clicks in the magazine, starts shooting. You can do this in a split second - when trained correctly. The FFDO is not allowed to service this gun, he has his own training gun at home and is not allowed to take it with him. That's how it should have been done.

Dani

[galaxy flyer]

I haven't gone thru the whole 6 pages, but one interesting story is the Fed Ex experience with the whack job. He was company employee allowed to ride onboard (pre-9/11), did not have a weapon, but managed to use the crash ax to very nearly overcome 3 crewmembers and hijack the plane with the intent of crashing it into FedEx HQ. The lessons:

We already have weapons onboard

Security cannot be absolute. I don't know if crews were checked then. It was after a PSA employee shot the pilots and crashed a 146 that we started getting security checked.

Even with 3 guys, holding off a determined man AND fly the plane is not easy, with 2 it might have worked for the bad guy, in this case.

A gun probably would not have helped as the odds are a good guy would have been shot rather than the bad guy. 3:1 odds.

As I did learn in a self-defense course, a man with a knife at close quarters with a man with a gun probably holds the advantage. The knife can do fast work and doesn't have to be perfect to inflict damage, the gun has to be nearly perfectly.

The crash ax maybe all we need.

GF

[Airbubba]

I had to chair a discussion with a group of an Arab carrier's flight deck aircrew in 2000 on the subject of airborne security and prevention of hijacking.

The irony was that several of the people in the room were past practitioners, reformed into law-abiding aircrew.


Also, it must be pointed out that Arab airlines have been victims of many hijackings over the years. I've flown into LHR with local Arab skymarshals in years past. One might presume the Israelis have done likewise for some time now as well. It is a little humorous to see the alleged furor over Western countries doing the same thing.

We did have a couple of guns fire accidentally in flight. One was supposedly secured in a storage area so the explaination of the discharge was difficult. Another incident involving a 747 classic occured on final to LHR. A skymarshal was sitting on a cockpit jumpseat trying to take the last round out of his weapon to prepare for UK arrival formalities. The gun was jammed and he attempted to free the round with a little extra force. Somehow, the round was fired into the base of the captain's seat. The local pilots heard the bang and looked back at the expat PFE. He told me that he scanned his gauges, everything was OK and then they looked back and saw the skymarshal with an apologetic demeanor. Fortunately, no injuries in either of these incidents.

[GlueBall]

It has been said that El AL airplanes have dual, spaced, armored cockpit doors with interlocks; in flight only one door can be opened at a time. :ooh:

[Airbubba]

He was company employee allowed to ride onboard (pre-9/11), did not have a weapon, but managed to use the crash ax to very nearly overcome 3 crewmembers and hijack the plane with the intent of crashing it into FedEx HQ.

Auburn Calloway was allowed to ride onboard and still would be post 9-11. He was a FedEx pilot (flying the line as a 727 FE).

He carried a duffle bag with hammers, a speargun and a knife. Hopefully these would be a little harder to get onboard these days.

More here:

http://www.tailstrike.com/070494.htm

[na-at6g]

Again I shall ask, dose the Captain of a flight have the right to not allow the carriage of a weapon on the flight deck? Yes I have not been involved in this due to the fact I work for a forgien carrier and it is not allowed.
If nobody cares to answer could you maybe point me in the right direction to find out.

[ChristiaanJ]

Mods, Sirs,

Isn't is it time this went to JetBlast, rather than deleing posts??

GlueBall made a sensible remark about having an "airlock" between cockpit and cabin, for instance. Pity it disappeared.

[pattern_is_full]

http://tinyurl.com/yvmgpg

[Fergus Kavanagh]

If this bullet had struck a cockpit window at cruise level, rather than nothing important on approach, would the consequences have been as harmless.?
Would we still be talking about a harmless, whistling bullet-hole.?
Has this been tested ?.
Would there be sudden and total decompression of the cockpit ?
After the pilots have failed to recover from the shock, and get their
oxygen masks on within the period of useful conciousness, does the
aircraft fly on til it runs out of fuel, because the passengers and cabin
crew, who have automatic drop-down masks available, cannot access
the cockpit to revive/assist the flight crew.?

OK, that was more than one question.

Please tell me I'm wrong, and why.

Have mercy on me, I'm not a professional pilot, just a weekend worrier.

[Chippie Chappie]

So baring in mind that this was not an intentional "discharge" (so much for the flight crew meal tables on the airbus being able to take the weight of a hosty), what would happen if both crew were injured/killed by the bullet, while they are behind a locked door. I guess the cabin crew wouldn't know nor necessarily be able to access the cockpit if they did. Would the aircraft be shot down by fighers when it didn't respond to ATC?

I don't know the Airbus pressurisation system. Could a single bullet destroy the controller causing a depressurisation as it could in my aircraft?

I see terrorist taking over the cockpit as a potential threat but I view a gun in the cockpit as a bigger one.

Chips

[lasernigel]

OK I'm no expert as a SLF but consider this quote albeit from someone whose views I have respected in the past.

All new aircraft should be designed they way the 757pf (package freighter) was with a solid bulkhead between the cockpit and the main cabin, and the only access to the cockpit is from a door on the outside of the aircraft. (if you look at UPS's 757s you will see the front doors are further forward than i the pax aircraft) Put a lav and a galley in the cockpit (just like the PF) and be done with it. Then there is no need for guns in the cockpit. It doesn't matter what rude things you do to the passengers you are not getting controll of the aircraft.



What about the Greek crash, surely now with the info in the public eye if after de-compression and knowing that oxygen supply only lasts 10-15 mins what chance if your ideas were implemented.

Secondly how is it that I can fly around Europe with plastic knives and forks but as soon as I board an aircraft in the Middle East on a connecting flight to "xxxxxx" I seem to be proficient and safe enough to use the 'normal metal' type we have at home in our house??? Confused that where the majority of where the terrorists come from is in that area but there they are trusted??

As having been in the forces for a total of 15 years still vehemently resist this "so called right to carry arms as a civilian". Shoot first ask questions later?? It never happened across here in N.I. and is IMHO not the way of a civilised world.

[ChristiaanJ]

It has been said that El AL airplanes have dual, spaced, armored cockpit doors with interlocks; in flight only one door can be opened at a time.Can anybody confirm this?
It would be much like the "airlocks" used at banks, which at least are dissuasive.

It would certainly defeat several of the scenarios suggested here.

I agree it would raise issues of weight and space.

But it would also be the perfect place to discharge an unhealthy dose of teargas or similar, without affecting the pilots.

[parabellum]

So, since firearms were allowed on the flight deck: How many pilots carry one? How many sectors have they been carried on? How many incidents have occurred?

[Has been a flyer]

Whilst stretching to reach the chart holder, the pilot's spurs caught the clasp of the gun case which spilled open. As the gun fell out, the first officers trusty steed, which was teathered to the jump seat, stretched his aching hooves. The gun caught Silver's front right hoof and was launched against the Captains seat back where the weapon discharged, scaring the bejesus out of all on the flightdeck. Silver left a horse shaped hole in the flightdeck door as it bolted to the aft Lav, taking the jumpseat assembly with him.


Great story bloke! I loved the Lone Ranger, I'm glad you didn't have Tonto get it in the (rear) end!:p

[manrow]

I can see you are enjoying this story guys so read more here:-

http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-032508-krg-plane.2652f207.html

[Ricky1]

To me this gun, '.40 calibers semiautomatic H&K USP' would be almost impossible to discharge a shot without the pilot doing something stupid with it. I hope the captain punched the guy, for his stupidity! The shot just missed the Captain. The shot trajectory was from the FO seat across the front of the Captains torso through the cockpit wall and exited just below the cockpit window. See pictures below. Pilot is now on leave.


News report as of 10 mins ago

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — The pilot of a US Airways plane may have mishandled a firearm that went off in flight, piercing a hole in the cockpit wall, a federal air marshal and gun safety expert said Tuesday.

"This is an extremely safe and reliable weapon," said Greg Alter, of the Federal Air Marshal Service. "It's not going to discharge on its own is the bottom line."

The pistol - a .40 caliber semiautomatic H&K USP - discharged Saturday aboard Flight 1536 from Denver to Charlotte, as the plane with 124 passengers and five crew members was approaching to land. Photos obtained by The Associated Press show a small entry hole in the lower side of the cockpit wall and a small exit hole on the exterior below the cockpit window.

The AP described the photos and the bullet hole to US Airways spokesman Phil Gee, who said "they sound authentic."

Airline officials have said the accidental discharge Saturday did not endanger those on board, although air safety experts said Tuesday the shot could have caused the plane to rapidly depressurize had it hit a window at altitude.

"There are two issues: would they (the crew) have enough oxygen to remain alert," said Earl Dowell, an aeronautical engineering professor at Duke University. "If the crew could no longer control the airplane that would be a big deal. And the rapid loss of pressure might damage the structure itself."

But both Dowell and Fu-Kuo Chang, a professor of aeronautical engineering at Stanford University, said airplane design emphasizes safety and that such a blast - even if it knocked out a window in mid-flight - isn't likely to cause the kind of damage that would lead immediately to a crash.

"If not repaired, it may cause a problem. It could get bigger. For a single bullet, it would not be a factor for the safety of the airplane," Chang said. "If it hit the window, it may be a problem for depressurization. I still don't think it would cause a crash."

Dowell pointed to a 1988 Aloha Airlines flight in Hawaii, during which the roof of the jet ripped off after an explosive decompression at 24,000 feet. A flight attendant was blown out of the plane, but the passengers - many of whom were injured - remained strapped in their seats and the pilot safely landed the aircraft.

"If they lost a window, the people near that window would have been substantially uncomfortable," Dowell said. "You probably wouldn't have crashed the airplane. But there could have been some frightened people."

The gunshot marked the first time a pilot's weapon has been fired on a plane since the Flight Deck Officer Program was created following the September 11 terrorist attacks, Alter said. The Transportation Security Administration is investigating how the gun discharged, and Gee says the unidentified pilot has been taken off duty while that investigation is underway.

Pilots in the program undergo 50 hours of training at the federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico Alter said it appears the pilot of the US Airways flight wasn't following "proper procedures. ... We just don't know exactly what procedure wasn't being followed."

Since April 2003, about 5,000 flight deck officers - captains or first officers - have gone through the training program and received permission to carry weapons in the cockpit, said Capt. Bob Hesselbein, chairman of the Air Line Pilots Association's National Security Committee. The union represents more than 61,000 pilots at 43 airlines.

Gee declined to say how many US Airways pilots have graduated from the program and carry guns while on duty, citing security.

But they all carry the same gun, the high-priced and high-quality H&K USP, which Alter said was especially selected for the program. Gun safety expert Ronald Scott, a ballistics expert who served for 25 years with the Massachusetts State Police, said the gun wouldn't discharge accidentally if dropped or jarred in some way.

"It's a top-of-the-line model," Scott said. "They're accurate and highly reliable. This is not something that you would just walk into a gun store and buy. And it's also not something that goes off by itself. ... Someone would have to squeeze the trigger."

The Airbus 319 will be grounded at Charlotte/Douglas International Airport for several more days as repairs are made. The Federal Aviation Administration said Tuesday it won't be involved in looking at why the gun went off, but will investigate to make sure the plane is safe before it returns to service.

"We want to make sure there was no structural damage and no systems on board were damaged by the bullet," said FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said. "We want to take a look at the aircraft to make sure it's in an air-worthy condition.



Pictures of damage and shot trajectory

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/7485/bulletdamageak6.th.jpg (http://img259.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bulletdamageak6.jpg)

Regards
Rick

BTW.... Last thing we need is for american pilots having guns on board..... Any one remember Auburn Calloway?!?!?

[lomapaseo]

If this bullet had struck a cockpit window at cruise level, rather than nothing important on approach, would the consequences have been as harmless.? Yes


Would we still be talking about a harmless, whistling bullet-hole.? yes

Has this been tested ?. Yes

Would there be sudden and total decompression of the cockpit ? No


After the pilots have failed to recover from the shock, and get their
oxygen masks on within the period of useful conciousness, does the
aircraft fly on til it runs out of fuel, because the passengers and cabin
crew, who have automatic drop-down masks available, cannot access
the cockpit to revive/assist the flight crew.? presumptive question not deserving an assumptive answer
OK, that was more than one question.

Please tell me I'm wrong, and why.

Have mercy on me, I'm not a professional pilot, just a weekend worrier.

No because you assume a connection of speculative facts without knowlege rather than seeking to understand a piece at a time

I predict that you will still believe what you wrote:suspect:

[stilton]

It this gunslinger's weapon was able to penetrate and hole the pressure vessel (which I have been told by our resident cowboys was impossible)
How on earth are you so confident it could not penetrate and shatter the Cockpit windows.

This would cause a fairly impressive depressurisation (ask the BA 1-11 Captain from a few years back)

Just a few inches away and the result could have been fatal.

We are not in Dodge city here boys, go and play in the woods with your toys, shoot each other for all I care.

Guns should only be used by the Military.

I will be adding to my briefing a caution of even further care on the domestic legs I have the misfortune to fly with these idiot's.

This was inevitable and will happen again.Time to cancel the program ASAP.

[Fergus Kavanagh]

But,

I asked a series of questions, I didnt state an opinion.
So I am open to information.

However, it would appear to be open to debate, at least. See below,
selectively nicked from a post above.

"Airline officials have said the accidental discharge Saturday did not endanger those on board, although air safety experts said Tuesday the shot could have caused the plane to rapidly depressurize had it hit a window at altitude.

"There are two issues: would they (the crew) have enough oxygen to remain alert," said Earl Dowell, an aeronautical engineering professor at Duke University. "If the crew could no longer control the airplane that would be a big deal. And the rapid loss of pressure might damage the structure itself.""

I think that addresses at least two of my questions.

Regards,

FK

[Ricky1]

cant wait for the truth to come out and not all the speculation.... but maybe the captain wouldn't let the FO land the plane... Had a tantrum, fired his gun, to show who was boss, took control and landed the plane..... lol

[fred_the_red]

"Airline officials have said the accidental discharge Saturday did not endanger those on board"

Would shooting (possible fatally) one of the two flight crew not be classed as endangering those onboard? :rolleyes:

[Ricky1]

"Airline officials have said the accidental discharge Saturday did not endanger those on board"

Would shooting (possible fatally) one of the two flight crew not be classed as endangering those onboard?

The word 'endanger' is key here! Did you see the pics above? I would call a close shot like that endangerment, if I was the captain. Any bullet fired withen a km of me is far too close IMO. Its just US airways trying to smooth out the whole situation. PR thats all it is......

[wileydog3]

Dani, I was in the program and carried before retiring and am no cowboy.

As for depressurization because of a hole, apparently no one has ever seen the outflow valves on a large airplane. The outflow valve on a 737 is MUCH MUCH larger than any hole created by a hand carried weapon.

And from there, let's say what you don't know about the FFDO program could fill an football stadium.

[wileydog3]

Why does everyone assume it was the F/O?

Again, lot of talk and lots of speculation and most of it WRONG.

FWIW, it was the Capt who discharged the weapon.

[misd-agin]

Someone asked how many flights have been flown by armed pilots? Beats me.

But if April 2003 is when it started(news report) and another article mentioned 13,000 flights a month today, if the increase was linear we're talking about almost 400,000 flights.

Hardly high risk.

[Ricky1]

FWIW ' Still a stupid pilot'

the USP uses a Browning linkless-locked breech action, similar to that developed by John Browning for use in the Browning P35 "Hi Power" pistol. The pistol also features a safety which allows it to be safely carried "cocked and locked".

Pilot Fo or Cpt still did something thick to set it off. This has to be one of the safest pistols out there. ( used in the right hands!)

[silverhawk]

So we are happy to accept a discharge in every half million sectors then?


Real security happens at the check in desk, do it right. Profiling!

Posing with your penis extension, oops sorry weapon, on the flight deck was always going to culminate in this sort of incident. Maybe after the election marathon in the US this policy will be overturned.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Negligent Discharges are a serious problem in any situation, especially in a cockpit.

This isn't even close to being acceptable and whilst I don't want to jump on the band wagon of slagging of America, having loaded firearms BEHIND a locked and reinforced cockpit door does seem a bit daft.

ND's are a major problem in any situation. I nearly took a rangemasters head off when aged 12 because of a hair trigger and an unexpected knock. I have a good friend with a nasty limp after being hit in the leg by an ND from a .22 round.

I shoot and think that responsible people should be allowed access to firearms, however, allowing weapons onto the flight deck fills me with concern. This doen't exactly fill you with confidence.

[Dushan]

This has to be one of the safest pistols out there. ( used in the right hands!)

Unless you are left-handed, of course.

[matt_hooks]

Firstly, why all this talk of an "accidental" discharge? Wherever I've used weapons, a round fired unintentionally is a NEGLIGENT discharge, i.e. you're doing something wrong. There are procedures for weapons handling which, if followed properly, guarantee that a round will not be fired unless you intend it to.

Modern weapons are extremely safe, and will not go off of their own accord. It's rather simple, no pull trigger, no bang!

And as for it being mechanically faulty, again exceedingly unlikely. These weapons are drop tested from 6 feet, both cocked and uncocked. The German police issue weapon, which is effectively the same as the weapon carried in the program, did not exhibit a drop induced discharge in over 1000 drop tests with a round chambered and the hammer cocked. These tests were onto a steel backed concrete block. And as for wear, some of the early examples were tested through 30'000 rounds of standard amunition and 6000 proof rounds without any adverse effects.

So, we have to conclude that the captain committed the cardinal sin of sticking his finger inside the trigger guard whilst not "on target"

What he was doing playing with his weapon during final approach is a different matter entirely!

As for the benefits or otherwise of the program, I'm of the opinion that is has no real security benefit, but it might provide a certain amount of reassurance to the travelling public. And as pilots, our jobs depend on the fare-paying public continuing to want to use our services. Now if we can reassure them, then they are more likely to continue to fly, so I have no real problem with the program itself, just make sure the guys follow gun handling SOP's, the same way they would follow flying SOP's.

I'm intrigued also by the question raised regarding whether a captain has the right to refuse to allow a FO from the program to carry his weapon in flight?

[misd-agin]

silverhawk (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=20707)

Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 43
Posts: 395


So we are happy to accept a discharge in every half million sectors then?


Real security happens at the check in desk, do it right. Profiling!

Posing with your penis extension, oops sorry weapon, on the flight deck was always going to culminate in this sort of incident. Maybe after the election marathon in the US this policy will be overturned.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/forums/report.php?p=4003097)

Nothing like dealing with prejudice. F/A's have their prejudices against the program. I love hearing them say "wow, he's in the program? I never would have suspected it." Then they talk about how decent, normal, etc, etc the guy is.

They seem to have the same issues that you do. It's not some ego or macho issue that gets folks to join the program.

And no, there's no joy in any 'AD' or 'ND'. It's just not the high risk all the hand wringers try to make it out to be.

Profiling? Hahahahahahahah. Obviously you havn't lived in the U.S. That word is banned...

[misd-agin]

matt_hooks (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=149400)
Wunderbra

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 28
Posts: 228


So, we have to conclude that the captain committed the cardinal sin of sticking his finger inside the trigger guard whilst not "on target"


So, you're a professional pilot, right? A plane crashes. Do you draw conclusions from the newspapers or do you wait to find out what the investigators uncover from their investigation?

We don't "have to conclude" that the pilot had his finger on the trigger. You might want to believe that based on the limitations of your imagination but that doesn't mean it happened that way.

[AtoBsafely]

When Fox/CNN get hold of this,

The obvious solution is to have both pilots armed! That will make the flight twice as safe.

And if the FO "accidentally" discharges, you can sort him out right away! Conversely, if it's the captain that takes a wild shot - you in the right seat should "take control" appropriately!

Just in jest! Flak jacket on and running!

[Airbubba]

I'm intrigued also by the question raised regarding whether a captain has the right to refuse to allow a FO from the program to carry his weapon in flight?

In the real world, I think the answer is no unless you want to explain yourself to the FAA and TSA while on unpaid leave. I've had FFDO jumpseat riders, I could have bumped them because they were packing heat but I would expect a little time off if I did. Interfering with the duties of a federal officer is a serious offense in the U.S.

Recent incidents have shown that the TSA can keep you off the schedule indefinitely if you argue with a gate agent and they deem you to be a "security risk". Not even the union can save you from this one. I don't think messing with an FFDO would get any less response but I'm not aware of an instance where this has been tested.

[stilton]

In fact that is probably the exact logic our 'fair and balanced' fox news would use!

The gun lovers on this forum keep bleating about how a bullet hole is smaller than the outflow valve.

So what ! it doesn't have to be a very big hole to maim or kill you.

Furthermore, losing a cockpit window would be quite a lot bigger than your outflow valve.

Typical right wing, redneck logic, while trying to defend their ridiculous position, their love of guns blinds them to all reason.

Think how safe we will be when all of us carry guns, we could start with our children in school, obviously the system is working well so far !

This tragic thinking is responsible for an ever increasing trail of death and destruction in this country.

This same mentality has us in a lose lose position in IRAQ, faithfully led there by our idiot in chief.

Unless this program is cancelled ASAP this will happen again with potentially catastrophic results.

[stilton]

'Airbubba'

Cut the 'Federal officer crap' if you don't think you have the right to deny the jumpseat to anyone as Captain of your aircraft, you are in the wrong profession,

If you are asked to explain yourself later, then do it.You are the ultimate authority, not the gunslinger.

It is not the same situation as a working pilot.


You only lose your authority if you give it away.

[Airbubba]

Cut the 'Federal officer crap' if you don't think you have the right to deny the jumpseat to anyone as Captain of your aircraft, you are in the wrong profession

Yeah, sounds like the same geniuses here who said they would never lock the cockpit door.:)

Try bumping an FFDO for being armed and see what happens. Something tells me that you don't make the call yourself. Have you ever had an FFDO on the jumpseat?

I have received guidance on this issue from both the company and the union, I'll let you be the point man on this one.:)

[Ricky1]

matt_hooks
Wunderbra

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 28
Posts: 228


So, we have to conclude that the captain committed the cardinal sin of sticking his finger inside the trigger guard whilst not "on target"


So, you're a professional pilot, right? A plane crashes. Do you draw conclusions from the newspapers or do you wait to find out what the investigators uncover from their investigation?

We don't "have to conclude" that the pilot had his finger on the trigger. You might want to believe that based on the limitations of your imagination but that doesn't mean it happened that way.


Misd-agin
Clearly you have little or no knowledge with regards to this actual pistol. There have been many posts on this thread and there are plenty of sites where you can find out about this fire arm. So take a look at them and you will see where we are coming from, with regards "the finger on the trigger". It’s the only way to fire it.

Also in training for any fire arm " You never put your finger on the trigger unless you have a target and are prepared to shoot" They are standard issue in a lot of different organisations. I have used one in the Irish Army RDF. However with a different calliber. So I know what these people are talking about when they say it takes a finger on the trigger to shoot.

Sooooo... yes it would be ok in this situation to say that this has to be 99.999% sure the reason of the NEGLIGENT discharge was due to the pilot messing up. Its just how the gun is made that makes this such a sure thing.


As for the 0.001%.... 'Well the unsinkable titanic did sink'

[Ricky1]

BTW, for those who have been through the FFDO program, How many of you's would think 'Auburn Calloway' would have made it through the course? Everyone said he was ok in the head....... Doesn't make you feel to comfortable about the whole situtation that pilots can carry pistols on board... FFDO training or not.

Do we really have to let this be another " learn from or mistakes" situation

[Huck]

Everyone said he was ok in the head..

Well... actually, not. I've flown with at least a dozen pilots that knew him before the incident (including one roommate of his), and that's not the impression I got at all. They've all said he was a problem child with extreme anger issues. Hindsight is indeed 20/20 but I'd feel reasonably confident that he would have been weeded out.

What you're leaving out about that incident is that it is, to me, the most powerful argument FOR the FFDO program. Cargo pilots are alone in the sky - absolutely no help from anyone. Half of our aircraft don't have hardened doors. We employ minimum-wage workers in the most armed nation in history to load our aircraft. Workers can and have stowed away before. A company employee was stopped going through screening at the Memphis airport carrying a straight razor in a book not 3 years ago.

I'm so happy you have such confidence in the screening and security procedures of your airlines. Perhaps one day we can come up to that standard. Meanwhile, I've got to climb into a big nasty freighter and launch out under the stars with 200,000 pounds of boxes packed by people I don't know. Self protection at that point isn't a very "cowboy" type of an idea at all, really.....

[stilton]

I think you may be a little confused between the policy's governing FFDO'S that are working crewmembers and those wishing to ride jumpseat 'airbubba'

As Captain, I decide who rides on the jumpseat at my airline, it is my decision (provided the individual is verified in the Cass system and has the proper documentation) to allow, or not allow them to exercise this privilege, not a right assumed by them, no matter who they are, with the possible exception of an FAA inspector.

Whether they are an FFDO or not is immaterial, I do not have to give a reason to deny anyone a jumpseat in my cockpit, and this is supported by our management.

If your airline denys you this basic authority, I sympathise.

If my FO is an FFDO that is something I have to live with for now, fortunately not often as I mostly fly international where calmer heads have prevailed.

Whether someone is a working crewmember or jumpseater, however I advise them to 'cool it' with the gunplay.(No turning in your seat, posturing 'ready to draw' scaring the flight attendant when she brings me my tea !

[p7lot]

Well said Stilton.
Having four bars and sitting left seat means you are in command.
Unless ffdo's have five bars or are going to use the weapon to countermand then the facts are clear.
Bring on the paperwork, suspend me if you dare but my aircraft is under my control make no mistake.
"I have control.....you do radios......and the gunman can get the hell off"

[GlueBall]

wileydog3 . . . yes, it's understood by most reasonable people and above all by aeronautical engineers that a tiny hole in the fuselage made by a tiny bullet as such would not cause depressurization.

The larger issue is whether the cockpit side window [with 2 tons of pressure per square inch at high altitude, for example] would have maintained its integrity or would have shattered, . . . in which case there would have been a hole much larger than both outflow valves combined [as on a 747].

From the A319 cockpit photos it is apparent that this bullet hole was only about 12 inches from hitting the side window which is not as thick and sturdy as the forward facing windscreens.

And if the bullet in fact was fired from the copilot's gun, then its trajectory was too close across the captain's knees for comfort. So this would not be just a simple forget-about-it accidental discharge of a deadly weapon, but something like "attempted, involuntary manslaughter" due to gross negligence.

This is not a scenario which USAir nor its pilots' union can easily keep low key. In fact this incident will likely trigger a bottoms up training review of the FFDO program, if not its termination altogether. Most pilots and most passengers are not happy with guns in the cockpit; and the media buzz about this incident will drive this message home to congress and more importantly to the mental midgets at the TSA who authorized this program.

[wileydog3]

This is not a scenario which USAir nor its pilots' union can easily keep low key. In fact this incident will likely trigger a bottoms up training review of the FFDO program, if not its termination altogether. Most pilots and most passengers are not happy with guns in the cockpit; and the media buzz about this incident will drive this message home to congress and more importantly to the mental midgets at the TSA who authorized this program.

You are no doubt correct that the incident will cause a review.

You are more than likely incorrect that it will cause the program to fold. HOWEVER having said that I have to remember it IS an election year in the states and that means the circus is coming to town. Clowns of all stripes with a pet gripe will be headed to DC.

And please cite your sources for
Most pilots and most passengers are not happy with guns in the cockpit;

I could be wrong but I doubt the validity of your assertion and assume it is mere conjecture based on your views.

Balls in your court...

[misd-agin]

Ricky1 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=101814)

Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada/Ireland
Posts: 64
http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/misc/im_msn.gif (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=319466&page=8#)

Misd-agin
Clearly you have little or no knowledge with regards to this actual pistol. There have been many posts on this thread and there are plenty of sites where you can find out about this fire arm. So take a look at them and you will see where we are coming from, with regards "the finger on the trigger". It’s the only way to fire it.




Actually I own one. Union has an agreement with the manufacturer.

The gun can go off without someone pulling the trigger. We'll have to see what the investigation finds out as fact, as opposed to speculation from 'experts' who weren't there.

[Heidhurtin]

Aw, c'mon guys. He was flying an AIRBUS. I've lost count of the number of times I've really felt like using my grandads old service revolver on the bl**dy computer in front of me now. I can only imagine the horror of not only being SURROUNDED by them, but having them IN CONTROL! :eek: Surprised it was only one shot...........

[Airbubba]

How many of you's would think 'Auburn Calloway' would have made it through the course? Everyone said he was ok in the head

As Huck said, Auburn had already exhibited fits of rage and bizarre behavior before the hijacking. He famously impersonated a 727 captain in a callback to one of Fred's video conferences and started ranting like the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Auburn looked good on paper but seemed to get fired everywhere he worked after the Navy. His FedEx application left out a lot including his short stint with Flying Tigers. Tigers of course, was later bought by FedEx.

Auburn is currently serving a life sentence at USP Atwater, CA where he is inmate number 14601-076.

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=IDSearch&needingMoreList=false&IDType=IRN&IDNumber=14601-076&x=29&y=23

[Finn47]

Wouldn´t it be possible to use some sort of low velocity, soft tip ammunition which would still stop a terrorist but not pierce the hull of the plane?

[GlueBall]

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=54043

320 respondents in PPRuNe Forums poll showed 65% against guns in cockpit vs. 35% for. :ooh:

[plugster]

Is there any procedure for carrying the gun outside the aircraft? Seeing a pilot walking by with a (obviously) loaded gun in his holster under his uniform doesn't look comfy to most of the european folks - including me. Do you automaticly have the right to carry this weapon in public when leaving the airport and vice versa?

[seventhree]

You talk big Stilton.

Just try it and see what happens.

I only know of one 121 capt. who has tried this so far. It did not go well for him and it would not go well for you.

I guarantee that you will only get to try this one time.

[Algy]

Very reassuring Seventhree.

[pasoundman]

Apologies if somneone else has already posted this ....

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/US-Airways-US-Airways-flight/photo//080325/480/e45d7ad66aec436dbdbb24ba6fb9bc8a/;_ylt=ArGEyZc63.NBHilrdtwqbPgDW7oF

In these undated images provided to the Associated Press, Tuesday, March 25, 2008, a purported bullet hole is shown in a US Airways aircraft. In the top photo a suspected bullet hole is shown in the left third of the photo. In the bottom photo the suspected bullet hole is shown in the bottom center of the photograph. A gunshot fired from a pistol belonging to the pilot of a US Airways flight blasted a small hole through the plane's cockpit wall. Airline officials have said the accidental discharge Saturday aboard Flight 1536 from Denver to Charlotte did not pose a danger to those on board. (AP Photo)

[CorkEICK]

The reporter in the WCNC video states "A spokesperson for the TSA said that information (what the pilot was doing with his gun when it went off)may never be released because its considered classified information which he says could compromise National security"

Unbelievable!!!!

[stilton]

Interesting 'seven three' what were the specifics of the incident ?

Or is that covered by 'national security' :}

[seventhree]

A captain refused an off line pilot a jumpseat. There was no problem until the jumpseater came onto the airplane and introduced himself as an FFDO. At that point the captain decided he could not offer the jumpseat. Though he was smart enough not to say it was because the jumpseater was an ffdo it was apparent that there was not an issue with the jumpseat, until he found out that the jumpseater was an FFDO.

The jumpseater reported the incident to the ALPA jumpseat commitee and it worked its way around the system.

Both the captain's chief pilot and the FBI had meetings with said captain and explained to him that his authority ended where the FFDO federal badge began.

If and when you try it I am sure you too will get to have a meeting with a couple of FBI agents. They will explain it to you.

There are a few captains who make LEOs put their weapons in the cargo hold. Some have tried it with FBI agents. That did not work out too well for the pilots involved either.

[WhatsaLizad?]

All,

Perhaps we could all tone it down a bit and treat this incident just like any other flight incident/accident. Later on, after an investigation, the facts will come out, even if it is considered a "national security" issue at the moment.
I'm sure most pilots here can understand what I'm saying, we all know of plenty of incidents where the facts seem so clear from the outset, yet what really happened was completely different. This point is directly aimed at some here, including those with claimed weapons experience, regarding "trigger pulls". The real story will come out. We aren't dealing with nuclear warhead design secrets.
For the rest of the lot, just continue your preconceived political rants, and put the hamster wheel into overdrive.

[Jaxon]

Question
Again I shall ask, dose the Captain of a flight have the right to not allow the carriage of a weapon on the flight deck? Yes I have not been involved in this due to the fact I work for a forgien carrier and it is not allowed.
If nobody cares to answer could you maybe point me in the right direction to find out.

No, the Captain does not have the right to exclude FFDOs from the cockpit.

[wileydog3]

CorkEICK said
The reporter in the WCNC video states "A spokesperson for the TSA said that information (what the pilot was doing with his gun when it went off)may never be released because its considered classified information which he says could compromise National security"

Unbelievable!!!!

Why is it unbelievable (with multiple exclamation points?) Why do you feel or think YOU need that information?

[Jaxon]

Both the captain's chief pilot and the FBI had meetings with said captain and explained to him that his authority ended where the FFDO federal badge began.

If and when you try it I am sure you too will get to have a meeting with a couple of FBI agents. They will explain it to you.

Interesting, I'm not aware of the FFDO program modifying jumpseat access, permissions, or authority. ALPA can do nothing except suggest to the pilot that he play nice. ALPA ultimately supports Captain's authority for granting jumpseat access. The only authority that beats the Captain's for cockpit access is the Secret Service. Of course, certain management persons may have similar trump cards at some carriers.

[seventhree]

Everybody thinks that the captain has broad authority to refuse jumpseaters.

Try it and see what happens.

ALPA's primary motivation, not to mention the carriers that actually own the seat, is to enable pilots to get to and from work.

Though ALPA supports the captain's authority they are more concerned that a pilot can get home or to work.

Just refuse a jumpseat and see wait for the ALPA response. These boards are filled with people talking about refusing jumpseats but I would bet that very few have actually done so.

The TSA has been pretty clear about the FFDO issue. Next time you fly with an FFDO ask him/her what they are told in training will happen if they are refused a jumpseat.


By the way Stilton, with respect to this quote;

"Whether someone is a working crewmember or jumpseater, however I advise them to 'cool it' with the gunplay.(No turning in your seat, posturing 'ready to draw' scaring the flight attendant when she brings me my tea !"

I can assure you that the FFDOs that you tell this to are just humoring you by not explaining to you that they don't really care about your opinion.

You do realize that should an incident occur in the cabin your FFDO FO has the authority to tell you where you are going to land your aircraft?

[CorkEICK]

WILEYDOG03

Quote :"Why is it unbelievable (with multiple exclamation points?) Why do you feel or think YOU need that information?"

Coulnt care less what happened and I never stated I need that info. I just find it unbelievable that its considered of such importance that its classified info.

I never fly in USA and have no plans to do so. However if I was flying in the States I would certainly like to have that info. As im not YOU can "get a grip...."

[Jaxon]

Everybody thinks that the captain has broad authority to refuse jumpseaters.

So "everybody" is wrong? Maybe you should ask the FAA about Captain's authority.

Try it and see what happens.

I'm too happy to extend the courtesy to everybody who is courteous.
But I've been around too long to let you tell me what a few decades in the business have revealed. (Not much happens, if anything at all.)

ALPA's primary motivation, not to mention the carriers that actually own the seat, is to enable pilots to get to and from work.

Though ALPA supports the captain's authority they are more concerned that a pilot can get home or to work.

Just refuse a jumpseat and see wait for the ALPA response. These boards are filled with people talking about refusing jumpseats but I would bet that very few have actually done so.

Yes, ALPA wants the jumpseat to be used, appreciated, and respected. But ALPA also places higher emphasis on Captain's authority and will always throw the angry jumpseater overboard to protect the all important authority of the captain if it must.

The TSA has been pretty clear about the FFDO issue. Next time you fly with an FFDO ask him/her what they are told in training will happen if they are refused a jumpseat.

I don't need to ask. (Hint: Call me Leo - or Fido if you prefer.)

Fortunately, the TSA does not dictate Captain's authority.
The FFDO on duty must be permitted to do his job as armed aviator - true. Jumpseating still requires a Captain's permission, armed or not.

[stilton]

Exactly how would it become 'apparent' that a jumpseater was turned down because he was an FFDO ?

Was the Captain taken to Guantanamo bay for questioning ?

And what would the FBI have to do with it ? FFDO'S are under the supervision of the TSA.

Have you or your airline management read lately the FAR that states the Captain is the ultimate authority on the aircraft, no one else, not the FFDO or Alpa.

I have several colleagues that have turned down jumpseaters over the years, not a squeak from our management / FBI / SECRET SERVICE/ NASA/ GHOSTBUSTERS.

As I mentioned earlier, If, as Captain you lack the basic authority to control your own jumpseat I wonder what else they have taken from you.

I give you 4 out of 5 Pinocchios for your story though, only 4 because I have heard better.

[Jaxon]

You do realize that should an incident occur in the cabin your FFDO FO has the authority to tell you where you are going to land your aircraft?

Do you realize that ultimately, the Captain's authority rules in the air and that he will inform you of what his plans are?

This argument has no winner. Any complaint you have on the ground for where a Captain chose to land following such an event will not have much negative repercussion for the Captain unless you can prove some manner of negligence.

So... exactly how many airline Captains do you think are out there that believe they must obey their armed co-pilots orders?

[seventhree]

It was apparent because there was no problem until the captain learned the jumpseater was an FFDO.

When there is a problem involving a federal officer on an airline flight it is investigated by the FBI.

As I said, If you really believe that captain's authority extends this far, refuse an FFDO the jumpseat and be honest with him/her as to why you are refusing the jumpseat and see what happens.


Regarding refusing the jumpseat for no particular reason.

If you have refused to carry others please provide details. If you have done so and have not heard anything it is very possible that the pilot involved simply chose not to report the incident to either his/her jumpseat committee or pro standards.

[WhatsaLizad?]

stilton,

Here is a summary:

1. No problem-Turn down a jumpseater due to reasons 1-1000, just keep it to yourself.

2. Big problem-Proclaim to jumpseater, in front of witnesses, that you are turning jumpseater down specifically because he is an FFDO. It is probably up there with loudly declining a rider because he is of a different race, religon, or national origin (lots of shifty Scandanavians at my US co. :E). The term "summon the hounds" would go good with any of these.


Clear now?

[stilton]

Precisely my point, WhatsaLizad, and one that seems incomprehensible to some :ugh:

I sincerely hope you are not an FFDO 'seven three'

I have a suggestion for you, try telling the Captain you have a higher authority than his / her in ANY circumstances regarding operation of the aircraft and see where that takes you :=

[seventhree]

The statute gives the FFDO authority to make diversion decisions. Look it up.

Should there be a disturbance on an aircraft and the FFDO tells you to land you do have the authority to override under your emergency authority. You will, however, be required to justify your decision.

FWIW I am a captain who is familiar with the law as it pertains to the FFDO issue.

"Pilot's don't make mistakes, crews make mistakes."

T. Allan McCarter, while FAA administrator on why the agency was going after both pilots when a violation occured.

You sound like a one man show Stilton.

"Respect my author - it - tie."

[Airbubba]

Both the captain's chief pilot and the FBI had meetings with said captain and explained to him that his authority ended where the FFDO federal badge began.

If and when you try it I am sure you too will get to have a meeting with a couple of FBI agents. They will explain it to you.


Yep, like I said.

I agree with my friend stilton that in theory maybe it shouldn't be that way but in the real world, that's exactly how it works. Anbody that tries the Skygod act and bumps an FFDO for being armed will get a severe reality check. He is a federal officer as far as the feds are concerned.

But, don't take my word for it, try it sometime and see what happens.:)

"Son you don't own that plane, the taxpayers do. And you're writing checks your body can't cash."

[two green one prayer]

Many years ago when I wore a hairy brown suit and a matching iron hat I learnt about loaded pistols. A safe autonatic pistol has the action forward and the safety catch set to safe before the magazine is fitted. A safe revolver has the hammer resting on an empty chamber and safety catch set to safe. A doubly safe pistol of either type has been checked by a competent handler to be in this condition and then left in its holster. To do otherwise is the firearm equivalent of forgetting to lower the undercarriage before landing.

[seventhree]

Next time you fly with an FFDO ask him/her about the safety.

Sorry, just noticed you are from the UK.

Hint - the weapon appears to be a law enforcement model.
(i.e. no external safety.)

BTW, who said the weapon had ever been out of its holster?

[DutchRoll]

It was only a matter of time before we got to the "guns aren't dangerous, idiots are dangerous" argument.

Like saying "sulphuric acid isn't dangerous - scientists with slippery hands are dangerous".

It must just be my twisted logic and rationality, but I fail to see how a mechanical apparatus specifically designed to explosively fire a high speed projectile (and loaded with said projectile) for the express purpose of killing or wounding does not qualify as inherently "dangerous", no matter whose hands it's in. I've never been good with rational argument though.

I would've thought the risk in this program was apparent to all but the incomprehensively blind.

[wileydog3]

CorkEICK Coulnt care less what happened and I never stated I need that info. I just find it unbelievable that its considered of such importance that its classified info.

So you don't care and don't need the information?

I never fly in USA and have no plans to do so. However if I was flying in the States I would certainly like to have that info. As im not YOU can "get a grip...."

So you do think you're entitled to have the information ?

Which is it? or are you doing just having an argument with yourself?

And I don't need to 'get a grip.' Never lost it in the first place. You?

[stilton]

Unfortunately, Dutch Roll, there are a substantial number of incomprehensively blind gun fanatics in this country.


If there was a discussion on this forum about Captains authority, with reference to any other subject but guns, the 'bubbas' and 'seven threes' of this world would be arguing just as vociferously for the absoluteness of that authority.

Blindness, perfectly illustrated.













Things will change though, and not just in this next election, this is a young country with a lot to learn yet

[WhatsaLizad?]

"Things will change though, and not just in this next election, this is a young country with a lot to learn yet "


As a side note for those across the pond, G. Bush and many other prominent Republicans were against the armed pilot program. They wanted nothing to do with it. In fact, a few very pro-gun control Democratic liberals were key supporters and helped get the legislation through.

[Airbubba]

Things will change though, and not just in this next election, this is a young country with a lot to learn yet

Something tells me you're not one of the chosen few to be born in the promised land. Are you perhaps a 'war bride'? Or a 'North American' (Canadian)?

Puttin' down America is a time honored pastime here on PPRuNe. It's up there with complaining about how hard it is to get a green card.

Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble.:O

[seventhree]

Canada - more than a state, less than a country.

[misd-agin]

DutchRoll (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=14518)

Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 336


It was only a matter of time before we got to the "guns aren't dangerous, idiots are dangerous" argument.

Like saying "sulphuric acid isn't dangerous - scientists with slippery hands are dangerous".

It must just be my twisted logic and rationality, but I fail to see how a mechanical apparatus specifically designed to explosively fire a high speed projectile (and loaded with said projectile) for the express purpose of killing or wounding does not qualify as inherently "dangerous", no matter whose hands it's in. I've never been good with rational argument though.

I would've thought the risk in this program was apparent to all but the incomprehensively blind.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Guns have risks associated with them. The risk of the program is well understand.

The risk assessment came down on the side of arming pilots. You can whine all you want, that was the conclusion.

[Dushan]

stilton:
Typical right wing, redneck logic, while trying to defend their ridiculous position, their love of guns blinds them to all reason.


Yes, I am here... Did somebody call?

[ale_mcdowel]

Ok guys... the best part of all this is that the pilot who "accidentally" let one go, is a FED. HAHAHA..... Only in the U.S.A.

[ribt4t]

Ok guys... the best part of all this is that the pilot who "accidentally" let one go, is a FED. HAHAHA..... Only in the U.S.A.

I believe he's a fed only in as much as he's a "Federal Flight Deck Officer" which is the title accorded to those who complete the training program to be able to carry a gun on the flight deck.

The TSA essentially deputizes pilots as law enforcement officers in the limited capacity of being the approved man with a gun on the plane. This is no doubt because only law enforcement gets to carry on aircraft.

[anartificialhorizon]

Slightly off thread but relevant I think with respect to arming people up to make society "safer"....

In certain countries carrying a firearm when committing a crime is a mandatory death penalty (Singapore).

Guess what, very, very, very little crime. In a country of 2 million plus (size of most large cities in the US?) a motorbike being stolen makes the national newspaper.

The answer is to not tolerate guns at all. It's only a matter of time before some idiot takes a gun off the pilot and where will we be?

Giving a gun to a citizen (I don't care if he is a pilot, pilots tend to reflect a cross section of society) is a BAD idea.

What's Airport Security for ?

[FakePilot]

Things will change though, and not just in this next election, this is a young country with a lot to learn yet

So what country do you think the US could learn from? And why?

BTW: "stilton" is an awesome cowboy name. Well done!

[FakePilot]

Guess what, very, very, very little crime. In a country of 2 million plus (size of most large cities in the US?) a motorbike being stolen makes the national newspaper.

The answer is to not tolerate guns at all.

Ah, thanks for bringing up Asia. All my Burmese friends/family love the latest Rambo flick. They like the idea of someone shooting up the junta. You see, they really understand that government can go wrong. They use to have a wonderful government but it packed up and left one day. In Burma, shooting lots of monks doesn't make the newspaper. Perhaps they have an article on a stolen bike too.

Now I'm really confused.

Anyway, my point is that even as a redneck/cowboy/gunslinging American, I have to agree that guns in the cockpit are probably a bad idea, and I certainly wouldn't complain if they cancelled the program.

[DutchRoll]

The risk assessment came down on the side of arming pilots. You can whine all you want, that was the conclusion.

You can input these new statistics into the risk assessment matrix if you like:

forced entries into cockpit - 0
terrorist hijack attempts using deadly force in flight - 0
pilots required to use firearms in flight - 0
accidental/negligent discharge of loaded firearms in cockpit - 1
lives threatened by terrorist activity in flight - 0
lives threatened by discharge of firearms in cockpit - 2

BTW, where was the "whining"? I must be going blind!

[PBL]

There are two results of this discussion which I think are worth remarking.

First, the safety culture around firearms seems to contrast highly with the safety culture around flying.

Second, there are apparent conflicts of authority in any flight deck in which the captain is not an FFDO and others are.

Both of these features can and likely will result in difficulties at some point.

To the first. There are worries, which have become very prominent recently, about criminalisation of aircraft incidents. Pilots being prosecuted for negligence, gross negligence and so on. Indeed, there is a whole PPRuNe thread about it which is still active, and it has occurred prominently in other threads, such as the Brazilian midair one. That is one side: a wish on the part of some for a safety culture in which neither blame nor related concepts of culpability such as negligence play much of a role, and in which the analysis of systems and their operation takes explicit account of human capabilities and limits.

Then there is the safety culture around firearms, which apparently considers any unwanted discharge of a weapon by its operator/owner to be negligent (as in Negligent Discharge). In other words, safety here is seen to be very connected with the concepts of negligence and blame. Very much zero tolerance, understandably.

An FFDO has to play both contrasting cultures simultaneously. That is not the kind of recipe that allows system safety analysts to rest content.

To the second. The authority of the captain over all others in the operation of hisher aircraft is enshrined in aviation practice since the beginning, and has a much longer history in seafaring. It is a principle that many believe has contributed substantially to the safety of aviation today. It also has known weaknesses, of which the Garuda overrun at Yogyakarta is an example. These weaknesses have been addressed, as in CRM, with some, but not perfect, success.

The FFDO program apparently introduces another authority into any cockpit in which the captain is not an FFDO. That this is an unresolved conflict has been illustrated well by this very discussion.

The FFDO program is not going to go away soon, if ever. Might I therefore suggest to our U.S. colleagues that they think hard about these conflicts, how they might lead to a decrement in overall safety, and what might be effective in ameliorating their influence? I think answers most probably have to come from inside the system itself.

PBL

[GlueBall]

seventhree . . . has the captain's authority in approving jump seats changed since the FFDO program? Just curious, as I don't fly USA Part 121 anymore. But when I was a 121 captain I would refuse jump seats to other 121 pilots who were on the APLA scab list. And I would specifically tell them the reason, even in a "right-to-get-to-work" state like Florida. :{

[Dani]

Reviewing the pictures released, I come to the immediate conclusion that this was an accident after servicing the weapon. Some of you familiar with the use of guns, you have to clean them from time to time, they get disassembled, delubricated, cleaned, lubricated again and then reassembled.

Now the last thing you do after everything is finished: You do a function control. For this reason you have to do a loading action and pull the trigger. Also to release the feather on the hammer, for some models, I don't know the H&K that well.

For some reasons the captain (it is obvious that the FFDO is the captain from locking at the picture) forgot the bullet in the gun, and he triggered. As a trained gunner you always point your gun towards the least dangerous direction when trying such maneuvres.

Now, wileydog3, of course I do know nothing about the FFDO program. That doesn't mean I don't know something that would help it to become more safe. :rolleyes: That is: No personal guns, it stays in the safe, unloaded, locked, sealed, and only will come into action in the real case.

Dani

[ChristiaanJ]

Dani,
It seems extremely improbable he would be servicing a gun during the last few minutes of a flight.
And IMHO he would have been out of his mind to service a gun in a cockpit at all. One bump at the wrong moment, and the disassembled parts are scattered over the cockpit floor, with the smaller parts bouncing into nicely inaccesible places.
CJ

[jet_noseover]

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) -- A US Airways pilot whose gun fired inside a cockpit said he was trying to stow the weapon as the crew got ready to land, according to a police report released Wednesday.

More at:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080327/gun_on_plane.html?.v=1

[misd-agin]

So far the conclusions/theories that have been shot down ;) -

He was cleaning the gun.

He was trying to impress the F/A's.

He thought he was John Wayne.

It happened on final approach.

The F/O did it.

He had his finger on the trigger.

[stagger]

You can input these new statistics into the risk assessment matrix if you like:
lives threatened by discharge of firearms in cockpit - 2


Errr...does the discharge of a firearm in the cockpit not threaten the lives of everyone on the aircraft?:confused:

(obviously the extent of the threat depends on what lies in the path of the bullet).

[pakeha-boy]

....bottom line....

If this FFDO had "FOLLOWED PROCEDURE".....because thats what, was and is required......(just like flying our aircraft)...this incident would never have occured........what ever happened,happened below 10,000(sterile cockpit)....and it was not part of the "approved procedure".....

Not interested in argueing the pro,s and cons of pilots and guns,I have already taken a stand on this issue.....but when you are dealing with weapons,whether it be in the cocpit or out of it.....PROCEDURES MUST BE FOLLOWED.....they are put in place to maintain safety.....PB

[Dani]

ChristiaanJ, where does it say that the incident happened on approach or even below FL100? I guess they descented quite fast as soon as the bang stopped...

For the other argument against mine: If he is stupid to discharge the weapon, why shouldn't he do it on approach? It's obvious he laid the weapon on the side pedestal, where he might left it during cruise, did the last few manipulations, charging movement, pulled the trigger, bammm!

Happened so many times - only the first in the cockpit.

Pulling apart the gun isn't that difficult after all. You basically have three or for big parts on a modern gun: grip, magazine, barrel. You need a feather to put the barrel in place. There are no small parts falling around. If you can do the servicing on a dirty fighting ground, you surely can do it in a cockpit.

Dani

[ChristiaanJ]

ChristiaanJ, where does it say that the incident happened on approach or even below FL100?I have corrected my initial "on final approach", but it still happened only about 10 minutes before landing, i.e. not the time you go and clean your gun.
I guess they descended quite fast as soon as the bang stopped...I doubt it, since they didn't notify ATC.

For the other argument against mine: If he is stupid to discharge the weapon, why shouldn't he do it on approach? It's obvious he laid the weapon on the side pedestal, where he might left it during cruise, did the last few manipulations, charging movement, pulled the trigger, bammm!Valid point... if he's stupid enough to discharge the gun, he'd also be stupid enough to play with it at the time he would have had better things to do.

Pulling apart the gun isn't that difficult after all. You basically have three or for big parts on a modern gun: grip, magazine, barrel. You need a feather to put the barrel in place. There are no small parts falling around. If you can do the servicing on a dirty fighting ground, you surely can do it in a cockpit.Valid point, too. I never handled an H&K, and with older ones that I have had apart, I usually ended up with a few smaller parts as well.

We'll see !

CJ

[pierrefridez]

Dani: taken from the link given in mess #199:


The pistol discharged shortly before noon Saturday aboard Flight 1536 from Denver to Charlotte, as the Airbus A319 was at about 8,000 feet and about 10 minutes from landing.

Servicing a gun in the cockpit 10minutes before landing? :=

There must be other, safer, and potentially more efficient ways to prevent someone to take over control of an aircraft. Might involve more cost and more inconveniences for all involved, though...


In this case, everyone on board (and potentially on the ground) was very lucky...

[misd-agin]

DutchRoll (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=14518)

Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 337


Quote:
Originally Posted by misd-agin
The risk assessment came down on the side of arming pilots. You can whine all you want, that was the conclusion.

You can input these new statistics into the risk assessment matrix if you like:

forced entries into cockpit - 0
terrorist hijack attempts using deadly force in flight - 0
pilots required to use firearms in flight - 0
accidental/negligent discharge of loaded firearms in cockpit - 1
lives threatened by terrorist activity in flight - 0
lives threatened by discharge of firearms in cockpit - 2

BTW, where was the "whining"? I must be going blind!
http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/forums/report.php?p=4005597) http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4005597&noquote=1)
********************************************************

Well if you actually believe what you wrote it's obvious why we disagree.

Terrorists have never threatened anyone in flight, have never used deadly force or tried to force their way into a cockpit? Whew, I don't know where to start.

[misd-agin]

The only people saying he was cleaning(servicing) the gun are not officials but it's pretty popular on pprune. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

The official statements stands by itself.

Imagine the outcry if non-pilots were posting inaccurate statements about an aircraft incident. Now rethink all the uninformed, and some highly, and wrongly, speculative posts on this event.

Oh, but this is different. :yuk:

[pierrefridez]

hmm, I didn't read a post, where someone was saying, that he was servicing the gun. In my previous post, my comment was clearly a question and my opinion to this - in the sense of "in case..."

If the official reports you are referring to is the report in the beginning of the thread, then yes, it stands by itself, and leaves us all very much uninformed, including you. So, should we therefore stop to write in this forum?

Obviously, an error occurred, otherwise the gun wouldn't have fired. What exactly the error is, we cannot know, we're not (yet?) told (but I think it is a safe assumption that it was caused by some mismanipulation of the weapon).

Obviously, too, everyone on board was very lucky...

[CorkEICK]

Read report below. Seems to give some idea of what happened based on a police report

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080327/gun_on_plane.html?.v=1

[pierrefridez]

Thx corkEick, I read this, of course. So, apparently he stowed it away. Doesn't explain in the least to me, why the gun fired.

[walkkenn]

Its so easy to say that Americans are gun happy and that arming pilots is a stupid idea. Has everyone forgot what got them armed. Yes, I imagine it was inevitable that eventually a discharge would take place. But, once again, everyone is forgetting why the program was started and that in the late 60's and way into the 70's airliners were being hijacked on a weekly basis and many pilots were being used for target practice. I think I have a right to be armed. Or have an armed guard with me during the flight. You think your company will spring for the cost of an armed guard, or maybe we should arm the flight attendants?

I was in the service for over 12 years and always carried (because of my duties) either an M16 or a .45. Frequently, I was required to have the weapon loaded. I never discharged it, ... ever (accidentally). Carrying a weapon is serious business, just like flying an airplane. Think of all the service members that fly with loaded weapons. Think of all the infantrymen or other branches riding the skids of helicopters with loaded weapons and never discharging them (accidentally).

Wait until the report is out to find out exactly what happened before you condemn the man. If it was a mistake, well, if you get so many people doing it, someone will make a mistake.

I think this is a great program. Or do you think your company will hire armed guards to ride shotgun during the flight. Its common knowledge that the government cut the budgets on the programs that would have protected the flight crews and passengers of the 9/11 hijackings. Who are you going to depend on? Better depend on yourself.

[matt_hooks]

walkkenn wrote Frequently, I was required to have the weapon loaded. I never discharged it, ... ever (accidentally).

So you are saying that you never had a negligent discharge. And how exactly did you achieve this remarkable feat? (I know very few people who actually have experienced such)

Might I suggest that you achieved this by following procedures properly, by never putting your finger inside the guard unless you were on target and prepared to actually fire, by checking the weapon was cleared before easing the spring/releasing the slide and firing off the action!

And I still insist the correct phrase is not "accidental" discharge, but "negligent" discharge.

I'm not saying anything about the program, the jurie's still out on that account, but to fire a weapon "accidentally" is never acceptable!

[walkkenn]

So, I would never disagree with that point. Language semantics aside. All I'm saying is, wait until there is a fair trial before looking for a rope. And the fact remains, I never discharged a weapon accidentally or negligently or however you want to describe it. I did discharge it when required. As far as the training was concerned ... we were only taught to hit the flip up targets at 300m (M16). At the time no one ever discussed where your finger should be (in or out of the finger guard). I seriously doubt that, even now, any of the 5 services teach a finger position for the line troopie in their standard weapons training.

[stepwilk]

Conde Nast Traveler magazine has posted a lengthy but all-too-speculative piece on the gun-in-the-cockpit situation, which I've been trying to rebut. (I'm also a Conde Nast Traveler writer.) Anybody who wants to join in, go to www.perrinpost.com and scroll down a short way and you'll find it. The writer, Guy Martin, seems to know just enough about lightplanes to be dangerous...I have a fair amount of business-jet time, at least, and a CE500 type rating.

[Mark in CA]

Interesting blog post on this topic.

Security expert Peter Biddle uses this incident as an object lesson to explain why "trust isn't transitive:"

http://peternbiddle.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/trust-isnt-transitive-or-someone-fired-a-gun-in-an-airplane-cockpit-and-it-was-probably-the-pilot/

[Wino]

Dani and everyone else.

Without getting into the classified aspects of the FFDO program, you guys are way off base here.

Basically the problem that lead to this accidental discharge is that pilots do not carry concealed. They carry open the way a uniform police officer does. And they can only do so in the cockpit. So, A LOT of handling of the guns happen in the cockpit. It would be far better to just simply let us carry concealed the way the Air Marshals and the FBI does. Then there would be no handling of the gun in the aircraft. You would put it on when you get dressed and it would stay on your person. Chances of a negligent discharge would be far lesser. The downside of that is a concealed weapon takes longer to get to. BUt I would argue that the armored door provides enough time to make up for that aspect. That Door in itself is simply time,

When the cockpit door is locked, then the gun is unlocked (and there are several ways that the gun is locked, so that if someone takes it away from the FFDO it cannot be used) and placed on the body of the FFDO. A change in the method of locking the gun has lead to a potential problem. It is possible to get the lock infront of the trigger instead of behind it now. BOOM is the result. But even so, if you are pointing the gun away from you and your copilot (as this captain apparently was, which you should ALWAYS be doing when handling) the risk is ZERO. A bullet will not cause a rapid decompression, even if it goes through a side window. Check Mythbusters for confirmation, They fired many bullets into a fully pressurized fuselage... even the NON LAMINATED pax windows didn't blow out, they were simply holed, with no real loss of pressure.

The basic problem with the FFDO program is that, like everything else in America lately, this had been done as a "half" measure. The reason (I think) is that the republican government was dead set against this program, and it took Barbara Boxer and a few other powerfull democrats to make it happen. But then the whitehouse went out of their way to make it difficult to participate in (Moved it to the middle of nowhere from Altanta, locking cases, SOPs that are awkward etc)

If you ask me why the Bush government was against it, My honest opinion is the republican dislike of powerfull unions, (Specifically ALPA), and a desire to make sure NOTHING would elevate the stature of a pilot in anyway.


You may now return to your completely uninformed hysteria. But again, Risk? Very close to zero. Certainly less than the real threats that are out there.

Cheers
Wino

[DutchRoll]

Terrorists have never threatened anyone in flight, have never used deadly force or tried to force their way into a cockpit? Whew, I don't know where to start.
You apparently think I was trying to imply terrorists have never threatened a flight. That is just a really, really dumb (perhaps deliberate?) misinterpretation of what I was saying.

I'd hope an average person would have realised that I was specifically referring to the post-9/11 era with post-9/11 security measures which apparently have been extremely effective in curtailing potential terrorist threats and plans BEFORE they get onto the plane. You may correct me at any stage by providing recent examples of successful Al Qaeda aircraft hijackings among nations who have implemented these heightened security measures, if you wish.

We are, after all, debating a post-9/11 US security procedure aren't we, and a post 9/11 incident? Honestly, I didn't think it was all that hard to understand what I was saying.

Anyway, despite 25 years in military and civil aviation I can see that this is now infringing on the "more guns are the obvious solution" and "guns aren't dangerous, people are" points of view (see my analogy to sulpuric acid and scientists with slippery hands), so I see no further point in responding to nonsense. You keep your guns, I'll stay gun free. In 5 years we'll see whose airline has had the least amount of gun incidents and/or terror attacks onboard. At least one is lagging behind already, and they have guns in the cockpit!

But even so, if you are pointing the gun away from you and your copilot (as this captain apparently was, which you should ALWAYS be doing when handling) the risk is ZERO.
I'm rather surprised, for a "gun educated" person, that you apparently believe no-one has ever been killed or injured by a gun not pointed directly at them, especially in confined areas and at close quarters. Silly French. Always coming up with pointless words like "ricochet". This makes your mathematical concept of "ZERO" intriguing.

Edit: BTW, none of this detracts from my support of sky marshalls, which is a different concept and principle from arming the pilots.

[ChristiaanJ]

Wino,

Quite....

These last few years, your FFDOs have been shooting all these Al Quaeda operatives intending to do a copy-cat of 9/11?

No? Then what are they doing on board in the first place?

Shutting the stable door, after the horse has bolted, sure.
But have you checked the store of oats for poison?
No... ?

Maybe you should.

Not everybody is quite as dumb as "Homeland Security".

[Dani]

There is only one way you never get a negligent discharge:

Think that your weapon is always armed when you take it in your hand.

That's the way you get trained on arms in Swiss Military Forces.

Even if you had this weapon in your hand before and you are sure that nobody touched it since. Think of it as charged.

Now, the only way to find out if a gun like the H&K is charged is by looking into the bullet chamber. You take out the magazine, make a charging movements, every bullet in the bullet chamber jumps out. The gun is empty, you are sure that there isn't anythin in there.

Wino, I don't say that I understand the FFDO program nor that I have insights. I just tell you guys that the program is set up completly wrong. You never give a pilot a personal gun. Period. I support armed pilots. But there has to be a better way. Of course, they will never listen to me. They are cowboys. No, not the pilots, the TSA/FAA guys that set up the program. They think in law enforcements categories, they have no clue how it looks like in a cockpit.

Dani

[Wino]

Nah, you guys just don't get it... still.

The gun is nothing but TIME. combined with the door, the two of them MIGHT buy you enough time to maintain controll of the aircraft untill you reach the ground and turn a potential cruise missile into a building.

If you lose controll of the cockpit you will (at best) be shot down.

That is the whole point of the excersize. Its not to have anything to do with the cabin. Its to keep the cabin from coming into the cockpit.

9/11 didn't work once. Its worked 4 times that day. I see the results of it everyday. The VERY worst that could happen with a gun in the cockpit is you could accidentally kill the pilot sitting next to you. Its extraordarily unlikely. But you know what? We already decided its okay to have dead pilots at the controlls. Otherwise we never would have raised the retirement age for pilots. More pilots will die at the controlls from the increased retirment age, and thats a FACT!

If you want to do away with the guns in the cockpit, the solution is simple. Absolutely no access from the cabin to the cockpit. Give the cockpit its own external door to the airplane. A solid bulkhead between the two with no door what so ever. Not on the ground or in flight. Then you don't need the guns in the cockpit and I will be the first one clamoring for the removal of them.

However, you aren't going to get to stand in the doorway and say goodbye anymore. You could run up to the terminal though and wave as they come off the jetbridge if your ego needs the stroking.


Cheers
Wino

[misd-agin]

Having no cabin to cockpit access is the ultimate answer. Cockpit only lav or double door system.

You think the new 787 has a double door system for the forward lav? Cabin layout I saw didn't have one. :sad:

[Clandestino]

But even so, if you are pointing the gun away from you and your copilot (as this captain apparently was, which you should ALWAYS be doing when handling) the risk is ZERO

Erm... the compartment the pilot and copilot of the airplane occupy is called COCKPIT. It's full of very technical thinghies that help pilot and copilot navigate their airplane. While cokpit WINDOWS won't shatter wen getting hit by single small calibre bullet, these technical thingies are mostly made of plastic, conductors and semiconductors and are not particularly bullet-proof. Putting any one of these little thingies out of action by placing a bullet through them certainly increases risk. Good thing that the captain has pointed the gun at the panel that has no wires running behind it - certanly a mark of a good quality gun training and thorough knowledge of aircraft systems.

[Huck]

The A380 freighter has a lav and a rest area behind the hardened door (to keep out the courier compartment pax).

[Jaxon]

The gun is nothing but TIME. combined with the door, the two of them MIGHT buy you enough time to maintain controll of the aircraft untill you reach the ground and turn a potential cruise missile into a building.

I think it is foremost a deterent.
After that, you are correct, it is all about maintaining control of the cockpit. I would add that buying time is also no longer necessary if it happens that the controversial tool is used well.

[Airmotive]

Just to be clear, I'm in no way criticizing our Swiss friend's post....I just thought it ironic. Sort of like a Texan espousing a vegetarian diet. (Wasn't it the Swiss who made skiing a shooting sport in the Olympics. Now THAT'S a strange place to tote a gun!)

I believe Mr. Nielsen was from one of the Scandinavian countries and probably didn't enjoy the same rights and privileges with regards to firearms ownership in Switzerland. Of course, someone will certainly make the argument that if Mr. Nielsen had a gun, he might still be alive.

Regardless, when I first heard about this ND in the cockpit, my first thoughts were "what a tool." Thanks to this forum, I've learned quite a bit and now have some sympathy for the guy. On a related topic (perhaps a bush pilot can chime in here) aren't pilots in Alaska required to be armed? (Forced landing in the wild in-mind)

[matt_hooks]

Wino, you mention a trigger lock mechanism. Is this the barrel type, that fits behind the trigger and physically blocks it's movement?

If so, then surely unloading the weapon would be the first priority, as putting the lock in place renders it safe and useless for defence anyway, there's no point in locking it with one up the spout.

And especially if there is a risk that putting the lock in place might cause the action to be fired off.

[Chronic Snoozer]

From Post #192
Quote:
So what country do you think the US could learn from? And why?


Practically, you have a choice of around 190 (Alaska and Hawaii are not countries)

And why? It really is the blind leading the blind over there isn't it?

[Tree]

Well let's put some perspective on this. Everyday we carry many potentially dangerous items in the cargo hold. The system is designed for safety and generally works well but we know from experience it is not 100% perfect. We also know that pilots are the most controlled and monitored profession yet we have had a few who deliberately caused accidents so there again we do not have a 100% perfect score. We have rational discussions and reactions regarding most of these rare events however in this case many have gone ape over it.

[Huck]

It really is the blind leading the blind over there isn't it?


Reports from Heathrow lately give the same impression.....

[Finn47]

More details here: a description of the trigger-locking mechanism, the name of the captain and an estimate on how many pilots (12000) are in the FFDO program at present:

http://www.charlotte.com/local/story/557520.html

[PA38-Pilot]

But you know what? We already decided its okay to have dead pilots at the controlls. Otherwise we never would have raised the retirement age for pilots. More pilots will die at the controlls from the increased retirment age, and thats a FACT!

:ugh:

Give me a break... I'll love to know where did you get that "fact"... You complain now, but you'll be quite glad that rule exists once you hit your 60's.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=bca&id=news/bca0208p1.xml&headline=Pilot%20Experience%20vs%20Youth%20...THE%20REALITY

[Wino]

PA38.

So is it your medical opinion the chances of a stroke and heart attack REDUCE with age? Really? hmmmmmm. We must have it backwards then. Maybe EKGs should only be untill you are 40 and then discontinued.

Where did I say whether or not I was for the raising of retirement age. The reality is that more pilots WILL die at the controls as older pilots fly. The other reality is that it is also not a safety risk to the passengers in the back as long as there are two or more qualified pilots on board. (And by law in airline ops there must be)

That is the point of redundancy. And it doesn't matter if someone has a heart attack, stroke, Kidney stone or is shot. The other pilot flies the plane. That is the whole point of certification of aircraft for commercial operations. No single failure should be able to bring down the plane.

And the same thing goes for a bullet strait into the center of the instrument panel. We aren't talking about spraying a clip from an AK47 all around the cockpit. Even if you some how have a miracle shot that does an astonding amount of damage, there is still the instrument panel of the pilot sitting next to you, or the standby instruments that have their own power and static sources.

That is the whole cornerstone of certification of airlines and the equiptment they fly.

the only arguement against the guns that has any validity is the chance of a gun being taken away from the pilots somewhere inside the secure area. But there are far easier ways to get a gun into the terminal or onto an aircraft that would be much more predictable (predicatability is the most important thing if you are trying to plan a terrorist attack). Planning an attack to use a pilot's gun won't work because first you have to know whether a pilot is an FFDO, then you have to be sure he is carrying that day (and wasn't reassigned to another flight). Because there is no REQUIREMENT to carry FFDOs may not have their gun on the day you planned to take it away from them. Then even if you do get the gun away from them somehow, it is locked and you are going to need to find some big heavy duty tools to get it unlocked...

There are much much easier and more predictable ways to get guns into aircraft.

Cheers
Wino

[matt_hooks]

A quote from the article linked above.


One US Airways pilot who has been an officer for about four years declined to describe the procedures for handling the gun and holster but said he wasn't surprised that a gun discharged on a flight.

"I suspect he was securing his weapon and had a little accident," the pilot said. "It's going to happen again."

Hmmm, sounds like a quote from a certain post above!

[dazdaz]

I fail to see the need for fire arms on the f/d. Sniffer dogs are trained to detect an additive in Semtex…Ethylene glycol dinitrate. Having said that, the three other mixtures/composites could be blended together in flight, for security reasons no more information.

I doubt after 9/11 terrorists would be contemplating the idea of taking over the f/d

Daz

[misd-agin]

The following quote is from the news article's 'comments' section. It's absolute garbage. I've met well over a hundred FFDO's, and perhaps more since they don't announce their status unless required, and they have never displayed childish behavior. They've mentioned their training and have never mentioned people being kicked out of training or 'storming' out of class. The fact is the program is well run but nothing, including preventing terrorism, is foolproof.

The sad part is folks will decide these comments reflect the truth. :yuk:


http://www.charlotte.com/local/story/557520.html (http://www.charlotte.com/local/story/557520.html)


From feedback from the trainers and others I don't feel the pilots are well suited for carrying fire arms- many have acted like childern- when told they could not do exactly as they pleased with their weapons- some even have "stormed" from class or have been asked to leave based on their lack of professional conduct- if thats how they act in class, I sure don't want an armed pilot at 35K feet with attitude issues.

[na-at6g]

Capt. Bob Hesselbein, chairman of the pilots union, said some airlines are better than others about encouraging pilots to volunteer for the program, but he wouldn't elaborate. Most pilots support the concept of the program, he said.

What is the real percentage of this group that really aproves of guns on the flight deck, seems to me if it in reality is "most" then all the pilot group would be using their vacation, days-off or personal time to be in these classes, heck start more schools, generate more spending help the ecomony.

Once the person trying to damage, where ever, gets to the position he wants you will not stop him.

[misd-agin]

Supporting the program doesn't mean you personally are inclined to volunteer. Are some pilots at my company opposed to the FFDO program? Yes, but it seems to be a very small number. I personally have not met any pilot who have expressed opposition to the program. I've seen the posts by some in opposition but finding dissenters is a lot harder to do than it is to find supporters.

Everyone who enrolls is doing so on their own time and to different amounts at their own cost(days off, or loss of pay, or use of vacation days). As anyone flying a regular schedule knows the impact on the rest of the month's schedule is significant when you have to block 7-8 days off.

The program is not just a simple matter of signing up and you get accepted. You have to apply, get accepted(a fairly detailed protocol), and then find the time and pay for some of the costs, to attend. Even with those obstacles news reports state that the school runs full classes all the time.

Every graduate I've spoken with has been highly complimentary of the training.

Based on those observations it seems like the program is highly supported by U.S. based flight crews.

YMMV, especially if you don't know the program, or the individuals that have completed the course.

[fr8tmastr]

Where do people come up with that stuff?

[ChristiaanJ]

misd-agin,
To me, you sound like a sane intermediary in a discussion that tends to go off the rails at times. So it's you I'm asking the question to.

Was this indeed, really, honestly, the first occasion of an ND in the cockpit?
Or have others been "papered over", figuratively and literally? (Speed tape is great stuff.)

After all, the scenario is not that improbable, in particular in view of what seems to be the current "regulations".

CJ

[Tigs2]

If the prime aim is a detterent then it would be safer to tell everyone that there are guns on the flight deck, but actually there are not! Just do not have them. Then just report an occasional Negligent Discharge and hey ho. no one comes through the door and you don't risk shooting the Captain in flight (however desirable that may be;) )

[Huck]

If the prime aim is a detterent then it would be safer to tell everyone that there are guns on the flight deck, but actually there are not! Just do not have them.

There are some that believe that that was the essence of Saddam's WMD program....

[misd-agin]

ChristiaanJ,

Ah, the ol' "try flattery first...":)

It's the first ND I've heard of inflight.

The naysayers like to wring their hands about what happened. I say, so it happened, and where did the bullet go? The most unlikely place to cause any damage. Another hole (;)) in the John Wayne theories.

I think you'll find amongst gun owners/users that AD's/ND's are rare. But they do occur.

I was an adult supervisor at a paint ball game. Very poor muzzle/trigger protocols observed. Teenage kids, about 6 ND's. I spent most of the time protecting the kids around me(take your finger off the trigger, point your gun at the ground or in the air, etc, etc) The kids around me learned very quickly that I would not tolerate poor gun control protocol. I made the decision that my kids would no longer participate in that group activity due to the poor safety standards in place.

Guns have risk associated with them. Not having guns also has risks associated with that decision. It's the balance between the two POV's that folks argue about.

[seventhree]

http://tinyurl.com/yrcssv

[ChristiaanJ]

Thanks, seventhree,
Seems to cover about all of it.
Not that it will change anything.

[seventhree]

Read this idiots column.

He thinks he is a journalist. He should be no more than a poster here.

http://www.concierge.com/cntraveler/blogs/perrinpost/2008/03/fasten-your-sea.html

[Jaxon]

If the prime aim is a detterent then it would be safer to tell everyone that there are guns on the flight deck, but actually there are not! Just do not have them. may be;) )

Obviously not a secret that would remain one.

I would have been happy to have a big sharp knife in every seat back after 9/11 but in hind sight I see the whole world is propagating too many traveling whackos.

[Tigs2]

MMMMmmm funny how the US people were terrorized into biological warfare and being told of Anthrax coming through the post, and then all of those white powder envelopes came through the post causing mass hysteria, and non of them were Anthrax!!! And they never seem to have happened since:confused: Same in the UK. Funny old thing the only two countries!

What is going on???? A lot more than meets the eye! (Tanks at Heathrow!!)

Scaremongering!!

[airfoilmod]

Gun Handling requires accuracy as well as timing. The Captain is in charge. TSA authority in the cockpit is secondary. Have people lost their minds?

[WhatsaLizad?]

"and non of them were Anthrax!!!

5 people died in the US as a result of anthrax through the mail Tigs2.

Don't let that get in the way of you repetitive anit-US diatribe.

[cactusbusdrvr]

This was the first negligent/accidental discharge in flight. There was an AD in training not long ago (it was an instructor) due to the new holster/lock procedure. You need to be very careful that the lock is not placed ahead of the trigger, which should be no problem if you have followed procedures.

The problem is that FFDOs are handling the weapon (holstered or not) a lot more than they should. The correct protocol would be the same for FFDOs as they are for other armed LEOs on board.

This is a deterrent program. The mindset has changed - no longer will the flightdeck be a target for terrorists. It is also cheap for the government. FFDOs pay for their own training (at the government's facility) and pay for their own range time and self defense training, outside of the periodic requal sessions.

[mickjoebill]

Most of the pro gun posters can't see past pulling the trigger!

Given that a (handgun) bullet proof vest can easily be disguised and concealed in hand baggage, the first shot would have to be to the head.

I'm told this is not easy, even at close quarters.



or maybe the bomb sniffing machines can be tuned to detect Kevlar?


Mickjoebill

[Shore Guy]

not for the prudes on pprune.....

http://thekidfrombrooklyn.com/video_disp.asp?videoid=1183

[Jaxon]

Most of the pro gun posters can't see past pulling the trigger!
Given that a (handgun) bullet proof vest can easily be disguised and concealed in hand baggage, the first shot would have to be to the head.
I'm told this is not easy, even at close quarters.
or maybe the bomb sniffing machines can be tuned to detect Kevlar?

Well then, lets run with your thought and see what makes sense:

If your cockpit door gets attacked from the cabin and gives way to reveal a terrorist wearing a bullet proof vest, are you going to prefer (at THAT moment) to be armed or unarmed?