PDA

View Full Version : Pilot's gun goes off during landing


CathayBrat
25th Mar 2008, 12:45
"A gun belonging to an American pilot accidentally went off as he was bringing a plane with 124 passengers onboard in to land.

The incident did not endanger any passengers
The "accidental discharge" took place on Saturday aboard US Airways Flight 1536 from Denver, Colorado, to Charlotte, North Carolina.

Greg Alter of the Federal Air Marshal Service said the incident did not endanger the aircraft, its passengers or any staff members.

It is the first time a pilot's weapon has been fired on a plane since they were issued firearms under a program created after the Sept 11 terrorist attacks. Pilots are armed so that they can act against any act of air piracy or criminal violence, Mr Alter said.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is investigating the incident. The Airbus A319 has been removed from service.

The TSA initially opposed the Flight Deck Officer program to arm and train cockpit personnel.

Agency officials worried that introducing a weapon to commercial flights was dangerous and that other security improvements made it unnecessary. Congress and pilots backed the program.

Pilots must volunteer, take a psychological test and complete a week long firearms training program run by the government to keep a gun in the cockpit."

:eek: WTF!! :confused:
Discuss..........

GPMG
25th Mar 2008, 12:55
he he he, you said discharge....he he he...

ZH875
25th Mar 2008, 12:59
accidentally went off

Yep that can happen if:

1. You accidentally load the weapon

AND

2. You accidentally cock the weapon

AND

3. You accidentally remove the safety catch

AND

4. You accidentally pull the trigger.

Now lets forget about loading the weapon, as that is a sensible idea, but for the rest of the actions to be carried out, gives rise to a NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE, and he should be fined a minimum of one months salary or SACKED for being a [email protected]:ugh:

Dan D'air
25th Mar 2008, 13:03
Merge Mods...........Where are you?? This has already been on the Rumour forum.

GPMG
25th Mar 2008, 13:05
Reminds me of the passage about the ND in Robert Masons Chickenhawk, still has me in fits of giggles whenever I read that great book.

Firestorm
25th Mar 2008, 13:06
That must have been one heavy landing to make a gun go off! The best I've ever managed has been a few tray tables, a handful of filings and false teeth, and the Number One's suspender belt (she wasn't wearing any knickers)!

pakeha-boy
26th Mar 2008, 00:59
Photos show bullet hole in from pilot's gun in plane that landed in N.C.
Officials say passengers were not in dangerAssociated Press
Published: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 4:39 p.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 5:04 p.m.
Associated Press 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. Charlotte | Photos show that a shot fired from a US Airways pilot’s pistol blasted a small hole through the cockpit wall of a plane that landed in North Carolina.

The photos obtained Tuesday 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 aboard Flight 1536 from Denver to Charlotte did not endanger those on board.

Gee says the pilot has been taken off duty during the investigation by the Transportation Security Administration.


I couldnt get the whole thing in but if you do a googgle search..."pilot shoots aircraft,you will see in detail,the photos,.....luckily no one was injured...this was an armed pilot discharging(accidently)in the aircraft in flight......

Ricky1
26th Mar 2008, 01:13
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=319466

already a thread on this..... Maybe a quick pprune search would help too

Jabawocky
26th Mar 2008, 01:13
And was it you who in the past has said you are very much in favour of guns on board?

J:ok:

pakeha-boy
26th Mar 2008, 01:20
MATE!!! wouldnt of posted it if I wasnt prepared to take a little shite!!!.....no argument here about the "cons" of this......if the writing was on the wall,it certainly is now

but you will be interested to know,the even in law enforcement,discharges(accidental) have always been part of the game,they are just never advertised

......my biggest concern has been,that,if this round had penetrated the windshield,the consequences would have been very grave


thanks rick....missed it completely:uhoh:

Jabawocky
26th Mar 2008, 01:38
PB

Yes I can only guess at what would have happened next had it hit the forward facing windshield.....make a birdstrike look tame I guess!

I'll bet this guy/girl has some explaining to do:uhoh:.

J

Dogimed
26th Mar 2008, 01:46
I wonder what the aeroplane did to the pilot first. There are always two sides to every story.
:suspect::suspect::suspect:

Brian Abraham
26th Mar 2008, 01:59
Captain said "Put it down, put it down", so the co-pilot tried to oblige. :p

Firestorm
26th Mar 2008, 08:31
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=319625

It's here too...

ZH875
26th Mar 2008, 09:15
es I can only guess at what would have happened next had it hit the forward facing windshield

As the aircraft was coming in to land, hitting the windows instead of piercing the airframe, would probably make it easier to repair the damage.

Islander Jock
26th Mar 2008, 12:44
So let me see if I have this right.
Australia's current strict aviation security and screening requirements were largely brought about from the results of Sep 11 and the need to adopt uniform security measures consistent with the rest of the world.

Our pilots are subjected to personal screening prior to boarding their aircraft but the US allows it's pilots to have a firearm on the flight deck?:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Something here is seriousl fcuked up!!!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
26th Mar 2008, 16:39
Not that I wish to rekindle the entire debate, but it struck me as logical that only Co-pilots should be able to carry weapons ... well left handed captains too I suppose and also no left handed right seaters.

I mean if the weapons are there for what they said they were there for, then it stands to reason. :8





...unless of course you have Gangsta pilots who can shoot sideways :confused:

con-pilot
26th Mar 2008, 16:53
Well let me tell you something, I have flow aircraft that if I had a gun I would shot the blasted thing just to put it out of its misery.

One was "Hoot" Gibson's 727. God that was terrible flying aircraft. It would not even taxi straight let alone fly straight.

For those of you who do not know of "Hoot" Gibson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_841_(1979)

frostbite
26th Mar 2008, 19:04
"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."

Well, I tried to look.....

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
26th Mar 2008, 19:22
It would not even taxi straight let alone fly straight.
Did you ever try putting it on a conveyor belt? I wonder if that would have helped . . .

Mudfoot
26th Mar 2008, 19:35
Go to Wikipedia and put "TWA Flight 841" into the search box. You'll get two choices, as there were 2 different incidents under the same Flt#. One was in 1974, the other in 1979.

Cheers, y'all.

p.s.: On the conveyor belt, are the brakes on or off? :rolleyes:

Solid Rust Twotter
26th Mar 2008, 20:12
...I can only guess at what would have happened next had it hit the forward facing windshield...

Couple of inches of laminated and armoured glass? Reckon the ricochet would cause some problems if it goes into sensitive equipment. Couple of shards may make it into the cockpit but apart from that, not much damage. Might be a different scenario at high speed or under pressure but not on approach I should think.

Spotlight
27th Mar 2008, 02:01
Hi con-pilot

Interesting that you flew that A/C. I have a good memory of when it happened and some of the subsequent events but the Wiki article causes me some doubt in my recollections.

I was quite young at the time but the incident was well discussed at home and certainly reported on and followed in AUS.

I had thought they were still climbing when the slat reflected, the allegation being that the slats CB was pulled to allow for 2 deg of flap to be run out.

The F.E returned, and with uncommanded zeal re-set it.

Recall aspersions cast also, about the CVR being wiped after landing, and the union really going into bat for the crew.

Also, a lot of back and forth at the time about bonus/demerit for fuel saved or used by Captains. (we were probably our own worst enemy even then)

It may still be a sore topic but if not, any view you could put forward I am sure would be of great interest.

con-pilot
27th Mar 2008, 16:59
It may still be a sore topic but if not, any view you could put forward I am sure would be of great interest.

All I can say is that there is still a vast division between many people in the aviation community on the actual cause of this incident. All of my 727 training was at Dalfort Aviation located on DFW Airport (KDFW) in Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas. Dalfort Aviation was the old Braniff Airlines Training center, the same instructors that had worked for Braniff worked for Dalfort. The Chief Ground School Instructor was a retired PFE (Professional Flight Engineer) from Braniff Airlines. In fact he was the FE on the acceptance flights for the 707 (I think), the 727 and the 747 for Braniff. In other words he knew all the systems of the 727 and the 747 from th smallest part to the largest. He could draw out both the hydraulic and the electrical systems from memory on a blackboard. He knew his stuff.

He was, and still is if he is still alive, adamant that there was no way the incident happened as the FAA and the NTSB said it did. With every new class he would show in the simulator that by just pulling one circuit breaker would not prevent the LEDs (Leading Edge Devices) from extending. He wrote numerous letters to many aviation media outlets and to the FAA/NTSB on his views, to no avail. I have talked to other pilots and flight engineers that agree with his views, I have also talked to just as many that do not agree with his views.

Me? I never tried to extend the flaps without extending the LEDs first, too chicken. Perhaps 411A may have better/more information on this incident.

The last I heard the 727 in question is still flying somewhere in South America, but that was a few years ago.

Loose rivets
27th Mar 2008, 17:17
Now, if it was on a conveyor belt, and the pilot fired the gun in a forward direction, would the belt be able to stop the acceleation caused by the projectile?

If so, would the force be reversed when the bullet hit the widshield?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
27th Mar 2008, 18:28
Wouldn't gun firing forward cause DEceleration? :E



...or is it different on a conveyor belt?

G-CPTN
27th Mar 2008, 18:32
One was "Hoot" Gibson's 727. God that was terrible flying aircraft. It would not even taxi straight let alone fly straight.
Not surprising, really:-
During the course of the dive, the plane rolled through 360 degrees twice, and crossed the Mach limit for the 727 airframe. It was later estimated from the flight data recorder that the plane was momentarily supersonic.

Spotlight
28th Mar 2008, 04:22
Thanks for the reply Con. Have had to keep an open mind about this one over the years, obviously. Hence my use of the word allegation!

Is there a simple reason why so many big events in the history of your great country remain so impossibly unresolved?

Loose rivets
28th Mar 2008, 13:42
Wouldn't gun firing forward cause DEceleration?



Right...here we go.

When considering such forces, one must remove the world, and only considder movement relative to the fixed stars. All Newtonian forces are deemed to be acceleration. DE, was invented by a rather introverted professor - shortly before driving into a concrete motorway post. He was not thinking about driving, but trying to tie relative movement to the Earth's surface.

DE-movement? DE-going? DE-DE-Stopping? DE-motivation?.....Ah! I know! I'll call it DE-Cel..Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!

You will note that the last sound he made was not dissimilar to your name.

:8 Wibble

con-pilot
28th Mar 2008, 16:38
Is there a simple reason why so many big events in the history of your great country remain so impossibly unresolved?

Without trying to changing this thread into a "Hamster wheel" style thread I'm unsure exactly what you mean by this question.

Fact is that nearly all "big events" have been solved, it is just that there is always a very small, very vocal group of people demanding their 15 minutes of fame that never agree with the official findings to promote their own personal agendas.

Also I don't consider what happened on TWA flight 814 to be a big event outside a small segment of the aviation community.

And you are more than welcome.

Spotlight
28th Mar 2008, 22:22
Sooo, the official findings of why the Boeing Company seven twenty seven full of passengers rolled, are to be taken as fact?

I take your point regarding Hampster Wheel. Perhaps another thread one day. The Lindburgh baby say? Fascinating stuff, but I have a feeling that maybe the official findings on that one leave a little to be desired. For instance.

con-pilot
29th Mar 2008, 17:36
The Lindburgh baby say?

THE LINDBERGH BABY????????????:confused::confused::confused:


Wow, never thought to compare that to TWA flight 814. Or for that matter to the topic of this thread.

(Hum, must do more research. :hmm:)

As for this:

Sooo, the official findings of why the Boeing Company seven twenty seven full of passengers rolled, are to be taken as fact?

That was the official NTSB finding, you may choose to believe it or not to. If you choose not to believe the findings may I inquire the extend of your aviation background involving Boeing 727s that you base your opinion/s on?

Thank you in advance.

ShyTorque
29th Mar 2008, 22:50
Was this pilot holding the gun for the whole flight? :p

Spotlight
30th Mar 2008, 04:56
Dear Con

I appear to have ggot on your flinty side. I apologise for this, it is certainly not my intention.

As I have not expressed an opinion about the fidelity or otherwise of the NTSB finding but rather, sought your views I do not seek to bolster any opinion by recounting my own modest achievments in twenty two years of flying.

Clearly, your original statement that "all I can say is there is still a vast division between many people in the aviation community on the actual cause of this incident" is demonstrated, probatum est.

I am uncertain if you characterise your Ground Instructor at Dalfort as a person demanding his 15 minutes of fame and promoting his own personal adjenda, or not.

con-pilot
30th Mar 2008, 17:38
I appear to have ggot on your flinty side. I apologise for this, it is certainly not my intention.

No harm, no foul, no problem. :ok:


(Still trying to figure out the Lindbergh connection though. :p)

"your flinty side", sorry, I'm an old fart, it happens. :uhoh: