The carriage of firearms on aircraft.

[slipperysnail]

Having spent over 12yrs in the aviation industry I have become a little confused. As far as I am aware if a passenger is transffering from one flight to another the said firearm is screened by the transiting airport. Say for argument sake the hunting rifle is inbound on a wide body , transferring to say an aircraft with a hold that has access to it from the cabin. ie say a Dash 8. I have always been told that the firearm must not be allowed to travel. This has been standard practice for many years.
Have the rules changed, I hope not . Or have profits taken priority over saftey. Perhaps its the hunters fed up of flying into local UK airports, transferring up to the far north only to find that their prides of joy have to travel by couirer or taxi 24hrs later. If airlines allow the carriage of firearms in an unsecured hold are they not in breech of aviation law.


So says the slug

[Captain Stable]

Not correct.

Assuming you are also carrying ammunition:-

The firearm can travel on the Dash 8 (or ATR or F50 or whatever) if it is securely locked in a gun compartment or gun case, or (I forget the precise wording) is otherwise inaccessible to passengers during flight.

In other words, it is acceptable for the gun to be in a soft cover, unlocked, if it is buried under a pile of baggage. Alternatively, you could have a secure gun case on board (many aircraft do), and the skipper keeps the key.

If you are not carrying ammunition, then there is even less problem.

Rule #1, as always, is check what your Ops Manual says you can do.

[the boy John]

It always surprises me what excitement is caused by an inert lump of steel and wood just because it is called a "firearm" - incedentally an utterly inaccurate term as most of the guns we carry are shotguns, which by definition are not firearms. Hm, never mind, accuracy is never important in the "security" business, is it?

A gun is no more hazardous an item than a hockey stick, indeed the latter is arguably more dangerous on a plane as is is far more suitable fot close-quarters fighting than a fragile gun which will break on impact if you use it as a club, even if you could retrieve it from an inacccessible baggage hold.

I can only surmise that the percieved "hazard" with guns is in the event that they are mated with ammunition, which is pure double-jeopardy as "security" are there for the specific purpose of preventing that ammo from coming aboard in an accessible manner.

Further, anyone who thinks a long arm, ie a rifle or shotgun is a suitable weapon for interfering with an aeroplane on the inside is not being very serious about interfering with the conduct of a flight.

As we in the UK are no longer permitted to own short barelled weapons under any circumstance (a fine state of democracy, but that's another matter) this all seems to me to be a bit of a storm in a (non existant) shell-case.