Pardon the Loud Noise, Captain...
"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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Things will change though, and not just in this next election, this is a young country with a lot to learn yet
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DutchRoll
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.
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.
Last edited by misd-agin; 27th Mar 2008 at 01:27. Reason: seperation of text
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Spokane WA
Age: 51
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
Things will change though, and not just in this next election, this is a young country with a lot to learn yet
BTW: "stilton" is an awesome cowboy name. Well done!
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.
The answer is to not tolerate guns at all.
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.
Last edited by FakePilot; 27th Mar 2008 at 05:33.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
That is: No personal guns, it stays in the safe, unloaded, locked, sealed, and only will come into action in the real case.
Dani
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.
That is: No personal guns, it stays in the safe, unloaded, locked, sealed, and only will come into action in the real case.Dani
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by ChristiaanJ; 27th Mar 2008 at 14:26. Reason: Inaccuracy corrected
jetsy
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US for now
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
More at:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080327/gun_on_plane.html?.v=1
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
-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.
(obviously the extent of the threat depends on what lies in the path of the bullet).
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....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
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
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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