Pardon the Loud Noise, Captain...
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dani
ChristiaanJ, where does it say that the incident happened on approach or even below FL100?
I guess they descended 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!
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.
We'll see !
CJ
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Zurich
Age: 64
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dani: taken from the link given in mess #199:
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...
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.
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...
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: 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!
********************************************************
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.
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!
********************************************************
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only people saying he was cleaning(servicing) the gun are not officials but it's pretty popular on pprune. 
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Zurich
Age: 64
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: cork
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080327/gun_on_plane.html?.v=1
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florida. USA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guns in Cockpit(America, etc.)
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.
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.
Last edited by walkkenn; 27th Mar 2008 at 18:59.
Wunderbra
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 44
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
walkkenn wrote
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!
Frequently, I was required to have the weapon loaded. I never discharged it, ... ever (accidentally).
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!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florida. USA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by walkkenn; 27th Mar 2008 at 20:15.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/20...bly-the-pilot/
Security expert Peter Biddle uses this incident as an object lesson to explain why "trust isn't transitive:"
http://peternbiddle.wordpress.com/20...bly-the-pilot/
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by misd-agin
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.
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!
Originally Posted by Wino
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.
Edit: BTW, none of this detracts from my support of sky marshalls, which is a different concept and principle from arming the pilots.
Last edited by DutchRoll; 28th Mar 2008 at 00:53.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
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".
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by Dani; 29th Mar 2008 at 00:05.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
You think the new 787 has a double door system for the forward lav? Cabin layout I saw didn't have one.
Originally Posted by Wino
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