|
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... 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? |
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. |
Calm Down Calm Down, the Captain just Far$ed
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 |
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! |
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 |
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: |
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!!!!!!!!! |
Non lethal weaponry
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 ? |
Originally Posted by Huck
- 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.
- 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.) |
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.
|
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. |
It went bang, so what!
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?) |
- 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.) 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". |
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! I would share a cockpit with you anytime. |
Only in America ........ 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... :} |
Remember "The Flight of the Phoenix"
My guess is the guy was told his plane was fitted with cartridge starters :}
|
Accidents will happen
If it can happen to this guy it can happen to anyone.
He took it in the foot. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/46491/...n_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 |
mid life pilot
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.*************/2...a-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. |
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. |
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:47. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.