Pardon the Loud Noise, Sir...
 

We all knew it was inevitable. Well, it finally happened. Let's see how this gets whitewashed in the next 24 hours.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

By DIANA RUGG / WCNC
E-mail Diana: [email protected]

CHARLOTTE, N.C.-- A US Airways pilot’s gun accidentally discharged during a flight from Denver to Charlotte Saturday, according to as statement released by the airline. The statement said the discharge happened on Flight 1536, which left Denver at approximately 6:45am and arrived in Charlotte at approximately 11:51am. The Airbus A319 plane landed safely and none of the flight’s 124 passengers or five crew members was injured, according to the statement. It was a full flight. And airline spokeswoman said the plane has been taken out of service to make sure it is safe to return to flight. A Transportation Safety Administration spokeswoman reached by WCNC Sunday said the pilot is part of TSA’s Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program, which trains pilots to carry guns on flights. Andrea McCauley said the gun discharged in the cockpit, but she could not release how the gun was being transported at the time. She did not release the pilot’s name, but said he was authorized to carry the weapon and was last requalified in the FFDO program last November. A statement from TSA said the airplane was never in danger, and the TSA and the Federal Air Marshals Service are investigating the incident. WCNC reporter Diana Rugg is following up on this story. If you or someone you know were on that flight, please e-mail her at [email protected].

...

Yep, have to agree, it was inevitable.
Guns and pilots together on the FD is a very bad idea, as boys and their toys do not mix well.
Wonder what he was doing...playing quick draw McGraw?:rolleyes::}

Have Gun Will Travel . . .
 

This F/O with an apparent siege mentality must have had the trigger cocked; the only way for the gun to fire, albeit accidentally!

Thank goodness for the armor plated cockpit door to protect the persons outside the cockpit. :eek:

Inevitable ?
 

As most of us know it does not take the hammer to be cocked before a discharge can occur. Simply dropping the weapon onto a cockpit floor is enough to cause a discharge if you have "one up the spout".

(Speak to my colleague with the shattered ankle bone if you have any doubts, albeeit done when his shooter fell from the seat between his legs in the car, and before you ask it was legal and in Joburg)

I wonder what the chances are of a single discharge starting a cockpit electrical fire. Seems to me that the risks of taking out your partner or worse must also outweigh the advantages ?

Imagegear

Pardon the loud noise,captain
 

TSA’s Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program,
How long does the program go,when did it start?:ugh:

Having one in the chamber is just as irresponsible as having one in and the thing cocked IMHO. In fact, why did the 'flying leatherneck' think it was acceptable to have the thing on board in the first place?

It's the whole American gun obsession thing, isn't it?

A pro-gun person said a while ago "An armed society is a polite society".

They must have beautiful manners in Baghdad then.

Reminds me of Chickenhawk, when Bob Mason blew out the bubble "dryfiring" someone's personal toy after being badgered to do so. Commanding Officer, handing Bob the remains of a VOR and asking, " So, Bob, did the VOR draw on you first?" :D :D :D

Slightly off-topic I know (blame SeldomFixit), but wasn't Chickenhawk a great read!

Cam

We can only hope this knocks sense into the chaps who condone this type of nonsense. I have a funny feeling that's very wishful thinking.

Only in America ........ :rolleyes:

Does anyone know the make of weapon they use, or does one get qualify for the licence then pop down to Wal-Mart and tool up with whatever you fancy?

I can't wait for the report on this one. That is, if there will be one?

BTW, don't blame the Effoh. It doesn't say who carried the gun.

A modern weapon in good working order, such as a CZ-75, Browning Hi-Power, Glock 17, Smith & Wesson 29 ("Dirty Harry Gun"), etc. will not go off if dropped even with one up the spout. The design of the gun makes this impossible, as the firing pin is physically blocked from making contact with the primer until the trigger is pulled. Some firearms, such as a CZ-75, are safe to carry even with one in the chamber and the hammer back, with the safety on and the user is properly trained, especially with regard to holstering and drawing the weapon. On occasion, I would carry a CZ-75 in this condition.

Some older weapons (e.g. single action revolvers, original Colt 1911) can easily be made to discharge if dropped. A fault in a modern weapon can also render them liable to accidentally discharge if dropped.

I would hope that a pilot permitted to carry a loaded firearm onto an aircraft would be issued with a modern well designed firearm, and more importantly, be trained exactly how to handle the firearm safely. Alas, many "trained" firearms users that I've come into contact with scare the holy crap out of me with their unsafe gun handling.....

I'd be very interested to know exactly what type of firearm was being carried, and what the training requirements are....

Whilst stretching to reach the chart holder, the pilot's spurs caught the clasp of the gun case which spilled open. As the gun fell out, the first officers trusty steed, which was teathered to the jump seat, stretched his aching hooves. The gun caught Silver's front right hoof and was launched against the Captains seat back where the weapon discharged, scaring the bejesus out of all on the flightdeck. Silver left a horse shaped hole in the flightdeck door as it bolted to the aft Lav, taking the jumpseat assembly with him.

Out of curiosity, does the “TSA’s Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program” prescribe which side arms can and can not be carried and the types of shells are they allowed to use?

(a simple yes or no would suffice, not looking to breach security!)


JAS

OK, gents, you lot seem to need some reassurance, so let me do my best.

I am not a member of the program, but I've flown with some who are. Here's what I feel comfortable telling in public:

- The training is thorough. It is done by the federal government, at the same school that teaches Border Patrol officers.

- 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.

- The weapons/ammo are standard issue, very modern and quite safe. Don't know what happened in this case but it was most certainly not dropped. I would suspect the FFDO was checking the chambered round - not a standard maneuver but I've heard some guys do it.

- There are more FFDO's now than federal skymarshals. The program costs the government next to nothing. And we haven't had an aircraft attacked in six-and-a-half years. Would you have thought this a good thing on September 12, 2001?

- We know it's an american thing. Got it. You don't understand. Got that too. If you want you can do a search and read some of the thousands of PPrune posts on guns and america in the archives.....

Huck,
I'll take your last point first and not restart the old controversy. But as to
are you suggesting that these are cause and effect, i.e. the lack of attacks is due to the FFDO's? Or should we conclude that the the lack of attacks mean they are not needed?

A pro-gun person said a while ago "An armed society is a polite society".

They must have beautiful manners in Baghdad then.


That was an interesting observation. Obviously, being armed alone is not enough. I have thought about this on occasion, when thinking about armed Vikings, armed knights, armed Indians and settlers....... In addition to being armed, there were rather strict customs regarding the use of these arms. Nowadays, we seem to have no customs or honour, and so you get these mindless killings for an ipod or a cap or a pair of shoes.....or just because one feels like it. A 16 year old killed the other day on his paper route in Copenhagen. Another knifed on the street. In each case, 3 against one unarmed.....and for no "reason" other than being violent.

But then the non-armed have to choose whether they are going to arm themselves for self-defence.

Then the armed may become more "polite," or they may choose to be even more violent initially, assuming that their victims are now armed...

Interesting circle here........

But this has to do with one particular incident. 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...

Well, I would say that the lack of atacks is because the real terrorists get the message. Namely, that trying to hi-jack an airplane is not worth the effort.
Hey, wait a minute.......That would mean that the number of hi-jacks in Europe, where pilots are not armed, should be on the rise. But as this is not the case, I would conclude that arming pilots is unnecessary from a deterrence point of view. (or any other point of view for that matter)