US Air firing pilot who's gun discharged

[waveflyer]

This is my conflict with unions and why I think conservative pilots are a walking contradiction. If you can't get fired for shooting a hole in the airplane while disregarding SOP, what can you get fired for?. All you free market couch economists love to lecture about responsibility and then think this is appropriate?

 

[A-V-8]

You guys have it wrong. The gun is not supposed to be out of the holster unless you are (1) on a shooting range after having told the Marshals that you are going there to practice or (2) to shoot a terrorist in the face on the flight deck. There is no safety on the gun. It will not go off in the holster. I will go off while taking it from the glare shield and putting it back in the holster. I have an opinion different from most of yours on this matter but the facts speak for themselves.

If any good came from this incident it showed both the terrorist and the U.S. citizens (Whom overwhelmingly support the program.) that there are guns on flight decks.

 

[scotts]

... But I have yet to understand why anyone thinks they need to carry a firearm in the cockpit of an airliner in the case some one should happen to break through the cockpit door.

Any pilot who thinks their reinforced cockpit door is impenetrable is fooling themselves. I don't want another innocent victim sacrificed because the pilots couldn't defend themselves from a mental midget with a knife.

Most people didn't think suicidal religious extremists would fly a large jet into the twin towers until it happened.

How does that sand taste?

 

[Bringupthebird]

Nothing was given up. It was not a negotiation. The system board ruled that the punishment was too harsh and that he should not have been fired. Therefore, he gets his job back.

Hoo Hoo Hoo, Now THAT'S Funny I don't care who ya' are!

Please tell me you're not on any negotiating team. (Oh, wait USAPA uses Professional Negotiators. How's that goin' for them?)

I can assure you that USAPA wanted a win so bad they were willing to give up just about anything (assuming they had anything to start with. Oh, wait again they had the West Contract to eviscerate in lieu of negotiating a better one for both).

 

[Fly2AK]

So just curious to the ones on this board that feel that the FFDO hasn't done anything to protect the safety of the flight or prevented a breach of the cockpit. The reinforced door is not called a inpenetrable door, if someone wants in bad enough they will get in. NCFlyer, you have a CCW permit, so do I, why do you carry while a civilian? Just in case you need to protect yourself or your loved ones. Has anyone ever attacked you while a civilian to the point you needed to shhot to kill? Last I checked bad guys/terrorist don't schedule appointments when they intend to kill giving you a chance to arm yourself. You carry concealed, shouldn't every other law abiding citizen have the right to as well? Maybe the knowledge that pilots are carrying on the flight deck is a deterent itself. You think terrorist have given up the idea of using aircraft as a weapon? Anyways, just my 2 cents. I support the program and if anything I think the pilot involved should endure additional training before he continues out his duties as an FFDO. Every law enforcement agency has had an AD before, the military carries loaded firearms on their flight decks and I don't recall them ever shooting down their own aircraft with an AD. Bash away for all those who disagree, of and by the way every firearm has a safety, it is the user.

 

[NCFlyer]

So just curious to the ones on this board that feel that the FFDO hasn't done anything to protect the safety of the flight or prevented a breach of the cockpit. The reinforced door is not called a inpenetrable door, if someone wants in bad enough they will get in.

Whether the FFDO program has made airlines more secure, there is no objective way to determine. Some may believe it has, other may disagree. Since there is no way to prove either way we'll just let each have their own opinion.

As for the cockpit door, if it isn't secure, make it so. I know that in less than a day I could make a door that no one could get through with anything found on or sneaked onto an airplane.

Again I'll ask, If you are going to argue that a crew needs to be armed to provide for the safety of the flight, then all crews need to be armed. What about the thousands of flights each day that are unarmed? Don't they deserve to be safe as well?

Not trying to bash anyone or their opinion. Some approve of the program and others don't. I'll not have a falling out with some one who disagrees with me. Again each are entitled to their own opinion.

My original point was that if you want the FFDO's to be LEO, train them & let them carry concealed. Not the joke of a program that they have now. When I was in law enforcement I was expected to have my weapon any time I left my residence.

Also, I personally believe that any law abiding citizen should be permitted to carry a weapon.

 

[Fly-n-hi]

Whether the FFDO program has made airlines more secure, there is no objective way to determine. Some may believe it has, other may disagree. Since there is no way to prove either way we'll just let each have their own opinion.

As for the cockpit door, if it isn't secure, make it so. I know that in less than a day I could make a door that no one could get through with anything found on or sneaked onto an airplane.

Again I'll ask, If you are going to argue that a crew needs to be armed to provide for the safety of the flight, then all crews need to be armed. What about the thousands of flights each day that are unarmed? Don't they deserve to be safe as well?

Not trying to bash anyone or their opinion. Some approve of the program and others don't. I'll not have a falling out with some one who disagrees with me. Again each are entitled to their own opinion.

My original point was that if you want the FFDO's to be LEO, train them & let them carry concealed. Not the joke of a program that they have now. When I was in law enforcement I was expected to have my weapon any time I left my residence.

Also, I personally believe that any law abiding citizen should be permitted to carry a weapon.

Actually, many pilots used to carry guns into the flight deck fairly often back in the 50's and 60's. And I don't recall reading any material that says that pilots were shooting down their own airplanes. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but I think it wasn't untill the late 70's or early 80's when the FAA finally stopped it.

Anyway, I would still rather have the FFDO program, complete with all of its flaws, than nothing at all. Besides, its a voluntary program. If you don't like it then don't join it. Pretty simple.

You should spend less time worrying about a program that you're not even involved in and spend more time worrying about something you are involved in.

I don't really get the "Well, since I don't like the program nobody else should be allowed to join it" attitude. You obviously have more faith in the flight deck doors than I do.

 

[CA1900]

And surely TSA would never miss anything.

 

[Fly2AK]

NCflyer....All other flights are safer because of the FFDO program. You don't know if your pilots are armed or not, this in itself is a deterent for rush the flight deck door. Owning and carrying a firearm comes with great responsibility and you being a former LEO should know this, it is not a responsibility that should be forced on anyone, this is why it is a volunteer program. There is no way to make any door or barrier inpenetrable, this is something I learned from the military. Lock and barricade all you want, but it will never be full proof. The stronger the barricade the more time you will buy yourself. The great thing about being american is we can disagree and no one will be hurt or persecuted for for their opinions. Personally, I am a strong supporter of the FFDO's and hope the program will continue at the same time hope for improvements in the current SOP's. Just curious, you criticize the training but have you been through the program?

 

[Mr Wu]

train them & let them carry concealed. Not the joke of a program that they have now.

Like the training to carry concealed in FL? A 3 hour class that consists of how to fill out the application and then off to the range to fire 1 shot, which doesn't even have to hit the target.

 

[NCFlyer]

NCflyer....All other flights are safer because of the FFDO program. You don't know if your pilots are armed or not, this in itself is a deterent for rush the flight deck door.

Possibly, but there is no way to quantify that for certain.

There is no way to make any door or barrier inpenetrable,

While that may be true I still think that I could make a door in less than a day that no one would be able to get through with something found on the aircraft.

The great thing about being american is we can disagree and no one will be hurt or persecuted for for their opinions. Personally, I am a strong supporter of the FFDO's and hope the program will continue at the same time hope for improvements in the current SOP's. Just curious, you criticize the training but have you been through the program?

Again as I said earlier, I won't have a falling out with some one that disagrees with me, I was just stating my own opinion and no more.

I don't believe that I criticized the training. If I sounded that way I apologize. I'm sure that the training is 1st rate. And no I haven't been through the program.

My beef is with the way the program is set up. Maybe because I haven't been through it I shouldn't comment 1 way or the other. My original point was: if you are going to make the pilots "federal" LEO's then give them the authority to carry the weapon. Not this mickey mouse program where some pilot has to carry his weapon around locked in his man purse and then at the appropriate time he is allowed to unlock & take out the weapon.

My other point was simply in response to the comment that any flight is safer with an armed pilot on board. I asked if arming the crew was required for flight safety then all crews needed to be armed.

 

[GuppyWN]

NCFlyer,

If people didn't speed there wouldn't be a need for speed traps.

If people didn't break into the cockpits and crash planes there wouldn't be a need for armed pilots.

If you don't like the program - no problem. Don't volunteer your time and $100's of dollars to sign up.

God forbid there ever comes a need for an FFDO to do what he was trained to do then I hope like hell he's on MY FLIGHT!

Gup

 

[kf4amu]

Like the training to carry concealed in FL? A 3 hour class that consists of how to fill out the application and then off to the range to fire 1 shot, which doesn't even have to hit the target.

The 2nd amendment doesn't require competency.

 

[Sig]

NCFlyer,

If people didn't speed there wouldn't be a need for speed traps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IayHnA0cGuc

 

[PCL_128]

I'll presume he isn't getting back-pay and no doubt the FFDO program won't let him have another gun.

Correct. The lack of back pay is disturbing. I'm curious if USAPA used an attorney that had any experience in termination cases. In this case, DHS publicly stated numerous times that they were concerned with the faulty design of the holster, yet USAPA still couldn't get this guy a cent of back pay after 18 months? Troubling, to say the least.

I'm glad he's back at work, though. The termination was absolutely ridiculous.

 

[JAFI]

The 2nd amendment doesn't require competency.

Nither does being a parent,

Member of the House or Senate (always a good example)

President of the US (Now is a good example)

I do not have a dog in this fight but, to have this weapon discharge - because of it's specific safety - don't you have to pull the trigger? So why was the weapon out of the holster and pointing the direction it was? If he was putting it back in his holster would the hole in the aircraft be down not sideways? I'm told the hole was out the side of the aircraft.

I wonder what the cost was for fixing a bullet hole in an Airbus was? Should Airways have a mechanic job card for future "events" and what A,B, or C check should the walkaround look for bullet holes in the hull? I know it's not funny but it is.

I am not saying get rid of the program. I think any state certificated passenger should be armed if they wish. Either way this is a lesson in how not to handle a firearm like the video of the cop talking to a grade school group saying he was the only one qualified to handle a weapon as he shoots himself in the foot.....His pistol you had to pull the trigger to discharge the weapon too.

 

[Fly2AK]

My beef is with the way the program is set up. Maybe because I haven't been through it I shouldn't comment 1 way or the other. My original point was: if you are going to make the pilots "federal" LEO's then give them the authority to carry the weapon. Not this mickey mouse program where some pilot has to carry his weapon around locked in his man purse and then at the appropriate time he is allowed to unlock & take out the weapon.

NCflyer.......I agree with you on this point. Keep it safe, see ya!

 

[Fugawe]

??????

 

[A Squared]

Well, at first my thinking was, really tough to excuse an accidental discharge.

Then I watched the video.

YBSM!, they make you run the shackle of a padlock through the trigger guard? Of a loaded gun? a loaded gun with no safety? while it's in a holster and you can't see the trigger? And you do this every time you get up? WTH came up with that plan?

Now I'm just surprised that we've only had one AD in the FFDO program.

 

[PsubS]

Read the thread, man. It was not an accidental discharge.

It was an inadverdent discharge, and the pilot was to blame. I don't care if he keeps his job at USAir, but he dang sure did not do his job as an FFDO.

 

[A Squared]

It was not an accidental discharge. It was an inadverdent discharge,

You're going to have to explain in detail the difference between an "accidental" discharge and an "inadvertent" discharge and why exactly you think the difference is important, because it certainly seems to me like a meaningless semantic quibble with no real merit. But I'm always willing to learn.

 

[timmay]

Doesn't this situation beg the question, which is more likely to happen the "inadvertent" discharging of a firearm by a pilot or another hijacking. I would bet there will be more "Accidents" before hijack attempts.

 

[IBNAV8R]

Inadvertent or accidental, I've never heard of a modern firearm discharging without being manipulated.

 

[Fly-n-hi]

Doesn't this situation beg the question, which is more likely to happen the "inadvertent" discharging of a firearm by a pilot or another hijacking. I would bet there will be more "Accidents" before hijack attempts.

There have been at least 7 hijackings since 2006.

There has been 1 negligent discharge since the FFDO program was created in December, 2003.

None of the hijacked airliners were from US airlines. Coincidence?

Does this help to answer the question that was begged?




Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_aircraft_hijackings#2000s

 

[A Squared]

Inadvertent or accidental, I've never heard of a modern firearm discharging without being manipulated.

Did you happen to watch the video? If not, do so and you'll see how the required procedure is an accident waiting to happen. Who in the He11 came up with the idea of threading the shackle of a padlock through the trigger guard, without being able to see where the trigger was? Granted, he apparently was performing this required procedure at a time when he should not have been; so if he'd been following the procedure according to SOP, it would have happened at the gate, rather than airborne. Would that have been better? Well they weren't airborne, so that's a bonus, but there are now people around the outside of the plane, so that's a minus.

 

[get2flyin]

Did you happen to watch the video? If not, do so and you'll see how the required procedure is an accident waiting to happen. Who in the He11 came up with the idea of threading the shackle of a padlock through the trigger guard, without being able to see where the trigger was?...................

There has only been on NEGLIGENT discharge because other people are following the procedure. Yeah..the trigger guard lock is goofy, but I guess they couldn't find a better way to secure make the weapon unusable without having it locked in the box so that's why they have a very specific set of procedures.

I think of it like this...you flew the DC-6, right? (*Love your avatar. Awesome airplane. Had a buddy who flew one for AeroFlight before the -215's) Say your company has a specific procedure for getting those tricky radials started and you decide to blow it off and come up with your own procedure. Say you're starting it one day using YOUR procedure and she catches fire and burns up. Who is to blame? Should you just get a slap on the wrist? If there is a procedure that they want you to use, use it. If you don't like it, get it changed. He didn't even wear the holster on this hip because he didn't like to have to undo his pretty little belt. He deserved walking papers.

 

[A Squared]

He didn't even wear the holster on this hip because he didn't like to have to undo his pretty little belt. He deserved walking papers.

Do you know this for a fact? Agreed that the gun was not on his hip when it discharged, but, if I understand correctly, you have to take the gun off, when you go to the restroom, and you have to take it off before you unass the airplane at the gate. And each time you thread the padlock through the trigger guard. Do you have any information which indicates he was doing something other than exactly what he would have been at the gate?

 

[get2flyin]

Do you know this for a fact? Agreed that the gun was not on his hip when it discharged, but, if I understand correctly, you have to take the gun off, when you go to the restroom, and you have to take it off before you unass the airplane at the gate. And each time you thread the padlock through the trigger guard. Do you have any information which indicates he was doing something other than exactly what he would have been at the gate?

I've watched the video that some wise-ass FFDO posted online to show how the holster is "faulty" and talked to guys that carry it. When the weapon is fully in the holster, the lock passes behind the trigger prohibiting removal from the holster. The ONLY way to get the padlock in front of the trigger where it could cause the weapon to fire is to undo the thumb snap and slide the weapon slightly out of the holster...THEN insert the padlock into the hole...THEN push the piston fully into the holster to secure the thumb strap. I don't know much about the TSA procedures, but I can say with 100% certainty that the thumb strap should NEVER be released unless the weapon is to be fully removed from the holster and the weapon should NEVER come out of the holster in the cockpit unless there is an actual threat to the security of the cockpit. Evidently, "Quick Draw McGraw's" personal procedure was to slide the thing slightly out of the holster because he felt that would give him a slight edge over the bad guys.

 

[Mr Wu]

Evidently, "Quick Draw McGraw's" personal procedure was to slide the thing slightly out of the holster because he felt that would give him a slight edge over the bad guys.

"Quick Draw McGraw's" personal procedure was to remove the weapon completely and place it on the glare shield during flight.

 

[ultrarunner]

"Quick Draw McGraw's" personal procedure was to remove the weapon completely and place it on the glare shield during flight.

C'mon, no one is THAT stupid! Not even an FFDO!