US Airways Pilot got his job back

[FlyinGuy]

There is a difference in non essential "chat" below 10,000 and discharging his firearm! Which was below 10,000 feet as well.

 

[IBNAV8R]

There is a certain danger when a system is set up which relies solely on compliance with SOPs. Sometimes, there is no alternative. But, a systems safety design requires, in part, a multi-layered approach to reduce the likelihood of an accident. I.e. safeguards should be in place, whenever possible, in case of a lapse or failure of another layer.

If a weapon is not handled, would there be the opportunity for a discharge? Would a failure in SOP have caused a discharge if he were not following the SOP to secure the weapon? In other words, if he left it in place and didn't f*** with it, would it have gone off?

I don't know exactly what portion of the SOP was violated (not an FFDO) but, I have read this from the H&K manual.

Selection and Use of a holster:
When selecting a carrying holster for the HK USP Compact, it is important to consider the following points:
1. The holster must not make contact with or actuate any of the operating controls. This includes the hammer, slide release, magazine release lever, and most importantly the control lever and the trigger. The design of the holster must also not actuate these controls when the pistol is carried in, drawn from, or returned to the holster.

 

[Fly-n-hi]

In addition, we should all accept the process, especially since we don't have all the facts...

We do have all the facts. We've had all the facts for a long time now. Where have you been?

All of the FFDOs were briefed on the situation during the following 6 month requal. The details are well known at this point.





As far as this guy getting his job back? Ok. But I'd do it this way: I'd recall a furloughed pilot instead of bringing back the "shooter" and I'd make it so that all the furloughs had to be recalled before the "shooter' could come back. I think that would be reasonable considering he almost shot down his own airplane.

 

[gt1900]

You guys really have to stop calling this an accidental discharge. This was a negligent discharge because the pilot didn't follow SOP. This was not an accidental dishcharge, and don't blame the holster. Its not a great design, but thousands of pilots manage to handle the weapon properly every day.

Accidental discharges are what happens when the gun is handled properly and still fires due to reasons outside the person handling the gun, usually due to design flaws. Ive had an "accidental" discharge with a remington 700. Thank god I was handling the rifle properly and nobody got killed. My finger was no where near the trigger and when I cycled the bolt down to load a round the gun fired. Remington did a recal on the 700 trigger because someone got killed due to the same thing. That is an accidental dishcharge. I commend the FFDO progam, but the guys who decide to do it need to realize how important it is to handle the weapon properly. Unfortunately, a lot of the guys I see who are FFDO's probably shouldn't be. They know very little about weapons, never grew up with them, and don't really know how to handle them. Most FFDO's that I talk to don't even own a gun besides the government issued H&K. A 1 week course isn't enough to really gain the respect that a firearem deserves for the guys that don't know about guns. Im really glad the guy got his job back, and Im especially happy he doesn't get to handel a weapon on the flight deck ever again. Lets all make sure we take the steps so this doesn't happen again. We got lucky this time.

 

[Hamburger]

Do you know all the facts of the case? No comment on the flawed holster?

Interesting that nobody else's holster seems to have this flaw.

 

[dondk]

Regardless of your personal feelings, the one thing you are missing from this. The precedent, an arbitrator ruled that regardless of this accidental/negligent discharge of his firearm he was returned to duty. Therefore, if any of the other FFDO's have a bad day and accidentally/negligent discharge your backside is covered if you become unemployed.

The second part, of those that are terminated, the union has to file a grievance for his/her job back regardless of merit. Of those grievances filed, less than half ever make it to an arbitrator. Most are settled or they lack merit to where they are eventually withdrawn or shelved for years. In this case, someone saw something in the merits of his case to take it all the way. So, regardless of your personal feelings, this guy had enough support to have his case picked up. You should all pray if you ever become terminated you have at least the same support for your case. You will be surprised at how many don't get any support at all.

The system worked for this pilot, good for him!

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Interesting that nobody else's holster seems to have this flaw.

Just becasue a safety (negative event) hasn't occured multiple times doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist.

A classic response is to fire the "problem" instead of changing the system.

 

[belchfire]

Just becasue a safety (negative event) hasn't occured multiple times doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist.

A classic response is to fire the "problem" instead of changing the system.

Ya know Rez-0, that's a pretty nebulous response-for instance you mention "safety" but how many times is a "safety" event not negative-as in when a two or three crewmember cockpit works as planned-like on a daily basis, huh? You are a chaotic neutral on the NA forums about gun control but hint at stronger limitations (but never bans)...now you avoid the gun at all and concentrate on the person.

Said person failed to follow procedure (as was elaborated on ad nauseum on another thread) and thereby brought the question of viability on the whole FFDO program.

The problem I believe is in the system, though that does not excuse the individual for his failures to live within that system.

So I'm a little confused...

Are you suggesting that the system as a whole be fired and that our all knowing and all protecting federal government be left in charge or that the person should be (fill in the blank)?

 

[Fly-n-hi]

Just becasue a safety (negative event) hasn't occured multiple times doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist.

A classic response is to fire the "problem" instead of changing the system.

But you haven't proven that a problem exists. I use the hoster just fine. It's not a safety issue nor is it a problem. Its just really inconvenient. That inconvenience is what led the "shooter" to disobey SOPs. It was his fault. PERIOD.

 

[get2flyin]

But you haven't proven that a problem exists. I use the hoster just fine. It's not a safety issue nor is it a problem. Its just really inconvenient. That inconvenience is what led the "shooter" to disobey SOPs. It was his fault. PERIOD.

Uh....you mean, "This friend of yours uses the holster just fine", right? (head in hands) (shaking head)