Weapons

[stupidpilot]

Maybe he was referring to the fact that if you just leave them on the aircraft, it would be pretty pointless to bring them in the first place.

Then why refer to the FFDO program? That program is desiged for training on the use of weapons on the airplane.

Also leaving them on the airplane provides you with protection from having them confiscated because the airplane is considered private property. Unless you consent to a search then they have to get a court order to look in your plane. Same as your car.

 

[Hamburger]

I made no reference to the FFDO program. It's pretty clear that it doesn't apply to charter.
If you have no intention of using them when you arrive at your destination, why bother?
They may be safe sitting there in the cockpit of an empty plane, but useless. They'd be just as safe at home. Hence, unless you really feel you're going to have a use for them at 35,000ft on a charter, what would be the point of bringing them?

Remember, if you actually think you'll have a need for it at 35,000ft, then you are making an excellent argument for the security screening of your passengers.

 

[Spoolingbyu]

Cpl

Does anyone carry or have info on carrying weapons on a Part 135 flight as a cockpit crewmember? We have a couple of pilots inquiring about this, and I've been given several different stories by the TSA -- they aren't eligible for the FFDO program because we don't have aircraft over 100,000 or 61 seats. They referred us back to 135.119, which doesn't have a clear interpretation. Any help is appreciated.

1st mistake: asking the TSA for any kind of information.

2nd mistake: thinking these pilots are even halfway serious about carrying weapons onboard an aircraft. What were they going to carry? A wheelgun on their hip like the wild wild west? A big knife? Mace or pepper spray? "Yeah, i'm gonna jump out of my King Air with a big baton, taser, and revolver on my hip." It might be legal in some areas but you're asking for a giant smackdown by the first cop that spots you. No, these pilots cannot be serious about carrying weapons.

What they could only seriously inquiring about would be the legal concealed carry of a handgun.

If they were serious they should know that in order to do that you need a concealed pistol license, (CPL) or equivalent issued from your home state, and/or a non-resident permit from another state.

That is the sole, legal, logical remedy in this situation. Carrying mace, batons, knives, pepper spray, tasers, or other weapons aboard the aircraft, concealed or otherwise is not a good idea. The legality of such carry in different municipalities differs so greatly that one would have to resort to leaving it on the airplane.

That means that in plain view of other pax, other people, etc, you have to remove the weapon from your person and secure it on the a/c. When you return to the a/c you have to strap it back on your hip. That is pointless and dangerous. What if you fly multiple legs a day? You might as well leave it at home. The TSA have crippled the FFDO program in this regard. "Playing" with your weapon so much in one day has already created accidents. LEOs handle their sidearm only twice a shift unless they are using it. However with the FFDO that is the best we have at this point.

What you want is the ability to seamlessly carry a pistol concealed about your person, travel to the airport, perform your flight, and then again travel from the airport.

If we had this 121 it would be one hell of a program. But due to the nobel prize winning TSA, we don't.

HOW YOU CAN DO THIS TODAY:

If you have a concealed pistol license, you could do that if you are Part 91. Part 135 you need authorization from the certificate holder.

My advice to correct your mistakes:
1) Get permission for each pilot in writing personally and in the opspecs from your certificate holder.

2) Instruct those pilots to rent a pistol and expend some time at a local gun club putting rounds downrange.

3) Obtain a resident CPL from their home state.

4) Obtain a Texas and/or Florida non-resident permit.

5) Purchase a pistol, good leather, and practice.

6) Carry all the time.

Depending on the situation, you could have about only 11 states that deny your right to carry concealed. In the communist states of NY, NJ, CA, etc, you are simply an unarmed pawn when you travel there. If you happen to live in those hell holes, you are ****ed. But 78% of the time you could carry your pistol everywhere you go and the key thing is:

NO ONE HAS TO KNOW. (except your d.o.)

Remember that like screening, a CPL is only one layer in a scheme of multi-layered defense. Not one single layer should be relied upon.

Educate yourself about concealed carry here:

 

[landlover]

Depending on the situation, you could have about only 11 states that deny your right to carry concealed. In the communist states of NY, NJ, CA, etc, you are simply an unarmed pawn when you travel there. If you happen to live in those hell holes, you are ****ed. But 78% of the time you could carry your pistol everywhere you go and the key thing is:

unless you are plaxico burris.

 

[Spoolingbyu]

Plaxico Burris

 

[landlover]

thanks for the spell check

 

[stupidpilot]

I made no reference to the FFDO program. It's pretty clear that it doesn't apply to charter.
If you have no intention of using them when you arrive at your destination, why bother?
They may be safe sitting there in the cockpit of an empty plane, but useless. They'd be just as safe at home. Hence, unless you really feel you're going to have a use for them at 35,000ft on a charter, what would be the point of bringing them?

Remember, if you actually think you'll have a need for it at 35,000ft, then you are making an excellent argument for the security screening of your passengers.

I agree with you on most points. Why would someone charter a plane to commit an act of terrorism? It just seems silly to think you need a weapon on board a chartered aircraft.

 

[Spoolingbyu]

I think it's silly too! two! to! too!

It just seems silly to think you need a weapon on board an aircraft.

Yeah those silly terrorists had silly box cutters and flew silly airplanes into those silly buildings.

Oh wait it's 135 so terrorists are not allowed to be on board. Oops my bad!

 

[timmay]

I am willing to bet anyone that the first shooting involving an FFDO will be them self or the other pilot, not a terrorist.

 

[avbug]

The aircraft is private property. Noone has the authority to enter it without your consent dumba$$

Wrong. Particularly when you land that aircraft at a public airport with a security perimeter, and particularly when that aircraft is being operated under an operating certificate such as Part 121 or 135. Law enforcement most certainly can search the aircraft without your authorization.

"Dumba$$?" Really? What might you say if you were a college graduate?

Ya, they're going to spend tens of thousands chartering a small jet in order to ram it into a building.

Yes, they are. And have. 09/11 wasn't a small, nor inexpensive operation.

Let me let you in on a little secret, (it probably would only kill the guys on the aircraft and about 5 other people). Terrorists want to make a big statement, even a G550 wouldn't create enough damage to do that.

A very little, misguided secret, apparently. You see, the purpose of terrorism isn't to kill or maim, or even hurt large numbers of people. Simply to terrorize. That's why they're called "terrorists," you see.

09/11 involved airline aircraft, but it had the ripple effect of shutting down large numbers of flight schools and disrupting all types of flying throughout the country, with after effets being felt still today. With respect to the effects, the number of dead is inconsequential. Time four or five corporate or charter type aircraft in an attack to occur at the same time, and the successful end result of the terrorist action will be to shut down and severely restrict air travel in most sectors...especially private aircraft. Again...this is why it's called terrorism. Even if it's just "five other people."

Again, we see why "stupidpilot" fits you like a glove. You wear it well.

 

[BoeingBaller]

I love how you are a complete d$ck to everyone you don't agree with. The aircraft is private property. Noone has the authority to enter it without your consent dumba$$

No one....

 

[paranode]

Aside from any FARs, you are at the mercy of whatever jurisdiction you land in. If you have a license to carry a concealed weapon which is recognized by reciprocity in each state you travel to, then in theory you shouldn't have any problems. However there are issues to be aware of, such as whether the place you are landing is considered a "secured" or "sterile" area of an airport, which in some states is an exception to the places you can legally carry. In other states they may not let you carry in any part of an airport. Then there is the issue of unplanned or forced landings in a jurisdiction that is anti-gun. You may find some protection under 18 USC 926A but I do not know if this law has ever been applied in the aviation world as it was written more for ground transportation.

If you meet the definition of "air transportation" or "intrastate air transportation" in 49 USC 40102 then you would be subject to 49 USC 46505 "Carrying a weapon or explosive on an aircraft". Then there are TSA regulations that may or may not apply to you. Basically you need to do a lot of research.

 

[avbug]

If you have a license to carry a concealed weapon which is recognized by reciprocity in each state you travel to, then in theory you shouldn't have any problems.

Painful.

In theory, you shouldn't have any problems if you have a license to carry a concealed weapon, which is recognized in each state to which you travel.

 

[paranode]

Nevermind...

 

[stupidpilot]

Wrong. Particularly when you land that aircraft at a public airport with a security perimeter, and particularly when that aircraft is being operated under an operating certificate such as Part 121 or 135. Law enforcement most certainly can search the aircraft without your authorization.

So when you are traveling on a public highway law enforcement has every right to search your vehicle? You are completely wrong. Every citizen has the right to refuse illegal search and seizure. Again, the aircraft is private property and cannot be searched without a search warrant. Sounds like you're the stupid one. You don't have a clue as to what the law is.