Weapons

[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.