Firearm discharges on US Airways flight

[ableoneable]

Umm, a week at FLETC does not constitute "trained" to handle or brandish the firearm anywhere except the very specific environment (cockpit) that the training was for. And we all know that a good chunk of that is classroom and/or rolling around on the mat.

A FAM, by comparison, spends 7.5 weeks at FLETC and then another 7.5 weeks in AC at their academy. Minimally.

As an aside, every other form of sworn LEO alive has a defined jurisdiction. Tell me--what's the FFDO's jurisdiction? And the answer, my friends, can be found in 49 USC 44921, which indicates, among other things:

• that the "jurisdiction" is the flight deck, and only the fight deck
• That the gun won't leave the flight deck unsecured

There are no arrest powers or renumeration, or anything else that's common to "real" LEOs.

Further, according to The TSA:



There is no good reason to allow a pilot with a week's training to carry a concealed weapon in any places that his state of residence would otherwise allow. Zero. Certainly not on 40 hours training. And fortunately, the law won't allow it.

Someone, (EastUS, I believe) took a look at the program and decided it was not for him. A decision, that had the pilot who put one thru the bulkhead taken, would have avoided this whole thing entirely. There is a procedure that involves placing a firearm into a locking holster (which, for what it's worth, I think is kind of dumb) without discharging the firearm. It's presumably taught to the FFDOs. If the FFDO in question was following that procedure, he presumably would not have discharged the firearm. Ifyou can't follow the procedure without a negligent discharge, or feel uncomfortable with it, leave the freaking program.

That's before we get into the question of why he did not do it either before the cockpit went sterile and why not wait until on the ground and safely at the gate? That alone makes a reasonable person question the judgment used here.

Clue,

Though I hesitate to speak for all others I don't think anyone is disputing your premise. You are correct that FFDO's have no arrest authority, and more importantly very little arrest training.

The point is not to allow FFDO's to carry weapons not so they can play cop, but so they can stop the constant weapons handling that the current system requires. The point is that the FFDO has a weapon with him anyway. He or she just does not have good control over said weapon when it is transported in this manner. (That and one particular hole in the net that needs to be closed but can't be discussed here.)

Think about it, if for whatever reason, you were required to carry a firearm how comfortable would you be keeping track of a purse while you went about your day attending to ancillary business?

 

[ClueByFour]

The point is not to allow FFDO's to carry weapons not so they can play cop, but so they can stop the constant weapons handling that the current system requires. The point is that the FFDO has a weapon with him anyway. He or she just does not have good control over said weapon when it is transported in this manner. (That and one particular hole in the net that needs to be closed but can't be discussed here.)

From where I sit, unless the pilot leaves the cockpit (the jurisdiction that Congress defined and the TSA implemented) he should be allowed to keep the weapon on his person. When he leaves that jurisdiction, he locks it up. When he's not in his jurisdiction, he ought not need access to the weapon.

The FFDOs got a locking box. They complained about it, and got a locking holster. The feds (because of the law, as written, by congress) are not going to allow pilots to carry outside the cockpit. I'm all for a reasonable solution to the problem, but I agree with congress: it should not include carriage of the weapon outside the flight deck.

Now, as for the "constant weapons handling" stuff: if one can't holster the weapon and/or perform the necessary action to lock said holster without an ND, they should not be in the program. Full stop.

Think about it, if for whatever reason, you were required to carry a firearm how comfortable would you be keeping track of a purse while you went about your day attending to ancillary business?

Behind an armored and locked door? Again--I support the limitation of an FFDO's "jurisdiction" to the flight deck. I further support the notion that FFDOs should not be armed anywhere but the flight deck (due to the lack of training provided and the fact that it turns them into "Walking holster," waiting to be abused by the bad guys).

It's not as if the law on this was unclear before a single pilot applied to the FFDO program. Again--if one finds the parameters untenable, the solution is not to apply to the program. Not to have a negligent discharge and then be defended by a gambit of "lousy procedures."

 

[ableoneable]

From where I sit, unless the pilot leaves the cockpit (the jurisdiction that Congress defined and the TSA implemented) he should be allowed to keep the weapon on his person. When he leaves that jurisdiction, he locks it up. When he's not in his jurisdiction, he ought not need access to the weapon.

The FFDOs got a locking box. They complained about it, and got a locking holster. The feds (because of the law, as written, by congress) are not going to allow pilots to carry outside the cockpit. I'm all for a reasonable solution to the problem, but I agree with congress: it should not include carriage of the weapon outside the flight deck.

Now, as for the "constant weapons handling" stuff: if one can't holster the weapon and/or perform the necessary action to lock said holster without an ND, they should not be in the program. Full stop.



Behind an armored and locked door? Again--I support the limitation of an FFDO's "jurisdiction" to the flight deck. I further support the notion that FFDOs should not be armed anywhere but the flight deck (due to the lack of training provided and the fact that it turns them into "Walking holster," waiting to be abused by the bad guys).

It's not as if the law on this was unclear before a single pilot applied to the FFDO program. Again--if one finds the parameters untenable, the solution is not to apply to the program. Not to have a negligent discharge and then be defended by a gambit of "lousy procedures."

Were it up to me the weapon would be assigned to the airplane and there would be no need for the FFDO to transport it.

However the feds require you to qualify on a specific weapon so this is not currently possible.

With regards to retention training; FFDOs do purportedly receive this training though it is of limited usefulness as the FFDO has his gun in a bag instead of on his side as he does in the retention training.

Incidentally you are incorrect on one point. The carry provisions are not codified by the law. The TSA may change the carry rules at their discretion.

As for your last point; we will have to see what the results of the investigation tell us. I have watched FFDO's perform the locking operation. Though the lock should not be able to be forward of the trigger if the gun is properly secured the holster tolerances are reportedly tight. It is possible that over time the holster could stretch enough to allow the shank to end up going in front of the trigger.

I have absolutely no idea if this happened, and I think it unlikely, yet it did happen once before.

 

[EastUS]

From where I sit, unless the pilot leaves the cockpit (the jurisdiction that Congress defined and the TSA implemented) he should be allowed to keep the weapon on his person. When he leaves that jurisdiction, he locks it up. When he's not in his jurisdiction, he ought not need access to the weapon.

The FFDOs got a locking box. They complained about it, and got a locking holster. The feds (because of the law, as written, by congress) are not going to allow pilots to carry outside the cockpit. I'm all for a reasonable solution to the problem, but I agree with congress: it should not include carriage of the weapon outside the flight deck.

I've got to express my proper admiration for any supposed "thought" that can actually, without any intended irony, place "reasonable solution" and "Congress" within the same sentence.

"Not to have a negligent discharge and then be defended by a gambit of "lousy procedures." I'm insinuating no blanket defense for this incident, but: Umm...what if the procedures ARE indeed lousy, as is my humble opion? Isn't an incident of this sort fully worthy of an in-depth evaluation of said procedures? One properly makes the weapon/holster and procedures fit the persons and taskings...not the other way around.

ableoneable: " It is possible that over time the holster could stretch enough to allow the shank to end up going in front of the trigger." For me?...I'd say that's an interesting "little item" fully worth exploring in detail, as are the protocols in place that require such an absurd amount of useless weapons handling...unlock-carry/lock-stow/wash-rinse-dry/repeat/etc. I've previously carried concealed and otherwise for USAF duties, and although stringent requirements had to be met regarding weapons carriage/stowage protocols...they pale in front of the amazing stupidity currently in place for the FFDO program. See listings under "accidents waiting to happen"..and one, not surprisingly, finally did.

clueby4: "Now, as for the "constant weapons handling" stuff: if one can't holster the weapon and/or perform the necessary action to lock said holster without an ND, they should not be in the program. Full stop" Well...Harrumph indeed!! Having personally seen and even gasp/choke/shock made mistakes with even the world''s most sophisticated weaponry...I'm a wee bit less prone to think in terms of ANY/ALL human beings as being even slightly Superman types...despite the unbounded magnificence of any individual egos 😉

I submit the above link provided by N965VJ, wherein a presumably trained-to-gov't-specs individual, and full-fledged LEO by any/all standards, has his "little incident" after proclaiming : "I'm the only one in this room professional enough, that I know of, to carry a Glock 40…"....followed immediately by: "BLAM!" "Stuff" happens, and the best that can be done is to minimize the risk factors regarding the carriage/useage of deadly weapons...period. I've never considered "gun juggling", whether in a cockpit or elsewhere, to be any sport likely to ever really catch on......whether mandated by govern-Mental brilliance or otherwise.

PS: Would you please explain exactly how an armed individual, aka "a walking holster" is, in any way, somehow MORE likely to "be abused by the bad guys"? "(due to the lack of training provided and the fact that it turns them into "Walking holster," waiting to be abused by the bad guys)." Might one respectfully inquire as to your own background regarding weaponry, from which you presumably form your opinions?

 

[ClueByFour]

Incidentally you are incorrect on one point. The carry provisions are not codified by the law. The TSA may change the carry rules at their discretion.

49 USC SECTION 44921, says, in part:

(3) Issues to be addressed. - The procedural requirements
established under paragraph (1) shall address the following
issues:
...

(G) Procedures for ensuring that the firearm of a Federal
flight deck officer does not leave the cockpit if there is a
disturbance in the passenger cabin of the aircraft or if the
pilot leaves the cockpit for personal reasons.

...

(J) Storage and transportation of firearms between flights,
including international flights, to ensure the security of the
firearms, focusing particularly on whether such security would
be enhanced by requiring storage of the firearm at the airport
when the pilot leaves the airport to remain overnight away from
the pilot's base airport.

(f) Authority To Carry Firearms. -
(1) In general. - The Under Secretary shall authorize a Federal
flight deck officer to carry a firearm while engaged in providing
air transportation or intrastate air transportation.
Notwithstanding subsection ©(1), the officer may purchase a
firearm and carry that firearm aboard an aircraft of which the
officer is the pilot in accordance with this section if the
firearm is of a type that may be used under the program.

...

(g) Authority To Use Force. - Notwithstanding section 44903(d),
the Under Secretary shall prescribe the standards and circumstances
under which a Federal flight deck officer may use, while the
program under this section is in effect, force (including lethal
force) against an individual in the defense of the flight deck of
an aircraft in air transportation or intrastate air transportation.

So, yes, the TSA may change the actual provisions, although it seems that Congress said "no guns outside the cockpit," limited the use of legal force to the cockpit, and limited the carry of a firearm to the time "while engaged in providing air transportation or intrastate air transportation." Since pilots are only paid when the wheels move, that pretty much rules out the terminal, the gate, the car, or anywhere else (with it locked and loaded, anyway). For those reasons, the TSA is unlikely to allow the pilot to carry anywhere but the cockpit, and is extremely unlikely to win the subsequent court challenge even if they were to do so. With only a week at FLETC, that's not going to change. As an aside, the law also says that the legal shield of immunity does not apply to FFDOs if they are grossly negligent. It also says that if a negligent discharge kills someone, the Secretary can stop the program in it's entirety. Something to consider.

I'm not even going to address the "gun juggling" stuff--it's notable to remind some posters that the US military, among others, has basically no provision for an "accidental" discharge. They are all negligent.

"Wait--Mr. NSTB inspector--I accidentally forgot to throw the gear down." We don't hear that a lot, eh?

 

[EastUS]

I'm not even going to address the "gun juggling" stuff--it's notable to remind some posters that the US military, among others, has basically no provision for an "accidental" discharge. They are all negligent.

Thanks for covering the Legal-Eagle aspects..."Congress said "no guns outside the cockpit," ...I feel much safer already..and I'll certainly dial 911-666-CONGRESS anytime I've any personal security concerns You needn't "remind" any posters as per the military's take on weapons usage/discharge/etc...but I thank you for the patronizing efforts nonetheless....sigh. My memories of firearms carriage in the USAF include no such "gun juggling"..which was essentially my point, but; perhaps you're fine with apples vs oranges/etc. I'll suppose it fruitless to seek any greater knowledge as to your personal qualifications to be speaking on these issues. I was legitimately curious though, since people tend to most staunchly support opinions based upon their own experiences.

I'm still curious as to your earlier assertion though = "PS: Would you please explain exactly how an armed individual, aka "a walking holster" is, in any way, somehow likely to "be abused by the bad guys"?"

 

[Travelpro72]

Ok this thread has become nothing short of ridiculous. Bottom line is if the skies are STILL so dangerous that you need pistol packin' pilots then maybe just MAYBE we should UP the security. I thought nobody could get through the cockpit door anyway. What's the purpose of that big old "superman" door? We can give all the examples and theories we want but GUNS are dangerous regardless of how professional you are handling them. Get them off the airplane. 🙄

 

[oldiebutgoody]

I think that ALL pilots should be armed. If you can't or won't carry a weapon, go find a new job.

 

[luvthe9]

We can give all the examples and theories we want but GUNS are dangerous regardless of how professional you are handling them. Get them off the airplane. 🙄

Let' ban all power tools also they are dangerous, I know a few contractors who have injured thenselves, also all knives most every chef has cut a figure at one time I'm sure, and of course cars, and the list goes on!!

 

[EastUS]

Ok this thread has become nothing short of ridiculous. Bottom line is if the skies are STILL so dangerous that you need pistol packin' pilots then maybe just MAYBE we should UP the security. I thought nobody could get through the cockpit door anyway. What's the purpose of that big old "superman" door? We can give all the examples and theories we want but GUNS are dangerous regardless of how professional you are handling them. Get them off the airplane. 🙄

No sarcastic intent honestly at all meant within the following question: Is it your belief that none (FAM/s/LEO's/etc) should be armed while aboard? How would we best enhance security to prevent the boarding of any viable weapons?..I've honestly no clue as to what measures would ever make that even slightly possible myself. Have you ANY notions as to how to actually accomplish any huge increases in security efficiency? I love having FAM's on board myself, and, despite my own personal sloth in not enrolling, and objections as to the weapons handling issues within the FFDO program..I'm pleased to fly with any pilot that's an FFDO as well.

"nothing short of ridiculous" is often existent only within the eye of the beholder.

 

[Travelpro72]

I agree that FAM's and LEO's should be allowed to carry. As far as I know a FAM could also blow the logo off of a coffee cup from one end of the plane to another. It's a bit different to me while I don't truly feel safe around ANY gun on ANY person. As for ideas bettering the security I have no idea. What bothers me is the fact that this accident happened. What if this accident happened during cruise altitude? What if that gun shot through the wall and injured someone in the bathroom, galley or cabin? Only when someone gets killed will we revisit the knee jerk reaction of giving pilots guns while they are behind a lead door. It is what it is I guess. What do they leave flight crews to fend off a terrorist in the cabin? Wine bottles and coffee pots? Up my pay then if it's that g'damn unsafe.

 

[signals]

Gotta Love Unions!!!! 😱 😛h34r:

 

[EastUS]

Gotta Love Unions!!!! 😱 😛h34r:

"In the process of doing that, the padlock that is required to be inserted into the holster pulled the trigger and caused the gun to discharge." Yup..clearly the fault of "unions"..and equally clearly; no reason whatsoever to further examine the mandated "guv-mint" protocols involved with the current regs for weapons per FFDO's. Let's just gleefully hang this fellow..(with at least a full line of emoticons on the gallows for best enjoyment, and all the while cackling at the serious distress of another person) and await the sounds of future firings inflight. Again; I'm not offering any attempt at blanket-coverage for the individual involved, but folks..it's time to re-think the procedures.

"In the process of doing that, the padlock that is required to be inserted into the holster pulled the trigger and caused the gun to discharge." I do seem to recall "betting" that such would be found to be the case= "What complete and utterly hopeless idiots came up with a locking device that's previously proven itself as a cause of accidental discharges?..worse yet: Why TF is such a device still in mandatory useage?".

"The holster system is designed with a lock that goes behind the trigger, preventing the gun from firing. But some pilots say that when the gun isn't snapped tightly into the holster, or becomes loose during transfers, the lock can end up in front of the trigger." Words simply don't adequately address such mechanical insanity...and literally by design no less.

"or becomes loose during transfers...the lock can end up in front of the trigger" Hey taxpayers/fellow citizens: I've got a REALLY great idea!!...Let's make sure to mandate a whole buncha' transfers during any given day/flight/etc!! Where does such true genius come from? Sigh...Nevermind = "We're from the government..and we're here to help you"/etc...

 

[ableoneable]

49 USC SECTION 44921, says, in part:



"while engaged in providing air transportation or intrastate air transportation." Since pilots are only paid when the wheels move, that pretty much rules out the terminal, the gate, the car, or anywhere else (with it locked and loaded, anyway). For those reasons, the TSA is unlikely to allow the pilot to carry anywhere but the cockpit, and is extremely unlikely to win the subsequent court challenge even if they were to do so. With only a week at FLETC, that's not going to change. As an aside, the law also says that the legal shield of immunity does not apply to FFDOs if they are grossly negligent. It also says that if a negligent discharge kills someone, the Secretary can stop the program in it's entirety. Something to consider.

Okay I am going to have to throw the flag on this one.

The phrase; "while engaged in providing air transportation or intrastate air transportation." is more broad than your very narrow interpretation. From the FAA perspective they do not use the same metrics as you apply, they don't care at what point the crew is paid and this is not used as the point at which "air transportation." begins.

With respect to; "and is extremely unlikely to win the subsequent court challenge even if they were to do so." Here you lose me completely. Should the TSA change the rules they, as a government agency, have wide latitude to set policy and procedures. I doubt the courts would even entertain a challenge.

Gross negligence is never shielded by like regulations. Nothing new or surprising there.

The secretary can suspend the program at any time for any reason. Everyone knows that the standard applied to the FFDO program will be higher than to any other agency. Had it been an FFDO, rather than a FAM, that killed that passenger in the jetway in Florida the FFDO program would no doubt have already been shut down.

As far as guns on the airplane in general; I have no problem with federal agents that carry, they receive fairly standardized weapons training. The problem is that any federal or local law enforcement agency can put guns on planes. Postal inspectors, forestry agents and local sheriffs with large variances in selection and training are allowed to carry weapons onboard.

It is far from uncommon for LEOs to leave weapons behind in seat-backs and in overheads. Both local and federal officers have done this. Additional training, beyond the one week in NM would be great but there are few schools that can enhance common sense.

BTW. There is an oft discussed scenario that is brought up during initial screening. Suffice it to say that should a major disturbance occur in the terminal, or other public area, the TSA expects an FFDO to exercise good judgement and utilize his/her weapon as necessary to save lives.

 

[700UW]

US Airways shot raises fears about guns on planes