E
EastUS
Guest
Don't tell them that..I'm of the USAF pesuasion
PS: I've the fullest respect for those foolish enough to land on "boats"......
Firearm discharges on US Airways flight
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
Don't tell them that..I'm of the USAF pesuasion
PS: I've the fullest respect for those foolish enough to land on "boats"......
E
EastUS
Guest
Don't think so..there was no notation about anyone looking into the barrel to see if it was loaded
yoyodyne
Veteran
Don't tell them that..I'm of the USAF pesuasion
PS: I've the fullest respect for those foolish enough to land on "boats"......
Sorry to hear about the Air Force, no one is perfect. But anyway, there are "boats" (which sink and surface of their on will, of which yours truly proudly served on), and targets, of which "Bird Farms" fall under, where those foolish ones land...
Let's make the assumption that this is true. Why was it being holstered? Unless there was a threat it either should have been holstered or stored somewhere unholstered for access. Handling it in flight isn't justified, at least not that I can imagine. I'm not up on FFDO procedures though, just looking at the situation from the outside.
BeenThereDoneThat
Veteran
Now Men!!
As serious as it could have been, but luckily wasn't, guns normally won't fire unless the trigger is pulled. Plain and simple: guns don't kill people, idiot's do it all the time>
E
EastUS
Guest
Understood sir
"Boats" was for grins. My late father's (1940 startup time for his service) last two ships were Hancock and Midway Sage advice being essentially: "Son...always have a runway that's 7,000 feet long, doesn't pitch or roll, and,...barring enemy successes..is safe to land on, and exactly where you last left it" There were a couple of additional briefing items regarding cold beer and Belle Femmes, and their notable absence aboard ship...but/etc.It'll be interesting to learn the details of what happened with the "I was cleaning it and it went off" or whatever's actually the case here.
staffing sux
Newbie
- Aug 31, 2005
- 4
- 0
From what I understand, the aircraft was decending and the Left seat pilot (Captain) discharged the weapon. The bullet hit just below the left Flight Deck left window, but did not fully penetrate. small hole but the bullet did not fully exit the hull of the aircraft.
This is only what is passed on to me so it is by no means confirmed fact.
My best guess is, the pilot was putting it away so he could leave after the flight.
Only time will tell.
This is only what is passed on to me so it is by no means confirmed fact.
My best guess is, the pilot was putting it away so he could leave after the flight.
Only time will tell.
sharktooth
Veteran
- Jan 27, 2006
- 1,846
- 0
Yeah, I am completely in the dark as to FFDO procedures and rules, other than observing involved pilots accomplishing their duties. (Nope, never applied).
However, the unaddressed elephant in the room concerns transitioning the weapon from the "lock box" to a holster and back again while seated.(To visit the lavatory, one must go through an entire cycle) I have always thought that should an "accidental discharge" occur, it would be then, accomplishing such a cycle while seated, constrained by seat belts and all the other paraphernalia associated with cockpit duties. The contortions some go through to disarm themselves then re-arm themselves can be pretty interesting, all while seated.
To those who have the greatest of faith in technology, those who think an accident could only have happened because of "pilot error", I commend to you the lesson of the "unsinkable" Titanic, yet another object lesson with which history is replete to those who have more faith than brains.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
I'm not an FFDO, but obviously have flown with many. Because FFDO's are not permitted to carry their weapon on their body (as all other federal law enforcement officers do) except in the cockpit, they must handle the weapon every time they enter or exit the cockpit. In flight, this would be for lavatory breaks. Homeland Security and the Federal Marshal Service are well aware of the acknowledged dangers of needlessly handling weapons. When it is safely holstered and concealed and STAYS that way, there is no way that the weapon will discharge accidentally. When it is being removed from the body to be put in a locked container, then removed from the container to be put back on your body (in a very tight space of the cockpit,) things are no longer 100% safe by definition.
IF this incident occurred before/after a lavatory break, then it was probably an inevitable consequence of a flawed procedure instituted by the federal agencies to keep FFDOs in their place. The federal agencies likely made this decision with full knowledge that something like this might occur and therefore bring a public outcry to disband the FFDO system. That's something they really wanted from the start.
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,566
- 37
A discharge while holstering is not accidental. It's negligent.
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
- Aug 23, 2002
- 2,627
- 945
Placing blame before knowing the facts isn't negligent, it's STUPID!
usabusdriver
Advanced
- Aug 12, 2007
- 205
- 113
Clue,
I agree with you in the general sense about accidental discharges. The issue though in this case I believe is the new locking holster. There have been accidental discharges previously because of the new holster but were at the hotel. The new locking holster has it’s own peculiarities and so I think to castigate before the facts are known is not appropriate. Even considering that the new HK is a modern design and quite safe. I am not an FFDO specifically because of the carry and transport protocols.
BeenThereDoneThat
Veteran
The fact is: a weapon discharged, during flight and in the cockpit. AGREED?
The 2nd fact is: Weapons don't discharge unless the trigger is Pulled. From the majority of post - AGREED.
That means the weapon was negligently discharged, unless the holder was intentionaly trying to put a hole through the aircraft.
I was taught at age 9; keep your finger off the trigger until you have aquired your target, have a clear and safe shooting lane and pull the trigger when can safely do so. I don't think that concept has changed. Anything else is NEGLIENCE on the part of the shooter. Those are facts, not stupidity!
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Okay. I will concede the point that it appears to be negligence and not an accident.
But the protocols are, in effect, negligent in that they set up the FFDO with unnecessary exposure to unintentional discharge. To my knowledge, FFDOs are the ONLY armed federal officers who have this unnecessary exposure to poor handling protocols in the performance of their duties. The FFDO program has been intentionally set up to fail in this way simply because the powers that be refuse to recognize that airline pilots might actually be capable of responsible concealed-carry outside of the cockpit. The powers that be never wanted this program; it was forced upon them, kicking and screaming, by the citizens of the United States who had the calm, clear-headed insight that 9-11 could have been totally avoided if 8 handguns were in the possession of 8 pilots that day.
signals
Veteran
Better story!
The article states ... he was authorized to carry the weapon and was last requalified in the FFDO program last November.
Maybe nobody will believe it, but I heard that even before 9-11 there were pilots that were allowed to carry guns in the cockpit. An incident at the checkpoint...when they were the old dudes...where a pilot left a gun and had taken off. Nothing became of it.
The article states ... he was authorized to carry the weapon and was last requalified in the FFDO program last November.
Maybe nobody will believe it, but I heard that even before 9-11 there were pilots that were allowed to carry guns in the cockpit. An incident at the checkpoint...when they were the old dudes...where a pilot left a gun and had taken off. Nothing became of it.
