Pilot caught with gun


PDA

Ron L
January 21, 2003, 04:21 PM
From Detroit TV news station:

Gun Found In Northwest Pilot's Baggage
Routine Security Screening Uncovers Pistol
Posted: 1:37 p.m. EST January 21, 2003

A Northwest Airlines pilot who was attempting to board a flight was arrested when a gun was discovered in his bag at New York's LaGuardia Airport, according to reports.
Robert Donaldson, 43, was reportedly scheduled to pilot Flight 1191 from New York to Detroit.

The 9mm handgun was discovered in Donaldson's carry-on baggage during a routine security screening, CNN reported.

Donaldson reportedly had a weapons permit to carry the gun legally in the state of Michigan, but not in New York, Local 4 reported.

Donaldson was arrested by Port Authority police at 5:45 a.m.

The Michigan-based pilot was charged with criminal possession of a weapon. He is being held in a New York City jail and is expected to appear in court Tuesday afternoon. He could face up to three years in prison.

Northwest Airlines spokeswoman Mary Beth Schubert confirmed that the airline is cooperating with federal and local officials. She declined further comment.

My comment - he should have known better unless he totally forgot that it was there. In either case, bad on him. [sarcasm mode]Shouldn't there be a law to allow pilots to carry on a plane?[/sarcasm mode]

If you enjoyed reading about "Pilot caught with gun" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
10-Ring
January 21, 2003, 04:39 PM
he should have known better unless he totally forgot

...maybe he forgot after all those beers! :rolleyes: What is up w/ stories of commercial pilots trying to fly drunk or bringing guns on board? When did they get above the law?

4v50 Gary
January 21, 2003, 04:56 PM
OK, he did wrong Federales. Send him to bed early and no TV. A pilot is not going to hijack his own airplane. I'm sure he wanted to protect himself, the plane and his passengers. He's not the threat.

The Plainsman
January 21, 2003, 05:16 PM
And yet another law-abiding, tax-paying citizen is relegated to the ranks of the common criminal because he was exercising his God-given rights, regardless of whatever stupid, assinine, gun-law New York (or the Feds) wants to hold over the public.

Just as sure as $h-t stinks, "they" are going to take us down - one by one - while we pontificate on the technical legality of what "they" are doing. :cuss: :fire: :cuss:

dav
January 21, 2003, 08:10 PM
Congress authorized pilots to carry guns. They just haven't figured out the training/permit process yet.

"The homeland security bill that President Bush signed Monday includes a provision allowing pilots on passenger planes to carry weapons if they're qualified and trained."

Full article can be found here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,71573,00.html

Marko Kloos
January 21, 2003, 08:18 PM
Good thing they stopped him. He could have brought down the plane! :rolleyes:

Blackhawk
January 21, 2003, 08:28 PM
Donaldson reportedly had a weapons permit to carry the gun legally in the state of Michigan, but not in New York, Local 4 reported. Hope Robert fights it. This could be a great 14A case for the SCOTUS. NWO is a flag carrier, and Robert, a citizen of MI, in performing his duties was in NY. In fact, he was never OFF duty for the flag carrier because he's obligated by the FARs to sleep, and stuff like that.

This could be very interesting if he's got what it takes to fight the legal battle. :neener:

rick458
January 21, 2003, 08:30 PM
I still think it is a bad idea for Pilots to have firearms on the plane,
if they want to put an engineers station back in the cockpit and arm that person with an M2 go for it, are the pilots responsible enough to have a gun ?, More than likely , can they be trained to handle one well in an emergency?, almost certainly. BUT I WANT MY PILOT TO BE FLYING THE PLANE. you can't quit aviating , when your navigating, or troubleshooting.
just my opinion of course, (Asbestos undies ON) flame away boys

El Rojo
January 21, 2003, 08:31 PM
When are we going to make this legal? I bet he had been carrying since 9/11 and finally got caught. Bummer.

geegee
January 21, 2003, 08:31 PM
Who does this guy think he is, Head Coach of the Dallas Cowboys? :neener: geegee

Autolite
January 21, 2003, 08:44 PM
I know your post was a joke because it is fairly common knowledge, (unless your someone who missed the satire in rick458's posting), that modern commercial airliners can "fly", "navigate", and "troubleshoot" themselves. And for those who still can't see the humour, rationalize the concept of not trusting an airline pilot to carry, but willing to place in his/her custody the lives of several hundred humans soaring 35,000 ft above the earth at 300 miles an hour in a thinly constructed pressurised aluminum tube ...

rick458
January 21, 2003, 09:05 PM
Autolite
I was NOT being satirical, and I have full confidence the pilots have what it takes to be armed and if they want to carry on their plane that is OK by me as well, I still firmly believe that the Pilot and Co Pilot are responsible for the safe OPERATION of the plane.
I think there should be several other somebodies to do the shooting,of BGs while the pilots take care of the probably rapidly depressurising aircraft, I know several Pilots and All are stand up very competent men their integrity is not in question by me, just their job responcibilities.
undies still on keep it coming boys (and girls)

HS/LD
January 21, 2003, 09:12 PM
This is truly terrifying!

To think that a pilot could bring a gun onto a plane is in-excusable!!

He could have shot people on the plane and killed some one.

My God!

It bad enough that he has control of the plane... how can he then be trusted with a handgun??

When will the madness stop.

He should be executed! Shot with his own pistol!!!!

:banghead: :cuss: :banghead: :cuss:

HS/LD

4v50 Gary
January 21, 2003, 09:25 PM
Rick458 _ while I generally agree that pilots should concentrate on flying the aircraft and aircraft safety (look out! it's not Superman, it's a plane), a pilot should have the means of protecting himself and the cockpit.

BerettaNut92
January 21, 2003, 09:30 PM
a pilot should have the means of protecting himself and the cockpit.

But Gary, that would make SENSE. And we can't be having any of that now! :rolleyes:

rick458
January 22, 2003, 02:32 AM
the thrust of MY arguement is that the thing the pilots should have to protect them selves should be a well armed person whose sole job is to make big holes in bad guys

Fly320s
January 22, 2003, 12:21 PM
the thrust of MY arguement is that the thing the pilots should have to protect them selves should be a well armed person whose sole job is to make big holes in bad guys

Do you mean Federal Air Marshalls? If so, are you willing to pay their salary? Are you willing to pay their salary even if you never intend to fly?

As an airline captain, I am already legally responsible for the safety of my customers, crew, and aircraft. Also, I am the final authority on the operation of the aircraft. The Federal Aviation Regulations clearly state that fact.

So, if I have the responsibility and the authority, shouldn't the decision of whom to arm be left to me to make?

As a US citizen, I don't like the idea of paying for federal employees to protect a private corporation. I believe that each corporation is individually responsible for the safety of it's customers and employees. Just like I believe that I, as an individual, am responsible for my own safety, as you are responsible for yours.

Do you think it is proper to have a police officer to protect you all day and night? I don't.

Now, if you mean to have the airlines provide their own security, then yes, I'm with you 100%.

As previously stated, there are at least two pilots on every airline flight. We have a standard operation procedure that requires one pilot to fly the aircraft while the other pilot does everything else. During a normal flight the workload is very light for both pilots. During an emergency, rather real or simulated, the workload is higher for the pilot-not-flying. In any situation one pilot would be able to handle the workload of both pilots for a least a short period of time. Long enough, I presume, to turn and fire a couple of shots at a terrorist. Once the terrorist is stopped then the cabin crew can help with cleaning up that mess and securing the cockpit while the pilots go back to flying.

So as I see it, armed pilots make sense.

The Plainsman
January 22, 2003, 03:47 PM
I echo Fly320s' comments, but let me add this thought.

Given today's flying environment - no air marshall, private or federal - if the bad guy kicks down the flight deck door, do you propose that the pilots simply sit there and continue flying while the bad guy blows their brains out, or would you prefer that one or both pilots temporarily turn their attention to the removal of the distraction and blow the bad guy away with THEIR (pilots) guns? While not intending this to be personal, I can't help but believe that people who would deny the pilots the right to arm themselves because "their job is to fly the airplane", even while they're being assaulted, are insane. I have a sister who falls in this category. Think about it - it doesn't even make sense.

Even WITH air marshalls, the pilots ought to be the last line of defense. For crying out loud, at least give 'em a fightin' chance. :rolleyes:

rick458
January 22, 2003, 04:47 PM
two points of clarification here
first if the pilots wants to pack fine and well
but it would be fools play for them to be the ONLY thing to stop armed aggressors in their aircraft.
second I am a Chemical Process operator, when you are on the board and and the unit has a major upset we will put a second board operator on to help the first, because one man is very quickly overwhelmed by the multiple systems getting out of control. if Flightsafety or the other Simulator operators will test pilots to where when the plane is having multiple systems failures and in the middle of the exercise the Pilot in command can exit his flight seat and engage 5 or 6 assailents
get back in the seat and safely land the aircraft I may change my mind,
and the Federal air marshalls are not protecting some companies plane they are protecting the Americans riding inside of it.
I'm still wearing them boys so flame away you may still change my mind on this (but I doubt it):evil:

Fly320s
January 22, 2003, 05:00 PM
I agree that having armed pilots as the only defense is a bad idea. That's why we have all the screening hassles of baggage and people. We also have new and improved cockpit doors which are bullet and kick-in resistant.

Yes, I believe that one pilot can handle flying duties as well as multiple emergency procedures simultaneously. All pilots have done so on numerous occassions. We had no choice when we were the only person aboard the aircraft. Granted, those planes are smaller and less complicated, but these modern transport-category aircraft are more self-reliant and reliable.

The Plainsman
January 22, 2003, 05:02 PM
Let's look at the situation from this perspective.

#1 - Pilots unarmed. A bad guy comes to the cockpit door and demands entry. The flight deck crew has no knowledge of what's going on in the cabin. The BG begins to batter the door down. The pilot's know that the door will not hold the BG forever. What do they do?

#2 - Pilots armed. A bad guy comes to the cockpit door and demands entry. The flight deck crew has no knowledge of what's going on in the cabin. The BG begins to batter the door down. The pilot's know that the door will not hold the BG forever. What do they do?

Which scenario would you prefer as a passenger on that flight?

tyme
January 22, 2003, 07:17 PM
Rick, can we agree that dealing with a hijacker is almost certainly of more immediate concern to the safety of the passengers than flying the aircraft?

rick458
January 22, 2003, 08:42 PM
I would agree that it is of Equal importance for sure.and once again Pilots should be able to carry
if they Choose to, they have demonstrated beyond question their capability and responsibility.
I just believe another layer of security between economy class and the cockpit is needed, qualify and arm the Flight stewards (those who choose to be)and have Sky mardshalls or even better have Air craft security men provided by the Airline travelling in mufti. and if they make it through all that then by all means the pilot should punch holes in them

tyme
January 22, 2003, 08:50 PM
I agree that having armed pilots as the only defense is a bad idea. That's why we have all the screening hassles of baggage and people. We also have new and improved cockpit doors which are bullet and kick-in resistant.Ah, but if there were no screening, pilots would not be the only line of defense.

rick458
January 22, 2003, 09:33 PM
Very true indeed but there are many places on an Airplane at altitude that really should not be shot. No easy solution for all aspects

Fly320s
January 25, 2003, 01:40 PM
Obviously, all we need is a few dozen more laws.

If we get enough laws in place, then the criminals will have no choice but to cease and desist immediately.

;)

If you enjoyed reading about "Pilot caught with gun" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!