A pilot's gun inside a lockbox goes missing from the cargo hold of a commercial jet

Status
Not open for further replies.

Waitone

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
5,406
Location
The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
A pilot's gun inside a lockbox goes missing from the cargo hold of a commercial jet

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,592772,00.html


Thursday, Feb. 19, 2004
When pilots wanted to carry weapons after 9-11, government officials rushed to criticize the plan. Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta repeatedly said that he wouldn’t support the initiative. One big concern was the question of how pilots would transport their weapons when they were off-duty. But in spite of apprehensions, the government finally relented in April, 2003 by instating the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program, which allows trained pilots to carry guns while they are flying the plane. Off-duty pilots are required to put their weapons in lockboxes and store them in the cargo hold. But recent mishaps involving lockboxes have the pilots up in arms and pushing hard to amend the Transportation Security Administration’s policy.

According to pilot and government sources, an FFDO's lockbox with the gun inside has gone missing. This is the first time that a pilot’s gun has been reported as lost. The loaded gun inside its lockbox was removed from the cargo hold of a commercial jet in Las Vegas three weeks ago by an unauthorized person. The lockbox carrying the gun has yet to turn up. Normally, an FFDO gives the lockbox to authorized personnel who then place it into the cargo hold. The FFDO is the only one with the combination that can unlock the box carrying the weapon.

In this case, the FFDO, who had followed TSA regulations precisely, immediately informed the authorities, who were also unable to locate the gun. This situation, according to security professionals, was much worse than the cases of guns that have been discovered on passengers at screening checkpoints because the FFDO’s gun was already in the so called "secure" area of the airport.

Captain Duane Woerth, president of the Airline Pilots' Association, said the TSA should learn from the incident. "This is exactly what we warned TSA about when they came out with their rule on pilots having to carry their firearms in lockboxes. The lockbox was a bad idea from the start and TSA needs to get rid of it." A TSA official acknowledged that the incident was of concern to the agency and was under investigation. He also said the TSA had no immediate plans to overhaul its policy on how off-duty pilots transport their weapons.

But pilots say this is just the worst case in a litany of other lockbox mishaps. Some pilots have reportedly had to chase their lockboxes as they were being carted away by unknowing baggage handlers. One pilot said that on six separate occasions his lockbox was not where he had properly put it on an airplane. If the TSA isn't listening to pilot concerns, it may soon be answering to Congress. Several congressmen, according to sources from pilot groups, are preparing legislation that will force the TSA to amend the weapons carriage policy.
 
Al Gore was unavailable for comment.

al-gore.jpg


Commentator: "Mr. Gore, could you sum up your argument in one word?"

Gore: *thinking hard* "...Lockbox."
 
Umm, losing luggage while riding around on the airlines is nothing new. They'd find a way to lose a 400 lb safe chained to a piano. So why is this any surprise?:neener:
 
It's no surprise to me.

Anyone who works on the airport ramp knows when a pilot has a gun in the cargo bin. The procedure for storing and retrieving the gun makes the pilot a beacon for attention.

All it takes then is for one person to grab the gun and go. Who would look twice at a baggage handler driving across the ramp with a bag?

I wonder how many more guns will be stolen as more pilots begin to carry and more people learn where to find the gun.
 
Well of course they are gonna go missing at times ... like a damn advertisement .. ''steal me''!!

Only time the guns will be safe when they are on a pilot's person .. where they should be at all times .... none of this ''locked box'' crap. When will this farce ever get resolved to the required, sensible and logical conclusion .... seems like never.:(
 
P95Carry:

The root of the problem is that the people who are in charge of the show don't want it too work. So long as they are running it, it won't.
 
I have noticed things at the airport like people leaving the ramp door open. Because they dont take the time to make sure it is closed. Because the only time a problem is found out is when something happens and people get hurt. Wait till someone cranks of a round when playing with a weapon .
 
As I've said here a couple of times, I am a captain at a major national airline. I got into a bit of a pi**ing contest here with another THR member a couple of weeks ago regarding my objections to TSA administration of the FFDO program.

Somehow, I don't feel the need to apologize.
 
You think that airline personnel losing a lockbox, which everyone knew was inevitable, justifies your non-participation? AFAIK, the pilot is not in jepardy because he or she did everything right. FFDO's are going to jump on this to help justify the changes they need. They choose to take on the responsibility out of a sense of duty and patriotism, it has nothing to do with whether they approve or are happy with procedures and policies.

I have nothing but respect for pilots who feel strongly enough about stopping terrorism to become FFDOs. Same respect for all LEO's. They put up with tons of hassles and crap because they see their mission as greater than themselves. It is not about you AZ or the convenience of any single participant. It is about overcoming whatever obstacles are in your way to stop evil people.

You are a commercial airline pilot who chooses to leave his cockpit undefended. If your airplane is targeted you will fail, excuses about lockboxes and condescending bureaucrats won't matter to the families of the victims as the entire nation reels from effects of another atrocity.

I don't understand why you seem proud of that.

Grinch
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Regardless of what Tamara says,i still believe that the term "goes missing" is not what the VAST majority of hard working patriotic Americans says.Its "disappears" and anything else is part of a massive government indoctrination campaign to make saps in the U.S. fall in line with the rest of English speaking countries.I NEVER,EVER heard "goes missing" on the news when i was growing up and i refuse to use it and so should ALL loyal freedom loving Americans!!!!!!!:cuss:
 
As a loyal freedom loving American, born and reared in the great Commonweath of Kentucky, I often use the term "gone missing".

I am also rather glad that I don't speak like the vast majority. There are way too many idiots and morons out there who don't know how to speak intelligently.

Good grammar is NOT dictated by what one hears on the news.

And, as a matter of fact, the lockbox in the above mentioned story did not dissappear. Someone somewhere can see it. It was a commoin theft not an episode of "The Twilight Zone".

It wasn't a magic trick, it wasn't "transported" by Scotty, it wasn't blown up by an EOD squad and it wasn't vaporized by Marvin and his Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator. IT WAS STOLEN. Hence it is MISSING. As in Not Yet Found.

But then I also say "flat battery" instead of "dead battery". Many things can be unflattened, but dead is dead.

I've got something else to say that I bet you didn't hear on the news growing up either... GET STUFFED! :neener:
 
You think that airline personnel losing a lockbox, which everyone knew was inevitable, justifies your non-participation?
Let's call a spade a spade here. The gun and lockbox were stolen. Not lost. And please remember that we're talking about a gun owned by the federal government while the FFDO was on duty while operating under the TSA's stupid carry rules. If the FBI or DEA were losing weapons due to inappropriate handling policies, would we still be hearing from apologists?
AFAIK, the pilot is not in jepardy because he or she did everything right.
Am I getting your meaning right here? You're somehow forgiving the theft of a duty weapon? You may not realize it, but you're making my point here (By no means is this the only serious difference I have with FFDO procedures.). Yes, the FFDO isn't in trouble, because he followed the procedures. Procedures that were set up to make a stolen weapon "inevitable", as you say. My point remains--change the procedures to mirror how other LEOs carry and you'll see a much greater involvement.

You credit FFDOs with much sense of duty, patriotism, and mission to protect us from terrorism. The FFDOs I've spoken with are in a program that they wouldn't themselves design. For the most part, they're hoping that the changes we all are hoping for will come at some point. Hoping that these changes will come from a TSA that has been against the FFDO program from the get-go, and, please remember, every positive change has come over TSA opposition. Personally, I'm not after a perfect program. Just one that at least crosses a threshold of making some kind of sense.

One final thing. Please spare me the blather about the effects of another terrorist atrocity on our country. I am right in the middle of a career in an industry that has endured radical changes post 9/11. Some have had their wages dropped by a third, long held work rules have been thrown out the window, retirements lost, and we're not done yet. Thousands have been furloughed--with the likelihood of return distant at best. There is a widely held view that USAir won't make it at all. American and United are shells of what they used to be. Believe me, everyone in the airline industry is aware of the effects of terrorism. I repeat--the TSA FFDO procedures are more about putting up the illusion of adequate cockpit defense than the reality.
 
My $.02.
I think this just what the powers that be at TSA want,proof that "pilots can't handle it".
The TSA has so many flaming hoops to jump through,I'm surprised any pilots have
signed on.
As I see it:
1.Fire Mineta!
2.Arm the pilots!(Ask the pilots for their input,most are ex-mil. anyway)

QuickDraw
 
AZ, I've tried to be gentle, but let me just be blunt.

The current FFDO's are serving because they think it is worth the effort due to the threat. Everyone is well aware of the shortcomings in the program, everyone is aware of the personal risk.

When you choose not to serve, you play into TSA's hands.

Far more important, IF something happens on your airplane, no excuse will be sufficient.

Trust me, the FAMs and FFDOs who are participating are not moved by excuses from pilots who don't want to be bothered. Nor are the bad guys.

Additionally, the concensus amongst FFDO's and FAMs are that any changes to the program will have a small, marginal effect on the participation levels. Dumbing down the program to a system of almost no training won't be effective against terrorism, and no one who understands combatives and the threat supports that. You will see both groups oppose any bill that dilutes training, and that includes the effort to abolish screening. Airline pilots do not recieve annual psych screening of any kind, much less any confirmation that they are able to apply and live with lethal force.

Your point, that you say I keep making for you, is that you don't like some of the procedures and refuse to participate on the basis that they are more dangerous than having a trained, armed pilot in the cockpit for defense.

I am saying that the threat is so real, and so imminent, that it is worth participating to obtain the tools and skills to counter it- no matter how inconvenient, no matter how difficult, no matter what the personal risk to an individual pilot.

I too am an airline pilot and obviously have seen the continuing effects of 9/11. As such, my attitude is the following- I don't care that you think the training is too difficult, I don't care that you don't like the procedures, I don't care that you think it is an affront to your profession to have to sit through a twenty minute psych interview- all I care about is whether you can defend your cockpit from a full blown, practiced and rehearsed takeover attack by a well armed terrorist team.

I am tired of pilots making excuses not to serve. I thought that because you are familiar with firearms and training that you might have something to contribute. Perhaps I was wrong, you spend a lot of energy falling all over yourself trying to find a reason not to participate. A stolen gun somehow "justifies" your lack of will? No, such an incident does not deter a serious person.

Either you have the tools to do the job or you don't, everything else is rubbish...

Grinch
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tropical Z, calm down before you burst a vessell. It's a turn of phrase you're not used to hearing. Different people grow up in different parts of the country and the world, so we learn different terminology. Despite what some would like to think, English is a living language, which means it's going to change over time.

If you don't like the term, don't use it. If you don't like someone else using it, I believe that could best be described with the childhood phrase "tough noogies." :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top