US Airways pilot fired.

[Mr_Rogers]

The reality is that the appropriate people already know what happened in this incident - the co-pilot, almost certainly, told them all they need to know. Pilots tend to support each other but it is unlikely the co-pilot would risk federal punishment and career ending implications to hide the facts.

This is not an incident that can be kept secret, there will be a public determination although it will take a while.

BerettaShotgun - I thought this point had been discussed many times. There is no inherent danger caused by simply adding another hole into the structure of an aircraft. The pressurization of an aircraft is controlled by , usually two, large valves that dump air overboard to set the required cabin pressure. Adding even a 20mm hole is not going to trouble the pressurization one little bit if the damage is simply the extra hole in the aircraft skin. Now, aircraft structure or systems could be damaged. It is possible, but unlikely, that either structure or systems damage would cause an accident. Serious bird strikes and lightning strikes are both events that aircraft are designed to accept.

 

[ghostsix]

I`ll wait for the NTSB report.

 

[Regen]

It is possible, but unlikely, that either structure or systems damage would cause an accident. Serious bird strikes and lightning strikes are both events that aircraft are designed to accept.

Mr_Rogers, a discharge in the cabin forward of the pilot's position has a much greater chance of hitting a critical system. Most aircraft designs I've seen put quite a bit of avionics forward and below the cockpit.

 

[Pilot]

Yet posters can decide what happened on the flight deck, and determine the correct punishment for the pilot, by looking at a photograph or by some sort of intuition. I am most impressed.

I am not qualified to "determine the correct punishment", but the pilot had an ND and blew a hole through the cockpit and out of the skin of the aircraft. He was very lucky he didn't shoot himself, or a crew member or a critical system that would effect flight. My pistol does not have to live in a silly locking holster, but when its in the airplane its got an empty chamber. Thousands of other pilots operate the plane safely with a pistol. This one did not.

 

[Kacerdias]

Why not just allow pilots to use the same OWB holsters that LEOs do? The pistol is far less likely to be taken if it's always with the pilot and the risk of AD's plummets since the pistol isnt constantly being handled.

Anyone who has seen the official lockable holster the TSA mandates knows how dangerous it is. A lockable backstrap would have made far more sense. Nothing should be going through the trigger guard unless the weapon is pointed at a jihadi

 

[Mr_Rogers]

Regen,
Believe it or not there are no critical systems on an aircraft, that could be destroyed by a single pistol bullet, if the definition of a "critical" system is one that would immediately endanger the aircraft if it failed. That only happens in action movies. This is especially true in cruise flight. Commercial aircraft are just not built that way. That includes engines, electrical, hydraulic and navigation systems. Commercial pilots spend hours every year practicing for the loss of various systems - if the failure of a system in the hands of an average pilot, or even a dumb pilot, put the aircraft in danger that system would be fixed pretty quickly. The most critical event I can think of due to a cockpit ND would be breakage of a cockpit window and I am not sure that the critical transparencies would not turn out to be "bullet proof" because of their thickness and angle.

Pilot,

My pistol does not have to live in a silly locking holster, but when its in the airplane its got an empty chamber. Thousands of other pilots operate the plane safely with a pistol. This one did not.

Remember, that if this pilot was following TSA approved procedures then the procedures would be a contributing factor. You are apparently not required to fly with a round in the chamber. You are not required to use a "silly locking holster". The TSA says to use the "silly locking holster". What if TSA procedures also required the FFDO to fly with a round loaded? If the "round in the chamber" is optional or improper this pilot was either unwise or plain wrong. If he was following designated procedures then your comments are not very relevant. We do not know how many of those "thousands" of other pilots have come very close to having the same accident.

 

[TAB]

Believe it or not there are no critical systems on an aircraft, that could be destroyed by a single pistol bullet, if the definition of a "critical" system is one that would immediately endanger the aircraft if it failed. That only happens in action movies. This is especially true in cruise flight. Commercial aircraft are just not built that way. That includes engines, electrical, hydraulic and navigation systems. Commercial pilots spend hours every year practicing for the loss of various systems - if the failure of a system in the hands of an average pilot, or even a dumb pilot, put the aircraft in danger that system would be fixed pretty quickly. The most critical event I can think of due to a cockpit ND would be breakage of a cockpit window and I am not sure that the critical transparencies would not turn out to be "bullet proof" because of their thickness and angle.

There are lots of things in a cockpit tht don't like to be messed with. While the chances of it bringing the plane down are very slim, it could still happen( hitting several hydrolic lines.)

The TSA guild lines also state that the lock does not have to be in place when they are in the cockpit, only if they leave it.

I'm very pro people being able to defend themselfs, but firearms have no place in the passenger/ cockpit of a comm'l air line.

 

[romma]

Um, what is the pilots record flying planes? Has he crashed any?

If not, maybe he could take the fire arms training course again instead of trying to figure out how to feed his family...

JMO

 

[TAB]

Um, what is the pilots record flying planes? Has he crashed any?

If not, maybe he could take the fire arms training course again instead of trying to figure out how to feed his family...

what if instead of blowing a hole in the plane he hit some ones child, should he just be able to take a class then?

 

[Regen]

Believe it or not there are no critical systems on an aircraft, that could be destroyed by a single pistol bullet, if the definition of a "critical" system is one that would immediately endanger the aircraft if it failed.

I agree that modern aircraft do not have single point of failure, however as TAB pointed out, a single bullet may damage more than one system. Additionally, there is risk of fire occurring due to damage caused by the bullet, which when combined with things like leaking hydrolic fluid could be "bad".

 

[shdwfx]

I'm very pro people being able to defend themselfs, but firearms have no place in the passenger/ cockpit of a comm'l air line.

Any particular reason why a pilot carrying in the cockpit intrinsically poses more of a threat than the (all too rare) air marshal? You or me carrying while operating a vehicle? With the current TSA rules, it seems to have elevated risk, but otherwise?

Even with the bone-headed TSA rules, we only have once incident and no one was hurt. There isn't any hard evidence (as opposed to speculation) that a pilot carrying actually poses a safety threat sufficient to out-weigh the risk of having an un-armed cockpit during a hijacking.

Some may differ, but I feel better flying with an armed pilot.

 

[romma]

what if instead of blowing a hole in the plane he hit some ones child, should he just be able to take a class then?

That is like saying you should lose your firearms rights if you have a ND/AD because you "MIGHT" have hit somebody...

How many AD/ND posts have fellow Highroaders posted here?

Besides, primarily, the pilots job is to fly the plane... Not use a pistol, and to give you an answer to your question:

maybe he could take the fire arms training course again

...

 

[TAB]

Any particular reason why a pilot carrying in the cockpit intrinsically poses more of a threat than the (all to rare) air marshal? You or me carrying while operating a vehicle?

Think about it for a second, if there is a fire fight, which way are the pilots bullets likly to go and which way are the bgs bullets likly to go.

I atleast can get the fook out of there if i'm on my feet/ in my car. In a airplane there is no where to go and lots of people that will be in a panic. Its a bad idea all around.

How many US airliners have been hijacked with firearms since stronger security measures started in the 70s?

 

[Mr_Rogers]

TAB, Regen,

Excuse me one more comment since I think these points are important to the general discussion of the vulnerability of aircraft to internally generated small arms fire.

Your points that more than one system may be damaged are well taken. However, I must point out that the examples you supply are grasping at straws. For example, the nearest main hydraulic line to the cockpit in every aircraft I am familiar with handles the hydraulic power to raise and lower the nose-wheel and to steer the aircraft on the ground. Even if these hydraulic lines were damaged and the hydraulic fluid was lost there is no immediate risk to the aircraft and there are alternative wheel lowering procedures. A bullet would have to transit quite a lot of metal to contact these hydraulic lines. Additionally, most of the modern hydraulic fluids used in commercial aircraft have very low, or zero, flammability.

Aircraft electrical systems are protected by an extensive use of circuit breakers and fuses. The aircraft alternators themselves are monitored by electronic sensors to detect shorts to ground and other malfunctions. Any significant damage to the aircraft electrical system would be instantaneously isolated.

There really is no damage that could be caused by a single pistol bullet that I can envision, single or multiple systems failures, that would put an aircraft in immediate critical danger. This has been a spurious argument put forward to support people's personal positions on the subject of armed pilots. Since an aircraft's fuel tanks are in proximity to the passenger area there is probably greater risk from a badly placed round in the cabin than in the cockpit but I would call that danger negligible also.

 

[TAB]

That is like saying you should lose your firearms rights if you have a ND/AD because you "MIGHT" have hit somebody...

How many AD/ND posts have fellow Highroaders posted here?

Besides, primarily, the pilots job is to fly the plane... Not use a pistol, and to give you an answer to your question:

Last time I checked, the pilot is responsible for the aircraft and the passengers on it... so lets replace pilot with bus driver and airplane with school bus.

Would you let your kids rid the bus to school with a bus driver that just had a ND while your kids on the bus?

As a admin for that school district, would you let that bus driver still drive kids?

 

[shdwfx]

TAB

Think about it for a second, if there is a fire fight, which way are the pilots bullets likly to go and which way are the bgs bullets likly to go?

TAB

How many US airliners have been hijacked with firearms since stronger security measures started in the 70s?

I think you answered your own question. It's rare, so I doubt you'll have to worry about a fire-fight. However, trajic hijackings do happen (with or without firearms).

And, so what if I was on a flight with a fire-fight? I think we all know the grave consequences for the victims of most successful hijackings. In the worst case, the victims aren't just restricted to the plane's cabin.

I'd take that risk.

 

[TAB]

TAB, Regen,

Excuse me one more comment since I think these points are important to the general discussion of the vulnerability of aircraft to internally generated small arms fire.

Your points that more than one system may be damaged are well taken. However, I must point out that the examples you supply are grasping at straws. For example, the nearest main hydraulic line to the cockpit in every aircraft I am familiar with handles the hydraulic power to raise and lower the nose-wheel and to steer the aircraft on the ground. Even if these hydraulic lines were damaged and the hydraulic fluid was lost there is no immediate risk to the aircraft and there are alternative wheel lowering procedures. A bullet would have to transit quite a lot of metal to contact these hydraulic lines. Additionally, most of the modern hydraulic fluids used in commercial aircraft have very low, or zero, flammability.

Aircraft electrical systems are protected by an extensive use of circuit breakers and fuses. The aircraft alternators themselves are monitored by electronic sensors to detect shorts to ground and other malfunctions. Any significant damage to the aircraft electrical system would be instantaneously isolated.

There really is no damage that could be caused by a single pistol bullet that I can envision, single or multiple systems failures, that would put an aircraft in immediate critical danger. This has been a spurious argument put forward to support people's personal positions on the subject of armed pilots. Since an aircraft's fuel tanks are in proximity to the passenger area there is probably greater risk from a badly placed round in the cabin than in the cockpit but I would call that danger negligible also.

what about control lines/ cables? other then on the most modern aircraft, they have ethier a hydrolic connection or a mechaincal to hydrolic.( newer aircraft bening fly by wire) now granted the chances of it taking those out are very, very small, but it could happen.

Now onto electrical, several probs have surfaced over the years of small electrical probs cuasing real damage to aircraft. I do agree the chances of hydrolic fluid catching fire is almost 0, but the chances of a electrical fire is well with in the realm of probability.( mean its remote, but could happen.)

 

[Lonestar49]

I have no douts..

...

He's being made "the scape-goat" for nothing short of a stupid band-aid fix that, IN THE CASE OF AN EMERGENCY, along with, must be locked up while he goes to the John, YET, that leaves the other Pilot, with a hand-full of airplane and communications and an impossible, time-wise, chance of getting to it, using it as, IF, the other Pilot, opens/unlocks the cabin door to come back in and TSHTF then, can, could, happen that way, then they're both S-O-O-Luck, for any quick means of using it as a defence..

Leave it to the FAA to get told what-to-do by the NTSB who can hardly keep up with cars and roads and seat belts with kids..

Let the FAA run what it knows how too, and how, best.. It's a shame that they have been nothing short than Puppets ever since the NTSB was formed and given total authority over anything that moves..

Government at its best, as always..

And I know all he needs is a good Attorney to hopefully, overcome an Injustice, by and thru, real Justice..

That was, and IS, an AD waiting to happen, thru over-kill of safety measures, in this Pilot's view.


Ls

 

[Mr_Rogers]

TAB,
You are correct that cables could be damaged and there have certainly been electrical fires. However, the fear seems to be that there is some immediate, unrecoverable, damage or loss of control that can be caused to a commercial aircraft by a single ND, from a pistol, using the issue soft point ammunition. In aviation you should "never say never" but the probability of such an event is extremely, extremely, remote.

The joke would probably be that the most likely ND event would be the co-pilot accidentally shooting the Captain. Flight deck promotion is, after all, based on seniority!

 

[TAB]

I'm not afraid if it brining the plane down. I know the chances are better of something else bringing the plane down are better then a bullet doing it. I'm more worried about some one being shot. I know, I know... all of us here are super carful and it would never happen to them.

There are only 3 things I know to be true in life.

1 your going to die
2 you have to pay your taxs
3 If thier is a 1% chance of humen error, there is a 100% chance that some one will do it.

 

[Armed&Bitter]

If thier is a 1% chance of humen error, there is a 100% chance that some one will do it.

A motto to live by. Which is why I never venture out of my mother's basement, refuse to drive a vehicle, and wet myself at the thought of crossing the street.

 

[Mr_Rogers]

Simple equation.

Baddy not shot = everyone in aircraft dead(200) + some on ground (500?)

Baddy shot = 700 survivors - 12 (one full mag minus 1 baddy) dead.

Net of 688 people get to see their families again. Your personal problems don't count. Sorry

 

[blackcash88]

Yet another reason why they're nicknamed US Scareways.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

No other pilot has had and ND int he aircraft, so its not impossible to work around this holster.

There's a Latin name for the logical fallacy you are committing, but I can't remember what it is. Essentially, you are saying that because it has not (yet) happened to other pilots, it CANNOT happen to other pilots.

I doubt this was the first armed flight for the pilot involved, so please remember that until the moment the gun went off, he had never had such an incident, either. The fact that something hasn't happened yet does not preclude that something from happening.

I repeat: The FDOs should quit the program in protest until they are allowed to CCW in and out of the cockpit.

The only thing that stops me from agreeing with you is that I believe that would make the TSA very happy. And I think that "until" would be a VERY long time ...

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Last time I checked, the pilot is responsible for the aircraft and the passengers on it... so lets replace pilot with bus driver and airplane with school bus.

Would you let your kids rid the bus to school with a bus driver that just had a ND while your kids on the bus?

As a admin for that school district, would you let that bus driver still drive kids?

If you want to use school buses to play devil's advocate, why not use an example that's closer to the actual circumstances?

Suppose the Federal government enacted a regulation requiring that every school bus be equipped with a device that requires two hands to operate, is ergonomically indefensible, and requires the driver to fumble around with it every time the school bus enters school property? Sooner or later, a driver is going to lose control of his/her bus and crash.

Do you blame the bus driver for following the regulations, or do you look at the stupid device and the idiotic regulation requiring its use, and say, "Gee ... maybe we should rethink whether or not this is such a good idea."