US Airways pilot fired.

Status
Not open for further replies.
As they apply to a failure prone system, checklists are not so much protection against a badly designed system as CYA protection for those who are too stupid or too short-sighted to redesign that system.
Click to expand...

Yes, and as they apply to a fairly error-free system, checklists are there to help prevent human error.

The pistol is pretty error-free, having one to three levers. The holster is pretty error-free having one method of operation. A pistol seated in its holster is as safe as you can get.

Making rules that require you to fiddle about with those safety features to supposedly enhance the safety of the weapon/holster combination is the heighth of stupidity, frankly.

And the best response is to make a checklist and follow the checklist?

How about instead require those pilots/crew whatever who are authorized to carry a firearm, carry their firearm in the holster at all times and not play with the damn thing?

Geez louise, there are literally a hundred thousand or more people every day in the US who handle firearms of all kinds -- rifles, shotguns, pistols -- and they manage to avoid ND's by keeping it holstered!
 
Making rules that require you to fiddle about with those safety features to supposedly enhance the safety of the weapon/holster combination is the heighth of stupidity, frankly.

And the best response is to make a checklist and follow the checklist?
Click to expand...

I am sure ALPA (airline pilots union) is lobbying to have this ridiculous and dangerous holster prcedure changed. Now, we all know the TSA is a bureaucratic and political MESS. How likely do you think it will take, if ever to change the holster issue? I'll tell you, probably never, so pilots have to deal with and how they deal with it is through procedures backed up by checklists. 1,000 things can kill you in an airplane. This stupid holster is just another one.
 
the other side of that is the TSA, could just say, ok, there is a prob... until we figure out what to do, no one can carry. Which in reality would not bother me.

Its like the old judge says:

"I always know I made the right decision when niether side is happy"
 
I am sure ALPA (airline pilots union) is lobbying to have this ridiculous and dangerous holster prcedure changed. Now, we all know the TSA is a bureaucratic and political MESS. How likely do you think it will take, if ever to change the holster issue? I'll tell you, probably never, so pilots have to deal with and how they deal with it is through procedures backed up by checklists. 1,000 things can kill you in an airplane. This stupid holster is just another one.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right. I have less than zero influence anyway, so I guess I can wait and see like most everyone else.
 
If they have such concerns about Retention, why not use a SERPA type holster?

a Holster with a Retention "Lock" that goes through the trigger guard is anything but a good idea...

I would be scared Stiff to use such a Holster.

Good Post btw Sage.
 
I do not have enough understanding of the airline policy and procedures, nor the circumstances involved to say if he should be fired.

I do have enough understanding of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and human nature to assert the following:

Airline pilots are trustworthy individuals. They should be offered firearms training at the airline's expense. If they qualify via the training, they should be permitted to "open carry"...same as an LEO.

Would I trust such an armed pilot? Of course. I literally trust them with my life already, correct? What difference that they embark/disembark armed?

JMHO,

Doc2005
 
The TSA will change nothing in the short term. In the future, they may decide a new holster is required "for an upgrade" or "change of mission" but right now making a change would be to admit an error. Do you seriously think they will do that?:(

The firearms related question is, should pilots continue to be armed?

The answer is "yes" because, at the very least, the alternatives are worse. The armed pilot is not meant to be other than a last ditch defense. If all other hijack (etc) prevention efforts fail an armed pilot may save the aircraft - its certainly better than letting a terrorist get control of an aircraft and use it as a cruise missile. The result of failure to prevent a terrorist hijacking is, without doubt, the death of everyone in the aircraft and many on the ground. Ironically, in these circumstances, the least loss of life would be when one of our own fighter aircraft shoots down one of our own airliners full of our own American passengers. At that point WE KNOW WE HAVE LOST THE WAR ON TERRORISM (capitals intended).
 
"At that point WE KNOW WE HAVE LOST THE WAR ON TERRORISM (capitals intended)."

As tasteless as shooting down our own would be capitulation to anyone, let alone to Muslim terrorists seeking to force change beyond anything remotely acceptable, aught come after a much higher price.

---

Re Serpa or other retention holsters: The question isn't one of on-body retention, thus retention holsters are not the answer.

The FFDOs used to cary lock boxes. They didn't like them, citing them as cumbersome and obvious. The current arrangement was the compromise agreed upon to "fix" the problem. If it is so dangerous a return to the boxes is order, with a more discreet arrangement. A box in a bag wouldn't be too hard to pull off. Those who don't like it, and I'm sure there will be some... well, they don't have to participate in the program.

Open carry: will never happen.

Concealed carry: will probably never happen. Though I have posted before that if two FFDOs were mandated per flight, along with FAM-like standards of qualification and training, that I wouldn't be opposed. Something tells me the FFDOs might be, though.
 
If the pilots are not allowed to wear the pistols outside the cockpit, why the need for a holster? Why not a lockbox? That way no need to handle the gun unless needed.



CW
 
The issue is what they do with the pistol off their body. They are not allowed to leave the pistol on their body outside of the cockpit. They are required to store it from unauthorized personnel, read anyone else, when they take it off. So they either have to lock it in a box or in the holster. The program started with them locking it in a box, but the FFDOs didn't like that, becasue of issues relating to carrying the box around. The alternative is to lock it in the holster, which while easier to carry around some of them, and obviously most of us, do not like. There is not third option on the table.
 
This thread has been very interesting to me. So many different views concerning armed pilots from so many people. I would not have thought so many people would still be of the opinion that arming the pilots is not a good idea. I have to side with the pilots argument that if the TSA can't keep them off the plane, then the pilots MUST keep them out of the cockpit. I would rather have them trained properly (not by the TSA) and armed all the time. The idea of disarming every time the door opens would seem to defeat the purpose of arming them. I also agree with the pilots as far as the lockbox being a problem. There really is no place in a modern airliner cockpit to stow the box. They should be trusted to carry full time like any other LEO. If loaded holstered guns on an aircraft are such a dangerous idea, then why do we have armed Air Marshalls? How many times during a flight are they required to handle their sidearms? The bottom line to me is that the discharge most probably would not have occurred if the TSA requirements for locking and unlocking numerous times during a flight were not in effect. A good retention holster (and training) would be less prone to cause problems and give the crew a fighting chance if another hijacking attempt were to take place.
 
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.
Click to expand...
For many years, passengers were permitted to carry firearms in the passenger compartment (in fact, it was even part of the storyline in Ernie Gann's The High and the Mighty); even after passenger carry was terminated, pilots were required (not allowed, required) to carry if they were carrying US Mail (which many were).

Please cite examples in which the availability of firearms caused a flight safety issue.

what about control lines/ cables? other then on the most modern aircraft, they have ethier a hydrolic connection or a mechaincal to hydrolic
Click to expand...
Redundancy, my friend. Multiple hydraulic systems taking different routes, and multiple cables or linkages. Further, even if all of the primary control linkages break, the airplane can still be controlled by other means--power management (including split power to effect turns), trim (airliners are adjustable for trim in all three axes), and others.

As for the potential danger of a firefight, well, let me simply say that a gunfight in the cockpit is perhaps the best possible scenario if you have to shoot. When you attacker has exactly one route of entry; that route is so narrow that he has to turn sideways to enter (thus eliminating the possibility of multiple attackers at a time, as well as slowing him down); warning before he enters (as he penetrates the door) to allow you time to draw and take aim; the ability to leave the jump seat across the pathway, further slowing the attacker...the list goes on, but I can't think of an easier gunfight to win, short of fighting with the graphic target at the range.

BTW, I might mention that I'm a flight instructor, so I'm not just repeating things I've heard--I've been on the flight deck many times, in numerous different aircraft, and am reasonably familiar with the procedures and systems involved.
 
Watson stated:

If the pilots are not allowed to wear the pistols outside the cockpit, why the need for a holster? Why not a lockbox? That way no need to handle the gun unless needed.
Click to expand...

I say, oh boy! Brilliant deduction, Watson! :cool:
 
Drail,

"not by the TSA" - who would you prefer?

"The idea of disarming every time the door opens would seem to defeat the purpose of arming them." - The sole purpose of the program is to defend the cockpit behind the closed door.

"They should be trusted to carry full time like any other LEO." - They are NOT law enforcement officers.

"If loaded holstered guns on an aircraft are such a dangerous idea, then why do we have armed Air Marshalls?" - Pairs of FAMS with the training and rules of engagement allowing them to get rough, fast, is very different from a single FFDO wandering back to the cabin.

"The bottom line to me is that the discharge most probably would not have occurred if the TSA requirements for locking and unlocking numerous times during a flight were not in effect." - The bottom line is that if the FFDO was as careful with his gun as he is expected to be with his plane this would have never happened.

Not to pick... Your post is a good one.

Flyboy,
The problem with letting anyone carry concealed weapons onboard planes is that the eight well armed and trained combat jihadis who stand up in coordinated unison have a distinct advantage to the power curve at that point. The days of armed general passenger flight are over for good.

As for the rst of your post, I concur. The most dangerous part about a gunfight in the cockpit, assuming it is succesful, is to the passengers who may find themselves inadvertantly in the path of a wayward bullet.

"If the pilots are not allowed to wear the pistols outside the cockpit, why the need for a holster? Why not a lockbox? That way no need to handle the gun unless needed."

Yep, or a lockbox to put the holster, easily enough donned and doffed, into.
 
LOL I love to see the responses on how a pilot should lose his job for a ND yet think that police officers shouldn't. :scrutiny:

xjchief, they should be. When a doctor make a fatal mistake, one person dies, when a LEO makes a fatal mistake at most a few people die, when a pilot makes a fatal mistake typically 10s or 100s of people die.
Click to expand...

So using your logic I, as an air traffic controller, am responsible for many aircraft which could have thousands of lives on them in a given second should be held to a higher standard than a pilot?

How about Dick Cheney? He's VP of the USA? How many lives is he responsible for? As I recall he actually shot someone.

Admit it, it's a double standard and makes about as much sense as a zero tolerance law.:mad:
 
Sad thing about the airline game is it's all based on seniority. IF, and that's a big IF, he can get hired on at another airline, it's to the back of the line buddy. Gets to start as a junior FO on reserve flying the tin cans starving on $15-17 per FLIGHT hour.
 
While the TSA procedures and/or holster are significant contributing factors to this ND incident, pilot error is still numero uno.

If he had checked to be sure the pistol was firmly in the holster before locking it, no problem. If it's not part of the procedure, his own common sense should have had him do that.

What got him fired was a flying rules violation: not supposed to be doing anything to distract from flying the plane under 10,000 ft. He was handling the weapon at 8,000 ft during the approach for landing. He could have been fired for doing that even w/o the ND.

AKA as the sterile cockpit rule:

U.S. FAR 121.542/135.100, "Flight Crewmember Duties":

(a) No certificate holder shall require, nor may any flight crewmember perform, any duties during a critical phase of flight except those duties required for the safe operation of the aircraft. Duties such as company required calls made for such nonsafety related purposes as ordering galley supplies and confirming passenger connections, announcements made to passengers promoting the air carrier or pointing out sights of interest, and filling out company payroll and related records are not required for the safe operation of the aircraft.

(b) No flight crewmember may engage in, nor may any pilot in command permit, any activity during a critical phase of flight which could distract any flight crewmember from the performance of his or her duties or which could interfere in any way with the proper conduct of those duties. Activities such as eating meals, engaging in nonessential conversations within the cockpit and nonessential communications between the cabin and cockpit crews, and reading publications not related to the proper conduct of the flight are not required for the safe operation of the aircraft.

(c) For the purposes of this section, critical phases of flight includes all ground operations involving taxi, takeoff and landing, and all other flight operations conducted below 10,000 feet, except cruise flight.

Fired for just the ND? Probably not. Fired for just the weapon handling? Probably not. Put 'em together and he's gone.

No matter what the rules/holster for carry are, shoulda waited until the plane was safely down, and stopped before handling the weapon. He was in a hurry, he messed up, and that's what got him fired.

The real issue from the beginning was handling the weapon at all when he was not supposed to. The lousy procedures, holster/lock combo, ND, etc just made it more interesting and distracted just about everybody.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Pilot's Gun Fires on US Airways Jet
Replies
1
Views
437
Fred Fuller
F
B
  • Locked
Pilot to be fired for accidental discharge
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
stevelyn
S
v35
  • Locked
They let people like this be attorneys?
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
v35
v35
P
  • Locked
Gunnies and Pilots
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
Dionysusigma
D
T
  • Locked
Obama secretly ends program that let pilots carry guns
Replies
1
Views
392
Jorg Nysgerrig
J
Back
Top