Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B6 Pilot Loses Handgun In JFK Breach  
User currently offlinethegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2310 posts, RR: 4
Posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7464 times:

''The incident Thursday morning at New York’s John F Kennedy International Airport resulted in both flights being delayed while security officials tried to sort out the mix-up.
Connery was authorised to carry the 40-calibre pistol in the cockpit under the Transportation Security Administration’s Flight Deck Officer programme, which trains pilots in the use of weapons so they can use them in an emergency to deter hijackers.
TSA investigators were probing the blunder yesterday.
The pilot was reportedly so worried about losing his gun that he waited nearly 40 minutes before telling his bosses that it was missing.
In 2008, a US Airways pilot was fired after accidentally firing his handgun in the cockpit while a plane was flying at 8,000 feet on approach to Charlotte, North Carolina. The bullet penetrated the fuselage but did not damage any crucial instruments or wiring.''

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rity-breach.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

wow were giving pilots guns now? Let me be clear...I believe guns on airplanes = bad idea...


Our Returning Champion
54 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinejetblast From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1231 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7420 times:

Quoting thegreatRDU (Thread starter):
wow were giving pilots guns now?

Umm...it's been going on for years now.
http://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/programs/ffdo.shtm



Speedbird Concorde One
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6071 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7411 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So what.. It was an accident. Somebody picked up a bag that didn't belong to them... Just because there was a gun in it doesn't mean anything. Just because a gun is present doesn't mean somebody is going to use it. It isn't like the lady who picked up the bag said "oh look a gun, I think I'll shoot somebody".

According to the article : A TSA spokesman said the gun did not represent a danger to other passengers.
‘It was properly secured

Doesn't sound like much of a story to me. Some people are just affraid of guns and this makes a good story for those types.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2240 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7218 times:

If the idiots at TSA would be reasonable, this sort of thing wouldn't happen. The only safe and secure place for the gun, is on the body of the pilot. All of this stupid TSA rule about trigger locks, in and out of a bag, etc etc etc. But hey, let's not let logic and 100s of years of experience get in the way of TSA deciding how it should be done.

Idiots!



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offline26point2 From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 804 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7189 times:

What's the purpose of the Flight Deck Officer program again? Who is this supposed to help? Still waiting for the story with a happy ending. So far all we get are stories like this.

One day someone will get shot ...likely the wrong guy.


User currently offlinethegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7097 times:

Quoting jetblast (Reply 1):

Umm...it's been going on for years now.
http://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/pr....shtm

I just didn't know I thought it was stun guns but this is crazy

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 4):
What's the purpose of the Flight Deck Officer program again? Who is this supposed to help? Still waiting for the story with a happy ending. So far all we get are stories like this.

One day someone will get shot ...likely the wrong guy.

Amen.



Our Returning Champion
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6071 posts, RR: 29
Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7004 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 4):
One day someone will get shot ...likely the wrong guy.

Why would you say that? Maybe one day someone will get shot, likely the right guy.

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 4):
Still waiting for the story with a happy ending. So far all we get are stories like this.

There will never be a story with a happy ending... If a terrorist is stopped by a pilot with a gun the story is still not a good one, the person still got on the plane and terrorized people.

The problem with the argument that guns in cockpits, or anywhere, else don't deter crime is really something you can't measure. You can never know what others are thinking. Lets say I pass a guy on the street and he thinks about stealing my money but decides I look like the kind of guy who might just have a gun and just keeps walking. I would never have known if he was deterred by the possibility that I had a gun or that he ever planned to rob me.

If a would be troublemaker was deterred because the pilot of his airliner might have had a gun we will never know.

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 3):
The only safe and secure place for the gun, is on the body of the pilot.

That makes sense to me.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlinecontrails15 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6941 times:

As someone who flies a lot, I'll take my chances without pilots having hand guns thank you very much. Stick to flying the plane and if god for bid something happens, hopefully there are enough people like myself that are willing to take care of the situation. That of course is my opinion on the matter.


Giants football!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
User currently offlineaa43e From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 68 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6776 times:

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 4):
What's the purpose of the Flight Deck Officer program again?

So that in case of a hijacking there is a final line of defense. Personally I feel a lot more secure with an armed pilot and a locked cockpit door.

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 4):
Who is this supposed to help?

All of the ungrateful masses I should think.   

Let's be clear. All it takes in my view is just 1 hijacking defferred to justify the program and since there's really no way to prove a negative, that is to say "How many were deferred" , say just take a deep breath,relax and enjoy the flight!  


User currently offlineJetJeanes From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1430 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 6425 times:

Im surprised as i was told, the ammuntion,was designed not to penetrate the fuselage..


i can see for 80 miles
User currently offlinewerdywerd From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 564 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6279 times:

FFDO's (Armed Pilots) are only allowed to use their gun when the cockpit is breached by the "bad guy" as a last line of defense. They are NOT allowed to leave the cockpit for any reason.

For instance, a hijacker is killing passengers, taking everyone out, the Pilot is to stay in the cockpit with his weapon trained at the cockpit door while the other pilots (usually the FO) is trying to get the plane to the nearest airport ASAP.

I see no problem with this at all.


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3606 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6236 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 6):
Why would you say that? Maybe one day someone will get shot, likely the right guy.

Statistically, this is not generally the case with guns. People with guns are far more likely to shoot themselves or someone they know than any sort of criminal. That applies whether you're trained in their use or not.

The only exception is in outright combat where civilians are not present.

And seriously, let's review. So far the results of this "guns in the cockpit" program is one shot through the fuselage of an airplane, one lost gun, and absolutely zero shot terrorists.

[Edited 2011-01-15 23:08:25]


I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1551 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6199 times:

You guys really need to get educated on this sort of stuff before making the comments you did. A simple Google search would have given you most of the necessary information on this subject. Its been around since just after 9/11 and is to be used only in the cockpit of the aircraft. Only if their was ever a breach of the flight deck, would a pilot be authorized to use the weapon. If you seriously think a gun in it's holder would distract us from flying the plane, then I guess we should never be allowed to eat or drink up their either? Also the weapon MUST be kept with the pilot at all times when they are in the terminal. Even though this was a simple mistake, the pilot should have been more careful with it. Though it did have a trigger lock on it, so their was never any danger to the public. The worst that will happen, is he will loose his FFDO privileges that should be the extent of his consequences, if their are any at all!


ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlineetherealsky From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 328 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6136 times:

Quoting JetJeanes (Reply 9):
Im surprised as i was told, the ammuntion,was designed not to penetrate the fuselage..

It doesn't take much to penetrate an aluminum skin 1-2mm thick.



"And that's why you always leave a note..."
User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6094 times:

You're worried about the pilot, but not the air marshals?

User currently offlinenavigator From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 1172 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5441 times:

Those discussions and ideas about guns in planes, armed security guards, body scans of pilots etc is a world I simply couldn´t imagine would happen in the free world as we know it. What has been lost and won by this? Has someone evaluated all this american security stuff in aviation before letting it spread across the world? I think this has turned into an industry and business that moves slowly forward without questioning partly because there is money in it nowadays and because too few people are questioning it. Has it gone too far in america? Is this having a bad inpact on freedom of movement and the travelling industry as a whole? What does it prevent? Has anyone in america on government level made any evaluation of all this? Why do other countries import all this gun stuff and security force thinking? Has it gone too far?


747-400/747-200/L1011/DC-10/DC-9/DC-8/MD-80/MD90/A340/A330/A300/A310/A321/A320/A319/767/757/737/727/HS-121/CV990/CV440/S
User currently offlineYXwatcherMKE From United States of America, joined May 2007, 967 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5323 times:

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 4):
One day someone will get shot ...likely the wrong guy

The gun is not to leave the flight deck as soon the a/c is operational. that means as soon as passengers begin to board the a/c. The gun is only to be drawn from it stored location if the flight crew thinks that the flight deck is about to breached by someone that has no business being there. So if your worried about someone other than the person that should get shot, don't. Because I don't think there is much room for error in who should get shot if the rules are followed. And I would bet the Pilots follow the rules for FFDO because they want to keep their job.



I miss the 60's & 70's when you felt like a guest on the plane not cattle like today
User currently offlinenavigator From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 1172 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5289 times:

If everyone is scanned before boarding and you have a security door, why do you need guns onboard the plane? Overprotection? Does it make people used to guns in their society feel safer? I for one do not like flying onboard a plane with guns either protected by a pilot nor anyone else. In a fight a gun could easily change hands. I do not think they belong onboard a plane at all.

Who says all pilots always follow those rules you are talking about. They are human and can make errors? With guns risks of problems escalating increase? Any thoughts on this?



747-400/747-200/L1011/DC-10/DC-9/DC-8/MD-80/MD90/A340/A330/A300/A310/A321/A320/A319/767/757/737/727/HS-121/CV990/CV440/S
User currently offlinerangercarp From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4929 times:

It seems to me tazers would be more appropriate. It would remove the risks of damaging the aircraft and the risk of a stray bullet killing or wounding an innocent passenger after it passed through (or missed) the bad guy.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 6):
If a would be troublemaker was deterred because the pilot of his airliner might have had a gun we will never know.

Well said. There is no way to quantify the deterrent factor.

I sometimes wonder if stories like this are "manufactured" to keep the public aware that pilots may be armed.



iwgbtp!
User currently offlinetharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1861 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4810 times:

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 12):
Also the weapon MUST be kept with the pilot at all times when they are in the terminal.

Except we can see right here that this isn't true. For a couple minutes at TSA, it is not.

There's a Murphy's Law element to this.


User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2421 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4740 times:

Quoting aa43e (Reply 8):
Quoting 26point2 (Reply 4):
What's the purpose of the Flight Deck Officer program again?

So that in case of a hijacking there is a final line of defense. Personally I feel a lot more secure with an armed pilot and a locked cockpit door.
Quoting werdywerd (Reply 10):
For instance, a hijacker is killing passengers, taking everyone out, the Pilot is to stay in the cockpit with his weapon trained at the cockpit door while the other pilots (usually the FO) is trying to get the plane to the nearest airport ASAP.

I see no problem with this at all.

Agree.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 11):
People with guns are far more likely to shoot themselves or someone they know than any sort of criminal. That applies whether you're trained in their use or not.

You do know that Air Marshalls also carry guns sitting in First Class seats directly next to paying passengers...

Everyone seems to be concerned about a pilot with a gun behind a secure cockpit door, while guns are already in the passenger cabin.



Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlinechuchoteur From France, joined Sep 2006, 762 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4668 times:

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 3):
If the idiots at TSA would be reasonable, this sort of thing wouldn't happen. The only safe and secure place for the gun, is on the body of the pilot. All of this stupid TSA rule about trigger locks, in and out of a bag, etc etc etc. But hey, let's not let logic and 100s of years of experience get in the way of TSA deciding how it should be done.

Idiots!

Absolutely.
This also requires the FFDO to manipulate the gun in the cockpit, which is the stupidest idea ever.


User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6071 posts, RR: 29
Reply 22, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4273 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 11):
Statistically, this is not generally the case with guns. People with guns are far more likely to shoot themselves or someone they know than any sort of criminal. That applies whether you're trained in their use or not.


Really? What is the source of that. If people who are trained to use firearms more often than not hit the wrong person than why do police officers carry guns? They are trained to use them. I don't here a lot of stories about cops shooting the wrong guy. Of course the parents or friends of the victim always claim he was unarmed or was a victim of a police frame up.

I think you are thinking about people who misuse firearms. We hear about worthless street thugs shooting bystanders all the time, but those guys know little if anything about guns. Most of the time they are not even allowed to own or use firearms.

I would think that that people that know how to use firearms properly and are shooting at a person or thing hit what they are shooting at and nothing else. I spent an hour at the range yesterday and not one single person missed the range and accidentally killed or hurt anyone.

Guns are only as dangerous as the operator.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlinerolfen From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 1800 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3896 times:

Pilots wearing guns... how cool  
One of the coolest jobs only got cooler!

Quoting rangercarp (Reply 18):
It seems to me tazers would be more appropriate. It would remove the risks of damaging the aircraft and the risk of a stray bullet killing or wounding an innocent passenger after it passed through (or missed) the bad guy.

Yes, it makes sense.
One thing it got me wondering about is: will a bullet not cause explosive decompression when and if it punctures the fuselage, or maybe worse, shatters a window?

[Edited 2011-01-16 07:06:12]


rolf
User currently offlinenavigator From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 1172 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3803 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 22):
Really? What is the source of that. If people who are trained to use firearms more often than not hit the wrong person than why do police officers carry guns? They are trained to use them. I don't here a lot of stories about cops shooting the wrong guy.

It happens that policemen shoot the wrong people, yes. But since policemen are into law enforcement it is accepted that they carry arms. It is the last resort for protection in all countries. But the more you spread weapons the more they are used properly or wrongly and likely to be used, that a fact. I think you see that everywhere in the US. And letting arms onboard planes and spreading security measures like spreading seed is only spreading risk of violence where it should not be. How come every other country except the US can do without weapons onboard planes? What will be next security measure? More and more stupid things get added and ultimately you will no longer be able to use american planes because of inconvenience. Is that the goal?



747-400/747-200/L1011/DC-10/DC-9/DC-8/MD-80/MD90/A340/A330/A300/A310/A321/A320/A319/767/757/737/727/HS-121/CV990/CV440/S
25 Mir : Disregarding the benefits/drawbacks of the FFDO program, the fact is that this pilot lost control of his weapon, and that's just unacceptable. The art
26 Post contains links CitationJet : Really? In 2003 the UK was putting armed air marshalls on UK flights. Did that get reversed? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2590309.stm
27 rangercarp : I only know the basics of how tazers work (maybe someone with more knowledge can shed some light on this) but I don't think the tazer's electrodes wo
28 Av8torG3 : As a gun owner myself, I don't see what the big deal is. I am all for people carrying weapons legally. If the government has a program in place that a
29 lightsaber : Agrred. They should also be spared the items check and instead have a more detailed ID check. Ditto. Never again will a 9/11 hijacking work. I feel s
30 Navigator : Maybe except them... but this does not reverse the arguments against it. Who needs them anyway? The brits do whatever the US does for better or worse
31 johns624 : Untrue. They use standard Fedral HST JHP's. Untrue. Nowhere near all FFDO's are Captains. Actually, truer than you think. I manage a gunrange in a ma
32 Navigator : I think this is a very local US view indeed with no bearing on the rest of the western world. Everyone doing military service in our country has used
33 DiamondFlyer : So, why then do you insist on forcing your way of weapons "control" on us, when you plainly admit that you can understand our laws. Just move on and
34 Navigator : Now thats a blunt statement. We are discussing here, not telling each other what to do... Thats democracy. And by the way we have not seen you but ra
35 aviatorcraig : That's reassuring. So did the pilot of the US Airways flight that discharged his weapon at 8,000 feet on approach think his flight deck was about to
36 Post contains links and images AAR90 : Thanks for the common sense statement. Just a slight correction; guns have been in airline cockpits since the earliest days of aviation. At one time
37 kl911 : Sorry, but not in Europe, and they never will be.
38 Navigator : I always think discussions are good for mutual understanding. Your country has been through a lot that has lead to increased security. We in the rest
39 SPREE34 : No, he was following the TSA mandated (Stupid) handling regulations at the time. ie; putting on the trigger lock and putting it back into the TSA app
40 Post contains links UNCRDU : Tasers wouldn't work...suppose you have two people trying to breach the flight deck instead of one? I'm all for guns in the cockpit. Remember the FedE
41 scbriml : From your link: Trained yes, but I'm pretty sure they were never deployed.
42 AAR90 : Actually, they were in regular use. However, they were banned much earlier than in USA (early 1970's).
43 cbphoto : Hey..no problem... I was talking about the FFDO program though, not just guns in general. Believe it or not, if you Google FFDO, their is plenty of p
44 msypi7185 : Exactly, the more a pilot has to handle their loaded weapon, the greater the chances of an accidental discharge. If you have read of all the failures
45 bj87 : I think it is weird that people are surprised this happened. From the day that pilots started to carry guns you could have known..... that somewhere i
46 Post contains images Navigator : Forgive me for another comment But why the heck don´t they do something about the security checkpoints instead? Do they sleep at their monitors?
47 Post contains images thegreatRDU : Dude IDK.....I'm still skeptical... You speak the truth...
48 twinotter : I agree. Eventually a captain will shoot an FO or vice-versa. This is a much more likely outcome of guns in the cockpit than "preventing terrorism".
49 bjorn14 : What type of guns are they allowed to have in the cockpit?
50 cbphoto : I still don't see what everyones problem is? Armed Law Enforcement Officers walk onto planes every single day, yet I don't see you guys freaking about
51 SPREE34 : Actually, the gun training and proficiency requirements are much higher for FFDOs. Government issued H&K 40 cal. That information is not classifi
52 AAR90 : That is EXACTLY what they are... FEDERAL law enforcement officers.
53 Bennett123 : Rolfen fortuneately aircraft are more robust than that. There was a BAC 111 in Phillipines which retired after having a grenade explode in the toilet
54 Post contains images cbphoto : Ya..I know! I am just to put in layman terms for them, seeing as though they think we will just shoot the other pilot!.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
USA Today: B6 Tops US Carriers In Service, Quality posted Wed Sep 15 2010 17:05:20 by Tigerguy
Delta Incident In JFK 14th Aug 2010 posted Thu Sep 9 2010 21:03:08 by pictues
I'm In JFK T3 . . . What's So Bad? posted Thu Aug 26 2010 18:31:24 by jfklganyc
Red Bull Pilot Takes A Swim In Perth posted Thu Apr 15 2010 02:13:04 by maxter
AF A380 Gate In JFK. posted Sun Jan 10 2010 21:51:35 by PWMRamper
Iberia Loses €165M In The First Half Of 2009 posted Fri Aug 28 2009 03:02:01 by IBERIA747
Why Is BA Using T7 Instead Of T8 In JFK? posted Thu Aug 13 2009 11:54:20 by JetBlue777
Asian Airlines From 747 To 773ER In JFK posted Sun Aug 2 2009 09:10:37 by JetBlue777
KE Replaces 747 With 773ER In JFK. posted Tue Jul 28 2009 14:39:30 by JetBlue777
A380s In JFK posted Mon Jul 20 2009 10:42:18 by JetBlue777