Pilot accidently fires gun in cockpit of plane??

Just read an articile that a pilot in a US Airways plane "accidently" fired his gun in the cockpit, while the plane was landing. See: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_8686897

Someone may need a few more safe practices drilled into his head.

Don't forget that 1st, you have to put up with and survive the TSA shenanigans!

This is all assuming your name doesn't share 3 consonants with somebody on the suspected terrorist list.

An AD while flying a plane equates to poor training, or poor holster, or playing with the weapon while you should be driving the damned plane!!!

Sounds like a "cowboy" pilot fiddling with his shootin' iron.

Amen OBG. Furthermore because powers that be didn't want pilots to be armed they are all squawking now. Was anyone hurt? No. How many times a year do police have AD's? Quite a few. With injuries and fatalaties. But it normally doesn't make headlines because it isn't something that was forced down TSA's throat, something that some people thought was going to be a big mistake.

-Bill Liptak

Probably tryin to impress a stewardess. "Hey Sheila, ever seen one of these up close? Well you know, I'm a certified....BOOM!"

What OBG said. The only way to have an AD is to be handling the weapon, and evidently it occurred while landing! hehehe

I fly alot and I fly armed. Whenever we board the plane, we have to peek in and say hi to the pilots. The cockpit door is always open and most of those guys are pretty squared away. Not all are armed, I don;t think (I don;t the airlines policy), but the ones that are are pretty gung ho. They LOVE having the authority to carry a firearm. And for me, personally, I like that.

I'll usually say "Hey, I'm in 21F. What are you guys carrying?" and in most cases their eyes start to sparkle and they're happy to say "I'm carrying a Glock and he's got a Sig P229!!!" (big smile on both faces) "What about you?". Next thing I know, we're holding up the guys behind me that are trying to get on.

Hey, AD's happen to experienced policemen across the nation. Whether it's in a locker room or at 20K feet, a bullet without a purposeful destination is a dangerous thing! They don;t happen often to pilots or (we'd) be hearing about it. The TSA is part of our agency and, believe me, if AD's were anywhere near common on airplanes, there would be paper flying everywhere!

It's kind of funny in a way

>You should see what they put my Father through when he flys. He's a dark skinned guy from Miami and he looks almost Arabic. It's funny cause we're Jews. When he flys they pull him aside and give him the third degree. It's funny.

The gun writer Mossad ayoob who is of arab extraction, tells the tale of how he was questioned for hours about the competion guns in his hold luggage and the questioners complained he was simply quoting their own airlines regulations back to them. "Of course I am", he told them; "you don't think I'd try flying with guns without reading them do you".
the Questioner agreed he was within the regulations and the guns were in the hold luggage and not available to mossad anyway but he just wished mossad was called 'bob smith' because the gun phobic british pilot "has been in a room for 3 hours spluttering no bloody bloke, called mossad bloody ayoob, is getting on my bloody plane with 3 handguns!!"
That was in the 80s. If your face doesn't fit and you are trasnporting guns. you best bring a sleeping bag and go the day before to deal with the questioning now.
The Sock

Don't get stuck in Jersey on a layover with luggage containing a firearm. If the cops find out, you will get arrested.

That very thing happened to a fellow back in 2006. The case against him was eventually overruled, but he did go to jail, had his weapon confiscated, and spent lots of money in legal fees. I don't know if he ever got his gun back, or any of the money he spent defending himself, but that is a hassle I would not want.

Stretch,
Could you (maybe you can't) comment on the article at Gun Accident In U.S. Airways Airliner Cockpit Was TSA Engineered Gives cocked and locked a new meaning. . .

That was my entire thought when I read the article.

Someone simply did not know or think about what they were doing.

I don't think that's funny at all.

"...I don't want some guy looking at my wife..."

From what I have seen, those "x-ray" looking images are far from a Playboy centerfold view. If some guy/gal gets turned on by them, they need to get a real life. I'd much rather have them get their little kicks than have a badguy get on the plane carrying a non-metalic knife or something...

Pilot was trying to stow gun that fired Consistent with what we now know about the holster-lock "system" that's been mandated by TSA.

If a pistol was stored with that kind of lock on it, how did it fire?

I'm sure details will be forthcoming. My question is why does TSA mandate that holster/lock "system" and unnecessary gun handling in the flight station? IMO you can lay this one on the TSA.

I couldn't say, Russ, but I can say that's one of the stupidest things I ever saw (not THE stupidest thing, of course)

.....it makes me want to talk (rant) politics......... (ooops. scratch that word! scratch that word!!!!)

With a holster like that where one has to thread a lock through it, it's no wonder that an AD occured.

Better still, let's say you're a terrorist. You now know that pilots are locking their weapons at certain points. "Wow, this is great," the terrorists are saying, "now we know when to strike."

If you're going to trust a man's judgement when he's carrying a loaded firearm on a plane, why would you not trust his judgement when getting on and off the plane? Completely assinine.

Well, it sounds dumb and really it is. BUT, in arming the airlines pilots, it was never the goal that they would be the ones defending the airliner and passengers, beyond the cockpit. That's the key. Those firearms are to be used IF the cockpit door is breached.

From the cockpit back is the responsibility of TSA or other Federal agents traveling on the plane. Any Federal agent flying armed has received training on what to do in the event of a highjacking. Not on how to use their firearm (that's done elsewhere), but how to protect the cockpit.

So, while I still think it's somewhat silly to lock firearms (almost ANYTIME, almost ANYWHERE), there is some madness to their method (AD's notwithstanding) ((( )))

It's only a four digit number, much easier for those who are shazbot challenged

IMO, dump the lock (of all combo locks, that one can be picked with a paperclip), the holster itself is probably okay although there are probably better lower profile options.

Also, I don;t think the airlines has a problem with trusting the pilots with the gun outside the cockpit. It's more about not trusting the terrorists access to the armed pilot...... while he's outside the cockpit. Remember, pilots are not trained law enforcement officers, nor should they be, nor do they need to be. They need to be trained well enough to KILL any humphead lucky enough to get past the air mashals and any other agents in the aisle, and dumb enough to try and breach the cockpit door.

With absolutely no data other than what you guys have already read..I have a bet regarding how this happened.

The H&K USP .40cal that pilot carried has a safety/decocker lever. It has a relatively "nubby" hammer. Manually pull the hammer back with a round chambered, and you're in a SA trigger mode, I think (at least in the variant I've handled). So the only safe way to decock is with the finger well away from the trigger and using the decock lever.

An old 1911 shooter, used to the old habit of riding the hammer down with the trigger depressed to "decock" the pistol is IMHO an AD waiting to happen with many modern pistols. On that H&K (and e.g. the SIG P6/225) I think you can very easily slip off of the hammer while pulling the trigger and trying to ease the hammer down. BANG. OOPS.

So..that's my bet about what happened.

As was postulated on THR, if the pistol isn't fully seated in the holster when you insert the lock, the lock goes in front of the trigger instead of behind it. Then if the pistol is further seated the trigger is "pulled" by the lock itself.

I'm not sure they're using a USP double action/Single action as opposed to a double action only. I mean maybe they are, I just don;t know that. Do you? I seem to remember (but am not sure) a pilot telling me he was carrying a SIG, though I don;t remember which model.

If in fact though, as Russ says was postulated, the AD occurred after the trigger was locked and then pushed further down in the holster, it seems as though very little foresight was given when choosing the lock and holster. But when I look at the picture that somebody posted above, that doesn;t seem probable.

ALL is possible in Government service and regulation - that I can attest to.

Locking up legally-owned and legal-carry guns....it's just funny stuff.

That sounds similar to the rumor I heard about the early Glock cases. Supposedly they had a post in the middle of the box that the trigger guard went around. People buying them for home defense would load the pistols, put them back in the box and when they went to put them under the bed or somewhere else, the weight of the pistol on that post would pull the trigger. Since the only safety on the Glock was on the trigger its self, bam ND.

I make no claims about the veracity of this story. But if something similar happened with the pilot, its another example of poorly thought design coupled with a tendency to do things with out fully analyzing the mechanics of what you're doing. It happens to people all the time, especially when follow directions or training.

O.K. Stretch and Russ... I'll waffle a bit on my bet. How about this: Variants 1, 2,3,4 all are DA/SA and have decockers but don't all have a safety. If these variants, I'll stick to my bet.
Variant 5 and 6 are DAO, with a safety. If that's what he carried, he had a round chambered without the safety engaged.
Variant 7 with DAO and no control lever, or with Variant 8 and 9 which are DA/SA, safety, but no decocking... or .. or...
heck.. I give up! Wasn't there! Will never know!

My usual EDC is a H&K P7. I can't imagine an AD with that pistol, particularly if holstered.

I have a little to add on this thread but I am only familiar with one type of pistol, the H&K USP 40 in Double Action Only variant. I am personally aware of 2 negligent discharges (ND) that happened when holstering this weapon; in both cases the trigger was pulled, either by the operators trapped finger or the safety thumb-break strap of the holster.

The procedure to prevent this from happening is to place the thumb of your gun hand on top of the hammer of the weapon as it is seated in the holster to prevent it from rising if the trigger is being pulled. If any movement of the hammer is felt the holstering process is stopped immediately, the situation is inspected/cleared, the weapon is withdrawn safely, unloaded and both the weapon and holster inspected for obstructions or defects.

I can in no way say that this is what caused the ND that happened in the airliner cockpit (or even if they use this type of pistol).

The above holstering procedure is just how I was trained and it has worked well for me.

Mike

What is the purpose, then of the lock? Is it to disable the firearm at a certain time, or to prevent it from being deployed at a certain time, or what?

Regardless the purpose, I can think of far better, more effective, and much safer ways to accomplish any/all of the above.

That lock has to be one of the most ridiculous ideas I've seen in quite a while. I put it in the top three all time for idiotizing an otherwise great idea for the use of a firearm.

I can't think of any condition in which I would ever carry a firearm like that. I would rather do without, and I abhor being disarmed. I have to think it would be preferable to remain unarmed and come up with a different strategy than to be armed but unable to use the damn thing.

If the government were really concerned with secruing that cockpit, then they would deputize the cockpit flight staff. I can't imagine airline pilots being somehow less capable than the average joe they pick up off the street to turn into a sky marshall. It's not like their criteria was all that stringent. In many cases you are talking ex-military for flight crews.

Another example of bureaucracy getting in the way of good sense.

From what I've read in the past, a pilot's weapon must be secured whenever they leave the locked cockpit. The logic is that if the TSA did their job, then a potential hijacker will not have a firearm, so an armed pilot outside of the cockpit then becomes an obvious target to obtain a weapon from. As we know from the past, hijackers often come in groups, and a pilot bum rushed by several guys in the main cabin stands a good chance of being overpowered.

Initially, I believe pilots had to lock their weapon in small gun safes but there were complaints, like with space inside the cockpit. Then they went with these ridiculous holsters.

Like AROTC was alluding to, I think there's a screwy process here that is probably really to blame, with a holster that could allow the padlock shackle to be hooked in front of the trigger rather than behind it. I would tend to believe that explanation more than a commercial pilot was sloppily handling his weapon while the plane was on approach.

For one thing, a trigger lock does not fully disable a firearm. It will take someone who knows what they are doing about 15 seconds to overcome the device.

But more to the point, if a pilot does not need a functional firearm outside of the cockpit, then either leave the pistol there, or else unload it and lock it in a hard case. Anyone who thinks that is too inconvenient is just plain lazy.

Actually, one clarifying point that I am not sure about and haven't seen anything written about is whether the pilot actually has to leave the holstered weapon in the cockpit. Like I said, they used to use a gun safe in the cockpit before, so I would assume that they're still supposed to physically remove the locked holster from their belt when they leave the cockpit. Just another layer of defense if the cockpit is rushed while the door is unlocked. Some would argue that simply leaving the weapon in the cockpit should be sufficient, but the holster lock adds a time delay if someone ever did make it into the cockpit and found the weapon. They couldn't just grab it and immediately start firing with it--well, unless the lock is attached in front of the trigger, that is.

CCRKBA CALLS FOR INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF IN-FLIGHT GUN MISHAP TO PREVENT COVER-UP

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today is calling for an independent investigation of an in-flight discharge of a pistol carried by an armed U.S. Airways pilot to prevent any whitewashing, cover-up or scapegoating in the incident.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said the incident is alarming because of allegations that the pilot may have been following strict Transportation Security Administration (TSA) rules when the mishap occurred. Those rules came under fire today from the Airline Pilots Security Alliance (APSA), which represents thousands of commercial airline pilots.

“We have a keen interest in this case because we were first to demand that airline pilots be allowed to carry sidearms in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attack,” Gottlieb stated. “We called for that measure just hours after four terrorist-commandeered jets hurtled out of the sky, killing thousands of Americans in New York, Washington, DC and a Pennsylvania field on that horrible day in 2001, and that must never happen again.

“But from the outset,” he continued, “TSA officials resisted the Federal Flight Deck Officers (FFDO) program, with bureaucratic red tape and requirements that defy logic in terms of recruiting as many pilots as possible. Rules and red tape actually discouraged would-be volunteers. Professional pilots who are trusted to safely fly millions of passengers across our skies should be just as trustworthy to defend their aircraft from takeover. This incident could be used to erode public support for the FFDO program, which would be insane. There may or may not be an armed Federal Air Marshal aboard an airplane, but you are guaranteed there is a pilot on board.

“Today, we are calling for an independent investigation of this incident, to be conducted by a panel of civilian firearms instructors and gun safety experts,” Gottlieb stated. “This will eliminate any possibility or future assertion that the TSA whitewashed this incident and used the pilot as a scapegoat to preserve unsafe regulations.

“Conversely,” he added, “such an investigation by non-government experts who are also not connected to APSA or the airlines could determine, without bias and free from any influence or coercion, whether the pilot was handling his firearm safely, or in an unsafe manner. We want the truth, and unlike they say in the movies, we believe the American public can handle the truth.”

-END-


< Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family >

Copyright © 2008 Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, All Rights Reserved.
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005Voice: 425-454-4911
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
FAX: 425-451-3959
email: InformationRequest@ccrkba.org

I couldn;t agree more with you, Benjamin, but, as I said, there's a madness to their (TSA's) method:

The airline pilot is not a trained law enforcement officer. Yes, many of them are ex-military pilots, but the preceeding sentence still applies. The TSA has trained them well enough to (hopefully) protect the cockpit. In the eyes of the airline industry, the cockpit is the key to the safety of all the passengers. Some passengers may get harmed, for example, in their seats or in the aisles, but ALL will be harmed if the cockpit is breached and won.

So.....their reasoning is: the pilot's job is to fly the plane. THat's all, just fly the plane safely. In order to ensure that they can do that from point A to point B, they must have a secure cockpit. Whatever happens beyond the cockpit door is not their concern (sounds terrible, I know, but they have a primary function that cannot be interferred with), beyond the cockpit door is the concern of TSA Air Marshals, other armed officers, and well-abled passengers. Now....

....once the plane lands and is secure, the pilots can exit the cockpit. At that point, as someone pointed out, they don;t want untrained personnel (pilots) carrying firearms that are not secure and could be taken from them. By untrained, I mean what they mean: ex-military, weapons-trained, highly capable people who are NOT trained in all the aspects of law enforcement.

I know it sounds a little crazy, but this is their reasoning, for whatever it's worth. I'm speaking here, not from "the inside", but from close enough to eavesdrop, if that makes sense.

The fact is, an accidental discharge occurred. Even if pilots were allowed to carry firearms, unlocked, whereever they went, accidental discharges will occurr, from time to time. So, regardless of the TSA policy to lock firearms, it has nothing to do with ADs. Now, the way they're required to lock the firearm and the devices used to do so, are of course relevant to ADs.

Ideally it would be best if every plane had it's own security force and the pilot was just a pilot. I think that might be the most preferable way to get the job done, and I am sure most pilots would prefer letting someone else focus on securing the airplane so they can do what they are supposed to do. My experience is that, as with ships, pilots are responsible for the total operation of the aircraft. If something goes wrong on the airplane, the pilot is informed of the issue and has the final say about what will be done. This includes dealing with unruly passengers from time to time.

If they are going to start excluding the guy flying the plane from the security equation, then I think they are just asking for something bad to happen. I can appreciate the cockpit limitations on weapons availability, right up to the point where armed assailants are outside the door taking out their frustrations on the flight attendants and the passengers. I would prefer a more proactive response from people who are responsible for the whole welfare of the flight, not just concerned with getting from point a to point b.

I was reading an article written by a security expert about this situation on another website and it made some good sense to me. The basic point is why pilots are being armed to deal with situations they're not trained to deal with.

http://peternbiddle.wordpress.com/2008/0...ably-the-pilot/

In my experience, the pilot IS concerned with everything on the plane. The point A to B is TSA's deal....and they're right. In my experience, these pilots aren't wimps who just want to sit in the cockpit, no no....they're smart.

Here's how smart they are: There is a terrorist attack on the plane. The pilot, knowing the co-pilot can fly the plane and he can handle these humpheads better than ANY air marshall or federal agent, stays inside the cockpit. Why? Because he's smart.....very smart. He knows that if he's overtaken, that leaves only the co-pilot.

Now, the co-pilot is very smart too. He knows he can handle any situation that arises in life. Still, he stays in the cockpit. Why? Because he's very smart. He knows that if he's overtaken, that leaves only the terrorist to fly the plane. And...he knows terrorists are terrible pilots.

Very smart these pilots and TSA people. THey think inside the box - where ALL the historical and empirical information available to us resides.

In response to having a security force to handle security and pilots to just the fly the plane, well that's EXACTLY what they already have. Now, there isn't an air marshall on every flight - they take them off when there are armed federal agents flying. As I mentioned before, ALL federal agents have received training on what to do in the event of a highjacking. I'm NOT saying there is an armed person on every single flight, but the on overwhelming majority of flights they're there. I know this.

THe pilot does have the final say on what happens on his flight. He and the co-pilot are apprised and aware of everything of significance happening on that plane.

Unless there's internal memoranda saying otherwise, the TSA and airline industry has yet to remove the pilot from the equation. They ARE the equation.

Lastly, as I said before, the pilots are concerned with getting from A to B and EVERYTHING inbetween, but remember, they're smart people. Using Robert Duvall's quip from the movie "Colors" (but applying it differently, I'd say "Hey Bill, let's put the plane on autopilot and go out there and SAVE THAT GUY that's being attacked by those humpheads". "Frank, why don;t we stay in here and SAVE THEM ALL"

A little gun safety regarding modern pistols with a decocking lever.....
Some people think, or do not know better, that it is alright to ride the hammer down as you would a 1911 style pistol on these SA/DA pistols. When in fact you can do it, and even switch the safety on, it does not fully disengage the transfer bar......
You may not be able to pull the trigger (safety's on remember?) but a good, hard sharp blow (oooops, gun dropped) to the hammer can bring it foward with enough force to hit the partally dropped transfer bar to cause a discharge. By using to decocking lever, which really is what it was designed for now wasn't it, the transfer bar is fully dropped out if position and the hammer is fully down so even if dropped there will be no discharge. Just 2¢ of advice....carry on

-Bill Liptak

The article pretty much spells out my expectation for arming pilots, which is that if you are going to put anybody on a plane with a gun, they ought to have a certain level or demonstrated proficiency with that firearm in that context so that the question of response vs responsibility is moot.

Otherwise, let's agree that every flight should have an armed security contingent aboard it, who's purpose is not only to deal with threats in the cabin, but also to provide a threat response defending the cockpit, that way, pilots won't need to worry about being armed. The flight crew can then enter the plane separately and isolated from the cabin, and once in flight, no one in the cabin can get to the flight crew or the cockpit. Sure, it might cut down on the conveniences a bit, but it would also solve a major problem with access to the flight crew such as what occurred on 9/11. Then it doesn't matter if the flight crew are armed or not anymore, the most that a terrorist could hope to do is blow the plane up mid air. That is something neither the flight crew nor any armed contingent is going to be able to stop anyways.

If you aren't going to physically isolate the cockpit from the cabin, then you have to consider that there is virtually no door, and therefore no isolation between the cabin and the cockpit area, as any door you put in can and will be breached rather easily. That being the case, and the fact that there is no armor in the walls of the cockpit preventing terrorists from simply shooting through upon first denial, the notion that the pilot and co-pilot are somehow going to remain separated from any terrorist activity in the cabin is senseless, and the need for armed response by them to any threat whether behind the door or after a breach is undifferentiated. Therefore, to say that they need only be armed and ready to respond once they are in the cockpit and behind a veil of security is nothing more than an illusion, and basing a training plan on that premise is to invite disaster.

In short, the TSA's approach to cockpit secuity is really not much better than it always has been.

I would much prefer that anyone who's going to be armed and responsible for the security aboard a commercial flight better dang well have adequate training regardless of their position aboard the plane. To say that the pilot/co-pilot should only have training necessary to deal with a threat within the cockpit seems to me rather irresponsible. I am not saying that pilots don't have the propensity to learn how to respond properly, only that the directives governing their training and allowable response to a threat are ludicrous and unrealistic in such an environment. If they wait to deal with a threat until a breach is imminent, then in my opinion they've already been defeated. Either you arm them and train them to do the whole job, or else you make the cockpit wall bulletproof and unbreachable short of blowing the plane apart. This middle ground is just a stop gap to appease the public and give the flight crew the equivalent of a teddy bear.

Amen. If the pilots are going to have them, and I have no problem with and want pilots to have firearms, the level of training needs to be stepped up.



Absolutely. The idea that a plane cannot be highjacked when on the ground or even at a gate is ridiculous.

I'm curious what this additional training is supposed to be? From what I've read, pilots in the FFDO program get the equivalent firearms training of your typical Federal LE agent. According to Stretch's post earlier, all the Federal LE agents are given training for hijacking situations. What's beyond this level? Air Marshal?

So many things can happen in flight--hijacking, unruly passenger, fire, medical emergency. According to this logic, sounds like every commercial pilot should not only be qualified to fly a massive jet plane, but also be a qualified Air Marshal and expert shot, black belt in jiu jitsu, a fire fighter, and paramedic. OK, I'm being sarcastic, but the point is expecting too much from ordinary people.

Let's not forget the hijacking paradigm that is currently trying to be addressedd--hijackers taking over control of a plane and using the plane as a weapon. The old paradigm was the threat of harm to passengers. If you're trying to avoid the latter scenario, then OK, either the pilots come out shooting or you acquisce to hijackers' demands and try and negotiate your way out or else the police/military storm the plane on the ground. However, if you're worried about the 9/11 scenario, I really don't think it makes sense to send pilots out into the cabin. You want that plane down on the ground ASAP and you want both pilots at the controls, especially in such a stressful, hectic situation. You might be sacrificing the lives of every passenger to hijackers, but the alternative worst case outcome is that the plane is flown into a nuclear power plant or liquid natural gas terminal or whatever which will kill all the passengers anyway plus hundreds or thousands more on the ground.

I don't know if this is publicly acknowledged, officially, but the way I see it, the lives of the pilots are paramount in the current hijacking paradigm because they're the only ones that can get the plane on the ground (well, in one piece, at least). As I see it, their sidearms defend the pilots and the cockpit, not the passengers. Of course, the pilots are extremely concerned about the welfare of the passengers, but we all know what can happen if hijackers get control of a plane. And even if an incident doesn't seem like a hijacking at first, it could be a ruse to get the cockpit door unlocked or a pilot into the cabin, so again, it doesn't make sense for the pilot to come out in response to incidents in the cabin. It's unfortunate that it has come to this state of affairs because I'm sure that many pilots feel more like armored car drivers in their mindset now than pilots just trying to get ordinary folks from point A to point B through "the friendly skies".

Oh, so I guess we agree on your alternative solution--that what makes sense is making the cockpit an impregnable fortress. Again, in relation to the hijacking threat, that's what makes the most practical sense. I have no idea how vulnerable the current Kevlar-reinforced cockpits are, but you just need to keep it secure long enough to get on the ground.

I dunno, it sounded like they are basically given a gun safety course/eval and handed a firearm. If they are really being trained in LE tactics, then that is better, but still restricting them to exclusive use only in the cockpit is I think unwarranted. Let the flight crew decide for themselves what response is most appropos. I don't think they would take the same cavalier approach to doing their job as some do riding and wrecking motorcycles, especially if the expectation is explained to them adequately. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense and all that. If one set of actions to produce a desirable outcome is completely disallowed rather than being advisedly discretionary, then I think that will end up invariably tying their hands behind their back, figuratively.

But in reference to removing the possibility of a breach physically by eliminating access/egress, Bingo!

Again, just from what I've read, all pilots who want to participate in the FFDO program get their firearms training at some Federal facility in New Mexico. TSA pays for the actual training and for their issue weapon (.40 caliber HK USP...Compact model, I think) but the pilots pay their own transportation, lodging, meals, etc. out of pocket. I haven't seen any news articles that say that the airlines reimburse them for this out-of-pocket expense. I see the amount $3,000 typically quoted in these articles, so that's not an insignificant amount of money these pilots dish out to participate. I have no idea where they have to do their twice yearly weapons quals, though. Maybe they have to go back to New Mexico for that, too.

Plus there is a psych evaluation, too, that pilots have to pass before entering the program but I haven't read any specifics about that part. So, it's definitely a lot more involved than just your typical CCW kind of situation.

Pilots train in Artesia, NM. I trained there as a firearms instructor in 1993 and have been there many times since. The TSA training for armed pilots is more than adequate.

Accidental discharges occur to even the most experienced shooters. Not to ALL shooters, but I say there isn;t a distinguishable limit between training and experience and accidental discharges, other than to say that with more training and experience, there is a lesser chance of an AD.

I think most everyone could imagine a more perfect scenario for defeating a highjacking or a more perfect role for airline pilots, but reality is what it is. Try to remember when flying, the pre-screening process (that pisses off so much of the public, and with good reason) pretty much rules out a firearm going on-board. There are exceptions to every rule, but I'd say it's safe to say, for the purpose of discussion, that the only firearms on-board will be carried legally.

Now, that should change the mindset when thinking about what the pilot's responsibilities are or should be, both fore and aft of the cockpit. Then there's this: if you've flown on an airplane in the last twenty years, and especially in the last ten, then you've flown with armed officers, unbeknownst to you in most cases.

Another thing is the air marshalls. They're aboard almost every flight, and even when they're not, nobody knows it, not even the airline crew until the last minute. Seats are reserved for those guys, which is why you'll see empty seats on a booked flight. And when you don;t see empty seats?...well, you won;t see the air marshalls either, but they're there. Sometimes, they'll cancel flying a flight because at the last minute three armed LEO's booked that flight because they missed theirs, or whatever. They move on to other flights where they're needed. And those empty seats on a booked flight? You might be tempted to think there's nobody armed on that flight. I wouldn't.

Look, the idea here is that anyone who intends to highjack a flight has no idea whether there're armed personnel on the flight or not, and has to correctly guess that there are.

All this and not one mention of everyday people, probably several women included, who (as evidence has shown) will undoubtedly step up to the plate and twist the head off of a troublemaker, let alone a highjacker.

The idea is to let the pilots fly the plane. It's their profession and it's what they do. He who can make it there and breaches the cockpit will die, God willing. Ergo, armed pilots. Ergo, occasional ADs.

"...step up to the plate and twist the head off of a troublemaker, let alone a highjacker..."

That has always been my idea when flying. I personally, even tho old and pretty much worn out, have no intention of letting some guy(s) take over any flight I might be on with a box cutter and drive it into anything. I will go down fighting...

Could they be related?

http://www.kctv5.com/news/15698864/detail.html

Amazing. If MO has a felony murder rule, he might be in deep doo doo...