Industry Turn

[Hacker15e]

I’m not even sure what it means with zero elaboration.

Whats that got to do with FFDO?

It is referring to that there are a lot of people who have access to cargo aircraft while they are loading/unloading in between flights and are part of the "insider threat" pool.

Furthermore, look at the thefts that take place at major cargo sort facilities, often involving firearms.

This idea that cargo flights have zero need for FFDOs because they don't carry pax is very, very ignorant.

 

[Hacker15e]

Apparently the guidance for using the gun outside of the flight deck for any reason is to don’t.
I’m not an FFDO, and I’m not sure if it only applies to using it under the status of being an FFDO, or if it applies to the gun itself because it the one you’re to only use as an FFDO or whatnot.
Maybe the gun you’re registered to use while acting as an FFDO can’t be used at all in any other circumstances, even in accordance with federal and state rules/regulations/laws?

I'm not talking about anything outside the cockpit.

 

[Kingairer]

It is referring to that there are a lot of people who have access to cargo aircraft while they are loading/unloading in between flights and are part of the "insider threat" pool.

Furthermore, look at the thefts that take place at major cargo sort facilities, often involving firearms.

This idea that cargo flights have zero need for FFDOs because they don't carry pax is very, very ignorant.

Threats, perhaps, still a stretch, and a further stretch to believe that a pilot carrying a gun would be the solution to the theat. If those that had access had improper motives, they wouldn't need to do that by forceful takeover. My opinion, and it may ignorant, is that FFDO program at cargo carriers has more risk of accidental discharge, leaving a weapon etc than actually using it for its intended purpose. On the surface it seems like people just want a reason to carry a gun around. I am a big supporter of the program for pax carriers.

 

[Hacker15e]

FFDO program at cargo carriers has more risk of accidental discharge, leaving a weapon etc than actually using it for its intended purpose.

How many instances of this are you aware of at cargo carriers?

 

[Hacker15e]

If those that had access had improper motives, they wouldn't need to do that by forceful takeover.

Use of an aircraft as a weapon by a non-crewmember without a forceful takeover?

 

[Kingairer]

Use of an aircraft as a weapon by a non-crewmember without a forceful takeover?

I was speaking of doing harm to the plane. Now, we can all dream up Tom Clancy level scenarios, but if it was elaborate enough to get people on board, it would be easy enough to dream up the part about them having some sort of weapons of their own, and if you want to take it a step further, without a cockpit door I don't know how much good someone staring out of the night sky is going to do against 1 or more onboard with no door between them. I'm fine with keeping the program in place because I am a big supporter of it, I just think there is an incredibly small risk and agree with CC, and I hate doing that.

 

[Hacker15e]

I was speaking of doing harm to the plane.

I wasn't aware that this was the purpose of the FFDO program and the improved cockpit security doors. I thought it was to deal with a human actively trying to take control of an aircraft while it was being operated or interfere in that operation.

In which case, yes, it is entirely relevant who has access to the aircraft and to what level of accountability when it is on the ground.

without a cockpit door I don't know how much good someone staring out of the night sky is going to do against 1 or more onboard with no door between them.

So...it makes perfect sense for a pax crew behind a locked cockpit door to be armed against flight deck intrusion, but not to be armed in the situation you mention above? I don't know that I follow that logic.

I have to assume that the potential for aircrew members to be caught by surprise is the same regardless of which sector of the industry one works in.

there is an incredibly small risk

So far as I'm aware, the same number of incidents have been thwarted by FFDOs in both sectors of the industry since the program's inception.

There's an easy math equation (based on some basic assumptions from publicly available data on the program and its participants) if we want to compare if the number of misuses of FFDO firearms is proportional between the relative sizes of the cargo and pax pilot groups.

 

[Kingairer]

So...it makes perfect sense for a pax crew behind a locked cockpit door to be armed against flight deck intrusion, but not to be armed in the situation you mention above? I don't know that I follow that logic.

I have to assume that the potential for aircrew members to be caught by surprise is the same regardless of which sector of the industry one works in.

Yes, because we have actual other humans onboard the airplane.

 

[AA34]

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I'm not talking about anything outside the cockpit.

You literally sound like you are sir.

The FFDO weapon can be used in mission status, and you better be the seated in your pilot seat when it goes boom. Having it go off anywhere else, well good luck to you legally speaking.


It is to protect the flight deck. Loading / unloading cargo issues? Tough luck. That’s on FedEx ground security.



I respect you, you’re one of the long term members I like. But your take on this seems to come off as a personal weapon to be used anytime while at work, and that’s not the intent of the FFDO program. Flight Deck officer. NOT ramp security for Memphis.

 

[phill1174]

Right at post #116 I had to wonder…