Pilot whose gun discharged on plane is rehired

Pilot's should not have guns period! As a pilot and one who carries a gun everyday, a pilot's job is to fly from a to b. 121 Regs now a days have pilot's staying in the cockpit anyway for just about everything. The training FFDO's go through is not enough anyway to be a sharp shooter when times are tough.
 
Firebird2XC said:
It's moot in regards to this conversation.

And now, carelessness is not a universal trait. Sometimes people are careless because they fail to understand what they're dealing with.

Assuming that someone can't handle an airplane properly because they mishandle a firearm isn't really sound logic.
Click to expand...

By using “careless” as if it were a synonym for untrained, you have clarified why it is you use “moot” incorrectly.
 
FlybyLaw said:
Pilot's should not have guns period! As a pilot and one who carries a gun everyday, a pilot's job is to fly from a to b. 121 Regs now a days have pilot's staying in the cockpit anyway for just about everything. The training FFDO's go through is not enough anyway to be a sharp shooter when times are tough.
Click to expand...

Its indeed an interesting debate. Am a federal LEO, but I'm not first-hand familiar with the FFDO training program, so I can't comment on that with any authority. I agree a pilot's job is to fly the plane first, regardless of what's going on in the back....and that his best weapons are the yoke and throttle in his hands, as well as the radio. But, there's also something to be said for a last-ditch defense of the cockpit IF it were to be breached. To date, the FFDOs haven't been fully tested in a full-on real-world cockpit-defense scenario, but the time will come, and it will be interesting to see how that part of the situation worked (or didn't), along with the rest of the scenario investigation when that time comes.
 
The training an FFDO undergoes is more in depth than any police academy that I am aware of, at least in the scope of firing a pistol (and how many times you do it.)
 
I have only heard from friends that are FFDO's and the trainning does not sound so tough. I don't know what police departments you are talking about, but the one I work for is by far a place where we train with our guns for anything. We have to discharge our weapons a few times a year to put down scum. I think though, a taser would be a far better tool for flight crews, both pilot and flight attendent. Make sure you carry zip ties to put the scum into custody. But a taser will not penetrate the skin of the aircraft (no rapid decompression) and believe me it hurts. You can keep a person under power as long as it takes to place them into zip ties (cuffs.)
 
Firebird2XC said:
Pack the right ammo, and a 9mm will do ya just fine. Not to mention that a 9mm is only a hair smaller than a .40.

How much stopping power do you need at a range of 5 feet?
Click to expand...

I have been horrifically surprised that someone got up after being hit center mass with a .45 less than 10 feet away.

You never really know. . .double tap.
 
FlybyLaw said:
But a taser will not penetrate the skin of the aircraft (no rapid decompression) and believe me it hurts. You can keep a person under power as long as it takes to place them into zip ties (cuffs.)
Click to expand...

From everything I've read, a .40" hole will not cause a rapid decompression, if anything it would cause a very slow climb in cabin altitude. In addition, a taser just isn't in the same league firepower-wise as a firearm. I have been tased believe it or not. Yeah it hurts, but after it's over, well, you're sore but you're not out of the fight. If anything this whole incident proves that a pistol round discharged inside an aircraft isn't going to cause a catastrophic accident.
 
FlybyLaw said:
But a taser will not penetrate the skin of the aircraft (no rapid decompression) and believe me it hurts.
Click to expand...

Not only will a bullet hole not cause a rapid decompression, it won't cause a decompression at all. The outflow valves will close slightly, and you'll have a horrible high-pitched whistling noise coming from the bullet hole, but that's about it. The cabin will hold altitude without a problem. You need a hole about six inches across or more before the outflow valves can't keep up by closing.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Not only will a bullet hole not cause a rapid decompression, it won't cause a decompression at all. The outflow valves will close slightly, and you'll have a horrible high-pitched whistling noise coming from the bullet hole, but that's about it. The cabin will hold altitude without a problem. You need a hole about six inches across or more before the outflow valves can't keep up by closing.
Click to expand...

Agree. The pressurized hull is more or less a controlled leak anyway, operating in the manner you describe.

Of course, Hollywood would have us believe otherwise! :banghead:
 
Firebird2XC said:
It's all about the ammo.

Magsafe ammo says they won't get up.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily say you have the definitive answer.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume4/number3/article432.htm


"The terminal performance demonstrated by the MagSafe .45 ACP +P Defender cartridge shows that it is incapable of meeting the challenge of a commonly encountered personal defense situation. The reasons are as follows:
  • The # 2 birdshot produces tiny, pin-prick hole sized wounds.
  • The amount of birdshot carried in each bullet is too little to produce substantial injury.
  • Penetration depth of the birdshot is erratic.
  • The diameter of the shot pattern is too large when it hits the upper torso to produce significant injury"
 
MDPilot said:
I wouldn't necessarily say you have the definitive answer.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume4/number3/article432.htm


"The terminal performance demonstrated by the MagSafe .45 ACP +P Defender cartridge shows that it is incapable of meeting the challenge of a commonly encountered personal defense situation. The reasons are as follows:
  • The # 2 birdshot produces tiny, pin-prick hole sized wounds.
  • The amount of birdshot carried in each bullet is too little to produce substantial injury.
  • Penetration depth of the birdshot is erratic.
  • The diameter of the shot pattern is too large when it hits the upper torso to produce significant injury"
Click to expand...


Either we're not talking about the same MagSafe ammo, or I'm mistaken about the type of ammunition entirely.

The type I refer to has the grooves so the slug separates into four separate ballistic projectiles on impact.

Perhaps my understanding the magsafe ammo is incomplete, but that's how it was explained to me. Seems like it'd stop pretty much anything coming your way.
 
Let me preface this by saying I'm keeping this brief, only because we shouldn't all be posting SSI on a public message forum. I know many of you have questions about the weapon FFDOs use, as well as the holster, and so forth. But there are some things that are kept quiet for a reason.

That said, for those who know the facts surrounding this event, it is clear that proper procedures were not followed. If they were followed, this event would not have occurred. If the airline wants to give him his job back, that's up to them. Personally, I would not want this pilot to continue participating in the FFDO program if he cannot follow the safety procedures that were developed to keep this type of thing from happening. I'm somewhat surprised the airline reinstated him.

This is no different than any other sector in law enforcement. Safety procedures are developed to prevent ADs from happening. It's a responsibility that all LEOs have to follow them, because they have been entrusted with a tool that is intended to kill. I don't think some FFDOs fully comprehend that concept sometimes.
 
FlyChicaga said:
Let me preface this by saying I'm keeping this brief, only because we shouldn't all be posting SSI on a public message forum. I know many of you have questions about the weapon FFDOs use, as well as the holster, and so forth. But there are some things that are kept quiet for a reason.

That said, for those who know the facts surrounding this event, it is clear that proper procedures were not followed. If they were followed, this event would not have occurred. If the airline wants to give him his job back, that's up to them. Personally, I would not want this pilot to continue participating in the FFDO program if he cannot follow the safety procedures that were developed to keep this type of thing from happening. I'm somewhat surprised the airline reinstated him.

This is no different than any other sector in law enforcement. Safety procedures are developed to prevent ADs from happening. It's a responsibility that all LEOs have to follow them, because they have been entrusted with a tool that is intended to kill. I don't think some FFDOs fully comprehend that concept sometimes.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top