Pilot whose gun discharged on plane is rehired

meyers9163

Well-Known Member
So for all those whom on here knew EVERYTHING about guns and this holster, and casted this man under the bus when this happen, now can sit back and admit to being wrong. Its a great read and great news for a man whom had an accident with a faulty holster design... Great news indeed after a wrongful termination and monday quarterbacking by many out there whom casted him under the bus! Nicely done USAPA (Sorry Todd, but its a win at the end of the day for a pilot and thus the congrats to USAPA as well)....

http://blog.taragana.com/n/us-airwa...d-in-the-cockpit-last-year-is-rehired-191974/

Pilot whose gun discharged on plane is rehired

DALLAS — A pilot who was fired after his gun discharged in the cockpit is back at work after an arbitrator ordered him reinstated.


US Airways said Friday that Jim Langenhahn resumed training on Monday after an 18-month disciplinary suspension.

The airline said as part of the federal arbitrator’s decision to reinstate Langenhahn, he will be barred from carrying a gun in the cockpit. After the 2001 terror attacks in which hijackers armed with knives seized four jetliners, pilots lobbied for the right to carry guns in the cockpit.

A 2002 federal law allowed pilots to carry handguns on board if they took part in a program run by the Transportation Security Administration, which includes a week of weapons training.

Langenhahn’s gun fired shortly before landing on a March 2008 flight from Denver to Charlotte, N.C. Langenhahn, a former Air Force pilot, said he was putting his .40-caliber pistol away when it discharged.

The bullet ripped through the cockpit wall and fuselage. None of the passengers or crew members were hurt.

After US Airways fired him, Langenhahn took the case to arbitration, backed by his union, the US Airways Pilots Association.

Through the union, Langenhahn declined to comment. In a letter to the union president, he thanked the union members and attorney who lobbied for his reinstatement and helped him financially. He called it a “long and painful ordeal.”

“We are happy to have him back,” said union spokesman James Ray. “The company overreacted. Capt. Langenhahn has had a distinguished and untarnished record in his time at US Airways.”

Langenhahn’s case was strengthened when the Department of Homeland Security faulted the design of holsters used by pilots who carry their weapons on board planes. The department’s inspector general said the design increased the chance of accidental discharge when pilots inserted their guns in the holsters.

The inspector general recommended that the TSA halt use of the locking holster and consider other methods for armed pilots to stow their weapons. The holsters have been in use since 2006.

TSA spokesman Nelson Minerly defended the holster design, saying they have been used “millions of times by thousands of (pilots) without incident.”

“The system has been very reliable,” he said.

Langenhahn began pilot training Monday at US Airlines’ flight training center in Charlotte, the carrier said in a brief statement. The reinstatement does not include back pay.
 
Or you could just write "threw" as in "threw him under the bus"..... that makes more sense to me.... but enough critique of your writing.... thanks for the good story and good job getting his job back!
 
If Langenhan wasn't at fault for this incident, and it was indeed a holster design issue, then why this part? If he's not at fault, there should be no restriction:

The airline said as part of the federal arbitrator’s decision to reinstate Langenhahn, he will be barred from carrying a gun in the cockpit.
 
If Langenhan wasn't at fault for this incident, and it was indeed a holster design issue, then why this part? If he's not at fault, there should be no restriction:

From what I've heard about the FFDO's, it's incredibly easy to get blacklisted. I heard of a guy who was banned for life because he stopped at a friends house on his way home from work, left the weapon locked up in his vehicle, and had his car burglarized.
 
From what I've heard about the FFDO's, it's incredibly easy to get blacklisted. I heard of a guy who was banned for life because he stopped at a friends house on his way home from work, left the weapon locked up in his vehicle, and had his car burglarized.

Yeah, there are pretty tough can and can'ts, as well as do's and don'ts in the FFDO program. A number of restrictions. Still though, this situation would seem to be a circumstance that was beyond his reasonable control, and seems to have been backed-up as such. If that is indeed the case, then he shouldn't be barred from anything; unless for some reason, the explanation is some form of whitewash and his no-carry prohibition is some sort of compromise to allow re-hire.

I really don't know what the case is. That's just weird to me......it should be one way or the other.
 
Or you could just write "threw" as in "threw him under the bus"..... that makes more sense to me.... but enough critique of your writing.... thanks for the good story and good job getting his job back!

Eh... wishing I were on a lake and could go fishing about right now perhaps? :) Although it was sort of funny to see dictionary.com had, "throw" as the first definition of cast... Oh well.... Where's the lake, a boat and 80 degree weather??? Good ole bass fishing sounds good about right now...
 
If Langenhan wasn't at fault for this incident, and it was indeed a holster design issue, then why this part? If he's not at fault, there should be no restriction:

Perhaps to make it look like a win win situation.... A win for the pilot for getting his job back. And a win for the company for preventing him from carrying again, and thus a punishment of sort perhaps??? Eh probably not, but only thing I can think of. Then again unlike Todd and many with experience in a union and arbitration, I have no clue how these things actually work and thus its a EWAG (Educated Wild A Guess).
 
Yeah, there are pretty tough can and can'ts, as well as do's and don'ts in the FFDO program. A number of restrictions. Still though, this situation would seem to be an circumstance that was beyond his reasonable control, and seems to have been backed-up as such. If that is indeed the case, then he shouldn't be barred from anything; unless for some reason, the explanation is some form of whitewash and his no-carry prohibition is some sort of compromise to allow re-hire.

I really don't know what the case is. That's just weird to me......it should be one way or the other.

Perhaps, Mike, it stems from this part of the "situation":

Langenhahn’s gun fired shortly before landing on a March 2008 flight from Denver to Charlotte, N.C. Langenhahn, a former Air Force pilot, said he was putting his .40-caliber pistol away when it discharged.

Since I'm not an FFDO and I've got no clue about their rules, what I'm writing is basically, well, from my POV.... but: all the times that FFDOs have been on board, there has been no need to un-holster and re-holster the weapon during flight, especially if there isn't a need to exit the cockpit (which I'm pretty sure is a no-no during FFDO ops).
 
Having had Jim as a JS'er on a flight a while back, I am happy to hear this. He is a true gentleman and his son, who I worked with, is a sweetheart as well.
 
Perhaps, Mike, it stems from this part of the "situation":



Since I'm not an FFDO and I've got no clue about their rules, what I'm writing is basically, well, from my POV.... but: all the times that FFDOs have been on board, there has been no need to un-holster and re-holster the weapon during flight, especially if there isn't a need to exit the cockpit (which I'm pretty sure is a no-no during FFDO ops).

"Securing" rather than "putting away" would be a better verb to use.
 
Without delving into the specifics of the FFDO program, etc, I still find it amazing hard to believe if the weapon was handled properly that it could 'accidentally discharge', even with a less than cooperative holster.

I've fired the weapon type in case.

With today's semi-automatic pistols, you've got to be mentally handicapped to have an AD once you've been properly trained.

Good for him for getting his job back, but I'm glad they're not letting him carry anymore.

He was careless, and could have killed someone.
 
Have you fired a regular H&K USP Compact (its public knowledge what kind of pistol is used, not SSI) or have you fired the LEM version which has a significently lighter trigger pull and no external safeties?
 
Have you fired a regular H&K USP Compact (its public knowledge what kind of pistol is used, not SSI) or have you fired the LEM version which has a significently lighter trigger pull and no external safeties?

The LEM Has a lighter trigger pull? I figured it would be heavier, seeing as it's double action only? Then again, I've never fired a USP at all.
 
Perhaps to make it look like a win win situation.... A win for the pilot for getting his job back. And a win for the company for preventing him from carrying again, and thus a punishment of sort perhaps??? Eh probably not, but only thing I can think of. Then again unlike Todd and many with experience in a union and arbitration, I have no clue how these things actually work and thus its a EWAG (Educated Wild A Guess).

Perhaps; that's as good a guess as any. I could see that being a possible case. Just seems weird if he's as innocent as they make it, that he would be restricted in any way post-rehire.

cencal83406 said:
Since I'm not an FFDO and I've got no clue about their rules, what I'm writing is basically, well, from my POV.... but: all the times that FFDOs have been on board, there has been no need to un-holster and re-holster the weapon during flight, especially if there isn't a need to exit the cockpit (which I'm pretty sure is a no-no during FFDO ops).

Yes, the verbiage is unclear......re-holstering vs just securing; though I can't imaging why it would've been out of the holster for any reason; but if it wasn't out of the holster, the chances of it discharging is nil....depending on what the exact holster issue was.

SpiraMirabillis said:
Have you fired a regular H&K USP Compact (its public knowledge what kind of pistol is used, not SSI) or have you fired the LEM version which has a significently lighter trigger pull and no external safeties?

The USP compact is one of our backup weapons available, with the P2000 being the primay issue. Ours have a fairly long trigger pull, and with no external safety. The long pull should prevent this, though there are no guarntees with anything.

meyers9163 said:
Again the critics.... You were not there, nor were many of us. If he was THAT careless and it was proven I HIGHLY doubt he would have his job back......

I personally am not trying to Monday Morning QB, am just trying to understand the seeming exoneration of the pilot, but with the restriction. Makes me think there's either more info, or something "behind the scenes".
 
OK guys, here's a HYPOTHETICAL case. ..................DELETED........... HYPOTHETICAL!!


BTW i agree with Firebird about 4 posts ago.


edit; too much detail even for a hypothetical case
 
I personally am not trying to Monday Morning QB, am just trying to understand the seeming exoneration of the pilot, but with the restriction. Makes me think there's either more info, or something "behind the scenes".

And there very well might be. However I would HIGHLY doubt this man had the intent of that gun to go off and discharge. And thus without being there and not knowing more facts, and the media unable to get all the facts we are left with if he were truely being unprofessional and putting the crew at risk, would he have been given his job back via an arbitrator (whom we can only assume has all of the facts of the case)?
 
Back
Top