Pilot Whose Gun Went Off Back on Job

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reRRgEET6Kw&feature=rec-HM-r2

What you say is of course true. However, as we all know, the best laid plans all too often fail. And in the case of a 300,000lb guided cruise missile, I am happy there is a final insurance policy.

Gary

I thought the armoured cockpit door was there to prevent any unauthorised access to the cockpit?

Strikes me it is the secure cockpit which has prevented a repetition of September 11th rather than having Steven Seagal in the cockpit with a handgun. Surely the place to stop the terrorists is a long way before they get to the cockpit door, indeed, a long way before they get to the aeroplane.

Regards,

kev35

I thought the armoured cockpit door was there to prevent any unauthorised access to the cockpit?

Strikes me it is the secure cockpit which has prevented a repetition of September 11th rather than having Steven Seagal in the cockpit with a handgun. Surely the place to stop the terrorists is a long way before they get to the cockpit door, indeed, a long way before they get to the aeroplane.

Regards,

kev35

That still doesn’t explain why the gun was loaded, there was a bullet in the chamber AND the safety was off.

Would you want to be face to face with a terrorist needing to put a bullet in the chamber?

I know nothing of the case involved but I am a Expert Witness for firearms safety, usage, effectiveness, and other related subjects.

To answer your questions in order in a very brief manner and no I was not involved in the case in any way I am merely surmising based on what I have read about their procedures and the common sense usage of weapons etc.

The weapon was being placed in a holster for travel. This is not per se “stowing” the weapon which implys putting the weapon in a locked box as in the case when a Corrections Officer stows his weapon prior to entering the sally port to enter into the prison where he or she works.
The holsters’ job is to keep it positioned for easy withdrawal in the event that it is needed. It must not move and must not allow the weapon to move under the normal physical forces acting upon it during the normal flight profiles. The design of the holster though (in my opinion) is severly flawed as this situation should never be allowed to occur. Obviously to be useful in an anti terrorist situation the weapon must have a round chambered for immediate use. Otherwise just hand the weapon over and die quietly.

Many modern pistols have no safety (Glock and Sig for example, though the Sigs do have a hammer drop lever it is not a safety) as for the most part they are not needed with modern pistols that are in good order. Also in the lexicon of discharges this was not a negligent discharge as the person did not have his finger on the trigger. This (if the reports I have read here are true) is a textbook mechanically induced accidental discharge.

Also, the armed pilots on the freight aircraft are there to deal with possible stowaways. Highly unlikely I’ll grant you but the possibility exists.

Gary

There’s another point. If he was stowing it, why was he stowing it loaded?

I can see him putting it away at the end of a flight, it no longer being required. And placing it in a security holster makes sense from that point of view, at that time.

But loaded? Chambered? Safety Off?

I think we need more detailed information as to what was actually happening when this event happened? At what point in the stowage procedure did it go off?

Maybe the holster is a bit of a red herring, in that perhaps he hadn’t reached the point in the procedure when the gun is discharged. The description of the holster being an aside. We can only go by what WD has posted, and I don’t see any corroboration apart from WDs post.

I don’t recall my comment “professionalism” as pointing at anyone in particular. It was more a scattershot, designed to catch whoever felt the most guilty.

Really?

Warning someone of a known fault/problem doesn’t eliminate the fault/problem nor does it wash your hands of any responsibility. I’m sure he was trained on the holster but again no training or warning can’t guarantee 100% success if the gear is faulty.

One word. Professionalism.

In a thread about a specific pilot, in response to a specific quote regarding that same specific pilot your ignorant comment was a generalization and about no one specific? Right. :rolleyes:

I don’t recall my comment “professionalism” as pointing at anyone in particular. It was more a scattershot, designed to catch whoever felt the most guilty.

One word. Professionalism.

How does being caught by a known fault diminish someone’s professionalism? If he had malicious intent perhaps but professionalism is trying to do the right thing every time. I can try not to let a faulty system get the best of me but even being professional isn’t a guarantee of that.

Robant.

It’s amazing I know but I find myself at least partially in agreement with Sandy on this one.

Yes the pilot did fit the padlock incorrectly allowing the weapon to discharge. But if you are calling the pilot’s professionalism into question, how about the professionalism of those who designed the holster with an inherent fault incorporated into the design and approved for use?

Regards,

kev35

Regardless how professional you are, if there is a fault in the equipment you are issued, mishaps will happen.
The linked video shows how simple the flaw in the design is. WD says it has been raised numerous times, but the pen pushing decision makers ignore the issue.
The FFDOs are not allowed (from the info I have been given) to use a different gun or holdster. They must used what is issued to them.

This is not a question of professionalism, at leat not from the Pilot’s side, but rather from those at the top who OKed this stupid holdster design.

I still maintain a locked armoured box in reach of the FFDO would be best. That would be safer, would eliminate the possibility of the gun becoming unseated and therefore creating the discussed issue and would also eliminate the need for the pilot to remove the weapon to be able to go to the toilet, or leave the flightdeck for whatever reason

Warning someone of a known fault/problem doesn’t eliminate the fault/problem nor does it wash your hands of any responsibility. I’m sure he was trained on the holster but again no training or warning can’t guarantee 100% success if the gear is faulty.

One word. Professionalism.

I’m still not convinced. Authorised users would have been trained, and warned of the potential for this to happen.

Warning someone of a known fault/problem doesn’t eliminate the fault/problem nor does it wash your hands of any responsibility. I’m sure he was trained on the holster but again no training or warning can’t guarantee 100% success if the gear is faulty.

Of course they wouldn’t. For that would mean those agreeing to the implementaton of this holster would have to admit that they were of this potential problem. Seems that’s how he has got his job back, being able to prove that there was a potential problem.

Regards,

kev35

I’m still not convinced. Authorised users would have been trained, and warned of the potential for this to happen.

IMV members of the NRA will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. 😉

I certainly wouldn’t take the safety off unless I intended to use the weapon. That is for certain, and under that circumstance, yes the Pilot has a count of negligence to answer to. That is, of course, if the weapon was not faulty.

No, it’s the dumb TSA requirements for the safety lock that are the problem, not the pilot. Other pilots have complained about this as well.

Ryan

Hey, some of us civilians have been carrying weapons safely for years. In fact, it’s possible that someone I know has a concealed carry license and has been safely carrying for years at this point with a loaded and chambered double-action pistol (no safety) in an undisclosed location on his person. Difference between this and the TSA? No stupid “safety” locks. There’s no way a terrorist is going to find that particular weapon unless they do a full body search and it’s plenty accessible if there were to be a need.

Ryan

That video vindicates my entire argument

Therefore the weapon was OUT of the holster otherwise he wouldn’t have been trying to place it BACK in the holster.

Incorrect. Perhaps my explanation wasn’t clear enough but at no time was the weapon drawn from the holster. Here’s the video I referenced earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV-wZt_IcLE

You are familiar with weapons. Would YOU remove the safety catch unless there was an imminent necessity that you discharge the weapon?

Not all weapons have what you may describe as a “safety catch” as there are different ways manufacturers incorporate a safety feature. Springfield Armory for example incorporates trigger and grip safeties. The handgun can’t be fired unless the shooters palm depresses the button/lever at the back of the grip as well as depress the center lever located in the middle of the trigger. If one isn’t completely depressed the weapon won’t discharge.

FFDO’s use the H&K USP Compact handgun which has the LEM trigger (Law Enforcement Modification) which doesn’t incorporate a safety which is to insure the gun fires on the first trigger pull. H&K actually has a deal selling this gun to any US airline pilot for cheap for their own personal use. The safety would be you don’t pull it out unless you’re going to use it. I would assume the gun is carried loaded with a round chambered for the same reason, it fires the first time the trigger is pulled. Remember this is to defend the cockpit and reaction times are short when the battle would take place in a space no bigger than a small car.

Some cargo pilots are FFDO officers too and carry firearms. Just to protect them from those scarey packages.

The problem is that cargo isn’t screened nearly well enough to ensure that it’s only those scary packages and doesn’t include an unannounced passenger. FedEx DC-10 doesn’t have passengers that can fight back.

I’d sooner Galdri be my pilot than John Wayne.

Regards,

kev35

There’s another point. If he was stowing it, why was he stowing it loaded?

I can see him putting it away at the end of a flight, it no longer being required. And placing it in a security holster makes sense from that point of view, at that time.

But loaded? Chambered? Safety Off?

I think we need more detailed information as to what was actually happening when this event happened? At what point in the stowage procedure did it go off?

Maybe the holster is a bit of a red herring, in that perhaps he hadn’t reached the point in the procedure when the gun is discharged. The description of the holster being an aside. We can only go by what WD has posted, and I don’t see any corroboration apart from WDs post.