Remember that pilot who's pistol discharged...

[PatBuckley]

I should have been more general - I meant the industry as a whole.

[767Jockey]

The relationship that Congress has with the program is the core of the problem. They want to be far enough away from it that if something goes wrong they don't get tainted by the fallout, yet close enough that if a tragedy is averted by a successful application of the program they can bathe in the glory. You can't have it both ways, and the program lies in that tentative Congressional never land of existence without enthusiastic backing.

[Cobrabill]

Originally Posted by 767Jockey

Bill,
The holster replaced lockboxes. They were heavy and bulky. Sorry to be so vague - there just isn't a whole lot I am permitted to say. You're all smart guys - you can clearly see what's going on here.

6-7,are you saying that they USED to have lock-boxes,but were not bolted to the aircraft structure?

[767Jockey]

Exactly - The lock boxes were hauled around by the pilots. Convenient, huh?

[767Jockey]

Perhaps this published article will explain a bit more than I am allowed to say:

From the Charlotte Observer:

http://www.charlotte.com/409/story/588670.html

Bureaucrats + guns = BANG!

Officials who don't want pilots to have guns created a safety hazard

The author of this commentary asked to be anonymous to avoid running afoul of the Transportation Security Administration. We thought the topic was of sufficient interest to grant an exemption from our policy requiring authors to be identified. -- Editors, The Observer
As a Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO), firearms instructor, and advocate of the "Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act," I'll describe how politics made it inevitable a pilot would eventually blow a hole in his airplane.
At the risk of broaching what the Transportation Security Administration calls "Sensitive Security Information," understand the TSA's first director, John Magaw, balked at arming pilots, adopting the program only when enacted by Congress.
Forced to administer something they opposed, bureaucrats hamstrung it by requiring pilots to transport firearms in lock boxes weighing 10-plus pounds in idiotic little bags. Just because pilots safeguard the lives of millions, after all, doesn't mean they can be trusted with guns.
Add requirements that applicants not only be unpaid, but also use vacations to trek the hinterlands of New Mexico -- three hours from commercial airports -- for required training (at their own expense), and the resulting program neatly discourages participation.
Instructors and Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) who now control the program understand, unlike politicos, the hurdles overcome by pilots who comprise the largest federal law enforcement arm and routinely thank participants.
So how did the bureaucrats set up the accident?
I was thrilled when, after years of complaints, they replaced the lockbox I'd been lugging -- until I saw what replaced it.
Ignoring FAM recommendations to keep guns on belts, their brainstorming produced a 1950s-vintage thumb-snap holster with a hole through the trigger guard to accommodate a padlock. When leaving cockpits, FFDOs remove holstered guns from belts and insert locks.
That sounds fine if you don't know anything about guns. No other law enforcement agency requires such gun handling, especially in turbulence and darkened, cramped cockpits. And although holsters cover a handgun's trigger to prevent accidental discharge, TSA sages elected to put a hole in that cover.
Even that pales beside the stupidity of placing a metal bar against the trigger of a loaded gun. I once made a video wherein I fired a pistol with a trigger lock engaged. As in my video, along comes the pilot who, unaware his shoulder harness has accidentally unsnapped the thumb-break, removes holster from belt. The gun having slipped slightly out of the holster, he installs the lock, its bar in front of the trigger. Next he shoves it into the bag, and --
BANG!
Beyond this snafu, there's the recurring problem of lost guns. While our masters admonish us not to leave them lying around, it apparently eludes them that the best way to avoid losing something is to keep it attached to your body.
The solution is simple: As with other law enforcement agencies, guns should stay on belts at all times. FFDOs should receive weapons retention training and use snatch-resistant retention holsters.
Doubtless, bureaucrats will take years debating this, if they get the chance: U.S. Rep. Shirley Jackson Lee, D-Texas, chair of the Homeland Security transportation subcommittee, is already foaming at the mouth to terminate the program.
So as pilots defend against terrorists plotting to use aircraft as weapons of mass destruction, politicians and bureaucrats plot to deny you that defense.
For The Record offers commentaries from various sources. The views are the writer's, and not necessarily those of the Observer editorial board.

[AMF]

I don't deny that the above article shows the stupidity of government bureacracy surrounding the issue.

But the whole thing again, goes to show you what happens when you have NOVICES operating firearms.

I carry (concealed) a lot. I never carry with a round in the chamber. The tactical disadvantages are minor and the safety advantages are substantial.

There's a cocept called graduated posture (and graduated response). That's where you might keep a shotgun in your bedroom, but if you keep the bedroom door shut and locked while you sleep, there's really no need to keep the gun ready to go at a moment's notice. The time it takes to pump a round (or chamber with an auto) is so small that given the likelihood that you're going to have the additional split second required to do so....it only makes sense.

The same is true or those who carry concealed for self defense. It takes an extra split second to rack a round (when carrying an auto) and given that you're not carrying on your hip or at the ready, it's going to take you a relatively extended amount of time to draw your firearm.

That's why you see LE use graduated posture.......whether it's approaching a traffic stop or confronting a suspect or whatever. Cops don't walk around with their hands on their weapon at all times....it doesn't make sense. They do it when an altercation is more probable or likely.

I would think that if you carried an auto (as a pilot) that it wouldn't be a huge reduction in readiness to NOT chamber a round. (it's not a large reduction in capacity for most calibers either). This all but eliminates the trigger lock issue presented.

Obviously if you're carrying a revolver, it becomes a different equation. But then again, if your revolver isn't cocked, then it takes not only a large amount of trigger travel, but a large amount of trigger force to fire the gun in double action mode.

Furthermore, if someone forced me to keep my pistol in a holster with a trigger guard, I don't know that I would keep a round in the chamber, regardless of revolver/auto. That's just common sense. (or a good understanding firearms).

That's not to say that I defend or agree with the policies set forth by the government. I think it's dumb and it does increase the probability for accidents. I'm just a larger fan of personal responsibility when it comes to owning and handling ANY weapon (whether it's a knife, or pepper spray, or a taser, or a gun). If the gun goes off, it's the owner's actions that caused it to do so. No excuses.

[meat]

Originally Posted by AMF

I don't deny that the above article shows the stupidity of government bureacracy surrounding the issue.

But the whole thing again, goes to show you what happens when you have NOVICES operating firearms.

No, it really doesn't. All of your posturing and "what I do" nonsense is pretty irrelevant. All the FFDOs receive excellent training.

This is a case of people who don't understand firearms telling others - who have to use, manage and maintain the firearm - how to do their job. It's bad management, and bad holster design.

Your pal,
Meat.

[767Jockey]

Originally Posted by AMF

But the whole thing again, goes to show you what happens when you have NOVICES operating firearms.

You couldn't possible be more off base. First of all the majoriy of officers in this program have plenty of experience with firearms prior to joining the program. Additionaly, even if one were to have zero experience with firearms, the training given is exhaustive and highly specialized. These officers are trained to operate in what may be the smallest and most restrictive and highly specialized jurisdiction in the world. Keep in mind that we're talking about defending a area that is smaller than the closet that you took your pants from this morning. From the time the bad guys enter the cockpit until they have you, it's about 0.7 seconds. That's a real number gained from testing. You think you can draw, chamber, aim and effectively hit in 0.7 seconds? You're kidding, right? Again, for the 10th time, you're very critical and opinionated about a program you obviously know NOTHING about.

Oh, by the way, while all this ruckus is going on, the airplane, weighing 200,000+ pounds going 83% the speed of sound 5 miles in the air with an outside temperature of -50 C, with an oxygen content so low that it will support human consciousness for a period less than 5 seconds, and 150+ folks in the back counting on you to save their lives.........and you want to chamber a round? You're getting beat up, the other pilot is 24" from you and likely getting beat on as well, SOMEONE has to fly the airplane, ATC is yelling in your ear, etc...... We're not exactly at the range here, get it? Obviously, judgment of others is easy from the LazyBoy in front of the 51" plasma or the computer keyboard.

[Cobrabill]

Originally Posted by AMF

1)I carry (concealed) a lot. I never carry with a round in the chamber. The tactical disadvantages are minor and the safety advantages are substantial.

2)There's a cocept called graduated posture (and graduated response). That's where you might keep a shotgun in your bedroom, but if you keep the bedroom door shut and locked while you sleep, there's really no need to keep the gun ready to go at a moment's notice. The time it takes to pump a round (or chamber with an auto) is so small that given the likelihood that you're going to have the additional split second required to do so....it only makes sense.

3)The same is true or those who carry concealed for self defense. It takes an extra split second to rack a round (when carrying an auto) and given that you're not carrying on your hip or at the ready, it's going to take you a relatively extended amount of time to draw your firearm.


4)I would think that if you carried an auto (as a pilot) that it wouldn't be a huge reduction in readiness to NOT chamber a round. (it's not a large reduction in capacity for most calibers either). This all but eliminates the trigger lock issue presented.



Furthermore, if someone forced me to keep my pistol in a holster with a trigger guard, I don't know that I would keep a round in the chamber, regardless of revolver/auto. That's just common sense. (or a good understanding firearms).

1)I've carried concealed for the past 25 + years.Always a Colt .45 or a variant cocked & locked.No issues-no AD's.

2)No, it doesn't make sense.The idea of requiring 2 hands to be ready for "business"instead of one is reckless at best.
3)Again,i carry concealed on my hip always with a round in the tube.My boot gun(.380)again.always one in the tube.
In the event the use of a firearm is necessary,EVERY split second can be the difference between life & death.To say that it's NOT a huge reduction in readiness is simple lunacy.
Furthermore,i hope you meant "trigger lock" Vs trigger guard as 9 out of 10 holsters have trigger guards.

[meat]

Originally Posted by 767Jockey

We're not exactly at the range here, get it? Obviously, judgment of others is easy from the LazyBoy in front of the 51" plasma or the computer keyboard.

Well said, 767, well said.

I'll never understand those guys ... clearly, a 65" DLP HDTV gives you a better view of reality.

Your pal,
Meat.

[AMF]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

1)I've carried concealed for the past 25 + years.Always a Colt .45 or a variant cocked & locked.No issues-no AD's.

2)No, it doesn't make sense.The idea of requiring 2 hands to be ready for "business"instead of one is reckless at best.
3)Again,i carry concealed on my hip always with a round in the tube.My boot gun(.380)again.always one in the tube.
In the event the use of a firearm is necessary,EVERY split second can be the difference between life & death.To say that it's NOT a huge reduction in readiness is simple lunacy.
Furthermore,i hope you meant "trigger lock" Vs trigger guard as 9 out of 10 holsters have trigger guards.

1) If you carry concealed, locked and cocked, you're a better man than me. I can't carry under the shoulder because I don't wear jackets all the time (I live in South Florida). I could carry in the small of my back, (which is most comfortable) but it either requires me to tuck my shirt in over it, or run the risk that it could ride up my back and expose the gun (unbeknown to me). So my only real option is to carry in the front. I'm not carrying locked and loaded with the pistol pointing at my nuts.

Again, if I have to draw the weapon from a concealed carry position and fire, it's not a severe drop in readiness to have to rack a round. Actually, it's a fairly fluid motion. I'm 10 times more likely to experience a self defense encounter while sitting in my vehicle, and even then I don't carry with a round chambered (with it sitting beside me).

In the end, that's a personal choice on my part.

This argument is obviously tiresome. Some people have their opinion, I have mine. I take responsibility for my actions. If my pistol went off, I wouldn't go blaming someone else.

I don't care if the government required you to disrobe and do jumping jacks in the cockpit in your boxers with the pistol locked and loaded, if you fire your weapon, it's your fault. Period. It cannot be any other way.

Again, I think the bureacracy is dumb and needs to be fixed, but fixing the bureacracy isn't going to prevent unfamiliar operators from discharging their weapons....it's only going to take a burden off people already negotiating a bunch of dumb rules.

The problem with blaming the "program" is that it implies if you change the program it will fix the proximate cause (which is operator error, not procedural requirements).

[AMF]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

1)I've carried concealed for the past 25 + years.Always a Colt .45 or a variant cocked & locked.No issues-no AD's.

2)No, it doesn't make sense.The idea of requiring 2 hands to be ready for "business"instead of one is reckless at best.
3)Again,i carry concealed on my hip always with a round in the tube.My boot gun(.380)again.always one in the tube.
In the event the use of a firearm is necessary,EVERY split second can be the difference between life & death.To say that it's NOT a huge reduction in readiness is simple lunacy.
Furthermore,i hope you meant "trigger lock" Vs trigger guard as 9 out of 10 holsters have trigger guards.

I'm speaking from the point of a civilian and civilian type self defense encounters.

In order for you to draw and fire your weapon in a draw down would require you to recognize a threat who's not already drawn on you. If you think you're going to draw your weapon and fire it at someone who's already trained on you (faster than he can aim and fire) you're a fool.

There are virtually no wild west scenarios in self defense. I'm not talking about police work. I'm talking about me in my vehicle about to get car jacked. I'm talking about me in my house with someone attempting to break in. And in this case, I'm talking about someone trying to break into the cabin and takeover an aircraft. If the pilot (who's either facing the front of the aircraft.....or up walking around..who knows) cannot remove his pistol from the holster and rack a round in the time it takes to use it, then it isn't going to matter either way.

Most self defense scenarios do NOT involve some hero drawing his weapon like Speedy Gonazales against an assailant with a gun in his face. If a guy has a gun in my face, the only thing I'm going to do is whatever he tells me unless it involves abducting a love one or something along those lines. He's already got the drop on me. Regardless of whether or not I had a round in the chamber, drawing my weapon at that point would be DUMB.

MOST of the situations I've read about (or even spoken with would-be victims) they had time to pull out there weapon and load a round.

If your life comes down to the speed of a draw/fire, carrying the pistol concealed is a deterrent to that and doesn't make sense.

You say you carry on your hip, but I truly "carry" my pistol just about everywhere I can. I've NEVER had anyone notice that I'm carrying. That and I can carry in virtually any style of clothing. You can't do that carrying on the hip unless you always wear clothing that can conceal it. I don't have that option.

[Jamo]

I suppose you do have the option of simply throwing your unloaded gun at the bad guy because you dropped your ammo.

[Excaliber]

Did you hear about the policeman on campus recently being attacked from behind by a guy with a baseball bat? Some how his primary weapon was not available (knocked out of the way or taken, I'm unclear on that). Anyway he went for his 'ankle gun' and shot the guy dead.

I was like, "Wow, had a backup weapon, he's a tough sucker."

[767Jockey]

Jamo,
Only if you throw like a girl - it's to tight up there to even extend your arm.

[Cobrabill]

AMF-you are correct,it IS a personal choice.However,you saying that it takes "minimal time" to "rack around"in a life or death scenario is patently false.Any time you MUST use two hands to operate a handgun*you are losing valuable time.

As far as a better man goes...nahh,i just know my weapon well enough to dis-assemble and re-assemble it blind folded.

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Did you hear about the policeman on campus recently being attacked from behind by a guy with a baseball bat? Some how his primary weapon was not available (knocked out of the way or taken, I'm unclear on that). Anyway he went for his 'ankle gun' and shot the guy dead.

I was like, "Wow, had a backup weapon, he's a tough sucker."

Yeah, may have heard a little sumthin about it...asspecially since it happened here in Fresno


Of course, the weeping family of the dead worthless little prick is asking why he had to die. The bat was sawed off with electrical tape on the remaining handle...a weapon in its morphed life. Hit the cop, and stood over him ready to hit him again as he kept yelling "go ahead, shoot me!" The cop was quite accomodating.

The clip fell out of the auto as the dazed cop tried to unholster it...no chambered round...and he couldn't get to it to slide it back home, so he used the backup.

Yup...can't imagine anyone thinking they'll be able to load under all circumstances. But folks die for their opinions every day.

[Excaliber]

Well I'll be, I missed that part about it being in Fresno, just caught the tail end of a news report. Thanks for filling in the gaps Jamo.

Makes an interesting 'case study' for our discussion here as well. Clip fall's out, no round in the chamber, in the heat of battle your pretty much screwed at that point. Pilot's not going to have a backup, game over.

[AMF]

Originally Posted by Jamo

I suppose you do have the option of simply throwing your unloaded gun at the bad guy because you dropped your ammo.

No not at all, I'm talking about a gun with the magazine in, but no round in the chamber.

[AMF]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

AMF-you are correct,it IS a personal choice.However,you saying that it takes "minimal time" to "rack around"in a life or death scenario is patently false.Any time you MUST use two hands to operate a handgun*you are losing valuable time.

As far as a better man goes...nahh,i just know my weapon well enough to dis-assemble and re-assemble it blind folded.

I agree. I think that loaded and ready is the best state of readiness.

The part that I disagree on, is that I think it's a minor reduction in tactical readiness for a MAJOR increase in safety to NOT have a round chambered. Particularly in the case of a pilot with a closed cockpit door between him and any potential threat.

I used a graduated posture. If I'm out late at night or driving through a bad part of town or I'm walking to my vehicle (and I have an opportunity to rack a round) then I'll carry ready to go.

Most of the time, if I'm out eating with my family or shopping at Wal Mart or whatever, I carry the gun, with a magazine in, but no round in the chamber.

We could debate the ideosynchracies of personal defense tactics all day long. There are others that would argue that if you get into a physical confrontation, NOT involving a weapon, then having a loaded gun on you almost FORCES you to draw it (unless you like to fist fight and roll on the ground with a loaded firearm pointing at your person). In almost ALL states, that's going to at best get your carry permit revoked, and at worst get you some jail time or probation for brandishing a weapon (you have to have ACTUAL threat to your life to justify drawing your gun on someone....so until the guy puts his hands around your throat.....being in a fist fight doesn't absolutely satisfy that requirement.)

It's a personal preference issue. The overall larger point (and if you're a gun enthusiast or LE professional I'm sure you agree) is that under almost all circumstances (not involving another person) if your weapon goes off, it's your fault. The the government's...not the program...yours.

I know all my guns in and out. I can disassemble and reassemble blindfolded as well. I carry a Glock, which the ONLY operable way to fire the gun is to pull the trigger (which also has a safety on it). You could take the gun and drop it off a 5 story building and it won't fire (I've actually seen footage of a loaded Glock being placed inside a steel container and shaken like hell and it won't go off.) Even still, I can't stomach having a loaded gun pointed at my crotch (at least not for very long). That's why I choose to not rack a round. It's just an extra safety precaution.

I truly agree that if you have to use two hands, it's a reduction in readiness, but I think the likelihood of the scenario is small (even minute) and the safety advantages are HUGE.

I fully support pilots carrying pistols. But I also think that they ought to have more training than a couple of weeks at some course. You wouldn't let a pilot fly a plane if he had only a couple of weeks training.....why would you want him to carry an instrument that's designed to kill people and could potentially cause a catastrophic accident on a civilian aircraft?