Transportation Security Administration rules are to blame for the conditions leading up to an accidental discharge of a US Airways pilot’s pistol during landing, say airline pilots familiar with the program.
On March 22, pilot James Langenhahn was stowing his Heckler & Koch USP .40, issued to him by the Department of Homeland Security under the Federal Flight Deck Officer program, while his co-pilot prepared to land the plane. As he was placing the pistol, locked in its holster, into his flight bag, it discharged a single shot which exited the left side of the plane, doing little damage.
Outside the cockpit, no one heard the gunshot, and Flight 1536 from Denver to Charlotte, N.C., landed safely. But Langenhahn has been suspended without pay, according to an airline spokesman.
Some 10,000 pilots participate in the program, which allows for pilots, co-pilots and flight engineers to carry firearms in the cockpit during flights, and according to the TSA this is the first time a gun has been discharged. But some pilots say it was an accident waiting to happen.
At issue is a highly unusual TSA requirement that pilots remove the guns from their belts and lock them up using a government-provided combination padlock before leaving the cockpit, a requirement that pilots say creates unsafe conditions.
“The pilot was trying to lock his gun and remove the holster in an airplane going 300 miles per hour in preparation for landing and the padlock depressed the trigger,” said a federal flight deck officer who declined to be identified. “TSA knew this could happen but didn’t get rid of the requirement.”
“Every other federal law enforcement officer in the air and on the ground carries his gun concealed on his person where he can control it. And he never touches it except in an emergency, because the less it is handled, the better,” said David Mackett, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance. “TSA’s got these pilots taking off and putting on their guns 10 times a day. It’s a recipe for disaster and that’s why no other agency does it.”
Paul Huebl, a former Chicago police officer turned private investigator, created a video which shows how the accident happened and why the TSA’s requirement is unsafe.
The holster has a hole in it through which the padlock is meant to pass. When installed, the padlock should lie behind the trigger. However, if the gun has become loose in the holster, which can happen through normal handling, the lock ends up in front of the trigger, which can cause the gun to discharge.
It’s pretty obvious that nobody who knows anything about firearms had anything to do with setting up these procedures, because they would have instantly rejected them as unsafe. James Langenhahn is to be commended, though, for ensuring the safety of his aircraft even in the face of procedures designed to make it unsafe, by following the normal firearm safety rules, to wit: Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction. This is why the bullet hit nothing important as it exited the aircraft.
Pilots have been unable to criticize this arrangement publicly because the TSA had classified it; however, a group of federal air marshals met with the TSA last year to recommend that pilots carry their pistols in the same way that air marshals do, not to mention everyone else who carries a firearm safely. “We said, ‘Just use the same procedures you use for your own air marshals,’” said one federal flight officer. “How hard is that to understand?” The TSA took no action on the recommendation.
It was not clear whether the pistols issued in the FFDO program had external safeties. On the H&K USP the external safety can be removed by a gunsmith and the pistol can be delivered from the factory without it.
“We have to have the FFDO program since screeners miss so many weapons at checkpoints and air marshals will never protect more than 1% or 2% of flights,” Mackett said, adding that the TSA’s requirement has also resulted in numerous guns being lost or stolen. “But, TSA can’t continuously ignore standard procedures proven over thousands of other law enforcement officers and then blame the pilot when it goes wrong.”
Lawmakers on the House Homeland Security Committee were to be briefed on the incident this week. Perhaps the TSA can explain to Congress why it created such bizarre and unsafe firearm handling rules for airline pilots. Further, let’s hope the TSA finally takes the air marshals’ recommendation and changes these rules before the government’s stupidity gets someone killed.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Loading ...
4 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
April 12, 2008 6:09 pm
April 13, 2008 2:34 pm
April 18, 2008 10:51 am
May 15, 2008 8:59 pm
98 Comments
I do wonder why the pilot needed to put on his gun in the first place. The reality is that the cockpit door should hold long enough to get it out if it is needed. This sounds a little like the cowboy mentality.
If the pilot has a problem in general he should use the gun to insure nobody get in the cockpit, and then land at the nearest landing strip safe for his aircraft and allow the police to deal with it. But I can see the same kind of pilot who seems to think he needs it strapped on his waist deciding to go charging out into the cabin to solve the problem. That could get someone killed, probably the pilot. It also could give the bad guys the upper hand.
Incidentally I saw a picture which claimed to be a hole in the outside of the the plane made by the bullet from the guy’s accidental discharge. One has to wonder how this could happen. I certainly would expect any gun carried in an aircraft for the defense of that aircraft to use the types of rounds which would not penetrate the side. Were they not using this type of ammo????
If carried correctly, in a proper holster, there is no danger to anyone. This idea of constantly taking it out and putting it away is just pure stupidity. I am all for pilots carrying guns on a plane, but why suddenly reinvent the wheel about carying with this ridiculous setup.
As far as ammunition, give me a break. The plane isn’t made of kevlar. An airplane is basically a plastic lined aluminum tube. You want them to shoot paintballs at the bad guys? The bullet has to go through something, right? If the bad guys know the pilots are armed, they’ll be less likely to attempt the hijacking to begin with.
I do wonder why they can’t just carry them in a holster, but as I said that should not be a major impediment to their doing their job. Having to actually be wearing it during the flight still sounds like a cowboy stunt. If the rules allowed him to wear it in a holster then I would have no problem with it. But I sincerely doubt that the rules required him to take it out of his flight bag and strap it on for each flight. They undoubtedly just say that he can’t wear it anywhere but the cockpit. He chose to put it on each flight. I still say that this is a cowboy stunt, and that leaving it in his flight bag would provide the same protection.
As for the kevlar plane concept. The fact is that air marshals and many others in a position where they might have to shoot in a plane, or other location where as they say on the Hunt for Red October “Most things in here do not react well to bullets” use special ammunition. This is ammunition which expends it full energy on contact and comes apart in doing so. This means that it is more dangerous and deadly to people, but less dangerous to the aircraft systems. The type of ammunition we are talking about will in fact not make a hole in the plane. Since the pilot’s shot made a hole in the plane it follows this is not the type of ammunition he is using. I just wonder WHY????
Ray, if you are going to question someones actions and calling the “cowboy move” make sure you do some research first. First of all the guns are required to be put on when the other crew member has to go to the lavatory. Second, yes the rules require you to take the gun out of the flight bag when, as stated before one or more crew members leaves the flight deck. So next time before you go bashing on the guys make sure you do some research first. Thanks and have a good one.
OK I admit I didn’t know that they were reauired to put them on. Frankly that even adds to the dumb level of the regs.
I will admit that I have found that pilots seem to have a bit of cowboy in them. I am sorry in applying this knowledge to this situation. We did have a discussion here regarding these efforts where several people who identified themselves as professional pilots didn’t seem to get it that the most important thing that a pilot can do in a hijacking is get the plane on the ground and disabled. The purpose of the firearm is to allow this to happen. But they seemed to think that it was to allow them to go charging out of the cockpit and stop the hijacking. This certainly would be being a cowboy.
Funny thing is that the pilot never put his gun on but left it sitting on the console for the entire flight. Yeah, that’s safe.
As for the lock – the pilots came up with that system because they didn’t like the old lockbox system they used to have. This was their alternative. They can’t carry guns outside of the cockpit because they dont have the authority to. They are not, contrary to their press releases, law enforcement. They are armed pilots, given a limited jurisdiction (the cockpit) to operate in. Outside of that jurisdiction they have zero authority and therefore cannot carry a gun. They would be breaking state law if they did.
These guys need to get past themselves and focus on the mission.
the TSA needs to stop treating pilots as terrorist, plane and simple. Countless backgrounds, thousands of hours logged, training in the particular jet they are in, and yet for some reason, they think they cant be trusted.
Now the TSA are a bunch of self absorbed power hungry children. But this may in part not be their fault. Their rules would apply within the controlled areas of the airport. But the states actually control the rules outside of this area. As has been pointed out here, a lot of states and especially the District of Columbia have really idiotic and counter productive gun control laws. Outside of the area officially controlled by the TSA these laws would apply.
Now actual federal law enforcement officers by federal law can carry about anywhere. BUt this would not by federal law apply to pilots. I also am not sure that we want to make them official law enforcement. So frankly the TSA could allow them to carry outside of the cockpit. But the TSA rules could not permit the pilots to say go into town for a bite to eat “strapped.”
The real problem here is the gun control laws. Frankly we have more and more proof every year that they don’t work, and are in fact counter productive to crime prevention.
Ray, you do not know what you are talking about. The 9/11 hijackers burst through the cockpit door and overwhelmed the pilots in seconds. Certainly not enough time to remove a gun from a bag, aim, and fire, particularly against multiple assailants. That would render the gun completely useless. They are there to defend the cockpit against intrusion, not to charge out of the cockpit. That’s what Air Marshals are for.
anon, you are wrong also, it was not sitting on a console. Jeez.
If you guys really don’t know what you are talking about, just admit it, instead of ranting about something you know nothing about.
R:
I do happen to know what I am talking about you are the one who appears not to know what you are talking about.
#1 You may have noticed that 9/11 was a while ago. We have made many many changes since then. Some like the establishment of the TSA appear to be contra productive. But one positive change is that new secure cockpit doors have been installed. These doors certainly are strong enough to prevent all but the most enthusiastic and prolonged attempt to breach them.
#2 During the discussion on this forum a while ago when the idea of pilots having guns was first proposed several individuals who identified themselves as professional long haul passenger pilots participated. For the record I don’t know if these people were indeed such people, but they said that they were, and I have no particular reason to doubt it. They also expressed the opinion that part of the reason for arming pilots was that as the captain of an airliner they were in charge of and fully responsible for all things that happened on their plane. On this role these individuals indicated that they thought that it would be their duty if they were armed and a hijacking occurred to leave the cockpit and protect their passengers.
I am sorry but their responsibility would be to get that plane on the ground as soon as possible.
I have wondered if the gun in the cockpit solution would not be to have a mount in the cockpit for it, and have that mount set so that the plane’s transponder automatically changes to “emergency hijacking in progress” if the gun is removed in flight. Then once this occurred the plane would be diverted (by force in necessary) to the nearest airport. I can see some problems here, but that would seem to be a good start.
R-
It was on the console. Sorry, but it’s true. The media doesn’t always report what actually happened.
It certainly wasn’t on his hip, where it should have been. Nor should he have been attempting to secure it while in flight. He has neither the experience nor training to do so. One week FFDO class doesn’t cut it.
Either way we have a FFDO who was walking around with a gun that was not secure (snapped in). He screwed up, and it’s inane to blame it on the rig. It was operator error, plain and simple.
Ray-
Any pilot who charges out of the flight deck to “defend the cabin” is an idiot and needs to re-think their occupation.
I have felt for several years that pilots should be allowed to carry there duty weapons in a holster just like other law enforcement officials do. Every time you handle a weapon is another time that you may accidentally discharge your gun. If a pilot would put his weapon on his belt in the morning and not take it off until he made it home in the evening the risk of accidentally discharging it would be greatly reduced. It would also attract more pilots to join the very succesfull FFDO program, ( Fedral Flight Deck Officer ) because it wouldn’t be such and danger and a hassle to carry the firearm.
Anon:
Hey it does seem better training would be needed. I had a job where I worked indirectly for the government and was required to carry a gun. Even though I grew up around guns and was pretty comfortable with them, I still had to go to training and twice annual recertification with not only every weapon I was to use, but also had to be certified to be familure with every other weapon which was in the facility. I learned a quite a bit in this process. My training on this took a whole lot more than a day, heck just to recertify was an over 8 hour day. (Thank God the only time I ever had my gun out of its holster was drills and certifications)
As for your comment to me. No real argument. Certainly any pilot who thinks that he should do this should not be given a gun ;-) That was in part my point.
Josh-
FFDOs do carry their guns in a holster. They should never take them out of the holster, except to fire them or for training. If they do that then they’ll not make a mistake with the lock. They should only be taking the lock on and off. FAMs have to fully download their pistol and mags when they go international, including manipulating the weapon. FFDOs don’t even need to do this. They only need to thread the lock through the hole. If the gun is in the holster correctly there will be no problem.
And FFDOs are NOT “other law enforcement officers.” If they want to be a LEO they need to quit their jobs and go join a LEO academy.
Ok people first I am one for having TRAINED armed pilots. By that I mean several weeks worth of training then they could realize how much power weapons have, and I hate to bust a bubble but using ball ammo on a plane is stupidity. It penetrates and goes thru so you could have two or three passengers injured in the process.
And ball ammo is less effective in stopping someone it hits. It is also a little less deadly, but a lot less instantly effective. And after all that is the point. If you are legitimately shooting someone in the cabin or coming into the cockpit of an airplane, the reason should be that they are an immediate threat and that you want to instantly stop them. YOu shoot someone, effectively kill him/her, but they are still functional for 60 seconds or so, they can do a lot of damage and be a real problem.
Pilots in the FFDO program receive the same firearms training as federal air marshals.
Mr Hampton
FFDOs do not receive the same firearms training as FAMs. They have a one week school, of which only one day is devoted to firearms. FAMs have a 13 week school. FFDOs qualify from the 7 yard line max (FAMs from the 25) and requalify every 5 years. FAMs qual every three months.
Its not even close to the same firearms training, much less tactics and simms training.
I stand corrected. The confusing language on the TSA web site had led me to believe otherwise.
The TSA and confusion, who would have thought it. ;-)
It sounds a lot like my training. My job basically was to be ready to get into a safe position with good cover, and point the gun at the door. Then I was to shoot anyone coming through it who didn’t first fully identify themselves with the proper procedure, and wait for relief. Basically to qualify I had to be able to shoot and “instantly kill” a paper guy from various distances with the two side arms we might have. I also had to demonstrate the ability to fire and hit the paper with every other weapon which was assigned in the facility. (Those would be the ones actually used by the real security guys)
I just saw an section on TV on the holster that the pilots use. I do really have to wonder which idiot thought this one up ???? I don’t know about the TSA, but I can tell you that the US Marshals (who may or may not talk to the TSA ;-) ) have a much better solution. We worked in conjunction with people who could not be really trusted but where we had to be ready to defend them and ourselves, so the holsters we were assigned had a standard strap across the top that held the gun reliably in place. Unless you knew the unlock code you would have to get a saw out and cut the strap to get the gun out. No pad locks or the like. It also took maybe 10 seconds to unlock the strap if you did know the code. This was about 2 decades ago. Why the heck aren’t the pilots using something like this?
Also why is there not some system where if the gun is removed from the holster while in flight the FAA is automatically notified and the aircraft directed to the nearest airport. No “we goof up here please disregard”. The gun is out of the holster you have to land and have the situation verified. But I assume this is to simple for the TSA to understand.
Once again the government exposes its stupidity. Regan was right, “Big government is not the solution, it is the problem!
I think there have been many good points to this discussion. I don’t care if pilots carry guns. This particular incident was user error. Pilots should carry it in a holster and place it in lock box after parked at the gate. There is no need for them to carry a gun outside of the cockpit. They have no authority to do so, and don’t have all the training. Pilots wanting to carry a gun like the Feds or local police officers are want-to-be’s (24/7). The TSA went so far to issue credentials with a badge to reassure the FFDOs that they are not law enforcement. Their authority is in the cockpit and not an inch further. They are pilots first and foremost, and security officers as their secondary job.
Be sure to worry about security at home too. Thier are a group of terrorists nationwide that are doing things to try to bring people into foreclosure so, they can get a cheaper house ect.. Some of the things they do is try to run up big bills for you such as turning on your water and leaving it on while you are not home, breaking things at your home and allowing thier children ect.. to do horrid things. Security measures should be taken!!! This is an important issue that is also related to airline security because, it some of the same terrorists.
This pilot should have been flying the plane, not messing with his gun. The rules apprently require him to lock the gun before leaving the cockpit. To me, that implies to lock it up after you’re parked on the ground, not while you’re in the process of landing the plane. He wasn’t giving proper attention to flying the plane OR handling the weapon. I don’t see how you can blame the government for this guy’s irresponsibility.
Why, that’s easy, Rick. The reason is that apparently can’t pay attention yourself. Otherwise you would have clearly noted the fact that the co-pilot was landing the plane.
And it’s clear you know very little about firearms, because you would know that this holster arrangement is inherently unsafe and no amount of “giving proper attention” would have prevented this.
Michael:
I have to disagree with you regarding your statements about this incident. I will agree that the holster arrangement is just plain dumb. But I can’t see the gun going off unless the pilot was fiddling with it in some manner. According to all reports he was indeed fiddling with it.
So the question is if he should have been fiddling with it. Now your point that the co-pilot was piloting the plane is fully accurate, but misses the point entirely. If the plane was in level flight this would certainly be on point. But the plane was being landed. FAA regulations require that unless there is an overriding reason both pilots be involved in monitoring the landing. They are supposed to be involved in no activities not related to the landing, and certainly securing a handgun for purposes of leaving the cockpit after landing and taxing is totally complete.
So the pilot should not have been fiddling with the gun.
Let’s get a few things straight :
1. FFDOs are sworn federal officers.
2. FFDOs jurisdiction is limited to the cockpit.
3. FFDOs go through initial training at FLETC in Artisa NM for 7 long intense days. Their training concentrates on shooting, defensive tactics, and standard operating procedures all specific to defending the cockpit from a violent highjacking. FFDOs do not need a 16 week police academy because they are not Law Enforment Officers and do not need to make arrests, traffic stops, deal with the public, etc.
4. FFDOs requalify every 6 months
5. FFDOs go to a 2 day recurrent coarse at the FAM Training Center in Atlantic City after 3-5 years of service.
6. FFDOs are not required to pay for their training, but must pay for all travel expenses, meals, hotels, etc.
7. The FFDO Program is a volunteer program with no compenastion.
8. FFDOs carry their duty weapons covertly in a small locking box or in the now famous locking holster. A pad lock goes through the holster and trigger guard (behind the trigger) of the loaded gun. FFDOs remove their holstered guns and locks from their bags and place them on their belts after the cockpit doors are closed. The guns can be rappidly drawn and fired from this position.
9. The reinforced cockpit doors is opened many times during flight for food, drinks, and bathroom breaks. Pilots cannot be entombed in cockpits for the entire flights.
10. FFDOs do not take their guns to the cabin when leaving the cockpit in flight.
11. FFDOs must remove their guns from their sides and placed a lock through the trigger guard of the holstered loaded gun many times a day. The more you handle a weapon like this the greater chance of an accident to happen.
12. Many FFDOs have concealed pistol carry permits from their home states and already carry their personal guns. What many FFDOs want is to simply put their duty weapon on once at the begining of their day and then put it away when they are finished. The intent is not to become LEOs, but to get rid of the locking holster.
13. More formal training from the TSA/FAMs would be benifical, but that would cost more government dollars, fighting with congress for it, and more donated time from the FFDOs. Until then, FFDOs will have to continue to train and practice on their own at their own cost.
Someone who knows,
Thanks for clearing things up. I recently visited the FFDO Assocition website and they are claiming to soon be the largest law enforcement agency in the nation. Are you f**king kidding me. What a joke. FFDOs are deputized US Marshals and do not have arrest authority and cannot execute search warrants or any of the good stuff that law enforcement does.
I know that TSA was never big on the program, but ALPA complained, so TSA went along. They have been waiting for the first AD to happen. They knew it was going to happen. TSA went so far to not to give badges to FFDOs, because they knew or thought that it would be abused. I could care less if a pilot wants to carry a gun in the plane. The problem is that he should have not been messing the gun until the plane parked at the gate. It is purely human error. I gurantee that this not going the last AD by a pilot. The egos are big. They want to be recognized as Federal law enforcement. Just see it for what it is, you are an armed pilot and only an armed pilot. Not real law enforcement. You have no authority outside of the cockpit. Thats a pretty small area. I think that more than anything, that must eat them up.
If you have a firearm and while you are handling it, it discharges, either the firearm is defective or you failed to handle the weapon properly. No excuses, no blah blah about training, holsters no nothing. We are talking firearms safety and handling. It is that simple.
That’s the whole point, Reviresco: The TSA requires pilots to handle the firearms improperly.
I think you missed two points.
First the more that you do handle a gun the more likely you are to make a mistake. It is still a mistake that you made, but it is partially caused by the handling of the gun. So any procedure which requires more handling of the gun also increases the likely hood it would go off. If that additional handling is unneeded then the procedure is defective.
Part of the argument here is that the holster is defectively designed. If it is defectively designed so that it is possible to use proper or darned near proper procedure and have the gun go off then that is a defect.
Also if a procedure is really complex then it can in and of itself be defective. On one job I was on there was such a procedure for a safety related thing. It involved turning on a large collection of valves. First it had to be done blind because you could not actually both see and reach the valves at the same time. (This part sounds like the holster procedure as you would be doing this without looking or only looking in a limited manner.) You then had to turn on every other one 1/4 of the way. Of course this was actually a different amount of turning, as some turned twice others only 3/4 of a turn. Then you had to turn on the remaining valves half on with one exception. Then that valve had to be turned on all the way. Then the first valves hand to be opened 3/4 of the way, and then the remaining values all the way, and then the remaining for that all the way.
Want to bet how many times the “idiots on the line couldn’t follow a simple half page script”. Want to bet how many of these “idiots” were fired for being “idiots”. Want to count the number of people hurt by this :-( Want to be that the guy who designed this procedure is still working there.
This seems to be the situation with the holster.
The TSA doesn’t allow FFDO’s to talk about the program. With the excption of “someone who knows”, pretty much everybody else on this thread is commenting and giving opinions on something they know nothing about.
Since TSA or FFDO’s aren’t likely to tell you how or why the gun went off, or talk about training or weapons, why would you speculate about something you know nothing about?
Just a question.
The program is going to be a bigger laughing stock than it already is. FFDOs are pushing for 24/7 carry authority. That will never happen. Their authority is limited to the cockpit. That is the equivilent to having law enforcement authority in your car and only in your car. What a f**king joke. There will be another incident. Not all, but a lot of the FFDOs are WANT-TO-BE cops.
I would think that we need more Americans with 24/7 carry authority. It is time that we realized that overall run’s don’t kill people gun control kills people because it insures the crooks that law abiding people will not have guns.
Ray,
You are right. No one is saying that gun control is the key. I am just saying that FFDOs should not compare themselves with others that actually are law enforcement officers and perform law enforcement duties, i.e., make arrest, execute search warrants, testify in court and give Grand Jury testimony. Take it for what it is (armed guards of the cockpit). They want more and more (give them an inch and they want the whole mile). It would be stupid of me to have 40 hours of flight training and call myself a commercial pilot, because I completed a course. That would be an insult to all commercial pilots. FFDOs comparing themselves to other federal agents is an insult to those federal agents. They can’t even claim that they are on the same playing field as the FAMS. FAMS are much more highly trained than any FFDO. The next time that I fly, if I run across an FFDO not on official duty and carrying a weapon (its happened before with other agents), be assure that I will contact TSA and the airport police. Apparently, other LEOs have had FFDOs not on official duty carrying a weapon in the cabin of the aircraft as a passenger traveling with their family. Any Fed would be obligated to turn the FFDO in to TSA and airport police. Don’t put LEOs in that position. If they don’t turn the FFDO in, they could get into trouble for not saying anything.
cool
Hey anyone can testify in court. ;-) Both when connected with the police and even more when not connected to the police I have proven that. I think I could walk through the doors when called and up to the stand in my sleep.
Your thing about FFDOs carrying guns in the cabin when not “no duty” is also kind of a red herring. Hopefully if you catch a cop or fed doing the same thing you will point it out to the authorities. I have some social contact with a couple FFDOs and a considerable number of cops and a couple feds. Frankly I would expect the law enforcement types as being the ones who would do this. I also would trust many of these men and women especially the guys if their wife/not yet wife/”wife” of the week was with them a whole lot less than the armed pilots I know of with their families. This is extra especially true of the many local cops who do the wife of the week thing. They are are just looking for a reason to pull out their badge and gun and prove their manhood.
I personally know a pilot who is also a FFDO and I look forward to having a chat with him about this issue when he gets back from God knows where he’s flying today.
Ray, Feds can carry weapons when not on duty, even when flying on vacation. Its called statutory authority. Something that FFDOs do not have. They are deputized to carry a weapon in support of their official duties in the cockpit. Nothing else. They have no investigative authority, arrest authority, and don’t testify in court as an investigator. Sure anybody can testify in court. As far as local cops pulling out their badge and gun to prove their manhood, I don’t know anyone like that. Why did FFDOs push to have a badge issued with their credentials? Why do they want to carry a weapon 24/7? Sounds like your theory “They are are just looking for a reason to pull out their badge and gun and prove their manhood.”
#1 I would certainly worry about the FBI agents I have had dealings with having the right to carry on a plane. They were definitely full of themselves, and had no sense of humor. They were most upset when anyone even seemed to disrespect their absolute authority. Have you seem the recent feds on CSI Miami. They are extremely well adjusted and very deferential to those who actually are in authority as compared to the fools I have had to deal with.
#2 But they pale in comparison to many of the officers I have had to deal with. I was recently first on scene of the dumping of a stolen car. I called this in and as required by regs waited for the officer to arrive. I pulled my car off to a near by driveway and waited. The officer arriving cussed me out for being out of my car. I identified myself. I was cussed out for requesting the officer’s badge number for my report I was required to file when turning over a crime scene I was first on scene for. I was cussed out for being parked in the drive way because that was where the officer wanted to park. Which is pretty much the behavior one who regularly deals with this losers expects from a local city cop.
It is even worse when you are the incident commander for an incident and require security or perimeter control. Worse yet if what you need is a doorman for the EOC where it is not a police EOC. You ask them to do this, and you would think that you had asked them to strip naked and squat and shit in the middle of the street. The dirty look you get when you inform one of these officers when they are informed that their job is to be the assistant to a civilian whose expertise is needed on site, and that this means just helping carry gear for a few minutes until I can get someone else in to take over would melt steel.
Yes I do carry a badge, just not a police badge. Incidentally I also don’t get paid for this.
I can and have testified as what you would refer to as an investigator. Many non police for various functions regularly do. Both the fact that you don’t understand this and that you put such store in it, would indicate to me that you might very well be a city cop looking for a place to whip out your badge and gun just like we are talking about.
I also find that my personal “off duty” contacts with police and feds which I mentioned above shows many of the same attitudes. I will say that incidentally my much fewer contacts with the secret service guys seems to show guys who have much more respect for those they are dealing with. While I have found that informing FBI dudes that I can’t give them access to legally restricted information without the proper paperwork gets a response that generally starts with their attempting to intimidate their way around the law, the secret service guys seem to go for asking for specific details of what is restricted and who is authorized to give access.
I would think that some form of 24/7 carry permit would be logical for these pilots. I also see nothing wrong with a badge which, like mine, is very specific that I am not a cop. Certainly the would need identification that says that have this 24/7 carry authorization if such were granted would be logical.
I still question why one would not use a more logically physically secured holster. Which is to a large extent where this started.
Ray, you are correct on many issues. Back to the original point, the discharge was purely pilot error. Can’t blame the holster for that. I have been in Federal law enforcement for 20 years. My personal opinion (which means nothing) is that FFDOs should not be given the authority to carry 24/7 unless they carry it as a private citizen with a permit. I am pretty sure that airlines don’t want their pilots carrying off duty and have an incident occur. The airline may not be responsible, but it would reflect badly on them. I have been flying armed for years and I have heard comments from pilots (prior to FFDO program), like why do you need to be armed, is there going to be a drug deal happening on this flight. For the most part, pilots are pretty good guys. I have a friend who has been a pilot for United for 20 years and he does not like the FFDO program. His thinking is that flying the plane is most important. He had and still has the opportunity to become an FFDO, but declined. Prior to becoming a pilot, he was a fighter pilot (USAF). He is one of the few pilots that I have met with little or no ego program. Like I said before, I don’t care if they are carrying in the cockpit on official duty, but lets not get carried away with 24/7 bullshit. I don’t even carry off duty, unless I am taking a long road trip.
Have you seen the above video? It does appear that the holster has a design bug which makes a mistake much more likely, enough more likely as to almost call it inevitable. As I pointed out while even a checkout with a gun is not needed for my current position, it was in past positions. Which in that case I actually got paid. I certainly know better than to fiddle at all with the trigger itself, even with an “unloaded” weapon. But yet this holster is designed to make that mandatory. That would seem to me to be a serious design defect. I don’t even use a trigger lock on my personal weapons for this very reason. Instead I use the lock that locks the entire weapon out of use.
As I pointed out also is that the US Marshal’s service has a holster that “locks”, but not in a manner requiring great care and attention to unlock it. You also never have to fiddle with the trigger until it is time to actually fire the weapon. (Or at least they did a couple of decades ago, and so I can claim that the “have” it even if it is not currently in use.) It also makes the kind of error shown on the video impossible. One would assume that if the federal government had any intention of making this program a reality they would have used this type of holster.
I am not that in love with the 24/7 carry, other than giving them the right as maybe some kind of a super private citizen. I also happen to be in favor of citizens carrying so I might not be the best judge of this one. But I do see the holster thing especially when the feds in fact do have a different design without the apparently obvious defect that the current one has.
I do wonder a lot about why many of these officers carry off duty. One of the feds I know of generally carries a gun in his car that would make Dirty Harry look like a wimp. I definitely have to wonder about his mentality. Now the locals are permitted to be armed off duty, and required to have a dispatch radio. If you were to check them off duty guess which one they remember ;-) Even if they have the radio guess what their first reaction is if they see something maybe going down :-(
People tease me a bit about always having a full set of gear in my car, but regulations require that I can be field dispatched to an incident. I am also required to identify myself and my affiliation at the site of all major incidents and to render aid as requested. Very few of my associates actually follow this rule. :-( It always feels stupid to be on scene and identify myself and then basically say “yes I have all the knowledge needed to assist you, but I don’t have the equipment so you will need to find me … ”
So if the reason you are carrying is that your required to assist with incidents and want to be prepared that is good. If you are looking for an incident to “assist” in that is bad regardless of you are a pilot, law enforcement, or anyone else you should be carrying a nice soft pillow.
Frankly if I was in a position to be called upon to use a weapon in some form of law enforcement, I would not at all be eager to find a confrontation to engage in. I would be very happy to never point my gun at someone. But I don’t see this in the law enforcement community. About four years ago I was involved in an incident where my specialty was required to setup for a SWAT style bust. Then it was required as soon as the site was secured as far as bad guy no longer able to take action; I would return to secure the evidence from self destructing and in doing so possibly “self destructing” everyone around it. A city officer was assigned to take me away from the site to safe distance. He was then assigned on signal to return with me, and to carry my excess equipment with me into the site and around the site while I secured the operational systems that were interrupted. He was quite positive that I was a Fxxxing Jack Axx for causing him to miss all the “fun”. This is what I am talking about. I was quite happy to be elsewhere while the possible shooting was in progress, not only because that way it was highly unlikely I would be shot at, but that also because I would not have to chance taking a human life. He just seemed to be positive that being on the entry team would be the most of fun. To me the most “fun” is things like finding a four year old who had last been seen 24 hours ago and having him hug you so hard that it hurts until his parents are brought to the scene, and then getting the same hugs from them. I mentioned this to this officer and he couldn’t grasp that this would be really rewarding.
Incidentally my sister does this same general kind of thing in another state without a badge and the same affiliation system, and has had similar experiences. She had an officer tell her that the next time she was going to need a chauffeur to let he know so that he could call in sick, because this baby sitting makes him sick. So I can’t really buy that the pilots are any more eager or untrustworthy that the law enforcement guys.
Since FFDOs are “law enforcement,” are they allowed to strike against the airlines (for more pay or other benefits)? Real law enforcement officer/agents are not allowed to strike. If they strike against the airlines, aren’t they striking against the Government? By not working as an FFDO, they would create a “security risk to national security” (in their opionion). So if they strike, they should be stripped of their FFDO status!!!
Habriel:
Interesting concept, but one that is pushing a point well past the breaking point.
I saw the reality TV show last week, called DEA. It was action packed and entertaining to watch the DEA bust down doors, arrest criminals, conduct investigations and so on. I recommend it to anyone who likes law enforcement shows. Do you think that they would create a reality show called FFDO? This will allow the public watch an FFDO walk through the airport with his gun in a locked box or pouch, board the plane, strap on their gun in the cockpit, fly the plane or monitor the auto pilot, land, lock their gun up, and deplane like everyone else. That would be very exciting. Boy, those gun toting FFDOs are real impressive.
Come on now. This shows the problem with allowing the police to carry fire arms ;-) All to many have this attitude that they are there to do something exciting. A real law enforcement professional should strive to live a life that would be about as exciting as a FFDO. :-)
Ray,
Yah right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! “A real law enforcement professional should strive to live a life that would be about as exciting as a FFDO.” Are you kidding me?
I may be over stating my point a little, but frankly this thirst for power and the thrill of the possibility of shooting someone I hear from all to many in law enforcement is very troubling.
We are talking about airline pilots, so lets use them as a bit of an example, and a comparison. I would suspect that a great many people out there can learn very quickly to do all of the things that an airline pilot does on almost if not all of the flights he/she takes in his/her lifetime. I have had pilots regularly give me the controls and allow me to fly for extended periods of time under their supervision. I have even took off and landed a couple of times this way. But I am smart enough not to call myself a pilot. That is because this is not what we train, certify and license pilots for. We train, certify and license pilots at all levels for what might happen and to be ready for these. In my case if the engine had failed, or another plane came to close, or the controls or instruments did something strange you and I know exactly who would have been flying the plane. The real pilot. Real pilots are happy with this situation. They are happy if they don’t have to do anything really extraordinary.
Lets look at two different cops Andy Griffin and Barney Fife. Both wore a badge. Both dealt with the routine. Andy Usually without his gun, Barney with his empty gun and his one bullet in his pocket. Both dealt with the nonroutine. But the thing was that Barney’s enthusiasm for trying to turn the routine and nonroutine into the nonroutine meant that he was bad at both. The fact that Andy would have been happy with every day being routine, and only being “officer friendly” meant that he was much better at both the times when officer friendly was needed and even more effective when officer friendly was definitely not needed. Now I realize that there is a lot of differences between reality of now and the fantasy of Mayberry. But the principle I am trying to explain still stands. All to many law enforcement personnel I know are of the Barney Fife mind set and not the Andy mind set. I have seen Barney’s escalate minor issues into major disasters, and I have seen a few Andy’s take probable major incidents and turn them into minor issues.
Like pilots, law enforcement personnel should be ready to deal with an emergency. But they also should be quite happy if they don’t have to. They also should be a lot more happy about a hug from a lost kid than the chance to blow some bad guy away. This is going to sound really weird and strange, but I was so moved by that occasion that I saved the shirt I was wearing, and yes I have laundered it since then, but I only like wear it on special occasions. I also have seaved the newspaper clipping and had it treated to keep it from aging even though my name is not even in the clipping. That is fine I know I was there. I would like to see police officers who would be that moved by doing that portion of their duty that they might do something like that. That is what Andy might do. Barney would have been upset and might have arrested the parents for assault on a police officer.
That is what I mean by law enforcement personnel striving for a life that is about as exciting as a pilot. Is this a problem for you?
FFDOs being compared to Barney Fife. That sums it up. That is a very good comparision.
Actually I was comparing your average law enforcement guy to Barney Fife.
FFDO = Barney Fife
That’s what it read to me, FFDO + gun = Barney Fife.
Anonymous:
I would suspect that you are either in the law enforcement community, and probably in the federal side, or have very little contact with people in law enforcement.
While we hope they are actually more competent than Barney, I find that the attitude of people in law enforcement are exactly like Barney’s. I also find that while to some extent their execution of the actions they take to be a bit more competent than Barney’s, I find that their attitude results in about as functional results as Barney would produce.
Example: A friend will soon be testifying against the local city cops. My friend drives a tow truck and was in the process of towing an “illegally parked car” under police instructions. The owner showed up and the concept of if the no parking sign had been up at the time he parked came up and the driver offered to show the cop a picture of him and his girl friend taken that day at the sight of the car which happened to show the pole that contained the sign empty. (It turns out they were indeed installing the signs that day and in fact the cop knew it) The cop grabbed the camera shoved both the driver and my friend, and tossed the camera under the car and used the tow truck’s lift to bounce the car up and down on it and breeak it. “Now what do you have to show me.”
The time I found the child, there were two incidents in progress the missing child and a recent armed robbery. I responded as equipment mutual aid. After I setup the equipment I was supposed to I normally would have gotten out of the way and let people do their job. But about half of three different departments had officers have unexplained and unduplicatable radio failures when dispatched to assist with the search, and so decided the best thing for them to do was to head for the area of the robbery and look for the suspect. So incident asked me to grab a radio and help look.
I on incidents where I have been the incident command I find that officers dispatched “fastest route” frequently will get lost for long periods of time if some other more interesting incident is also occurring almost always going through taht area even if it is in the other direction. I also know that officers in my operations area will report their position as being in the other area.
As I said Barney Fife.
Had Barney found a lost child and that child gave him a big bear hug and the parents did the same thing, he probably would have arrested them for assault on a police officer.
The fact that you are having such trouble seeing this, and are so emphatic about it would lead me to believe that you are in law enforcement, and would undoubtedly if dispatched to assist with a search for a missing child had a radio failure like the other Barney Fifes of our area.
Mike and Anonymous:
I am sure that there are some Barney Fife’s in the FFDO program, but as far as attitude I find that they are pretty much the entire law enforcement community. I would think that percentage wise there would be a lot more Andys in the FFDO than in the police, and he probably would be completely unheard of in the Federal law enforcement system.
It is like when I have to ride lights and siren with the fire department, who are the ones who also have provided my “driving training”, or with the police. When approaching a stop sign or red stop light my training is that you slow and basically stop insure that the road is clear, and then proceed. You use the red lights and the siren as an “excuse me light” asking people to get out of your way. This is also my experience as how fire departments drive. The police on the other hand barrel right on through without looking and just assume that everyone is paying attention to the lights and siren. I can tell you that many times people are not. So far no accidents, but several close calls. Now when you are doing a fire multi-vehicle response in some cases one unit will slow and proceed into the intersection and then the other will barrel through with the first then starting up and the second stopping in the second intersection to allow the first to now continue through without stopping etc. I don’t know how the police are trained, but this coming to each intersection and only proceeding if it is clear doesn’t seem to enter into their practice. I bet it never entered into Barney’s practice either. It sure would have Andy’s.
I thought of the name of the reality show, FFDO Armed and Dangerous.
Actually interestingly enough my experience with volunteer law enforcement is that they generally come in two forms. There are about 10-20% Barneys and some really Barney like Barneys. But generally they don’t last long, and they about 80 really probably better and more professional officers than the paid officers.
When I have any of the local Sheriff’s posses supporting operations you can count on no press getting in the way. Give a paid officer the order to keep the press clear (if they show up), and they are likely to decide they have the authority to override this order as long as the press will show them on TV as the expert, or quote them in the article as the expert, and show them around the site. I had one officer after being assigned to security and to tell the press that they had to go somewhere else and that a press office would be setup in an your try to order my personnel off the site in order to assist the local TV station in setting up their truck. I can assume you that nobody from the Sheriff’s Posse Barney or not would do that.
I know my dealings with the police are in a specific area of their duties, but in that area the “professionals” are truly lacking in professionalism. I have had limited dealings with them in some other areas, and they all just seem so gungho and very full of it much like Barney.
Being that the FFDOs are actually volunteers, and volunteers whose professional skills and temperament is such that they avoid trouble I would expect them to be less dangerous than the officers and federal personnel we have on the street. So I would have to wonder about your show.
How’s about calling the show, FFDO Armed and Fabulous?
Here’s a good one. An FFDO on duty says: Freeze, FFDO, come in the cockpit so I can arrest you!
Stop!!!!!!!!!!!! Don’t mess with the FFDOs.
They command respect. They can’t arrest you and they can’t even shoot you unless you are on plane and trying to get into the cockpit. But they do have badges for show.
Their badges might get them out of a traffic ticket. But officer I’m an FFDO. Officer says: what the hell is an FFDO?
Officer says: That’s right you guys have that reality show, FFDO Armed and Fabulous.
Someone on another website wrote:
“This is the rub. Many FFDO’s feel they should be allowed to carry their issued pistol as any other Federal Officer. On the flight deck, in the cabin, in the airport, at the mall. Now mind you they have exactly 40 hours of specific training for defending the flight deck. No other legal, arrest, or weapon retention training as it applies to anywhere outside the flight deck. And what they learn about their specific flight deck duties is far less than what a regular LEO gets.
There are a great number of FFDO’s that “get it”, and only signed up for the program to do just what it is supposed to do-be a last ditch defense of the flight deck. To do this under Federal auspices they had to be “deputized” as FFDO’s.
There are just as many who feel that they should have full legal powers and be able to carry 24/7. All on 40 hours of specific training. They got the credential, they got the gun, they have a badge now, lets get full time carry next is the idea.
I am a proponent of 2 amendment rights. I encourage these FFDO’s to get CCW permits in their states if allowed. But I don’t feel the taxpayer should have to shoulder any burden for an FFDO’s off duty, or at work time that does not involve being an active member of the flight deck crew.”
Anonymous:
First one of the things we need is nation wide CCW permits. I know that is not popular, but it sure would worry the bad guys. It worry them a lot more than the cops do.
If the LEOs are so well trained why are they such idiots when it comes to doing their jobs? They generally seem to have such attitudes. Frankly many of the cops and feds I have had dealings with are like the last people I would want carrying a gun. As I said most of them seem to remind me of Barney Fife in attitude, and not a whole lot better (but well some better) in ability.
It is the same problem we see when we give cops tasers. We see them using them time and time again in the wrong manner. And we have them killing people because they were nothing more than disrespectful. One of the officers I mentioned who decided that he had to go through the more interesting area on the way to support operations I was in charge of used “his” taser. In seems that we was sent to arrest a guy on back child support. The guy informed him that he was not coming out until he had called his lawyer. He broke in and tasered the guy then announced that he should be tasering the lawyer too, and “then we will see some respect for the cops”. He was “cleared”. I think he should have been fired several time over. Most of the cops I know would do the same thing.
Several other of the cops decided that a guy they ordered to get on the ground yelling back that he couldn’t without help because he had artificial legs got the crap beat out of him after he was tackled. These guys were cleared too.
So then you tell me how well the cops are trained, and how they are better suited to the job. If they are so well trained how come they can’t/won’t do their job?
Here we go again Ray. You have your opinion and thats fine. There is nothing that you can say to me to change my opinion. I know for a fact that there are mulitiple investigations around the country against FFDOs for abuse of their new badges, and various other administrative and criminal investigations. My opinion is exactly that, mine!! Give it a rest. You are going to cause #57, 58, 59, and 60 to start up again.
If they abused their badges and actually abused them, then they should be investigated. But how but where are the investigation of LEOs abusing their badges.
I know the is far afield, but how about jailing officers caught lying in court to convict someone. In high school I worked in a law office. Now because this office dealt primarily with appealing convictions based on police misconduct, so I had kind of a biased sample. But I can tell you of many many times a simple investigation proved that officers were lying. In other cases it was incontrovertible that they had falsified evidence. Yeah the guy got out, but what about putting the officers in jail. I never saw this happen. They stayed on the job, and were promoted in some cases on the basis of their performance in cases where they had proven to have lied. Now I admit this is about four decades ago, but I also don’t see this today.
I still say the FFDO reality show should be called, FFDO Armed and Fabulous.
Ray,
Did you get your ass kicked by cops? You really hate them.
Nope, but I have watched it happen. Example: watched an incident between a friend of mine who is a full blooded apache and two cops. They bumped into him called him a wet back and informed him he should watch where he is going. Now I will admit that he showed a lack of wisdom in his response. He informed them that he was a full blooded apache, and that his ancestors were here before theirs, and that made them wet backs. They then proceeded to throw him through a window, and then grab him and throw him against a wall, and put him in the hospital. He ended up charged with resisting arrest. I informed the police, but nothing was done other than for them to inform me that I should pick my friends better and should be supporting law and order.
More important for what I am talking about here; I have almost lost lives on my team because of their attitudes. That I care even more deeply about because if it happens one of those lives could be me. One glaring example, one of the cops I had assigned to perimeter control decided that he needed to be interviewed on site as an “expert” but the local TV news. Instead of following orders and keeping all unauthorized people out of the site, he escorted the local tv crew into the middle of things. Then because they needed power, he unplugged our equipment from the generator while I had people in working so they could run their stuff. Only a cop would have the ego and the lack of self control to do that. Of course only the press would let him. Now this is a glaring example, but having them leave their posts for more interesting things, or just not show up that is pretty common. Certainly having them show the press around when they have been assigned to keep them out, that is also a common problem. Having them just come in themselves and get in the way, well that is pretty much an every incident issue.
We need to be able to trust the people you are working with. I have worked with bums brought out to the site by the salvation army who were in many ways more trust worthy than a lot of the cops we have ended up on site assigned to us. Generally I have to assign one or two people to keep an eye on the cops and see to it that they are doing their jobs. I could really use those people for other tasks.
Then I see everyone writing about how great and reliable they are. We do need law enforcement personnel who meet the descriptions here. The problem is that almost none of them do.
And the FFDO is the answer. Most of them couldn’t brake themselves out of a paper bag.
Darren:
Interesting concept. Now for what I need from the police when I am running an incident I don’t need them to have a lot of fancy training; which I will fully admit makes a difference. But in my case certainly FFDOs being assigned to respond to an incident I am IC for would certainly work better than responding LEOs, or at least paid LEOs. I bet if for some reason I was assigned a bunch of FFDOs to assist with perimeter security that there would end up with no press / girlfriends / potential girlfriends or even any unexpected brass wondering into the scene and getting in the way or “injured”. Heck you can bet no FFDO would unplug a plug from the generator so the press could power their equipment. (Yeah I am quite a bit mad over that one.) One of my sister’s incidents included a cop on security duty taking his girl friend for a tour so he could show off and bringing her into a contaminated area. She had to be stripped and scrubbed and then sent to the hospital. She never wanted to see the cop again and he blames my sister. Now we get the sheriff’s posse on scene and things also work well. I even had a posse member check with the EOC before letting the sheriff on scene. This is what I expect from a professional law enforcement officer. (In this case it helped because, while having the sheriff on scene was a good idea; we could give him instructions for proper safe entry and routing to insure that he arrived at the area we were basing our operations from safely.)
Generally the paid LEOs park in the way, and grump when asked to move their cars out to like the location they will be working instead of right next to the EOC. The Sheriff’s posse guys and gals (they have a bunch of gals which can be very helpful at times) generally park up the road and car pool into the actual site and then park out of the way, but ready to leave immediately if asked. I frequently need our security people to run an errand like meeting out of town responders and lead them to the site Getting paid LEOs to do something they consider so menial after already being insulted by being assigned to an incident which is below their station in life so close to impossible.
I find it interesting that the paid LEOs generally park nose in and have to back out and turn around to leave which by that time the site can become crowded making this difficult. Our volunteers like the posse people back into their parking locations, They can leave and/or move at an instant’s notice. Again this parking thing is something that I would expect of a professional in law enforcement and only see in the volunteers.
So to answer your question, people like I would expect to find as the general population of the FFDO program would indeed be an answer. Now this is but one part of being a professional in law enforcement, but it is a place where paid LEOs seem to universally fall miles short of the mark.
I trust cops (Feds, States, or locals) more than any wannabe cop commercial airline pilot. Those guys (FFDOs) are a joke. Unfortunately, the good FFDOs are linked to the wannabe cops FFDOs. The good FFDOs see the big picture, they are the last line of defense on the plane/cockpit. They know that they don’t need carry a weapon out of the cockpit to feel good.
Freeze!!!!!!!!!!!!! FFDO
Shawn:
Sounds like you don’t have a lot of contact with cops. Or at least very little where they have to act professionally as compared to gungho.
FFDO + Gun = Wannabe Cop
Some who says “FDO + Gun = Wannabe Cop”
=
The last person we would want anywhere near law enforcement.
=
In a best case senarios Barney Fife in both attitude and ability.
Ray,
Why don’t you and FFDOs hang out in the cockpit where they have authority.
George:
I hope you and Shawn are not cops or feds, but you probably are. You both certainly sound a lot like Barney Fife.
Frankly I would like to have had most of the paid LEOs who respond to our incidents arrested and jailed for dereliction of duty. I think a charge along the lines of the nonexistant charge of attempted man slaughter would have been appropriate for the officer who pulled the plug out of the generator.
The only problem with jailing paid LEOs when they commit gross dereliction of duty is that within a year or some we would have most of the police in jail.
In most jurisdictions, there’s a charge called reckless endangerment or something similar, which is a misdemeanor carrying up to 1 year in prison. Something to consider for the next time some idiot unplugs your generator.
The problem is that in the end the LEOs are the ones who decide what breaking the law is. I have complained in the past, but only got harassment from the local LEOs in return. The blue wall thing is very very true.
The guy whose girl friend had to be scrubbed down while on an incident for my sister, also had to be scrubbed down. He got a bunch of paid time off for his medical recovery. He should have been at a bare minimum fired. He also should have had to cover his and her medical bills out of his pocket.
Who gives a shit if they carry guns? As long as they realize what their mission is. The problem is that many of them don’t get the big picture. They think that they should be breaking down doors and arresting people. Their job is to protect the cockpit, no more, on less.
I think there are two issues going here.
#1 it is quite obvious if you pay attention to the information that the holster is a defective design. Also the procedures are defective.
#2 They want the right to CARRY everywhere reasonable. This is in large part so they can more conveniently carry to and from the plane. They seem to want a badge that makes this happen.
Now we have all the the wonderful, but that will make them look like cops people on here. First just having a badge doesn’t make you look like a cop. I have a badge, it is a nice well decorate piece of metal. Someone called it tin, but I would bet on it being aluminum. I have good reason to be pretty proud of it. It took me a long time to get the training that goes with it. But nobody paying any attention would mistake it for a cop’s badge. One would assume that this is the general kind of badge which might be issued to a FFDO.
It also would be nice if even 1% of the paid LEOs out there live up to even a quarter of the faith that many of the people here are placing in them. But then again one would suspect that most of those posts came from the various cops themselves.
Blame the holster. The f**king guy was an idiot. Mistakes happen, but don’t blame the holster. Finger off the trigger. This won’t the last time this happens, no matter what type holster they carry. Playing around with gun in the cockpit.
Sam:
#1 The TSA rules require that the gun be played with in the cockpit. That is part of the point here. The TSA rules require and mandate that the FFDOs do the types of things that you are taught your first day at a firing range not to do.
#2 That I have seen nothing says that they pilot had is finger on the trigger. In fact the original news reports had it gun going off without his had being actually on it. So I don’t see where your claim of finger on the trigger comes from. But if you have better information that indeed his finger was on the trigger, that doesn’t change the underlying point here with regards to the holster.
a. Check out the video. There is a serious problem with the holster itself effectively pulling the trigger.
b. There is a better solution. Years upon years ago I used a federally issued holster designed to lock the gun in the holster until it was needed. Since years ago (several decades) the federal government had such a system, why in the world are they requiring the use of such a defective solution????
Ray:
What I am saying is that carrying a gun is so new to them that the tendancy is to handle it more than you should. I understand that. The thing is, even if they could pick and choose their own holster, this type of incident would still occur. They only have a maximum of 40 hours of training and it is not all shooting and handling the weapon. This program was meant to be the last line of defense against hijackers. It was never intended for them to carry their weapon anywhere except in the cockpit. I have been a LEO with a Federal agency for the past 20 years and I don’t even carry a weapon unless I am on duty. As soon as I get in the office in the morning, I take my weapon off and don’t put it back on unless I have to go somewhere or go home. Believe me, carrying a weapon everywhere is a logistical nightmare, because you have to secure it all times. I can gurantee if they allow pilots to carry anywhere and everywhere, there will be a lot of lost and stolen weapons incidents. Mark my words, this negligent discharge will not be the last for the FFDOs. Let’s just hope that there aren’t innocent victims the next time.
Sam:
Have you seen the above video, and would you agree that this shows a holster that is defectively designed?
Several decades ago the US government had a holster developed which would do what this one is supposed to do. I know I was issued one. It did the job better than this one could ever do. Now it was not as obvious what it was locked. But unless you are trying to make fun of the FFDOs, which may be the entire point of this type of holster, it certainly would do the job. This holster even when operating as designed would take probably a minute to several minutes to unlock. My holster took seconds. I know, before being certified for my service in the field, I had to demonstrate going from a locked holster to six shots fired three on target hitting each of three targets at least once in five seconds. (Admittedly for this part of the certification “on target” meant someone in the outline of the upper half of a person ;-)) If we are really worried about what is claimed by you fed types say we are worried about, why in the world are we not using this type of holster?
According to the information here the required procedures involve handling the weapon a whole lot. As you have just explained you yourself consider handling the weapon a little as possible to be important. Given the level of training that you have just explained, would you not think that placing a major extra emphasis on providing FFDOs with a set of procedures which require as little handling as possible would be important?
I think that they should be provided paddle holsters that is easily removed from their belt. When they need to leave the cockpit to use the bathroom, they can remove the holster (gun secured in the holster) and place it in a lockbox. Nevertheless, they should be transporting their weapons in locked containers to and from the plane. Their jurisdiction is in the cockpit. From what I gather, they want to be able to carry from their home to the plane and vice versa. A lot of pilots are based in one city/State and live in another, causing them to hop flights just to get to work. Are we saying that they should be carrying weapons in the main cabin of the plane? They don’t have the authority to do carry outside of the cockpit. The paddle holster and lockbox is the perfect solution. Remove the whole holster, gun in tack, from their belt and place it in the lockbox. Problem solved.
There is more to this than just holster complaint. The big picture is that FFDOs want to recognized as Federal Law Enforcement, which they are on a very limited basis, and I mean miniscule. The truth is that they will never be viewed as true Feds by the majority of Feds out there, because the nature of their job. They work in the private sector, they are constantly striking, threatening to strike, or complaining to their union for higher pay, benefits, staying at nicer hotels, and they have no search, seizure and arrest authority. All Special Agents with the Federal Government have this authority, because they actually conduct criminal investigations, which leads to subpoenas, Grand Jury testimony, writing affidavits, and preparing indictments, testifying at trial as the investigator, and a lot more things. What’s next they want to conduct criminal investigations. It’s just like me getting a pilot’s license with one to three weeks of training and calling myself a commercial airline pilot. That is insulting to every airline pilot out there and you know that. Its insulting for the FFDO to compare themselves with the true professionals that actually do the job, not just carry a gun. Their mission requires them to carry a gun in the cockpit, and only the cockpit. There is no shame in that. That is what the FFDO program was established for. To use deadly force if someone is trying to take over the airplane. It’s an ok program (FFDO), but they need to see it for what it is. DON’T GET CARRIED AWAY WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Accept it and move on.
Sam:
Your comments about “true professionals” sure would carry a lot more weight if the Federal and Local LEOs would actually act professional. We don’t see the feds very often, but when they do they operate and behave the same way as the local cops I mentioned above except their parking habits are even worse.
As I pointed out before here. Anyone can testify in court, and if you were the assigned investigator you are the assigned investigator. Now what you would be assigned to investigate would likely be EXTREMELY DIFFERENT. But it is your assignment that makes you the investigator. One of the local problem in one of communities is that all crimes which possibly include a police officer are investigated by a team of civilians and unpaid posse members under the direction of the Sheriff. The local officers are really up in arms about this one. Try having a posse member and a couple of civilians serve a warrant on a cop and you have trouble.
As far as serving process most of that is under the authority of the lawyers and judges especially judges. Other people can be assigned these duties in many cases.
Ray:
I give up! You win. Why even have police at all? According to you, they are all bad. Anyone can do what the feds do. You Win…
As I stated earlier “The paddle holster and lockbox is the perfect solution. Remove the whole holster, gun in tack, from their belt and place it in the lockbox. Problem solved.”
As for everything else, YOU WIN. You are beyond reason. Have a nice life.
Sam:
We certainly need a level of police which provides the level of professionalism you talk about. But the reality is that we are not getting it. This is a fairly recent, really post 9/11, phenomenon. Year ago I could indeed depend upon the cops. They did their whole job, not just the part that required waving a gun around and looking macho.
I didn’t say that anyone could do this, I said that anyone can in fact be legally assigned to do it. A fact that if you were both a real fed and an actual real professional you should know. It is time that our Law enforcement personnel started really actually doing their jobs. Certainly if they want to claim that they are special they should act like it. Andy was special and deserving a a great deal of respect. Our local cops back home were also like this and deserved the respect. Barney Fife did not deserve the same respect, and didn’t get it. Neither should the cops who act the way the majority do today.
The parking thing is in fact a good sign as to where the problem is. It used to be that cops were called into the office for a “discussion” for parking their cruisers anywhere the way they park them on our incident sites. Certainly parking nose out used to be an absolute requirement. Maybe you can comment on why people who are being paid by us the tax payer can’t understand this, but the unpaid volunteers can.
Ray,
Like I said, YOU WIN. No need to justify anything. YOU WIN. I disagree with you, and will never agree with you. YOU WIN. I could give shit parking cruisers. YOU WIN. You turned a discussion about holsters into your personal vendetta against cops. No need to respond to this, because remember, YOU WIN. You are right and everyone else is wrong. Remember, YOU WIN.
What happens if an FFDO goes “postal”?? How is it that a pilot w/ anger management issues and domestic battery charges could pass the psychological eval in order to be licensed for the program in the first place?
The same way that most police officers pass the psychological evaluation. The evaluation is designed not to exclude this sort of person.
Michael has the point. What is the difference between a cop with a gun and a FFDO with a gun “going postal”. From what I have seen of cops and feds when their authority is in any way questioned or they actually have to follow the orders of someone who is not a cop the chances of a given cop going “postal” would be greater than a given FFDO and the chances of a fed going postal is even greater than that of your average cop.
Stupid cops. Don’t trust the man, man.
Ray, your a f**king idiot.
And you’re a government bureaucrat, “Anonymous.”
Interesting I am an idiot for watching people’s behavior and expecting them not to change behavior. I certainly have watched cops go “prepostal” and came close enough to be worried. I had one fed who informed me that he was going to shoot me and I suspect that he might have done so if I had not had several posse members back me. I call that postpostal. Certainly is no worse than the worst of what you can expect from a FFDO.
Now it is an idiot to assume that this type of behavior will continue?
If somebody ever threatens to shoot me, he’d better hope he’s pulling the trigger before the words are out of his mouth and he’d better be a good shot, because otherwise I’m going to take his gun away and pistol whip him within an inch of his life. Maybe shoot him through the knee, too.
You can’t put up with crap like that.
Stories like that get me frothing at the mouth, Ray. I don’t know why I’m not in jail. I take a lot of crap from people when it’s stuff that doesn’t matter but when somebody wants to rough you up or threatens your life, that’s a whole different ball game. I’m just lucky the situation has never been there for me. I’ll avoid situations that don’t look good but I’ve never run away from one that started happening around me. Things just always seem to settle down before they get too out of hand.
I did one time tell one of my daughter’s boyfriends that the only thing standing between himself and a hole in the ground was a thumbs down from my daughter. That was a few years ago and I haven’t met up with him since. There was no doubt in my mind that I meant it. I even owned an excavator at the time.
What a crazy world.
I hear most of you talking about aspects that aren’t even pertinent here. First, TSA’s policy of locking a loaded weapon is unsafe. If a weapon is to be stored, it should first be cleared. Second, the design of the holster which “locks” the weapon which shouldn’t be loaded to begin with can cause an accidental discharge. This is not due to a lack of training. Finally, frangible rounds do make more sense in a situation as controlled as an aircraft filled with innocent bystanders. All of you rambling about all this other garbage are clearly in the very same untrained and unknowledgeable group that you place the blame on.
Post a Comment