US Airways pilot has ND on on board flight

[Dick]

Nope. Because while your speed relative to the plane is zero, your speed relative to the ground is the same as the plane.

Now, on the other hand, if instead of shooting a bullet directly forward from a plane, if you shined a flashlight and someone on the ground measured the speed of the light coming from the flashlight . . .

 

[Mike-Mike]

You do realize that fighter jets can actually shoot them selfs with their own bullets!

 

[ScottS]

You do realize that fighter jets can actually shoot them selfs with their own bullets!

More data, please? Or is this tongue-in-cheek, and I'm too dense to notice?

 

[JonJ]

Updateilot whose gun went off will be fired

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/17/pilot.gun/

Group: Pilot whose gun went off will be fired
(CNN) -- An US Airways pilot who aviation officials say accidentally fired his handgun in the cockpit during a flight will be fired, a spokesman for a flight officers group said.

The airline has begun the termination process for Capt. James Langenhahn, said Mike Karn, vice president of the Federal Flight Deck Officers Association.

Langenhahn told police that he was stowing his gun in the cockpit of a jet preparing to land in Charlotte, North Carolina, last month when it accidentally fired. The federal Transportation Security Administration is investigating the incident.

Calls to Langenhahn's home in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, were not immediately returned.

In an e-mail, US Airways representative Morgan Durrant said the company's policies prevent it from commenting publicly on a personnel matter.

Karn said his group, which represents pilots who are federally trained and allowed to carry firearms on flights, will fight the termination.

"This was accidental not intentional," Karn said. "This is not the way to treat a long-term pilot."

He said he did not know how long Langenhahn, 55, has been a pilot for US Airways but said he is a veteran with the airline.

The bullet from the H&K USP .40-caliber handgun penetrated the left side of the jet's fuselage but did not hit any crucial wiring or instrumentation, the TSA said.

The gun discharge was the first public incident of its kind in the history of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program, which has trained thousands of pilots to carry weapons in an effort to improve aviation safety.

Created in the wake of the September 11 attacks, the program was approved by Congress as part of the Homeland Security Act on November 25, 2002.

 

[Scrivener]

More data, please? Or is this tongue-in-cheek, and I'm too dense to notice?

Fighter lets loose a burst.

Fighter drops nose and reduces altitude.

Fighter is now BELOW the rounds fired.

Fighter holds or starts to climb, passing through the rounds fired.

I remember reading about such an incident years ago. The pilot thought he had a major mechanical failure, such as a shattered compressor. It took some explaining when he returned with a shot-up plane.

I can particularly see it likely if shooting at drones.

 

[UFO]

Uh, newtonian mechanics apply and pilots can't shoot their own planes. (Unless they are US Airways pilots....)

If the plane is going 500 mph or 733 fps when the pilot pulls the trigger...then a 2000 fps round is now going 2733 fps relative to the ground.
Any maneuver other than full throttle will cause the plane to fall further behind the bullets.

If the plane were going 3000 fps (Mach 2.6) and fired a .50 at 3000 fps,
the .50s are still accelerating away from the plane (Mach 4.2 relative to ground) and the plane isnt going to catch them.

(And when a spaceship travelling at the speed of light turns on its headlights, they glow but don't illuminate the 'road') FWIW.

 

[M1911]

UFO: You are forgetting something -- the plane has thrust, the cannon shells do not. Once the cannon shells leave the aircraft, they immediately begin to slow down due to aerodynamic drag. In contrast, the aircraft can maintain speed due to the thrust of the engine.

So yes, it is possible for a jet fighter to fly through its own shell fire. Not easy, but possible.

 

[law dawg]

You been getting those Brady newsletters again???

.. and maybe you could just put stronger doors and windows on your house/apartment and not need anything but a cell phone to dial 911?

Some security measure, like strong doors and locks, are deterrents. Other measures are self-defense fall-backs - like guns. In this case, pilots with guns iare a deterrent too, as nobody knows if there is a FFDO behind the door or an Air Marshal on the plane.

Counting 1 ND in 6+ years is so way better than observed in police, military and civilian firearms carry that it's almost trivial. This event only highlights what happens when fear of guns moderates optimal use of guns, with this stupid holster design.

For the record, the pilots were the ones that wanted the lock mechanism, as they felt it was better than the lockbox they used previously.

 

[MaverickNH]

For the record, the pilots were the ones that wanted the lock mechanism, as they felt it was better than the lockbox they used previously.

That's good to know, thanks - and not all that surprising, come to think of it.

Given a choice of keeping my pistol in a lockbox, carried in another briefcase or bag, or in a paddle holster that would be locked when outside a flight deck, I might choose the greater of two evils, thinking I could access the holster faster if needed.

Why do you think the switch was desired - convenience, access? If a combination lock, one could imagine some thinking to leave all but one number set so a quick click and push might disengage the lock for access. It can't be convenient anyhow, anyway, for pilots to have to jump through the hoops they do to be FFDOs, so convenience wouldn't seem to be the right word.

 

[law dawg]

That's good to know, thanks - and not all that surprising, come to think of it.

Given a choice of keeping my pistol in a lockbox, carried in another briefcase or bag, or in a paddle holster that would be locked when outside a flight deck, I might choose the greater of two evils, thinking I could access the holster faster if needed.

Why do you think the switch was desired - convenience, access? If a combination lock, one could imagine some thinking to leave all but one number set so a quick click and push might disengage the lock for access. It can't be convenient anyhow, anyway, for pilots to have to jump through the hoops they do to be FFDOs, so convenience wouldn't seem to be the right word.

The old lockbox was heavier, I think. I'm not sure their exact reasoning.

At the end of the day it comes down to local laws and ordinances. The FFDO can only legally carry in the flight deck. Outside of that he/she is a regular citizen and subject to the law of the land. They are allowed to possess the pistol to/from work, but secured.

If the gun is fully seated in the holster the lock is safe. If it's out, it can cause the AD as seen. Really, the FFDO never need handle the pistol unless they wish to. Once they land, put the lock in and done. Next time they enter the flight deck, unlock it and put the gun on.

This FFDO never put the pistol on. He left it on the console. Dumb move. Upon approach to landing he noticed it wasn't snapped in the holster well, so he snapped it in. <BANG>

FAMs have to completely download their weapon every time they land on foreign soil and have been doing so since the 80s. This includes clearing the barrel and ejecting the mag. They have to do a lot more handling of the firearm than FFDOs. So far, knock on wood, we've had no ADs.

At the end of the day, it's up to the weapon operator to be safe. That FFDO gets an F.