[Infowarrior] - Video: Flight Deck Safety

[Richard Forno]

(c/o questor)

------ Forwarded Message

From: "Steven J. Greenwald"

We've all heard about the recent "accidental discharge" of a pilot's
pistol on a plane. When I heard about it I had extreme difficulty
understanding how it could happen. Now I understand why it happened.
Thank you stupid TSA rules!

I attach a URL for a (3 minute) video that demonstrates the security
requirements for Federal Flight Deck Officers (pilots and co-pilots).
People I trust have vouched for the veracity of the video. (FFDO =
federal flight deck officer).

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eTODo6yxRWI

Judge for yourself, but I think the TSA have effectively made a system
so dangerous that it seems more dangerous to have a gun than not!

The TSA rules as demonstrated clearly add a level of unacceptable danger
and complexity.

We should all recall that before 9/11 no rules at all existed for pilots
and co-pilots carrying guns and many did (one hijacking got foiled due
to this). Post 9/11 the rules for flight deck officers to carry a
firearm have truly gotten onerous and draconian (psychological
evaluations, time off for training at their own expense, etc.).

The way I see it: if a person has control of a multi-million dollar
passenger jet with dozens or hundreds of people aboard, then letting
them have a firearm truly truly enters the realm of a trivial issue. For
example, if they have a psychological problem that would not allow them
to have a gun, then I submit they should not fly an aircraft (a much
more dangerous object, as 9/11 has shown).

We need rules in place that actually makes things safer, not less safe!

Some technical issues for those interested follow (if you have no
interest in firearms or firearms safety please skip).

The holster in the video has the name "paddle holster" due to its paddle
shape. It has a design for "outside the pants" wear. Concealment (if
any) happens via an outergarment like a jacket.

This type of holster also does not work well with women for anatomical
reasons (the curvature of their hips).

The particular sanctioned holster also has a "snap" and therefore also
has the name "snap holster." No serious user of firearms uses snap
holsters. A good holster does not need a snap as friction securely holds
the pistol in place. Also, snaps slow things down in an emergency and
add a level of undesired complexity and other failure modes. Cheap
holsters typically have snaps or Velcro because they lack the quality
for a good friction fit (figure $10 for a cheapo snap holster vs. $100
and up for a quality one).

The firearm required lacks an external safety (also known as a "thumb
safety" or "manual safety"). I personally like thumb safeties as they
add a proprietary aspect to the firearm in case a bad person gets it
(they probably will not know how to work the safety, or at least take
time allowing other options). The particular firearm sanctioned has a
lot of other internal safeties (more properly known as "interlocks" in
the non-firearm world).

I prefer my old fashioned 1911 (.45 caliber "government model" or the
old fashioned 20th century .45) as it has a "grip safety" and cannot
fire without the user depressing the grip safety. The kind of discharge
shown could not happen with the kind of pistol I prefer.

Trigger locks (one of the worst ideas ever) add a level of danger that I
consider totally unacceptable. If a pistol needs to get secured due to
children or other reasons, then I prefer locking then entire pistol in a
lock box or safe. Or unloading it and THEN using a trigger lock
(manufacturers of trigger locks states that they should never get used
on a loaded firearm). The trigger lock the TSA uses seems particularly
primitive: a simple combination padlock no different than the TSA
approved luggage lock I use.

I could easily design a better system for cockpits. For example, I think
it trivial to add a lock box system to a cockpit, and also use a more
modern holster that facilitates removal from the belt more quickly.

The big question: why do pilots have to disarm themselves outside the
cockpit? Presumably to prevent a bad person from taking their firearm.
My opinion: good training prevents that ("retention training"). Also, I
might add, an armed person has, for various reasons, more situational
awareness, so I believe that decreases the likelihood of that problem.
However, in fairness, please note that about half of all cops shot get
shot by their own firearm (to some extent this undermines my opinion).


--Steve