US Airways pilot has ND on on board flight

ScottS said:
George Kennedy, Airport.
Click to expand...

[rofl][rofl2][rofl2] I was thinking the same thing. 20,000 feet isn't much of a problem. 30,000 is another matter, but you have a little time to get your mask on. At 40,000 and above, its critical to get your mask on immediately (you only have about 7 seconds). We train for this at every recurrent training session (called the High-Dive).
 
Last edited:
One more thing...
In our aircraft, pressure is regulated by an outflow valve. Picture a “regulated volume leak” and you get the picture on how it works. Between door seals, windows, pressure grommets and many other air leaks in the cabin, a 40 caliber hole, or even twenty for that matter wouldn’t be a problem for the pressurization system. The available volume of air from the bleed-air system is massive.
 
reks said:
Those who are so anal retentive that they can't loosen up and have a little fun with things would better spend their time converting coal suppositories into diamonds.
Click to expand...

As you're the engineer, I'll leave that to your skill set.
 
BillO said:
One more thing...
In our aircraft, pressure is regulated by an outflow valve. Picture a “regulated volume leak” and you get the picture on how it works. Between door seals, windows, pressure grommets and many other air leaks in the cabin, a 40 caliber hole, or even twenty for that matter wouldn’t be a problem for the pressurization system. The available volume of air from the bleed-air system is massive.
Click to expand...

+1..... One bullet hole or a dozen isn't going to do too much... now, on the other hand, if a window goes out, or a door gets ripped off, or something like that, that'd be a different story.

Of course then you have the weirdball problems- like what the hell happened to Payne Stewart's learjet? I don't know if they ever reached a conclusion on that one... almost seems like some kind of alarm failed, or something
drastic happened for the crew/passengers to not realize the system had gone south.

-Mike
 
Check out the video . . .

.
master_lock_padlocks.jpg
.
This gentleman in the YouTube video (below) shows what he believes most likely transpired with the gun, holster and lock episode in the ND by a pilot. ​
.
.
.
 
You really have to watch that video. Scary.

What braindead, numbnuts, REMF came up with this abortion of a holster? That's an accident waiting to happen.
 
yeah that is real scary.
im not even sure im 100% cool with a gun being on a plane, its to close of a fight and theres to many people to hit by accident if the pilot misses, or god forbid the attacker gets the weapon into his possesion.

what ever happened to the airlines just making the cockpit door so strong you could hit it with a .50? a company was offering it, and it would be impossible to get into the cockpit and hijack the plane. id rather that then a gun fight in the air.
 
Dench said:
yeah that is real scary.
im not even sure im 100% cool with a gun being on a plane, its to close of a fight and theres to many people to hit by accident if the pilot misses, or god forbid the attacker gets the weapon into his possesion.

what ever happened to the airlines just making the cockpit door so strong you could hit it with a .50? a company was offering it, and it would be impossible to get into the cockpit and hijack the plane. id rather that then a gun fight in the air.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dench said:
what ever happened to the airlines just making the cockpit door so strong you could hit it with a .50? a company was offering it, and it would be impossible to get into the cockpit and hijack the plane. id rather that then a gun fight in the air.
Click to expand...

The cockpit doors have all been upgraded. But you can't make the cockpit door an impenetrable barrier -- that's not how aircraft are designed. Aircraft are designed as a single pressure vessel, not two separate pressure vessels.
 
MaverickNH said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
MaverickNH said:
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.
Click to expand...

+Rep for you, sir. Couldn't have said it any better.

-Mike
 
joemcg said:
A statement from TSA said the airplane was never in danger, and the TSA and the Federal Air Marshals Service are investigating the incident.

So rounds flying around a cockpit didn't place the plane in danger, but I have to pay $100.00 a minute to use a "specially shielded" Airphone rather than my cellphone in flight. Right..........
Click to expand...

The round wasn't flying around the cockpit it went through the cockpit and out.
Please don't over dramatize things. The Anti-gunners do enough of that for us.
 
doobie said:
From these two links [1] [2], it sounds like the policies were negligent discharges waiting to happen....probably so that the TSA says "see, we told you that it is a bad idea for pilots to have guns!"

Look at the friggen holster/lock on the second link! Obviously there would at some point be a ND.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is what I have heard too is that their policies were an accident waiting to happen.
 
MaverickNH said:
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.
Click to expand...

sure i guess you could say a gun in the cockpit or a sky marshal is a deterrent, but there are still ways to hijack ithe plane and not use brutal force and steal it themselfs. they can just take a hostage and stay in the back galley, or a number of any other things. a gun on the oposite side of the plane isnt going to be of any use then.


dont get me wrong, im all about weapons being used for protecting good people. but i have no confidence at all in training programs that ive seen some gov agenencies put out and the extremely dangerous situtaion a shoot out in a narrow tube in the sky is.

PS, i dont know what brady news letters are.
 
MaverickNH said:
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.
Click to expand...

+1 you da man
 
Dench said:
sure i guess you could say a gun in the cockpit or a sky marshal is a deterrent, but there are still ways to hijack ithe plane and not use brutal force and steal it themselfs. they can just take a hostage and stay in the back galley, or a number of any other things. a gun on the oposite side of the plane isnt going to be of any use then.
Click to expand...

That is not correct these days. Current training is if someone takes a hostage on the plane, the pilots do not cooperate -- they land the plane ASAP. If the terrorists kill the hostage(s), so be it. The pilots are not going to give up control of the aircraft to save a hostage. Period.

The purpose of the FFDO program is solely to protect the cockpit.
 
M1911 said:
That is not correct these days. Current training is if someone takes a hostage on the plane, the pilots do not cooperate -- they land the plane ASAP. If the terrorists kill the hostage(s), so be it. The pilots are not going to give up control of the aircraft to save a hostage. Period.

The purpose of the FFDO program is solely to protect the cockpit.
Click to expand...

well that solves that then. i didnt know that was the new policy.
 
Even before the official policy changed, pilots learned from 9/11. They realize that if they give up the plane, everyone on board dies and more on the ground die (e.g., AA11). If they fight to control the plane, the worst that happens is that everyone on board dies (e.g., UA 93), the best that happens is that some or all live.
 
BIG D said:
1084 feet per second[thinking]
Click to expand...

Depends on the direction and the coordinate system. With respect to the aircraft, yes, it is going 1084 fps. If it was pointed directly forwards, with respect to the ground it would be 1084 + 880. If it was pointed directly aft, with respect to the ground it would be 1084 - 880.
 
M1911 said:
Depends on the direction and the coordinate system. With respect to the aircraft, yes, it is going 1084 fps. If it was pointed directly forwards, with respect to the ground it would be 1084 + 880. If it was pointed directly aft, with respect to the ground it would be 1084 - 880.
Click to expand...

I know this sounds weird but you would think if I was to stand at the front of the plane traveling 500 miles per hour and jumped as high as possible that when I landed back on my feet I would be at the back of the plane....

How would the bullet take advantage of the planes speed? I do think if you shot the gun outside of a moving plane then you could add or subtract the speed depending on direction fired.[thinking]
 
BIG D said:
I know this sounds weird but you would think if I was to stand at the front of the plane traveling 500 miles per hour and jumped as high as possible that when I landed back on my feet I would be at the back of the plane....
Click to expand...

Nope. Because while your speed relative to the plane is zero, your speed relative to the ground is the same as the plane.
 
Makes sense, I'm big on a visual of something. I've always learned better by seeing and doing.

I'll be on a plane Sunday but won't be trying any of these things out..
 
M1911 said:
Nope. Because while your speed relative to the plane is zero, your speed relative to the ground is the same as the plane.
Click to expand...

Correct. If you drive down the highway at 70mph and toss a tennis ball to the person in the back seat. The ball is tossed with a normal amount of force and acts normally. Even tho, in fact it is moving in excess of 60mph.

In other words shooing on a moving plane is like being on the ground with one exception. In the fraction of a second that the bullet is in travel if the plane was to move dramatical in an adverse direction it would affect the travel. Now in our example of a commercial airline, close range engagement, and fast bullets, its almost a non issue.
 

Similar threads

Question on this firearm?
Replies
13
Views
452
dcmdon
dcmdon
FFL for a return on a warranty claim?
Replies
28
Views
551
whacko
whacko
An interesting take on guns from the other side.
Replies
7
Views
358
Kevin_NH
Kevin_NH
Georgia on my mind
2 3 4
Replies
104
Views
2K
StevieP
StevieP
Question on mailing AR lower
Replies
9
Views
332
LuvDog
LuvDog
Back
Top Bottom