Ooops ... gun goes off on commercial plane

An investigation is underway into how a gun carried by a US Airways pilot was discharged during a flight.

No-one was hurt when the gun went off as the plane was preparing to land at Charlotte, North Carolina, on Saturday.

A hole in a cockpit wall apparently caused by the shot is visible in photos obtained by AP news agency.

Under a programme implemented after the 9/11 attacks, US airline pilots are allowed to carry guns on domestic flights following a training course.

...

The gun discharged just before noon on Saturday aboard Flight 1536 from Denver to Charlotte, as the Airbus A319 plane was at about 8,000 feet and was approaching to land.

[source]

More like this

Gun Goes Off Midflight: A US Airways pilot accidentally discharged his gun in the cockpit during a flight from Denver to Charlotte, N.C., according to the Transportation Safety Administration. The round was discharged by the pilot in the left seat and did not result in depressurization, according…
I'm stuck in the US East Coast ice and snow trying to get home after some science work for our nation's health agency (that is my rationale for posting this on my Sb blog). My four-hour equipment and weather delay has now turned into a canceled flight. The gate agent just announced that those of us…
A squirrel running around the innards of the plane grounded a Dallas-Tokyo flight: An American Airlines flight made an unscheduled landing after pilots heard something skittering about in the wire-laden space over the cockpit. The airline blamed the emergency landing of the Tokyo-Dallas flight with…
It's a sad fact of life that, as long as there are aircraft, and as long as there are birds, there will be collisions between aircraft and birds. I did in fact cover the issue of bird-strikes back in January 2008, but since then I've learnt a few new things that I'd like to share. For the record…

Guns on airplanes. What could possibly go wrong? In the AP story a TSA spokesman called it a "very safe" handgun, a statement only an American would make.

By andythebrit (not verified) on 26 Mar 2008 #permalink

They should still require that they use ceramic or rubber bullets. No one should be able to carry a weapon capable of piercing through a plane (metal or glass) onto a plane. No matter how dangerous the skies may be, there's no reason to have a weapon that dangerous up there. Ceramic bullets shatter when they impact something harder than flesh. Rubber bullets would just cause a lot of pain and a large bruise to whoever they hit... and neither could go through a plane and risk cabin decompression.

What about tazers and stun guns?
There are certainly a great many alternatives to an actual firearm on a plane that could be equally protective in such a small space.

Fifty years ago, there were lots of guns on planes, and never a problem. Many passengers carried concealed handguns. Hunters could bring their cherished rifles and shotguns aboard with them. Practically every male passenger had a pocket knife, and many had sheath knives. And no problems.

Then JFK got shot and the rules changed. DB Cooper showed the world how to hijack airliners full of newly unarmed passengers. The 2001 Faith Based Initiative on September 11 showed the world how to hijack airliners without guns.

The older I get, the crazier the rest of you look.

By Snarly Old Fart (not verified) on 26 Mar 2008 #permalink

I like the idea of rubber or ceramic bullets. Good suggestion.

If a hijacker or terrorist has a gun what are you going to do if you have a gun anyway? Are you really going to shoot him? I've never tried to shoot another living thing, but I don't think it would be an easy thing. (I enjoyed shooting at paper targets at summer camp decades ago.) A shoot out on a plane full of people doesn't sound like it would be a very safe thing.

The pilot has a much better chance to just dive the plane and bring it up in a roller coaster fashion. Not much a terrorist is going to do to get to the cockpit under those conditions. Will innocent people get hurt? Yes. Would it be more than if there was as shoot out ont he plane? I don't know.

Just two words: armored doors. If terrorists can't shoot the pilots nor get to the cockpit, hijacking is slightly more complicated.

Besides, it is now quite a lot more complicated to use hijacked planes as missiles as people know what to expect. That it succeeded once, doesn't mean it can be repeated. The group on the Pennsylvania plane failed because people knew (if the plane was shot down, they most likely would have failed anyway).

A plane full of guns is sheer insanity and is itself a much greater risk than hijacking.

By Dunkleosteus (not verified) on 26 Mar 2008 #permalink