Pilot whose gun went off will be fired

[ANDROMEDA]

You are right about that... Flight attendants and CSRs get fired for all sorts of stupid things.... Now we have a gun that went off because it was possibly being shown off (as speculated). I feel sorry for the guy too, but common - just because he is a pilot and paid more for his profession, doesn't exclude him from the same harsh repercussions the other groups are subjected too on a daily basis. Speaking of serious violations, though - Doug Parker should also have been fired for his DUI fiasco as well.

Refer to the US AIRWAYS Code Of Conduct Book.

 

[Squonk]

[Hey if Bush Sr would have properly holstered HIS weapon the world would be a different place now wouldn't it?
[/quote]


Hey Piney, My respect just slipped a notch. Why make this political? :down:

 

[4merresrat]

And well he should be fired. If one isn't fired for this massive lapse in judgement/safety then what does it take to be fired at Usiarways? A lot I know but come on.

 

[FLYLOW22]

When you shoot a hole in somebodies Multi-million aircraft it tends to piss them off.

Hey if you can't properly holster your weapon you shouldn't have one. I'm totally OK with the termination.


Hey if Bush Sr would have properly holstered HIS weapon the world would be a different place now wouldn't it?

I guess the bank is firing him then?

 

[UWCactus]

He did not follow procedure that resulted in a/c damage, cancelled flights, etc,. Not to mention that unthinkable which is the possibility of injuring an innocent crewmember. I'm certain they have figured why he wasn't following procedure and are taking action based on the investigation.

 

[sharktooth]

Hey Piney, My respect just slipped a notch. Why make this political? :down:

Because, it is?

The program was set up to fail. In the interests of "saving money", quite a few safety thin spots were introduced, basically challenging the participants to overcome known problem areas using their skills.

The Bush administration did not want the program, denying it resources to create a success, inevitably creating safety holes which one pilot finally fell into with a really crappy trigger lock and a bad holster.

Yet another example of the Bush reverse midas touch, anything he touches turns to ripe fertilizer.

 

[700UW]

He didnt injure anyone.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

He did not follow procedure that resulted in a/c damage, cancelled flights, etc,. Not to mention that unthinkable which is the possibility of injuring an innocent crewmember. I'm certain they have figured why he wasn't following procedure and are taking action based on the investigation.

How did YOU conclude that he was not following procedures? It's a voluntary program, there to increase SAFETY. The deterrent value of this program will now be lost, since I don't think too many folks wil volunteer any more.

 

[ClueByFour]

How did YOU conclude that he was not following procedures? It's a voluntary program, there to increase SAFETY. The deterrent value of this program will now be lost, since I don't think too many folks wil volunteer any more.

If an FFDO perspective does not think they can execute the procedures as written without a negligent discharge, the proper action is not to volunteer anymore.

That said, even I think it's a bit harsh to can the guy before the TSA reports and/or takes action. If they already have, and concluded that he was either negligent and/or did something he should not have (like, say, had the firearm unholstered in the absence of a threat or trying to lock it under 10k in a sterile cockpit environment), then it's probably justified.

Looks like USAPA has their very first challenge. Wonder how they'll deal with it.

 

[PHL]

What if this pilot made an operational error (having nothing to do with the gun) commanding the plane that resulted in aircraft damage and threatened the safety of other passengers. Suppose he made a gear up landing because he "accidentally" thought the gear was down. The plane comes in for a belly landing and comes to a screeching halt with bent metal and sparks flying. Yet, in the end everyone walked away safe and all that was lost was an aircraft for a month or two while it could get its belly skin, engines and other associated hardware replaced.

Would he still have a job?

See, in my mind, the accidental discharge of the weapon isn't much different. If it happened at altitude, the results could have been catastrophic. If it was pointed a little more to the left or right, the other pilot might be dead.

I'm sorry, but he's got to go.

 

[jimntx]

How did YOU conclude that he was not following procedures? It's a voluntary program, there to increase SAFETY. The deterrent value of this program will now be lost, since I don't think too many folks wil volunteer any more.

Well, obviously you seem to think that a cockpit member with a gun is not to be questioned on any action he/she takes. Or, is it that no cockpit member, period, is to be questioned for any reason, under any circumstances, at any time?

Look, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the company--dealing with a represented employee--has decided to terminate that employee, it means they have enough information to believe the termination will stick. They don't bother trying to terminate us union people just on a whim because they know that the union is required under the law to defend them in the termination proceeding.

Now, the company said several times that they had no comment pending the outcome of their investigation of the incident. Evidently, they have completed their investigation and believe the pilot had no good reason for the gun to be anywhere other than in the holster where it was being placed when it "accidentally" discharged.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Would he still have a job?

Actually, he probably WOULD still have a job for that. I know pilots that have had "accidents" that are still employed. It depends a lot on the circumstances.

Look, this is a voluntary program, nonpaid, which is an attempt to make flying safer for the travelling public. Accidents and incidents occur everywhere, cars boats, planes, walking home, etc.
Seems a real waste to dismantle the ONLY system available that can prevent "bad guys" from taking over the cockpit because of an ACCIDENT, not to mention RUIN someone's life over it. He obviously had enough training and common sense to have it pointed in a relatively safe direction when it went off.

The public will be far worse off if the TSA allows this dismissal to stand. The company is NOT SMART to do this. The management types that made this decision should be replaced!

I hope that USAPA takes strong stand for this pilot's job. I'd pay an assessment for something like this.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Well, obviously you seem to think that a cockpit member with a gun is not to be questioned on any action he/she takes. Or, is it that no cockpit member, period, is to be questioned for any reason, under any circumstances, at any time?

Look, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the company--dealing with a represented employee--has decided to terminate that employee, it means they have enough information to believe the termination will stick. They don't bother trying to terminate us union people just on a whim because they know that the union is required under the law to defend them in the termination proceeding.

Now, the company said several times that they had no comment pending the outcome of their investigation of the incident. Evidently, they have completed their investigation and believe the pilot had no good reason for the gun to be anywhere other than in the holster where it was being placed when it "accidentally" discharged.

You know not of what you speak. I would NOT assume ANYTHING about the scruples of this company.

 

[N965VJ]

Am I to understand he was terminated before the investigation has been completed?

 

[jimntx]

Seems a real waste to dismantle the ONLY system available that can prevent "bad guys" from taking over the cockpit

Oh, please. The "ONLY" system? What about the FAMs? What about the training we f/as have where we are instructed to do whatever is necessary to protect the cockpit? What about that friggin' reinforced door? If LCC's are anything like the ones at AA, we can barely get the thing open to feed them their meals. And, the events of 9/11 proved that even passengers are willing to step in and help if necessary.

If that cockpit door is breached, it won't be by a single person. The FFDO might get one or two good shots off before a bomb or tear gas or something similar was tossed into the cockpit.


To imply that the FFDO program has prevented or will prevent a cockpit breach is a false conclusion. You can not prove anything with a negative. It is just as easy to say that serving the tuna burrito has prevented a breach of the cockpit. We served the tuna burrito. There have been no cockpit attacks since we started serving it. This must prove that the tuna burrito prevents cockpit attacks.