Cockpit Firearm Discharge Damage

flyingcheesehead said:
Yeah, but you'd better not write that on the bag you put your 3 oz. shampoo bottles in...
Click to expand...

There was a thread about that on Flyertalk.com a while back. Somebody did it, and got a lot of grief from the TSA drones about it. Seems they have a problem with the 1st Amendment...
 
Teller1900 said:
Turns out the gun did damage to more than just the plane; it has ended the pilot's career, too.
Click to expand...
That's just plain wrong. I hope he not only fights it but sues their ass and wins big. The idiotic rules established "The Stupid Agency" for carrying a sidearm have invited such an event.

I'm not sure where he'd have to file but I'm betting he'll do best in those areas where people "cling to their gun."
 
Wow, sounds like someone's knees were jerking at US Air!
 
ALPA should take care of this one...
 
Why is US Air terminating him? Did his story of "accidental" not flesh out with with the CVR and co-pilot report? Or is it knee-jerk? I don't know either way.

There certainly is a plausible accidental explanation for this type of incident. What we do not know are the details of this particular incident.
 
SCCutler said:
ALPA should take care of this one...
Click to expand...

Not anymore...ALPA's out. I've heard, though, that some of the higher-ups in the FFDO program are stepping up in his defense. I'll have to see if I can find where I read that.
 
Teller1900 said:
Not anymore...ALPA's out. I've heard, though, that some of the higher-ups in the FFDO program are stepping up in his defense. I'll have to see if I can find where I read that.
Click to expand...
My spidey senses are tingling. There is something more here. I don't know what, but this is not a clean cut case.
 
I'm with Scott. I originally thought this was a negligent discharge due in part to the asinine weapons handling policy, and part to the pilot not being as careful as he should have when stowing the weapon, particularly since he'd have known that the policy was asinine.

But with the airline and the union both waving goodbye, I'm now questioning my assumptions.
 
TMetzinger said:
I'm with Scott. I originally thought this was a negligent discharge due in part to the asinine weapons handling policy, and part to the pilot not being as careful as he should have when stowing the weapon, particularly since he'd have known that the policy was asinine.

But with the airline and the union both waving goodbye, I'm now questioning my assumptions.
Click to expand...

The thing with the union has been percolating for a LONG time. Basically since a bit after the America West/USAirways merger. This incident had nothing to do with the parting of ways.
 
Greg,

I don't understand why the union wouldn't act on the pilot's behalf. Don't they have a duty to do so?
 
TMetzinger said:
Greg,

I don't understand why the union wouldn't act on the pilot's behalf. Don't they have a duty to do so?
Click to expand...

Greg Bockelman said:
Who said they aren't?
Click to expand...

DO you think then that their backing away to let the FFDO advocates then is a sign of support? If so how? Seems to me that there is an appearance that the union is trying not to get their skirts dirty.
 
smigaldi said:
DO you think then that their backing away to let the FFDO advocates then is a sign of support?
Click to expand...

WHO SAID THAT? I think Matt's post is taken out of context until he provides a link to the contrary.


Seems to me that there is an appearance that the union is trying not to get their skirts dirty.
Click to expand...

Show me proof other than Matt's post, which, by the way, has no link.

Sorry Matt. Until I see otherwise, I think your post is being taken out of context.
 
Last edited:
Greg Bockelman said:
WHO SAID THAT? I think Matt's post is taken out of context until he provides a link to the contrary.




Show me proof other than Matt's post, which, by the way, has no link.

Sorry Matt. Until I see otherwise, I think your post is being taken out of context.
Click to expand...

No, you were right the first time, Greg, I meant that ALPA probably won't be able to help him since US Air voted them down in favor of the USAPA. This, I think, is exactly the kind of thing that ALPA would gear up for, but their hands may be tied now. And I didn't mean that the FFDO folks would be advocating instead of the union, just that they recognize that this is a bad cut and are coming to his defense, regardless of what the union does. I wasn't saying anything bad about the union, just saying that I don't know how the ALPA/USAPA decision will affect their ability to help this guy. I suppose I should have said "ALPA's out of US Air;" I didn't mean that ALPA is just backing out of this fight.
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
I did. I am asking a question. You can identify question by the use of a mark at the end of the sentence that looks remarkably like a Shepard's crook (?)

:D:D
Click to expand...

Ok, lets look at the post.

smigaldi said:
DO you think then that their backing away to let the FFDO advocates then is a sign of support?
Click to expand...

You are taking that as fact. Where is your reference, or proof if you will? I haven't seen any links that support that view.

If so how? Seems to me that there is an appearance that the union is trying not to get their skirts dirty.
Click to expand...

And YOU are trying to make something out of something you apparently know nothing about.

No smilies here.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
And YOU are trying to make something out of something you apparently know nothing about.

No smilies here.
Click to expand...
And apparently no understanding of what a question mark mean. So lets get out the third grade reader and spell it out for you.

The question mark (?), also known as an interrogation point, question point, query,[1] or eroteme, is a punctuation mark that replaces the full stop at the end of an interrogative sentence. It can also be used mid-sentence to mark a merely interrogative phrase, where it functions similarly to a comma, such as in the single sentence "Where shall we go? and what shall we do?", but this usage is increasingly rare. The question mark is not used for indirect questions. The question mark character is also often used in place of missing or unknown data. It can also be used in place of a period.
Click to expand...

One asks questions to learn. Since I do not work for a commercial air carrier and have no idea what your unions do and do not do for you I thought I would ask the question. From what I am seeing you are not in the habit of having people ask questions. I assume that is why flying for your airline is such a painful experience as well as it seems to be an institutional problem.

No smilies form me either Greg. I do not know what is ticking you off this evening when some one asks a question.

I asked a simple question. After I asked the question I saw Matt's stuff about ALPA and US AIR. But you were already acting somewhat jerkily by then.
 
smigaldi said:
DO you think , then, that their backing away to let the FFDO advocates, then, is a sign of support?
Click to expand...

Greg said:
You are taking that as fact. Where is your reference, or proof if you will? I haven't seen any links that support that view.
Click to expand...

Greg,

I know unions and the airlines are sticky issues and evoke emotions, but I gotta say that Scott's question was just that... a question... and it quite clearly asked others for THEIR OPINION. Opinions are never a statement of fact, and ASKING for an opinion is even less so.
 
OK, lets look at the post again.

smigaldi said:
DO you think then that their backing away to let the FFDO advocates then is a sign of support? .
Click to expand...

Can you people see that the structure of the question makes it seem that ALPA backed away? Can you not see that I am saying that is not the case?

The question is written in such a way that it implies that ALPA backed away. As far as I know that is NOT the case. USAirways dumped ALPA. Whether or not that means ALPA CANNOT defend that pilot, I don't know, but ALPA will not back off from defending one of their members.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Greg,

I know unions and the airlines are sticky issues and evoke emotions, but I gotta say that Scott's question was just that... a question... and it quite clearly asked others for THEIR OPINION. Opinions are never a statement of fact, and ASKING for an opinion is even less so.
Click to expand...

He asked me for an opinion about something that did not happen.
 
Teller1900 said:
Not anymore...ALPA's out. .
Click to expand...

Greg Bockelman said:
Who said they aren't?
Click to expand...

I could not read Matt's mind nor do I know the minutia of the heavy metal pilot union woes. My assumption was that they were 'out' of defending this pilot.

Greg Bockelman said:
He asked me for an opinion about something that did not happen.
Click to expand...
Then state that and share what you really know instead of jumping down my throat for simply asking you about some more details and accusing me of some sort of nefarious plot.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
OK, lets look at the post again.



Can you people see that the structure of the question makes it seem that ALPA backed away? Can you not see that I am saying that is not the case?

The question is written in such a way that it implies that ALPA backed away. As far as I know that is NOT the case. USAirways dumped ALPA. Whether or not that means ALPA CANNOT defend that pilot, I don't know, but ALPA will not back off from defending one of their members.
Click to expand...

Fair enough! I can see how there was an implied (not proven) event about which an opinion was being asked....
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Fair enough! I can see how there was an implied (not proven) event about which an opinion was being asked....
Click to expand...
Yes but what Greg knew about ALPA was not how I read Matt's post. It was not until Greg and Matt explained later, in fact right after I asked the question, that what was meant by "out" was that ALPA was no longer representing US Air pilot employees. Both Tim and I being on the outside of the airline industry made a different assumption about what 'out' meant.
 
When I saw Matt's post, I (like Scott) assumed that the Union was "out of it" because they knew something about the incident that wasn't public (like perhaps the pilot was playing the redneck "Hey Watch This" game.)

It's (now) clear that what Matt meant was that ALPA wasn't representing the pilot, because ALPA isn't the appropriate Union. So the question now is... what is USAPA doing?
 
smigaldi said:
I could not read Matt's mind
Click to expand...

Which is why I said that Matt's post was possibly taken out of context and he pretty much said as much in a later post.

Then state that and share what you really know instead of jumping down my throat for simply asking you about some more details and accusing me of some sort of nefarious plot.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, I did just that. Go back and read post 53 through about 58 and see if you possibly can see the way this developed from my perspective.

Scott, what pushed me over the edge was when you started treating me like a child with that question mark crap. That and the fact that you were assuming facts not in evidence, so to say. You started focusing on what I was saying and did not take into account what Matt had to say that was supporting me.

I hope you can see this from my perspective. And with that, I apologize for this developing the way it did. I would hope from the rest of my posts that you would see that something must have wound me up.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Scott, what pushed me over the edge was when you started treating me like a child with that question mark crap.
Click to expand...
My first post going back at you stating I was asking a question was not treating you like a child. You had hollered at me and accused me of making something up,
Greg Bockelman said:
WHO SAID THAT?
Click to expand...
and I responded with a couple of smilies letting you know I was asking a question. It was your next response that went out of it's way to be mean and uncouth with the
Greg Bockelman said:
No smilies here
Click to expand...
remark. Hence I felt you were way out of line and behaving like a 3rd grader and deserved to be spoken to in a condescending manner as you had lost the benefit of an adult level of discourse from me.

Greg Bockelman said:
That and the fact that you were assuming facts not in evidence,
Click to expand...
I assumed that what Matt said meant one thing. There were little details in his post. I was not alone in that assumption either. But what really set me off was when I asked a question instead of taking an opportunity to share your more detailed knowledge of what was happening with a person who did know the facts. You decided to take a accusatory tone, behave in a rude and child like manner, and purposely set out to degrade a person simply seeking knowledge.

Given your professional position I found that to be a quality that is not the norm. Thus I could only assume that you were doing so on purpose and with malice.

Greg Bockelman said:
You started focusing on what I was saying and did not take into account what Matt had to say that was supporting me.
Click to expand...
I was defending the asking of the question. Early on I mentioned it had become clear it was not the case that there was another explanation. But you, instead, kept focusing on accusing me of nefarious plot to undermine this particular pilot. It seemed to me that your motives were to deflect the discussion from this pilot and instead turn this into some personal issue between you and I.

Greg Bockelman said:
I hope you can see this from my perspective. And with that, I apologize for this developing the way it did. I would hope from the rest of my posts that you would see that something must have wound me up.
Click to expand...

I hope you can see this from my perspective. And with that, I apologize for this developing the way it did as well.

I still do not understand what wound you up. But we can call a truce. :cheerswine::cheerswine:
 
Greg Bockelman said:
... That and the fact that you were assuming facts not in evidence, so to say...
Click to expand...

Greg- you are making me chuckle. I automatically thought (in my mind's loud mouth) "Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence."


Damned lawyer talk! :)
 
SCCutler said:
Greg- you are making me chuckle. I automatically thought (in my mind's loud mouth) "Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence."


Damned lawyer talk! :)
Click to expand...
Since this issue is largely political in nature between the pilot, TSA, union and the airline... facts are whatever most benefits the party providing them and politician-types never depend on evidence; just their ability to BS better than the next guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top