I didn't know Commercial Pilots can carry a gun

A pilot stopped through here a few months ago, asking about the legality of concealed carry or carrying guns while he was flying and if it was legal or not (assured me that he didn't have anything with him currently but that was why he was asking). Honestly didn't know how to answer his question.

Didn't know if it would depend on if he had a permit for this state, or the other states, if it was public property or private, etc. :dunno: Don't really dig into gun laws much
 
For the bear viewing flights here in Alaska, we are allowed to carry a firearm into the national parks. (Katmai NP and Lake Clark NP) We are just not allowed to discharge the firearm.....

And for bear protection, we use a magnesium flare that burns brightly and noisily for about a minute. I never had to use one but others tell me that they are very effective.
 
Zeldman said:
For the bear viewing flights here in Alaska, we are allowed to carry a firearm into the national parks. (Katmai NP and Lake Clark NP) We are just not allowed to discharge the firearm.....

And for bear protection, we use a magnesium flare that burns brightly and noisily for about a minute. I never had to use one but others tell me that they are very effective.
Click to expand...

I would think that in many areas during dry season the flare would have more restrictions, and far more hazard, than a firearm.
 
Henning said:
I would think that in many areas during dry season the flare would have more restrictions, and far more hazard, than a firearm.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the park rangers are on top of that one, aren't they? :idea:

Just to clarify in case of anyone has any misunderstandings, it is not a shooting flare. Instead it is hand held. And we looking at the bears on the beach as they dig for clams, or in the meadow grazing on grass. And as soon as the salmon start running we will be near the streams.
 
overdrive148 said:
A pilot stopped through here a few months ago, asking about the legality of concealed carry or carrying guns while he was flying and if it was legal or not (assured me that he didn't have anything with him currently but that was why he was asking). Honestly didn't know how to answer his question.

Didn't know if it would depend on if he had a permit for this state, or the other states, if it was public property or private, etc. :dunno: Don't really dig into gun laws much
Click to expand...

Much as with driving, it very much depends on the states you stop in. The added problem with flying is that you have the sterile airline area plus in some states it's illegal to carry guns in airline terminals (even before security) concealed.
 
I have gotten very lazy about carrying lately and this thread is a good reminder that I should probably exercise my CCW a bit more.
 
Federal Flight Deck Officer
Fully Deputized Law Enforcement
Jurisdiction is the cockpit.
They can carry EVERYWHERE (domestic and yes in Illinois) but the restrictions are extremely tight...I mean extremely tight.
Training is one week at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Academy and six month recurrent shooting exams. Very good training.
Restrictions are extremely tight...I mean extremely tight. EVERY bullet has a lawyer attached. Extremely serious last line of defense.

There are Federal Air Marshal's that fly incognito in the back. Advice. If there is ever an incident and someone yells Federal Air Marshall....start eating carpet...they are very very good shots.

Trivia...A FFDO is the ONLY law enforcement officer that is allowed to use deadly force and then ask questions as to what is happening. IOW, you breach the cockpit you WILL be shot and then they will try to figure out what is happening.

I am retired from the FFDO program. Yes I fly cargo and if you think that cargo doesn't need this then google Aubrey Galloway.
 
Zeldman said:
For the bear viewing flights here in Alaska, we are allowed to carry a firearm into the national parks. (Katmai NP and Lake Clark NP) We are just not allowed to discharge the firearm.....

And for bear protection, we use a magnesium flare that burns brightly and noisily for about a minute. I never had to use one but others tell me that they are very effective.
Click to expand...

So long as it's legal by state law, carry in national parks is entirely legal -- with the notable exception of permanent manned structures.

http://www.nps.gov/gate/learn/management/firearms-in-national-parks.htm
 
I say incorrect. She had every right to sit there. Her rights were simply being oppressed by a domineering tyrranical political party who was in control of the government at the time. Amazingly, but not unexpectedly, the very same party who now wants to strip me of my constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
 
Neal Howard said:
I say incorrect. She had every right to sit there. Her rights were simply being oppressed by a domineering tyrranical political party who was in control of the government at the time. Amazingly, but not unexpectedly, the very same party who now wants to strip me of my constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Same difference.
 
JOhnH said:
The right to carry is not predicated on need.
But to answer your question, I have flown to many places where I felt I "needed" a gun after departing the airport.
Click to expand...

In the United States or Internationally?

The right to carry is another topic but the NEED to carry on a GA airplane is another.
 
Neal Howard said:
So Henning, you're saying that Rosa had no right to sit in the front of that bus at the time she did it?
Click to expand...

Henning is right. There was a segregation law at the time when she sat on the bus, (I believe it was a city law if I'm not mistaken).

Both subjects are totally different, apples to oranges!
 
FloridaPilot said:
Henning is right. There was a segregation law at the time when she sat on the bus, (I believe it was a city law if I'm not mistaken).

Both subjects are totally different, apples to oranges!
Click to expand...

Laws don't determine what our rights are. At most, they can recognize rights.
 
flyingron said:
What you think $600 and a two day course in state is an unreasonable obstacle to exercising your constitutional rights?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how anyone can confidently equate "keep and bear" to "CCW."

I've open carried quite a bit and, in fact, am attending the Mo mandated CCW class today so I can quit being target #1. I think it's a stretch to consider it my constitutional right though. Open carry a pistol, sure. Strap a rifle to my back, sure. Concealed, not so much. Not saying it's not, rather that I certainly don't see it as a cut/dry topic.
 
mkosmo said:
Do you mean Auburn Calloway of Fedex 705?
Click to expand...


Yes. Just misspelled his name. A story of three guys who fought for their lives while exhibiting tremendous flying skills. I have friends that are close friends of the crew.

I was on a commercial flight sitting next to an engineer soon after 911, and he commented that cargo pilots didn't need to be armed like "real" airline pilots. Instead of arguing, I asked him a question. "If a 767 weighing x lbs flying at x speed with passengers hit the side of a building, you could easily determine the forces involved?" He replied "of course", so I asked him "If a 767 weighing the exact same weight and the exact same speed but with cargo in the back, hit the side of a building, would the forces be any different?"
The look on his face said it all....our biases prevent us from seeing an issue clearly.

Imagine that you are sitting in your nice roomy coach seat traveling somewhere, when suddenly someone jumps up and screams while running towards the cockpit. This person grabs the flight attendant and threatens her with a weapon (it is very easy to have a "weapon") and no Air Marshall identifies themselves? Are YOU going to sit still while they attempt to takeover the plane?

Now imagine the same scenario but with only two pilots and nothing between them and the attacker?

It is okay though. The FAA says that the loss of a cargo crew is "insignificant loss of life" and I am sure that the attacker flying the plane into a building somewhere really won't matter...after all, it is only cargo.
 
Last edited:
MD11Pilot said:
Yes. Just misspelled his name. A story of three guys who fought for their lives while exhibiting tremendous flying skills. I have friends that are close friends of the crew.

I was on a commercial flight sitting next to an engineer soon after 911, and he commented that cargo pilots didn't need to be armed like "real" airline pilots. Instead of arguing, I asked him a question. "If a 767 weighing x lbs flying at x speed with passengers hit the side of a building, you could easily determine the forces involved?" He replied "of course", so I asked him "If a 767 weighing the exact same weight and the exact same speed but with cargo in the back, hit the side of a building, would the forces be any different?"
The look on his face said it all....our biases prevent us from seeing an issue clearly.

Imagine that you are sitting in your nice roomy coach seat traveling somewhere, when suddenly someone jumps up and screams while running towards the cockpit. This person grabs the flight attendant and threatens her with a weapon (it is very easy to have a "weapon") and no Air Marshall identifies themselves? Are YOU going to sit still while they attempt to takeover the plane?

Now imagine the same scenario but with only two pilots and nothing between them and the attacker?

It is okay though. The FAA says that the loss of a cargo crew is "insignificant loss of life" and I am sure that the attacker flying the plane into a building somewhere really won't matter...after all, it is only cargo.
Click to expand...
I know jump-seating is allowed on the cargo carriers, but not sure about general non rev? I believe the FedEx incident was a jump seater, correct? Was there such thing as CASS back then? Was there any such screening in order to get cockpit access?
 
timwinters said:
I'm not sure how anyone can confidently equate "keep and bear" to "CCW."
Click to expand...

Well that's open for argument. One side would argue that the second amendment doesn't prescribe limits on how you can bear arms.

The other argument (and this is the one in open discussion in DC right now), is that in some jurisdictions having the CCW does EQUATE to "keep and bear." Absent a CCW you can't practically carry a gun in DC ****PERIOD****. Essentially, if I want to go to see my parents in town, I can't even legally unload, lock, case, and put my gun in the trunk. Similarly a DC resident could only so carry between their residence and office or out to a range (which are all outside of DC for practical matters). This is why there's a recent court decision that will turn DC into a shall-issue jurisdiction. The implementation of this is currently stayed on appeal.
 
MD11Pilot said:
Yes. Just misspelled his name. A story of three guys who fought for their lives while exhibiting tremendous flying skills. I have friends that are close friends of the crew.

I was on a commercial flight sitting next to an engineer soon after 911, and he commented that cargo pilots didn't need to be armed like "real" airline pilots. Instead of arguing, I asked him a question. "If a 767 weighing x lbs flying at x speed with passengers hit the side of a building, you could easily determine the forces involved?" He replied "of course", so I asked him "If a 767 weighing the exact same weight and the exact same speed but with cargo in the back, hit the side of a building, would the forces be any different?"
The look on his face said it all....our biases prevent us from seeing an issue clearly.

Imagine that you are sitting in your nice roomy coach seat traveling somewhere, when suddenly someone jumps up and screams while running towards the cockpit. This person grabs the flight attendant and threatens her with a weapon (it is very easy to have a "weapon") and no Air Marshall identifies themselves? Are YOU going to sit still while they attempt to takeover the plane?

Now imagine the same scenario but with only two pilots and nothing between them and the attacker?

It is okay though. The FAA says that the loss of a cargo crew is "insignificant loss of life" and I am sure that the attacker flying the plane into a building somewhere really won't matter...after all, it is only cargo.
Click to expand...

The FAA also says that apparently cargo pilots don't get fatigued like passenger pilots, and as such, 117 shouldn't apply to them.
 
Kritchlow said:
I know jump-seating is allowed on the cargo carriers, but not sure about general non rev? I believe the FedEx incident was a jump seater, correct? Was there such thing as CASS back then? Was there any such screening in order to get cockpit access?
Click to expand...

He was a FE for FedEx, jump seating to get home. He was originally scheduled to be the FE on that particular flight, but couldn't due to flight time issues. Had it just been him vs 2 guys rather than him vs 3 guys, he probably would have won that fight, IMO.
 
No CASS at that time. Maybe Fedex guy can chime in but I heard he was about to be fired. The book outlines it all.

Cargo pilots don't get tired and there is no weather at night
 
flyingron said:
Well that's open for argument. One side would argue that the second amendment doesn't prescribe limits on how you can bear arms.



The other argument (and this is the one in open discussion in DC right now), is that in some jurisdictions having the CCW does EQUATE to "keep and bear." Absent a CCW you can't practically carry a gun in DC ****PERIOD****. Essentially, if I want to go to see my parents in town, I can't even legally unload, lock, case, and put my gun in the trunk. Similarly a DC resident could only so carry between their residence and office or out to a range (which are all outside of DC for practical matters). This is why there's a recent court decision that will turn DC into a shall-issue jurisdiction. The implementation of this is currently stayed on appeal.
Click to expand...


Just look at the definitions of "keep" - to own or possess, etc... - and "bear" - to wear or carry (gasp) that were relevant in the day. Websters 1828 is your friend. I can't understand how such plain words could be so twisted and ignored. Heck, in Texas the Penal Code is in plain violation of the Constitution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
FloridaPilot said:
Okay,

I will ask this question, when have you ever NEEDED to use the gun as a private pilot?

I'm just thinking would I ever need one in the plane? Would I ever get hijacked? Probably not! Would I need it if I crash landed in the wilderness? Possibly but least likely. Other places outside of flying yes.
Click to expand...

Because if you don't carry it in the airplane then it won't be with you when you land. Simple as that. It has almost zero to do with wilderness survival or hijack - at least for those of us who fly non-commercial and mainly with people we know very well.

EDIT: If the question is why one might carry the gun on their person in the airplane, as opposed to casing it, the answer is, in general, because that's just the safest and simplest and least alarming way to carry it.

We don't want to be revealing, unholstering, unloading, perhaps disassembling, and casing the weapon (if a case is even present) and then doing the reverse process at the other end of the journey. All that handling of the weapon is unnecessary and potentially alarming to some people when the weapon is perfectly safe, out of sight and out of (other people's) mind in its little holster on our persons.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top