By MITCH WEISS - Associated Press Writer
Edition Date: 03/26/08
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — A US Airways pilot whose gun fired inside a cockpit said he was trying to stow the weapon as the crew got ready to land, according to a police report released Wednesday. . . . . (Read the rest of the story)
The plot thickens. It doesn't seem to be getting very wide coverage, but according to the Associated Press, the pilot who accidentally fired a round of .40 S&W through an Airbus airliner (in flight) is apparently not content to take all the blame. He says he was trying to "stow the firearm" when it fired. The article doesn't mention exactly what he was trying to do, but unless he's just making stuff up at this point, I think it's probably safest to assume that Paul Huebl was right in the first place (I don't know Paul and have no reason to doubt him, I'm just paranoid) and this poor sod is getting pilloried in the press because he did something he knew was unsafe . . . . but was required by the people who had the power to take away his privilege of carrying that pistol and leave him defenseless again.
I'll just repeat here that I think that holster HAS to be intended to secure unloaded guns, and I think I'd have to unload the gun every time I tried to put the lock on, then load it when the lock came off. But I'm one of those guys who can't pick up a cordless drill or a bottle of 409 without a straight trigger finger. But Paul at Crimefiles says the requirement is that the gun be left loaded. Is it possible that the TSA "experts" think it's too dangerous to load and unload pistols in a crowded cockpit, so they fell back on the classic gun-safety protocol of poking at the trigger with metal objects and hoping for the best?
If all that's true, then the real question is this: are the powers that be at the TSA really that stupid, or do they just figure that this requirement effectively discourages pilots from becoming FFDO certified--and that every accidental discharge their policy charges is just one step closer to the end of the whole program?
Paul shows how the discharge probably happened. See if the "CLICK" of the hammer dropping doesn't send a chill down your spine!
You got a pet troll or something? Why are they always named "anonymous." It's almost like they're afraid someone may find out who they are or something.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the reason I commented is because the video is no longer available and has been marked "removed by user."
I really would have liked to have seen that, any idea why it was removed or if it's available anywhere else?
Thanks
Never mind. He must have edited the video and re-uploaded it, it's still linked at the Crime, Guns and video tape entry you linked, your direct link is dead though, you may want to updated it.
ReplyDeleteThanks again.
Thanks, Curt, I'll get that done.
ReplyDeleteI just switched my settings to allow anonymous comments yesterday, so I have no one but myself to blame. I'm not sure if he's talking about me, the pilot, or what.
What's tickling my brain is that there was a post at one of the blogs I read this morning with exactly that same question, but I can't think which one. Oh well. I am beloved by many; I can't be expected to know them all.
Test.
ReplyDeleteHe's not that anonymous. His IP is from Sydney, NSW, Australia. He spent an hour and 36 minutes reading 26 pages on this blog in one sitting.
ReplyDeleteI think that might be a record. Anonymous, did you realize that you are my most loyal reader? Pretty neat.
"Anonymous, did you realize that you are my most loyal reader?"
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a fine line between "loyal" and "obsessive"...
Nice video. Believable scenario. I noticed North Carolina mentioned, right to carry state you know.
ReplyDeleteUncle John