Sure am glad we armed them there pilots

[Wickerman]

Here's a guy who carried a gun to work, as allowed under new Fed laws. Regrettably, he blew a .09 even though he hadn't drank in 10 hours!

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-crime/2005/jan/14/518126665.html

Metro Police arrested a pilot for the discount airline AirTran Airways on suspicion of being intoxicated early Thursday, minutes before he was to fly a passenger jet from McCarran International Airport to Atlanta.

--snip--

According to a copy of Reason's arrest report, the pilot told officers -- who said the pilot's breath smelled of alcohol although he did not appear intoxicated -- he had not had a drink in about 10 hours.

Federal law prohibits pilots from flying with a more than 0.04 blood-alcohol content. A breath test administered by a Nevada Highway Patrol trooper showed Reason had a 0.091 blood alcohol content and a second blood test administered at the Clark County Detention Center confirmed the results, according to the report.

The pilot, who was authorized under federal law to carry a gun, had passed through the McCarran checkpoint about 11:30 p.m. and screeners suspected he was drunk, Metro Police spokesman Officer Jose Montoya said.

--snip--

Reason's arrest also prompted an immediate suspension of his status as a federal flight deck officer. That designation had allowed him to carry a firearm. Federal flight deck officers are trained to protect the aircraft cockpit. The program was created in 2003 as part of the Homeland Security Act.

[DulceDecorum]

1. Fly The Scary Skies

After the TSA people take all your good stuff
and finger all your goodies,
you board the plane.

http://bennun.biz/features/skies.html

Meanwhile,
others
Go Greyhound.

[Billy Ruffian]

2. A drunk shows up for work

which requires that he fly a 100,000 lb aircraft, with over 100 passengers. That is alarming to me.

What appears to be alarming to you was that he was authorized to carry a gun. Is that correct?

If he was not a federal flight deck officer, but just a pilot, would this have received a mention from you?

[Wickerman]

3. Nope, not in the gun forum

natch; I would've put it in the Homeland Security Forum - which I see now has mention. See, the cool thing about DU is we have a forum for nigh on every topic. This forum is for GUNS and Use. Not for Pilots and Drinks.

The Fed Flight Deck issue was hotly contested in the Gungeon (as we knew it then) when it was offered. Heck, some folks even said, what if that Delta pilot who showed up to work (in the news then, about the same time frame) drunk was packing? How would we be any safer?

Folks like to discuss how gun owners are law abiding and safety conscious and how the Dem party should ignore gun issues. Other folks like to say that all the gun deaths each year indicate there is more work to be done. I posted a particularly egregious example of a gun owner who was not law abiding and careful.

I posted it in that spirit. What, pray tell, is the spirit of your posting?

[Billy Ruffian]

8. My point is that the work that the pilot was going to do

while drunk, was of more importance than the presence of a gun.

Yes, this was a gun owner who broke the law. There was nothing in the news story to indicate that he mishandled the firearm, other than having a .09 BAC while carrying it.

Are you arguing that NO pilot should be allowed to carry, because one pilot was stupid?

[Wickerman]

9. No, I never thought a pilot needed to carry

I posted this to show that less than two years in we already have a classic example of someone who has a gun who shouldn't.

Supports the theory that guns are not the magical panacea some would pretend they are. In this case the user of the gun created an additonal danger rather than any type of benefit. Many argued that the perceived benefit was not worth the risk assclowns like this pose while drunk AND armed. Often guns can create a more dangerous situation simply by their presence. Here is a classic case.

[Billy Ruffian]

10. I'll agree that firearms are not magical, nor are they a

panacea, whose presence will solve all problems in favor of the good guys.

But if the 9/11 flight crews had been armed, there exists a reasonable chance that they would have at least been able to prevent the crashes into the towers and Pentagon.

And the danger caused by this pilot being armed and drunk was MUCH less than the danger caused by his being drunk, and attempting to fly.

[Wickerman]

11. You think drinking and guns together are ok, I guess, I don't

'don't know what to tell you.

I would have a lot more respect for the Gun rights crew if they would just say, wow, here is one of us that fucked up. We need to make sure this never happens again. Instead, as always, everyone jumps in with all sorts of straw men and irrelevancy. Separating whether its worse he was drunk and a pilot or drunk wearing a gun is irrelevant. He was all - at once. That is the fact, discussion of which is worse is immaterial.

[Redneck Socialist]

14. It could be argued

that the system worked in this case. A drunken pilot was prevented from flying, he was fired and his authority to carry a weapon revoked.

"...here is one <individual> that fucked up. We need to make sure this <person> never..." pilots a plane again. That is how I see it anyway.

One drunken fool does not invalidate the entire program.

[Township75]

12. Have you noticed something else?

We often here that gun owners wouldn't put others in harms way if they were trained and licensed.

It appears to me that this pilot was trained to receive the rank (or designation or whatever) that allowed him to carry a firearm onboard a plane. That also essentially serves as a license. I am even willing to bet he had to registar the firearm he would be carrying on the plane with either the airport or the airline or both. Doesn't really help the arguement for mandatory registration, licensing and training.

[Wickerman]

15. Thanks for helping with my point

guess it just shows gun owners aren't trainable. /kidding.

I think this boy is the poster child for what is a fly in the ointment of the whole premise of CCW. Some folks, certainly not all, can't be trusted no matter how much learning you give them.

Some will blow off this case and say it isn't important and guns is my freedom, fuck off. Others would say, ban all guns. Still others say time to put down the posturing on both sides, quit glossing over the facts (both sides) and work to realistic compromise.

[Redneck Socialist]

19. "Some folks..."

"Some folks, certainly not all, can't be trusted no matter how much learning you give them."

Very true, but because "some" pilots are drunks does that mean no pilots should carry weapons?

I don't think it is posturing to say that we need to hold individuals accountable for their actions. The pilot in the OP is being held accountable. To somehow draw a conclusion about CCW as a whole based on the actions of one irresponsible person is a stretch however.

edited for clarity

[Wickerman]

21. And that wasn't even what my post said, now was it?

I presented three ways to look at it. I lean to the third. Glad you chose the first as my voice. :eyes:

[Redneck Socialist]

24. Hunh?

"I think this boy is the poster child for what is a fly in the ointment of the whole premise of CCW.'

If I misunderstood you I apologize. I took the above sentence to suggest that this one drunken pilot was an example of why CCW is a bad idea.

My point is that this individual pilot shouldn't carry a weapon (which he won't be if convicted of a felony in this case, at least not legally) or fly a plane for that matter.

Again I think it a stretch to draw conclusions on the validity of CCW as a whole based on the actions of one single individual.

[Wickerman]

26. No, its the larger premise that CCW needs more work

less rhetoric and more work, as stated in point three. It IS a fly in the ointment - it doesn't destroy it by any means but it should cause more concern that it seems to.

[Billy Ruffian]

33. Realistic compromise, the third way

but you've also said you have no answers. If you've got any proposals, let's see them. I'd love some realistic compromise (I've got a 'graduated license' idea that might be good)

We've got a drunk with a gun, that needs to get the full hammer of the legal process dropped on him.

He's also a pilot, who was going to fly drunk. Legal hammer, drop.

Why does this guy invalidate the concept of CCW, or of armed pilots?

You punish the violators for harmful behavior. You don't punish the violators by restricting the rest of the users.

[Township75]

22. Really? I helped?

I didn't realize you were trying to make a point about CCW...it was pretty hard seeing how you didn't even mention CCW until you responded to my post.

Anyway, I agree there are people who can not be trusted, regardless of the amount of training they receive. All I have to do is hop onto a highway to experience it.

That is why people like myself support CCWs and support removing them from people that get DUIs or are intoxicated while carrying, or preventing individual from getting CCWs with DUIs on their records or histories of problems with alchohol and other drugs. Most states have this stuff built into their laws already.

[Wickerman]

28. The RKBA gang is in the house

I thought I had mentioned CCW in my thread to you, must have been with someone else. Kinda busy here. :)

Glad you agree with a sensible CCW. It might shock the crap outta some folk that I am open to it, but would like to see some real standards. What I have seen so far is stuff that can't be enforced. A person may be mentally ill but there really isn't a way to check on that. A person may have serious alcohol or drug issues but without a courtroom trail we have no way of knowing. Guy could be a world class gangster but without a conviction he could own as many weapons as he wants. I have no answers, but I see no harm in asking questions.

[Krinkov]

42. so because one pilot was drunk, no one should be able to fly planes?

thats the crux of your argument. Your 'fly in the ointment' is because people will inevitably be irresponsible, there's a problem with giving them certain responsibilities. Am i correct?

There are better ways to make that argument than a drunk pilot with a gun. Who cares about the gun? That lush shouldn't be anywhere near the cockpit, regardless of wether he had a swiss army knife!

The dangers 'revealed' by this pilot's actions say what, exactly, about the problems of gun toting pilots? That it would be a problem for them to be drunk and armed because they might shoot at the wrong times? Miss and hit the wrong person? The point is moot because drunken gunplay would NEVER be an issue because a drunken pilot shouldn't be anywhere near a plane to BEGIN with.

Your argument is like watching a sky scraper on fire and complaining about the lack of child-proof window locks.

[Eagle_Eye]

29. Have you noticed something else else?

We often hear that airline captains wouldn't put others in harms way because they are trained and licensed.

It appears to me that this pilot was trained to receive the rank of airline captain that allowed him to pilot a passenger aircraft. That he also has a license from the FAA. I am even willing to bet he had to present his FAA license with either the airport or the airline or both. Doesn't really help the argument for mandatory licensing and training to safely fly an airplane if the pilot shows up drunk.

The pilot is an idiot; the gun is immaterial.

[iverglas]

43. hearing things now?

We often here <sic> that gun owners wouldn't put others in harms <sic> way if they were trained and licensed.

Do voices whisper this in your ear while you're asleep?

Or are you perhaps implying that you hear this (so to speak) in this forum, from the mouths (as it were) of firearms control advocates?

I do hope that you weren't pointing that assertion in my direction. I have certainly never said that gun owners wouldn't put others in harm's way if they were trained and licensed. That would just be moronic. And I just can't think of who, of the suspects I suspect you have in mind, might have said it.

On the other hand, I have certainly heard all sorts of stuff from the other side of the aisle about how people who own firearms are "responsible" for knowing how to use them. I assume that those who say that have some reason for saying it.

Requiring that individuals be licensed to possess firearms, and have adequate training in the use of firearms (and other relevant matters, like laws governing firearms use) in order to be so licensed, is advanced as a way of reducing the risk of

(a) individuals who present an elevated risk for unsafe/illegal use of firearms acquiring firearms; and

(b) individuals who do acquire firearms using them unsafely.

I'd no more say that car drivers don't put others in harm's way because they are required to be trained and licensed (some minimal "training" is necessary in order to pass the test for licensing, obviously, not that more might not be better) than I'd say that gun owners wouldn't put others in harms way if they were trained and licensed. Like I said, that would be silly. But I guess I just figure there's some reason why car drivers are required to be trained and licensed.


Doesn't really help the arguement <sic> for mandatory registration, licensing and training.

No? Sez you. But it sure does help the argument for keeping the bar, when it comes to who is permitted to tote firearms around in public, higher than it now is.

The fewer people who are doing it at all, the fewer people there will be doing it drunk, it would seem pretty obvious.


By the bye ... Wickerman notes that we have this fine example after only two years of the program. Have there not been other reports of whole bunches of these newly-armed folks, um, losing their firearms?

[jody]

4. Would a drunken surgeon justify banning surgeons from using scalpels? n/t

[Wickerman]

5. LOL

thanks, Jody, that post made my day.

Worst or perhaps most incomplete analogy I have seen to frame an argument in ages.

Tears in my eyes as I picture two pilots looking baffled as they sit in a still cockpit. "Why, I don't know Todd, I can't even get the turbines to turn over without my .38 tucked into my holster. If I can't start the damn thing guess I will have to give up flying. Holy shit, wonder how they flew civilian aircraft before the Patriot Act gave us Flight deck powers?"

[jody]

6. I'm glad you had a laugh. I've flown with hundreds of armed pilots and

their handguns never interfered with their performance. Have you any direct evidence that handguns affect a pilot's performance?

[Wickerman]

7. No, and why would I need to have such evidence?

My point was the man didn't need a gun to do his job, not that it hindered his job.

Do you, by chance, have any evidence that a surgeon who plays, say, Jazz in the operating theatre is hindered in his performance? Confused, yep, me too. Neither of our questions were central to the issue raised.

[jody]

13. You said "Here's a guy who carried a gun to work, as allowed under

new Fed laws. Regrettably, he blew a .09 even though he hadn't drank in 10 hours!"

You then said "the man didn't need a gun to do his job" but that's a decision for each pilot to make, not you or me.

The issue was a drunk pilot and the gun was not germane to an issue of a pilot attempting to fly while drunk.

:shrug:

[Wickerman]

18. No, what was germane was that we had a drunk with a gun

who also happened to be in command of a huge missile that would've had several dozen folks strapped to it.

Keep on batting at those straw men. My problem is with a guy who was drunk carrying a gun. You have tried to get me off that topic several times, but maybe its all innocent and you see no problem with someone legally drunk carrying a weapon.

I got a real problem with it, and this boy has just become the poster boy for irresponsible gun owners. Hell, not only was he allowed to carry in public, he was afforded special trust. The only reason the gun was with the pilot was because he was allowed to carry it to work. Him carrying a gun while intoxicated was not germane? See, this is where I have a parting of ways with the gun crowd. That two (wait, I see even more jumping in... :) ) of you will excuse his gun handling while drunk invalidates every defense of gun safety I have ever heard preached in this forum.

[jody]

23. We've had several exchanges so what point are you trying to make?

You say, "this boy has just become the poster boy for irresponsible gun owners".

Does a drunken police officer or politician each possessing a legal firearm become a "poster boy for irresponsible gun owners"? What about a drunken soldier?

What about a drunken driver. Does that person become a "poster boy for irresponsible automobile owners"?

It seems like you are trying to make the gun the issue and not an irresponsible pilot.

I believe most people who support RKBA also support responsible use of those tools just as we do with anything else that might cause harm.
:shrug:

[Wickerman]

25. My central argument hasn't changed

no matter how many times we have swerved off on what ever diversion you have tried to take us.

We had a drunk with a gun. I didn't see anyone condemn his having a weapon of deadly force while drunk. Odd, that.

But the central issue is that he was drunk and just recently was part of a select few who were judged unimpeachable and just had to have a gun to take to work. Many argued against it. Those who did were told to shut up, you're trampling on gun owners rights, you can't do that, you are a Dem. Those same voices sided with our own drunken president who didn't want to hear debate on the issue and rammed the Patriot Act and also this Act down our throats. Pardon anyone for noticing that we already have a fool.


And now, to tackle a few of your latest strawmen:

Does a drunken police officer or politician each possessing a legal firearm become a "poster boy for irresponsible gun owners"?
Yes, do you approve of this handling of firearm?

What about a drunken soldier?
Yes, do you approve of this handling of firearm?

What about a drunken driver. Does that person become a "poster boy for irresponsible automobile owners"?
No shit, ever hear of MADD?

[jody]

30. Without parsing each of your assertions, it is obvious you've built

a case for responsible use of anything that might cause harm.

To repeat, I believe most RKBA supporters agree with that.

There is a difference between MADD and those who would ban handguns or all firearms, MADD doesn't want to ban cars.

When the Brady Bunch supports responsible use of firearms along with responsible use of autos, then they will have many things in common with RKBA supporters. Until then, they are the enemy of all who value the inalienable right to defend self and property.

[Jack_DeLeon]

16. So what does the firearm have to do with anything?

[slackmaster]

17. The article does not say he was carrying a gun

It seems to be an aside note that he was authorized to carry one.

And even if he was, so what? He was not simply fit to fly.

:shrug:

[Wickerman]

20. Sorry, its been on all the networks, papers and such

I chose the wrong article. It failed to say he was carrying. This one does:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050114/ap_on_re_us/intoxicated_pilot_1

LAS VEGAS - An armed AirTran Airways pilot was charged with operating an aircraft under the influence after a federal screener at McCarran International Airport smelled alcohol, authorities said Thursday.

It amuses the shit out of me that no one thinks its important that the man drunk and carrying.

[slackmaster]

31. I think the prospect of him flying the airplane is a lot more important

As an occasional user of airline services I find it a lot scarier.

Flying a plane safely is a lot more complicated than not screwing up with a gun.

Just my 2 cents' worth.

P.S. Sorry I hadn't already heard about it. I've been at work all day. I can easily get away with hopping onto DU once in a while while I tinker with a server, but not monitoring news feeds.

[Wickerman]

32. You'll get nothing but agreement from me that he shouldn't fly

but since this is the gun forum I think his ability to be a gun carrier is also of merit. I know the topic was of worth when it was an issue of whether pilots could carry.

you were correct to point out that my article didn't contain mention of him carrying. I only meant I had heard and read about it all day and had posted what appears to be the one story that didn't support the point I was attempting to make. :D

[slackmaster]

34. Getting a DUI while carrying a gun can get your CCW pulled

I'm pretty sure that is the case in California because it is de facto proof that you violated the terms of the license, i.e. you carried a weapon in a place where alcohol was served.

I think it should be the same way for pilots. If he wants to carry in the future there should be a suspension period and a repeat of the whole certifiation process.

He's surely not going to carry a gun on a plane for the period during which his license to fly is suspended.

[Krinkov]

35. so because one pilot drinks, no one should be permitted to fly planes?

thats the crux of your argument. Your 'fly in the ointment' is because people will inevitably be irresponsible, there's a problem with giving them certain responsibilities. Am i correct?

There are better ways to make that argument than a drunk pilot with a gun. Who cares about the gun? That lush shouldn't be anywhere near the cockpit, regardless of wether he had a swiss army knife!

The dangers 'revealed' by this pilot's actions say what, exactly, about the problems of gun toting pilots? That it would be a problem for them to be drunk and armed because they might shoot at the wrong times? Miss and hit the wrong person? The point is moot because drunken gunplay would NEVER be an issue because a drunken pilot shouldn't be anywhere near a plane to BEGIN with.

Your argument is like watching a sky scraper on fire and complaining about the lack of child-proof window locks.

[slackmaster]

40. No, that's not what I said at all

Your remarks have nothing to do with anything I wrote.

What post were you trying to respond to?

:shrug:

[Krinkov]

41. i was agreeing with you

..and responding to wickerman.

Guess i replied to the wrong thread

[Wickerman]

44. No even close to my argument

but you knew that. I have made numerous responses in this thread, take the time to read at least one or two and perhaps you'll understand my argument is more centered on opening up discussion on the whole CCW and pilot issued as exposed to us post 9-11 and by Ashcroft and his friends.

[MrSandman]

36. Drunk and packing...

Drunk and flying...
Drunk and driving...
All are illegal and extremely dangerous.

"You'll get nothing but agreement from me that he shouldn't {be packing}"

In MI, at least the legal limit is .02(less than one drink for most of us). I like that part of the MI CC law.

I believe that if the FAA, as my agent, deems a person responsible as commercial airline pilot, they are also responsible enough to be trusted to be trained to drive to the airport and carry a weapon.

This pilot demonstrated the inability to do at least two, and all three if he drove to the airport. He will, hopefully, lose the abused responsibilities.


Because I have no opposition to pilots being licensed to carry a weapon does not mean I support Patriot or other anti-terror laws.

Any furriner the admin deems a, heck, I don't even know what they are called, can be sent to Gitmo, denied a lawyer, and questioned and incarcerated without charges, for, what, life? Yeah, I love that law. And the sneak and peeks, they give me warm fuzzies just thinking about that secret court.

But, then, if I were to say that this pilot is an argument against CCW, I would be coking on the gnat while missing the camel.

Does CCW increase the risk to society? I do not think so. I know it has not been shown to increase risk. Therefore, I err on the side of allowing personal choice and responsibility.

Does alcohol use increase risk to society? Yes, but would prohibition present a greater risk? It once did, so I err on allowing personal choice and responsibility.

Does carrying with .09 on board present a risk to those around one? Yes, and it should be punished.

Does flying with .09 on board presnt a risk to those around one? Yes, and it should be punished.

WTF? I just went back and reread this and someone can fly legally with .04 on board? Forget the fact that he was carrying. Anyone who is carrying should not have detectable BAC, IMHO. But to allow somone to fly with a .04? That is outrageous. I can board a plane with two half-bagged(.08 is legal limit for DUI) flight officers and someone is worried they might have a gun. Shit, they shouldn't have an airplane.

I apologize for getting away from the gun angle, but I did not realize the limits on flying were so high, but to generalize from one incident is as valid a conclusion as More Guns, Less Crime

[Tinfoil]

38. A few things

A few things:


.04 is the actual legal limit set by the FAA. Most airlines have a "zero tolerance" policy which means no alcohol can be in the system. It can also be argued that since that is written into a specific airline's operations manual and then that manual in turn becomes FAR (aviation regulation), that anyone working at that airline can be busted for any alcohol in their system by the FAA. I don't disagree with .04. No one other than an 60lb child would be in any way affected by a .04% BAC.


A gun, in this case, really isn't an issue as the events unfolded. Assuming the breathalizer is correct and this pilot is proven guilty (remember, innocent before proven guilty, right?), this pilot fucked up more by showing up to work with alcohol in his system and that is a more pressing issue than the fact he has a firearm that is locked away in a box somewhere. IMO that fact was added for sensationalism only.


I'm not justifying the pilot.. He knows the rules and broke them and now his career is completely over. I don't know what penalties he will be facing from the DHS, but I assure you it won't be nice. He tarnished the FFDO program.

The DHS/TSA also has a duty to fine whoever leaked that this pilot was an FFDO. It is sensitive security information and is not releasable to the general public.

[MrSandman]

39. If a 60 lb child is affected by .04%...

Why not a 180 lb adult. Presumably it would take about three times the ETOH to reach the same level.

Don't drink and try to handle dangerous machinery/weapons/aircraft.

[Retired AF Dem]

27. I thought it was a lie

"What goes on in Vegas stays in Vegas".

[MrSandman]

37. He did stay in Vegas, didn't he?...nt

[Buster43]

45. The gun is moot.

I will wait and hold my judgment until the FAA report comes out. He didn't have a drink 10 hours prior to the flight and the blood test still came out .09. Interesting.

I am a pilot and own my own plane, a C-310. Unless I am on GOV travel, I never fly the airlines. And in some cases, the GOV will reimburse me for flying my plane on GOV travel. I refuse to be a slave to the airlines schedule.

[Speak soft carry Big]

46. Rarity breeds sensation

While I understand how enticing it is to scrutinize the headlines for any impropriety on the part of a lawful gun owner to further your point, you do realize that crimes by lawful gun owners are quite like plane crashes? Rare, but spectacular because of that rarity.

While generally thrown out into the media for all to see, the percentage of crimes by lawful gun owners is as sensationalized as plane crashes, and just as rare. Out of all the crimes every day, how many are committed by lawful gun owners?