PDA

View Full Version : Air travel & FA declaration


Window_Seat
01-07-2010, 11:47 PM
I will be traveling in the next month if conditions permit, and I'm going to CCW in the state(s) I travel in for the first time.:cool: I was looking at the Southwest Airlines website on what rules I have to comply with as far as declaring mine, and the thought crossed my mind when I saw this statement:

Make sure guns are unloaded and definitely never transport a gun in your carryon baggage!

I just want to ask the one question for now: With Incorporation on the horizon, Sykes on the forefront & SI CCW in the future, how possible could it be that the NRA, GOA, SAF and CGF start looking into getting it so that we see more of this:

Firearms can be loaded & chambered, and must be holstered & concealed or fully exposed on your person at all times while on airport property and on all flights.

After constructive answers, you may laugh as loud as you like providing you don't wake the neighbors.:D:cool:

Seriously though, could more successful litigation lead to this possibility, especially with more imploding of the anti-org's?

Erik

bwiese
01-07-2010, 11:53 PM
Won't happen - even if everything were legal, airlines wouldn't allow it, and the planes are their property.

Liberty1
01-08-2010, 1:13 AM
Won't happen - even if everything were legal, airlines wouldn't allow it, and the planes are their property.

CalGuns Air? :D

Suvorov
01-08-2010, 7:43 AM
Won't happen - even if everything were legal, airlines wouldn't allow it, and the planes are their property.

Hell, the airlines don't even like it when their own pilots who are Federally Deputized LEOs carry a gun on a plane. They entrust a 30 million dollar aircraft to their pilots, 50-400 passengers lives, encourage them to fly sick and fatigued, but have to be forced by congress to let them defend the cockpit with a weapon. :mad:

If it were up to most airline CEOs, the only people on the aircraft with weapons would be the Terrorists. ;)

tacticalcity
01-08-2010, 7:55 AM
The public have an image in their heads of a negligent discharge causing the cabin to decompress and the plane tearing apart in the sky. Oddly enough it is a myth. The amount of pressure present wouldn't cause the kind of damage you see in Hollywood movies.

Additionally you would have to change the general public's perception of firearms, and firearms owners before you would start seeing stuff like what you suggest.

When the average citizen sees a mass shooting, or a terrorist hijacks an airplane, it never occurs to them that if the general public were both armed and well trained in the use of firearms it never would have happened.

Unlike the State of Israel, America does not trust it's citizenry with it's security. The general public would rather believe that the police and military can handle any and all contingencies, the idea that there are just too few police officers to protect us all never occurs to them. The idea that having a police to civilian ratio high enough to do it would turn us into a police state never occurs to them.

Most people would much rather believe in myths than accept reality.

Most people think you and I have a screw loose for even wanting to own a gun. Especially here in California. I run into everytime I have a conversation with anyone about the type of products I sell on my website. It is very frustrating. I tell strangers I own a "Sporting Goods Store" and don't tell them the store's name or what products we sell just to avoid the ugly looks.

Sure, the laws are changing as are minds...but it is a painfully slow process.

Capt_Communist
01-08-2010, 8:18 AM
CalGuns Air? :D

If they serve peanuts I'm down to fly with CalGuns Air

yellowfin
01-08-2010, 8:19 AM
Most people think you and I have a screw loose for even wanting to own a gun. Especially here in California.That continues because California has the unique problem of too many of its people thinking that the rest of the United States doesn't exist or at very minimum is totally irrelevant to them. If they didn't think that way then they'd learn from the experience of other people in other states that their ideas regarding firearms are totally wrong. Instead they live and think in a total vacuum, like small town groupthink but much, much worse.

dustoff31
01-08-2010, 9:34 AM
If it were up to most airline CEOs, the only people on the aircraft with weapons would be the Terrorists.;)


Quite true. Liability scares CEOs. If they allow guns on planes/ships, etc. they assume any ensuing liability. Shipping company CEOs are quite frank about this every time the subject comes up in regard to putting armed security on ships to fight off pirates.

In their view, it's smarter to just maintain insurance, pass the premiums on to the consumer, and accept what comes.

As for the airlines, if a couple of hundred people die, well, that's the breaks, at least they get a new airplane out of the deal.

Suvorov
01-08-2010, 3:25 PM
Quite true. Liability scares CEOs. If they allow guns on planes/ships, etc. they assume any ensuing liability. Shipping company CEOs are quite frank about this every time the subject comes up in regard to putting armed security on ships to fight off pirates.

In their view, it's smarter to just maintain insurance, pass the premiums on to the consumer, and accept what comes.

As for the airlines, if a couple of hundred people die, well, that's the breaks, at least they get a new airplane out of the deal.

Exactly. The thing is that if a pilot has an AD or worse yet, accidentally injures someone during the execution of their duties, the airline might be seen as being liable. On the other hand, if Hajji lights his crotch on fire and takes 300 souls with him, the airline will just blame the TSA, get a huge insurance write off, and maybe even get some funds from the government. And don't think the airlines like FAMs either, they occupy seats that could be sold to someone else other than the government for more money. I'm sorry if I seem very cynical to some, but a few years in the business will do that to anyone (especially those most idealistic). Think about that next time you all fly.

When the FFDO program was new, there was a fair amount of airline support for the program (some airlines would even positive space the employees to and from the training and buy their trips from them while they were in training so it would not result in a financial hardship). Now however, I run into pilots all the time who have been approved by the TSA and can not get the time off from the company to take the training, they are required to use their vacation days. While spending a week in the desert firing 1000s of rounds and practicing combatives about old airliners sounds like a great vacation to me - it usually doesn't fly that well with the wife and kids. Frankly, from my end and what I have seen, the log jam is not on the TSAs end but on the airlines end.

Sorry to steer this thread in a slightly different direction, but given the events of 25Dec, this has just been pissing me off to no extent. :mad:

tazmanian devil dog
01-08-2010, 3:43 PM
This will never, ever happen. There are just too many hurdles to overcome. I think we should focus on obtaining and keeping our CCW rights here in Kalifornia. Overturning Kalifornias Draconian gun laws is far more plausible than being allowed to CCW on a plane.

hoffmang
01-08-2010, 3:45 PM
Whether we like it or not, I expect the secure area of an airport to remain a federal "sensitive place" for quite some time.

-Gene

Glock22Fan
01-08-2010, 4:00 PM
Wishful thinking, but I've thought for a long time, even before 9/11, that the best way to avoid hijacking was to issue firearms (with fragmenting rounds) to all law-abiding passengers who wanted them. Shoot 'em before they can light their shoelaces or underwear!

As far as the "Goldfinger" myth of the dangers of decompression are concerned, I believe that the pressurization pumps on an aircraft are designed to be able to maintain pressurization with a one square foot hole in the fusilage. Relatively cheap to carry some patches aboard as well, after all, we're only talking about 14 psi to withstand and a hole you could stick your finger in. Coupled with the redundant wiring and redundant systems, that makes the danger to passengers the greatest danger of a discharge in an aircraft.

hoffmang
01-08-2010, 4:12 PM
Also, I can't read the title of this thread without thinking: "Yes Maam, I need to declare my MP-5."

-Gene

hoffmang
01-08-2010, 4:16 PM
Also, Mythbusters on "explosive decompression":

V9sYXqO5L0k
SrbvLbdZlag

-Gene

Suvorov
01-08-2010, 4:17 PM
Also, I can't read this thread without thinking: "Yes Maam, I need to declare my MP-5."

-Gene

Funny, but a few years back (15 more like) I was on the Wyoming State Marksmanship team flying out to Camp Robinson Arkansas for the Annual Wilson Match. We all had to declare our weapons and allow the gate agent to insure they were unloaded. The M9s and M24s were no big deal, the M-16s didn't really raise an eyebrow either, but when we opened the gun cases with the M-60s that is when the comments started flying. It was Fall, and it was Wyoming and a tall Cowboy said, "Just what the hell are you boys hunting?" :D

Suvorov
01-08-2010, 4:21 PM
I believe that the pressurization pumps on an aircraft are designed to be able to maintain pressurization with a one square foot hole in the fusilage. Relatively cheap to carry some patches aboard as well, after all, we're only talking about 14 psi to withstand and a hole you could stick your finger in. Coupled with the redundant wiring and redundant systems, that makes the danger to passengers the greatest danger of a discharge in an aircraft.

Not really to nitpick, but the modern airliner no longer uses pressurization pumps. They pump compressed air from the engines into the fuselage (after passing it through air conditioning units). And yes, the volumetric flow rate is more than enough to compensate for any holes a handgun bullet might make (frangible or otherwise).

Glock22Fan
01-08-2010, 6:16 PM
Not really to nitpick, but the modern airliner no longer uses pressurization pumps. They pump compressed air from the engines into the fuselage (after passing it through air conditioning units). And yes, the volumetric flow rate is more than enough to compensate for any holes a handgun bullet might make (frangible or otherwise).

pumps, shmumps, a rose by any other name . . .

No wonder there's enough pressurized air available. I'm guessing those turbine blades can shift a lot of air.

As far as frangible is concerned, I suggested that to avoid the "terrorist and two passengers with one bullet" problem, rather than to save the airraft's skin.

Still, I don't think it will ever happen, even though El Al leads the way.

bigcalidave
01-09-2010, 1:34 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHA HAAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA HHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAAHA HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHHA

Ok you said we could laugh.... That's all I was doing after I read the question. I was really hoping for a thread on declaring fully automatic weapons on airlines (FA) ... I was sad. Then I was laughing.

JDay
01-09-2010, 1:50 AM
The public have an image in their heads of a negligent discharge causing the cabin to decompress and the plane tearing apart in the sky. Oddly enough it is a myth. The amount of pressure present wouldn't cause the kind of damage you see in Hollywood movies.

Yep, most people don't realize that air is constantly leaking out of the cabin since it has positive pressure. Its constantly flowing out a hole in the tail. This keeps the cabin from getting over pressured when gaining altitude and helps with ventilation.