Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert
Well, if the guns are inboard, like a Catalina's (for example), the shell casing s will stay in the aircraft. Just to make sure you might have to mount a collection bag or chute on the gun, which would undoubtedly be a minor annoyance when using the gun.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polydamas
Falling shell casings from 20,000 feet should be as harmless as fallen coins from a skyscraper and for the same reason (low mass, low sectional density). The linked article does not say that Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco's issue is with falling shell casings though, and knife and firearms regulations are definitely a subject where its wise to consult a lawyer not strangers on the Internet.
|
The ATF has no jurisdiction over aircraft equipment (if the guns are otherwise legal). It's the FAA that has been concerned with the issue. Until
October 5, 2018, there was no law that specifically forbade mounting a weapon to a drone, for example,
which caused the FAA much heartache when people started doing that.
From reading various Warbird forum discussions on this subject*, I get the feeling that this is an area where legislation is weak and the FAA is using its particular interpretation so that they have something to use to control armed airplanes. No one actually worries about the shell casings being dangerous, it's just an effective legal pretext to regulate a field where adequate legislation doesn't really exist.
That being said, I can find Texas companies selling tours where you shoot at wild hogs from helicopters, with NVDs, and can even use an M60, so for a given value of 'mounting', there is some wiggle room. And, fortunately, I've already established Kessler as being a silent partner in such a company (to explain buying lots of ITAR-controlled NVDs) and even have one part-time PC acting as CEO of the company as his cover job.
I can be pretty sure that the FAA wouldn't
like it if the PCs ever armed a historically-correct PBY-5A with real machine guns in place of the mock-ups, but assuming that the weapons were only used for 'self-defence', the legal grey areas involved allow for their billionaire Patron
possibly preventing them from going to prison.
Still, best not to get into a multi-year legal battle with the federal government if it can be avoided.
*Blank-adapted machine guns are still legally machine guns, so this happens more often than you'd think, for movies and air shows. It's far from impossible to get the waiver, but it's not general-purpose, it seems to be state-specific and might even be more specific than that. Specifically, this would be the FAA 'Restricted' category (which I believe is a sub-category of the 'Experimental' aircraft category, which all Warbirds fall under): "Operation of restricted category aircraft is limited to special purposes identified in the applicable type design." Hollywood and some influential or persistent pilots that show off Warbirds at air shows do get these, but it's subject to an FAA inspector approving the specific set-up.