TSA - Pilots to be exempt from scanners & pat downs.

[teddybear44]

Roger,

Funnily enough, I was actually thinking of changing my dentist but not for the reasons you state. Never seen a hospital patient wear a lead apron for an x-ray (self-defeating).

I believe in the US the new rules are that operating aircrew are now exempt from enhanced pat downs or the imaging machines (backscatter / mmw) so you don't have to worry in the first place, at least not in the US. You are one up on us pax in that respect.

'Whilst people go airside unscreened'. Who is that then? I can't think of any myself as far as Europe goes, with the exception of armed officers (that actually would be a waste of time and dangerous to screen, risking negligent / accidental discharge).

I am afraid that your quantative analysis of the risk factor appears not to be scientific when you liken it to a 'B' movie unlikely scenario. These things often seem unlikely....until they happen. It is often the 'unlikely' (discarded) risk that gets exploited. How likely did 9/11 seem beforehand? The simple fact is that if you leave a potential gap, then the possibility remains that it could theoretically (even probably) be exploited and so it is prudent not to leave these gaps at all when the system can reasonably close them. Pandering to egos is not a good enough reason to leave this same (considerable) gap. Take your pick from bribery, coercion, duress, maicious intent. Leaving this gap is not a good idea when those involved number in the hundreds of thousands. Since this gap does not yet exist for aircrew it is not possible to state that they would not be coerced You are in the realms of supposition that they would not be (based on what?). Why take the risk

I appreciate the (often made) point that a Pilot can once he is in control, take the machine and himself down but leaving this gap by virtue of exemption from search allows infinitley more variations. I presume you would agree with the theory that it would be easier to find someone to carry something airside (for passing on) from the aircrew community than it is to find one who will terminate the flight by sacrificing themself, especially if there is llittle risk of detection (initially) when doing so as you have exempted them. Even if you could find someone to act in the former manner, you are limited to that individuals rostered operation and the possibility of them not following through. The elimination of the requirement of sacrafice instantly increases the risk an by a considerable multiple. To create a community of tens of thousands who are exempted by the system, makes them instantly attractive as targets for all sorts of wrongdoing and seems to me to be a non-starter. In summary I can think of plenty of reasons for the status quo but not many for supporting the exemtion argument. I know this is not what you want to hear but it is a statistical exercise backed up by the fact that at the end of the day, there are simply no guarantees, when you exempt people. Being reliant on background checks is not sufficient either. That is a limited statement about what has been found concerning someones past using limited means (I am guessing) and offers no guarantees about future behavoir or vulnerability to the factors mentioned earlier being applied to them. How often is this done anyway....years, I'm betting. I will agree that perhaps frequent exposure to the backscatter machine is something I would support you on due to the unknowns but I do not in any way agree a blanket exemption from other screening for tens of thousands of (constantly changing) aircrew (some who might potentially become aircrew with motive in mind) is even remotely sensible.

As the humble SLF, this is the way I prefer it. I would hope that my pilot is sufficiently not wrapped up in his own ego to be overly bothered by the search which the rest of us have to go through to get on the same plane.

Can't speak with authority about the Tube but certainly metal detector arches, sniffer dogs have been operated by BTP I believe. I suppose they are physically constrained by the nature of the environment but I agree there is a difference. Perhaps its a case of what is actually physically possible and deemed appropriate....can't say myself!

All the best,

Ted