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

[vapilot2004]

U.S. airline pilots learned today that they'll be exempt from the invasive x-ray screening and pat-downs that have sparked a revolt across the country.

In a statement, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced new procedures that it says will streamline airport security.

Pilots in uniform acting on airline business will be allowed to pass through airport security by showing two photo IDs. The identification will be cross-checked against a flight crew database.

"Allowing these uniformed pilots, whose identity has been verified, to go through expedited screening at the checkpoint just makes for smart security and an efficient use of our resources," TSA Administrator John Pistole said in a statement.

The decision comes after pilots' unions had called on members to avoid going through the advanced x-ray screeners that produce full-body images, and they had also expressed concerns about enhanced pat-downs. A handful of pilots have said they were so traumatized by the searches that they couldn't perform their duties, though critics have accused them of making such claims to push a political agenda.

source: ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/congressmen-tsa-missed-mark-airport-security-patdowns/story?id=12192559)

Still no relief for cabin crew.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Very good.

But why do I need two forms of 'photo ID? Is the one issued to me by my airline security department after a criminal record and background check not deemed sufficient unless I've got my driving licence with me which, by the way, has NO security connotations and is easily copied?

[Dream Land]

Thank you Allied Pilot's Association and others! :D

[protectthehornet]

I hope our friends in back, the flight attendants , get the same treatment.

Do you all recall when pilots first started going through security screening at all?

It was back in the days just after an ex employee of PSA (the original, not the commuter) got aboard a BAE146, went to the cockpit and shot both pilots while in flight.

the plane crashed, killing all aboard near Paso Robles, CA, USA.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

One lives in hope Mr. lifting. :{

[fesmokie]

Congratulations to the pilot group !! I hope the same for the Cabin Crew's!

They have taken our nail clippers but still allow us to have a Crash Axe.
These MORONS are allowed to grope little girls. (Does the word Pedophile mean anything)?
Back ground checks and Gov ID don't mean S#it. :mad::ugh:

[protectthehornet]

Does the TSA hire screeners using a "don't ask, don't tell'' policy?

[BobM2]

"It was back in the days just after an ex employee of PSA (the original, not the commuter) got aboard a BAE146, went to the cockpit and shot both pilots while in flight."

This guy, David Burke, was a fired USAir ramper who decided to take out his former boss, a passenger on this flight. He used AN ID card still in his possession to bypass screening. As a result of his murder of the pilots & a planeload of people, pilots were required to be screened, while rampers were given continued access to the downstairs doors with NO screening.

This government reaction to his rampage was & continues to be BEYOND ABSURD!

[flyhardmo]

A breast cancer survivor says she was forced to take out her prosthetic breast and show it to US officials during a "horrific" airport pat down.

Cathy Bossi said she reluctantly went through the full-body scanners at Charlotte Douglas International Airport in August — but was concerned about having added radiation put through her body.

The veteran flight attendant, who survived breast cancer three years ago, was then told she would have to have to go to a personal screening room.

Two female officials accompanied her and began an "aggressive" pat down but stopped when they reached Ms Bossi's breast.

"She put her full hand on my breast and said, 'What is this?' Bossi said.

"And I said, 'It's my prosthesis because I've had breast cancer.' And she said, 'Well, you'll need to show me that.'"

Ms Bossi said she had to remove her prosthetic breast from her bra and show it to the officer.

"I did not take the name of the person at the time because it was just so horrific an experience, I couldn't believe someone had done that to me," she said.

"I'm a flight attendant. I was just trying to get to work."

It is the latest in a string of incidents involving security pat downs in the US — following the introduction of new procedures which critics have likened to sexual assault.

California man John Tyner filmed himself during a pat down, saying he would have the supervising officer arrested if he "touched his junk".


http://news.ninemsn.com.au/mobile/article.aspx?id=8144647&_sp=2045&noid=6304&_s=4cfd9114-4fa5-4cfb-910c-36e1c4ec2e39

[galaxy flyer]

Don't quit the protests and the "opt out" yet, not until total surrender by these goons! Nothing else, unconditional surrender.

GF

[doubleu-anker]

Good show!! :D:D

Seems the imbeciles at the TSA have a few brain cells to put together amongst themselves after all. Maybe someone there was smart enough to realise, when pilots get to their place of work, I.E., the aircraft they have an array of weapons to choose from. Axe, etc., etc, tons of fuel and not to mention the aircraft itself.

Common sense is all but dead still but this seems to be a ray of hope.

[YorkshireTyke]

So now all we have to worry about is some crazed cabin crew making bombs and weapons from all the heavy gear and liquids available to them in the galleys, once they've been 'cleared' by a TSA strip search of course!

Still, one small step .......

[DocSullivan]

Exemption for flight attendants, similar to that for pilots, may be imminent:

TSA Partners With Flight Attendants on Security -- WASHINGTON, Nov. 19, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tsa-partners-with-flight-attendants-on-security-109319814.html)

About time! :ok:

[Luckyguy]

To foreign operating crews too. VApilot mentioned that the ID would checked against a flight crew database. Is that database linked to B1/B2 & C1/D visas for inbound operating crew so that going outbound will be a formality for us too.
I have to say that, especially in the UK, the flight crew are so used to being exposed to harsh screening (scanners, pat down, bag inspection) that sometimes a trip to the States is a walk-in-the-park.
I can tell you with certainty that the rest of Europe are nowhere near as pedantic/arrogant/ignorant/anal as the UK ! However, I also understand the perceived threat against other EC members is not as high !

Anyway, good for you guys, I'm glad someone has seen sense, I just hope the sense spreads a bit further East.

[B737NG]

.... I am with you on the UK - Staff and additional you find a similar mood in Downunder, AU/NZ from time to time.

I spoke with some PAX in the past who avoid UK-transit flights whenever they can. Less crowded then somewhere else and a better behaivior from Staff. Maybe in a while this reflects in the statistic and the PAX-number goes down. At the end it is revenue lost.......

Fly safe and land happy

NK

[Two's in]

Pat-down woman forced to show fake breast

Yes, let's all be outraged by this because no self-respecting terrorist would stoop to using a prosthetic body part loaded with explosives to bring down a plane. They are above that kind of behavior as we all know. More outrage needed here.

[nigegilb]

Oh give us all a break. She was cabin crew, recovering from breast cancer and she was understandably concerned about exposing her body to unnecessary radiation. Hey pal, there is a job for you in the security industry, you will go far.

Can we please get to profiling as quickly as possible and stop molesting the vast majority of the law abiding populace.

What next? Anal searches?

[PA-28-180]

" because no self-respecting terrorist would stoop to using a prosthetic body part loaded with explosives to bring down a plane. "

I have one word about this: PROFILING!! :ugh:

To use a few more words....when the h3ll is this politically correct CR@P going to stop!! :mad:

[Witraz]

Time it right in China and you get patted down by a member of the opposite sex. So far I have seen no complaints from fellow crew members, in fact .......
:D:=:

[Max Angle]

I guess that sometime after hell freezes over and pigs start flying they might do the same for us in the UK.

[vapilot2004]

Mr. Lucky,

Details are still sketchy and the TSA is keeping the cards close to their bosum, however it appears the new policy only applies to US airline flight deck crew. They have yet to confirm if internationally bound US crews will enjoy the same level of trust. Word of mouth rumor has it that the 'courtesy' could be extended to crew members of select non-US carriers as early as summer 2011.

PA-28: Agreed. Israel has that figured out.

[justanotherflyer]

Surely this increases the risk that the pilots will wrest control of the airplane?

:)

[Piltdown Man]

A definite improvement, but one more step required - the reason to be airside. My company has a system available worldwide which will list the names of all operating crew. This last check will give a reason for those who need to be airside to be where they are and make it more difficult for them to be impersonated.

PM

[AnthonyGA]

Seems the imbeciles at the TSA have a few brain cells to put together amongst themselves after all. Maybe someone there was smart enough to realise, when pilots get to their place of work, I.E., the aircraft they have an array of weapons to choose from. Axe, etc., etc, tons of fuel and not to mention the aircraft itself.

Actually, no, this demonstrates the opposite: the TSA still doesn't know what it's doing.

For intrusive screening methods like this to work, they have to apply to everyone—otherwise the bad guys will simply impersonate whoever is exempt and avoid the screening that way. Or disgruntled formerly good guys will be "turned" by the bad guys.

If one follows the logic to which you allude above, then pilots should not be tested for drugs, since they could crash airplanes voluntarily while not intoxicated. The assumption that all pilots always have the noblest thoughts in mind is unfortunately a dangerous one. Just as doctors, lawyers, engineers, and persons of every other occupation can have sinister motives, so can pilots. And of course this applies to cabin crew, too.

However, since the TSA's Gestapo tactics really don't do anything to increase safety, anyway, exempting certain classes of people from them isn't going to make any practical difference.

[doubleu-anker]

All good stuff of course.

I was of the opinion the TSA checks were to relieve people of weapons (among other things) that make them a threat I.E., taking control of an aircraft. they are even presented with an axe to assist them should it be deemed necessary.

All pilots who have passed through screening are about to do just that. Take control of a potentially deadly weapon and a very effective weapon at that, as recent history has proven!!

[500N]

It has been alluded to in previous posts and I would like to highlight again
that looking at people / the person, particularly the eyes is one of the best
ways to detect someone.
.

[ishanb]

Engage passengers in conversation while observing their eyes and body language. It doesn't much matter what is actually being discussed. Profiling is useful and accurate but needs to be taught; it is a learned skill. Having multiple layers of profiling, from when the passenger parks his/her car to when they join the security line works best. Profiling done right is quick, annoys few people (except those with evil intent) and violates no civil rights.

[doubleu-anker]

Profiling

Agreed. The crux is multi layered, profiling.

We all, could learn a lot from the Israels because if we don't, then the bad guys, will have us all running around like headless chickens.

[WestWind1950]

I see no problem with showing more then one ID, after all, you normally have, besides your crew badge, your pilots certificate and passport with you.... so what's the problem?

I agree that the security has gone overboard and that if a :mad: wants to find his way inside security areas, he will.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Westwind, I've no problem with carrying and presenting two forms of ID. However, in the past, visiting another airport for instance, I've been asked to show driving licence/pilot's licence/passport to confirm who I am.

They are asking me to use a form of ID that is easily copied - my pilot licence is just a few sheets of paper with my name on it - passport fraud is one of the biggest forms of fraud in the Europe- as is driving licence fraud.

What is the point of all the background and criminal record checks I need to go through to get an airside pass if I'm then asked to use a non-secure form of ID to validate my "secure ID"?

[jcjeant]

Hi,

Agreed. Israel has that figured out.
Profiling

Agreed. The crux is multi layered, profiling.


Profiling ???
Never will be applied in US of A's
Politically incorrect ... racism .. discrimination at play here :)

[AnthonyGA]

Engage passengers in conversation while observing their eyes and body language. It doesn't much matter what is actually being discussed.

Questioning can be productive, too. One person observes the passenger as he is questioned, while the other asks the questions. But the questions need not be random or unimportant.

"Deep" questioning can be used to discover who is telling the truth and who isn't. Ask the passenger where he is going. You ask the passenger a series of questions, each of which is based in part on the answers to the preceding questions. For example, if he says he's going to see his aunt, ask what his aunt does for a living. When he tells you her job, ask which company she works for. And so on. For each answer you get, ask a new question that requires more details about his trip. A person telling the truth will have no trouble answering any of the questions, and his answers will be consistent if the questions are repeated. But a person who is lying will eventually run out of memorized, scripted answers, and will have to make things up, at which point inconsistencies can easily be spotted. Best of all, the method need not be kept a secret, because there's no way to get past it. It works with just one passenger traveling alone, but it works even better with two people traveling together (provided that they are questioned separately).

[Tolka]

I was always under the impression that one of the reasons why pilots and cabin crew had to go through similar searches as passengers was that they could be forced, under duress, to carry weapons or other material airside for others to use and not because there were considered to be threats themselves. Consider a situation where a pilot's spouse and children were abducted by terrorists and were only to be released ih he/she brought banned items airside. All the security checks into the pilots background and all the IDs in the world would not prevent such a situation. Only searching them as they go through security would work. In fact such searches might protect pilots and crew from being used in this way. Any comments?

[500N]

With my comment re looking at someone's eye's, I meant from a distance,
as they are walking to the queue etc.

Anyone doing something they shouldn't be will at some point cast a look around
and a trained person looking for this will pick it up and can then initiate some of the other methods mentioned previously.

[chuks]

Unfortunately, cost always comes into this sort of thing, even though we have learned not to bring that fact up. We could have the very best security in the world if we wanted to pay for that. The cost in time and money might rule that out but at least the people in charge, if given some impulse from on high, could address some of the obvious faults in the present system.

As it is, it reads like a crowd of badge-happy dim-bulbs groping and harrassing innocent members of the travelling public. Of course we only read about the relatively few checks that go wrong, not about the millions that happen without incident, sort of the same way we only read about the relatively few accidents or incidents, since there is no news value in "Jumbo jet with 400 passengers on board lands safely, no one screaming in terror..."

I was once operating in the UK, just picking up some experience there as an FO on a regional airline, when I had a photo ID from one airport, the one I was temporarily based at, so that life was good, or so I thought. Then we flew to another UK airport, as one does, only to be told that no, that ID from A was no good at B! Uniform, pilot's licence, passport, other photo ID... No, no, no. Pure mindless BS, so that I could walk across the ramp from the aircraft, go through the sliding doors, but NOT turn around and go right back out again!

There was absolutely no thought given to some way to issue a transit ID, say, and no way to get the ID they wanted me to have, either. It was so that the security jobs-worths did not actually care about either security nor about how this was impeding the safe and efficient movement of passengers by air, what I thought the point of the whole exercise was.

No, to someone with a certain mindset, the whole point of an airport security checkpoint is to give them a job, one with some small amount of authority.

[PA-28-180]

" Never will be applied in US of A's
Politically incorrect ... racism .. discrimination at play here"

That's the point! This PC cr@p has gotten to the point that we are risking our freedoms and our lives! As stated earlier, Osama bin Laden must be laughing his @ss off wherever he's currently hiding....because he's certainly achieved what he set out to do.....namely, create fear and over the top security in the western world that terrorists can by-pass with ease. :mad:

I personally haven't flown commercial since the end of 2000 ......and I won't until 'common' sense returns to the world. :ugh:

[protectthehornet]

don't be surprised if we do go to profiling. political ''correctness'' is now incorect.

[Two's in]

I was always under the impression that one of the reasons why pilots and cabin crew had to go through similar searches as passengers was that they could be forced, under duress, to carry weapons or other material airside for others to use and not because there were considered to be threats themselves. Consider a situation where a pilot's spouse and children were abducted by terrorists and were only to be released ih he/she brought banned items airside. All the security checks into the pilots background and all the IDs in the world would not prevent such a situation. Only searching them as they go through security would work. In fact such searches might protect pilots and crew from being used in this way. Any comments?

Tolka, congratulations for being the lone voice of reason here and thinking there may be more to this than knee-jerk media inspired hysteria.

The "proxy" bomb is a well tried and tested method of delivering a device using unwilling persons. They don't even have to put it on a specific aircraft, all they have to do is transfer it to another player on the airside of security.

Much easier to assume the TSA are clowns (they may be but the threat is real) than assess the real scope of the threat.

[MG23]

Best of all, the method need not be kept a secret, because there's no way to get past it. It works with just one passenger traveling alone, but it works even better with two people traveling together (provided that they are questioned separately).

If the method is known -- and it's now very, very widely known by anyone who might want to get past it -- then it's essentially useless; any actual terrorists will practice until they have a high chance of getting through any questions thrown at them. In addition, psychopaths are extremely good liars to begin with and probably make up a far larger proportion of the potential recruits for a terrorist group than they do in the general population.

As for effective, I've been 'flagged' every time I've traveled from Israel, yet I'm doing absolutely nothing wrong. All these 'magic bullet' solutions to security turn out to be fundamentally flawed when they're actually tried and tested in the real world, where even a 1% false positive rate makes them a dismal failure.

Edit: and I agree with the earlier posts that this shows the TSA are not serious about security because bin Laden and his mates could just find a pilot to carry their gear through the security checks and hand it to them on the other side, willingly or otherwise (e.g. 'do it or we'll torture your family to death'). If these checks were actually necessary they'd have to be applied to everyone, or at least a random selection of everyone, regardless of background.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Only searching them as they go through security would work. In fact such searches might protect pilots and crew from being used in this way. Any comments?

Yes, what are you going to do when the bad guys tell me to crash in to parliament, for instance?

You can put me through a scanner and grab my nuts as many times as you like but as I don't need to carry anything you won't find anything.

[doubleu-anker]

Profiling allows the security service to target certain "groups" shall we say, rather than concentrate on other "groups", which everyone knows will be a complete and utter waste of time.

By "groups" I am not referring to the origin of a passport here. I am referring to RACE and Religion. Sorry but it had to come. Common sense dictates you target the most likely "group" judging from past recent history.

[Heavy operator]

Normally I wouldn't bother posting here but I have finally given in to the ignoranti on here who spout about PC and family held hostage in order to pass on a "proxy" bomb.

For heavens sake, use your minute brains to get a grip and try to understand the problem from a logical point of view. First off, "profiling" isn't racist. Stating that it is, is stupidity of the first order and that makes me prejudiced against fools who open their mouths and remove all doubt about their intelligence.

Perhaps if we used the whole title of "multi-layered psychological profiling" rather than just "profiling" which causes the PC brigade to assume that a profiler only goes looking for people of a certain skin colour or dress. Don't be so pathetically stupid! It's all about demeanour and intent. Intent to cause harm. Intent to meet ones maker and the vestal virgins or whatever.

There are likely to be very, very few chances of someone committed to take his or her own life together with those of innocent bystanders who does not exhibit some (many in fact) signs of the mental state he or she is in. A well trained, multi-layered profiling system would have that person isolated long before they even got into any queue on the ground, never mind in the confines of an aircraft.

And now to the second issue of a crew member being coerced into passing something to A N Other once airside. Have you thought out how difficult it would be to co-ordinate something like that. Look up "Occams Razor" and figure out for yourself whether it is likely to succeed. Some ignorantii watching too many Hollywood movies and actually believing that everything they watch is feasible and possible!

Together with some simple, multi-layered psychological profiling, you're assuming that the victim is not going to exhibit some signs that all is not well. Besides, what is there to stop one of the armed police we watch passing through the system unchecked, hasn't had his family held hostage? Oooh... we didn't think of that. Duh!

Anyway, if only 10% or 20% of people are actually scanned by the backscatter X-Ray machines, how is that security? Are the PC and "proxy" brigades going to assume that by making flight crew go through the ridiculous option of Scan or invasive pat-down is somehow enhancing security? Most likely, but they should all sod off to a pax forum where they can gnaw their nails with anxiousness about the next big terrorist threat. This post is about pilots and not the pax.

We are part of the solution, not the problem. At least the TSA are about to do something positive, finally! Here in the UK we still have to deal with the faceless idiots in the DfT who set rules that are left to individual airports to interpret and implement. They still work to the assumption that in a worst case scenario a pilot is going to have his or her family held hostage in order to pass "something" to someone else airside.

There is absolutely no thought going into "intent" and only on the confiscation of liquids and nail clippers. Of course, the drones in the DfT will tell you that because of their methods, there have been no incidents. Of course, using their logic, I could also state categorically that because I eat a bowl of corn flakes every morning I will never be trampled by a rogue elephant when walking down Kensington High Street.

It is time for our own pilot associations here in the UK to lobby our own parliamentarians to tell the DfT to get out of their secret world of security theatre and get realistic about who is part of the solution. It was stated only a few years ago that here in Europe and the USA we could never have the type of multi-layered profiling system that the Israelis have employed for such a long time because it would be prohibitively expensive. Well, how much do you think it has cost us for the current 'security theatre'? Aside from the fact that it is now a self sustaining industry which stands to lose a lot of money if this were ever to be revealed as the farce it really is. Too many Mandarins would have a lot of explaining with no real possibility of giving a real reason.

So, lets just keep the ignoranti off this thread. You know who I mean. Those that try to interpret this an issue for all pax rather than just the flight crew. Also, the other ignoranti, you know, the ones who fail miserably to understand what multi-layered psychological profiling is all about and instead immediately jump on the PC bandwagon and assume (makes an Ass out of You and Me) that it just involves singling out people on a racial basis.

And finally, lets keep the ignoranti who have watched too much Hollywood movies and have a singular inability to comprehend what Occams Razor is about and why it would be an extremely unlikely event. So unlikely that our own armed police are not suspected of being sleepers or victims of their family being held hostage. So, why should we be treated as suspects?

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Nobody.









P.S. It's not a good point though.

[BobM2]

Why would anyone bother to try to coerce a crewmember? How many rampers, fuelers, cleaners, etc have daily access to the "secure" areas with NO screening?

[Boatbum01]

SLF here. This BS is just maddening. The scanners are sold by, drumroll please, M. Chertoff, recently of the DHS. This may be his retirement program. Now, the TSA/DHS is advertising in cross gender websites for screeners, promising that you can grope all the packages you want, and maybe even recruit some more folks to your way of thinking. Meanwhile, the idea of profiling, is just not PC enough and we can't let grandma or little debbie or kindergarten age or even some wayward pilot avoid the attentions of the previous fast food folks. When the beep goes off of the WTMD, some of the screeners jump to attention, thinking the french fries are done.

Enough is enough. You pilots and air crew in total are doing a wonderful job and putting up with way more than most folks would. The ultimate solution to this crap is boycotting the airlines. Sorry folks, I know this may affect you, but they (airline cos), have the congressional ear, and maybe the respective congress still remembers that the local populace is enraged still after the last election.
Sorry for the long rant. but the Bill of Rights is still sacred.

[Tolka]

BobM2

But isn't that exactly the point. They should also be screened. If you want to secure the airside area doesn't it make sense that everyone with access be screened - the police, security officials, cleaners, flight crew etc. Otherwise its just a joke. Its nothing to do with trust. Its to prevent them from being forced to bring banned items airside for others to use.

[p7lot]

Jstflyin wrote:
My personal input towards a solution would be more intelligence and more common sense...not only profiliing or denunciaiton. If we take the amount of money spent on backskatter x-ray machines and use it to go "shopping" for information at al kaida bazar I bet we'll see that everybody and their plans have a certain price.


One of the most intelligent comments thus far.
Intelligence is the key to this issue of security as it has proven success in past and present conflicts.
One has to know one's enemy and screening atpl holders or indeed pax without understanding the mindset of fanatics is futile ...imo of course
I just fly the thing.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Some very good and salient points on this thread so far.

I know plenty of ways to get "illicit" goods airside without resorting to holding a family hostage!

I'll outline one, which is obvious enough that it isn't a security risk.

Get your mate who is airside, and has been through security, throw whatever you want over the airfield fence, and then get him to pick it up!

This fight is not one that can be won by frontline security, you can have as many scanners as you like, but you can never defeat it that way. There will always be a weak link in the chain.

The way to fight it best is intelligence driven, with profiling as a back up. I'm sure MI5 and 6 stop an awful lot of stuff before it even comes to fruition. I know where I spend my daily business that MI5 keep a quiet eye on things. That is the way forward.

[StrongEagle]

SLF here... you know... one of the poor bastids that has to put up with this stuff... and without me... and countless minions like me... you folks wouldn't get to fly the iron you do. </rant off>

What I don't get is this: If pilots can clear with ID, why not me? I fly regularly... and usually the same routes. Why can't I undergo 'inspection' and have my name in a computer as pre-approved? Why do I have to have a TSA individual, who clearly fits in the left side of the bell curve, 'assess' me for terrorist potential?

What are these TSA jackasses trying to accomplish anyway? It can't be security. They refuse to profile. They hardly touch cargo. They hardly touch luggage. Without going into details I know I could walk into any airport naked, board the plane naked, and still be a threat.

Why is it that security conscious countries like Singapore don't resort to this garbage, while the US TSA degrades the flying experience yet again?

National Opt-Out Day (http://www.optoutday.com/)

[Johnny767]

What I don't get is this: If pilots can clear with ID, why not me? I fly regularly... and usually the same routes. Why can't I undergo 'inspection' and have my name in a computer as pre-approved? Why do I have to have a TSA individual, who clearly fits in the left side of the bell curve, 'assess' me for terrorist potential?

Pretty simple; We Fly the Aircraft

We could come to work naked and nothing changes.

A concept that the out of control - “Security Machine,” - is too stupid (and have no intention) to figure out.

Airline Management gets perverse pleasure out of seeing the Pilots put through this indignity.

We (Pilots) don’t need nail clippers, to take over the Aircraft

I certainly have empathy for the Frequent Flyer; it would be nice to see more of a “Trusted Traveler” system.

But sorry, you’re not in the same “trust” category as the Pilots.

[Jabiman]

If terrorism is the deliberate use of violence, or threat of its use, against innocent people, with the aim of intimidating them, or other people, into a course of action they would otherwise not take; then they are succeeding brilliantly.
At the same time, for the price of some explosives in a shoe, underpants, and a couple of toner cartridges, they are making us waste billions of dollars for little or no real protection. And this security apparatus just continues to grow.

[AnthonyGA]

If the method is known -- and it's now very, very widely known by anyone who might want to get past it -- then it's essentially useless; any actual terrorists will practice until they have a high chance of getting through any questions thrown at them.

They can't. Each question requires an answer with specific details, and the number of details required to successfully field any question increases exponentially with the number of questions. Nobody, no matter how much training he has, can memorize enough detail in advance to consistently and plausibly answer every question he will be asked when interrogated in this way. That's why it works. It works even when the bad guys know the method themselves in detail.

This screening method has been used in some parts of the world for years in aviation, and has been very widely used by law enforcement and military interrogators for a much longer time. Its drawbacks are that it requires a skilled practitioner and time, but it works extremely well.

Screening methods that concentrate on looking for things,, instead of looking at people, are ridiculously inadequate in comparison.

In addition, psychopaths are extremely good liars to begin with and probably make up a far larger proportion of the potential recruits for a terrorist group than they do in the general population.

Psychopaths are typically far too interested in themselves to care about working for a terrorist group. It is true that they can lie without visible signs of stress in many cases, but they will still betray themselves in a deep interrogation, just like anyone else who is trying to lie.

[FairWeatherFlyer]

Anything that gets the phrase "touch my junk" into a Bloomberg article has to be a good thing!

Man Up When It?s Time for Your Junk Pat-Down: Margaret Carlson - Bloomberg.com (http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=asqDbXMwV6M4)

[Frosch]

We just have to listen:

"It's about the profit of the 'security'-mafia, stupid"

Nothing else. And so it will never change. Way too much money can be made here. Legally. The perfect cash cow. And they are just about to have another one in the barn: The "Check the cargo"-cow.

Fantastic. Billions over billions to be 'invested'. To make the life of the taxpayer "safer". :{

[bearfoil]

Well, after all, the Global Warming "Flush your money" scam is over?

From those who know, I have heard this description of the TSA: "Metastasized Postal Workers."

Anything to "Grow the Gubmint", eh?

The vocabulary of the discussion has its roots in the mission profile. Intimidate, don't use logic, we don't pay you to think, etc.

"Profiling" is the one word fault button to close down the discussion. Likewise "Racist", "Nut Job", "Tin-Foil Hat", etc. It is the vocabulary (always) of those in authority who wish to have Power, then more, and More. Polarize the discussion, foreclose criticism.

"Psychopath" is off target. The word one uses is "Sociopath", to define those who can together start Wars, Revolutions, etc. Economy of scale is to be avoided in the Political game book, for it is sheer numbers that can gather the authority to trap the population into submissiveness. Six Assassins could have neutralized Saddam. No money in that. Anyone else see a pattern? Now where's my "tinfoil Hat?".

bear

[darkroomsource]

I am no longer certain that this is about certain people making money, or abusing the system, or making pax feel safer, or any of that.

Someone pointed out that in the time since 9/11, we've had 400,000 deaths on the road, 150,000 deaths by handgun, X00,000 deaths from cancer, aids, etc. etc. etc., thousands dieing in foreign wars, etc. etc. etc. The economy is in the tank, millions have lost their homes - worldwide, jobs are still moving overseas, from first world countries to third world countries, at an alarming rate. Countries like China now have incredible economic power - countries that are are not entirely stable. Etc. Etc. Etc

And what are we focused on? invasive searches in the airport.

How interesting that someone, somewhere, or some group of someones have managed to get the public to believe that the governments are "protecting" us by having us go through this screening process at the airport. !Whoopee!

Think about this, next week, some terrorist is going to have a fake bomb in his rectum, and in a month we're going to have cavity searches at the airport, and the government will say they are justified in doing it.

As soon as it's "accepted" at the airports, they'll start doing it on the subway.

The similarities between what's happening and what has happened in the past are scary.

[manrow]

Sanity has prevailed; the following from IFALPA today:-

The U.S Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has revised its policy, introduced earlier this month, on Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) and ‘pat-down’ procedures for airline pilots, attendants and passengers.

ALPA International worked tirelessly over several days with the Department of Homeland Security, TSA and other government agencies to get the policy concerning pilots reversed, and this has now been achieved.

All airline pilots in uniform, including non-U.S nationals, with airline identification, will now be subject to screening by walk-through metal detectors at all security checkpoints, as was the case before the new policy was adopted. They will not be required to be screened by AIT or intrusive physical ‘pat-downs’.

[cockpitvisit]

We (Pilots) don’t need nail clippers, to take over the Aircraft

Not if there is an FAM seated in the jumpseat pointing a gun at your head! Time to have one in the cockpit I think, since as you pointed out, pilots are a security risk even without nailclippers. FAMs could be trained to land a plane on the nearest airfield if they have to shoot both pilots for security reasons.

In the past, there have been deliberare crashes caused by airline pilots (although without terrorist background I think), so the danger is real. And there is no doubt Al Quaeda will try this route.

Now you may argue that pilots are essential to flying a plane - but so are paying passengers! So there is absolutely no reason why pilots should be trusted any more an ordinary pax, sorry.

[wiggy]

Ah but then you'd need a second FAM in case the first FAM gets been "turned" and shoots the pilots...and then of course.........

So there is absolutely no reason why pilots should be trusted any more an ordinary pax, sorry.

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[grease7]

Why would anyone bother to try to coerce a crewmember? How many rampers, fuelers, cleaners, etc have daily access to the "secure" areas with NO screening?

I don't know how it works on airports in the usa but here at ams everybody gets screened, rampers cleaners fuelers etc. I myself am an ground engineer and have to go through security everytime, even my lunchbox is suspect:ugh:. But when i am through i get my toolkit and have access to all kinds of materials to do some damage if i wanted to. So why can't i take a nailclipper with me but in my toolkit i have a leatherman spanners wrenches etc:ugh:

[cockpitvisit]

Ah but then you'd need a second FAM in case the first FAM gets been "turned" and shoots the pilots...and then of course.........

There are already FAMs in the main cabin. Just remove cockpit doors altogether so that a terrorist (whoever that might be) cannot lock himself into the cockpit, and we are all set, I think :ok: Flight training for FAMs should be no problem - I think they already earn more money than many regional airline pilots? So you could just recruit FAMs from pilots rather than law enforcement.

And no I am not joking. It just sickens me that someone believes that his holy profession is immune from terrorism. If you lower the screening standards for flight/cabin crew (and let it be known publicly!), you can as well lower the screening standards for everyone else.

[vapilot2004]

All airline pilots in uniform, including non-U.S nationals, with airline identification, will now be subject to screening by walk-through metal detectors at all security checkpoints, as was the case before the new policy was adopted. They will not be required to be screened by AIT or intrusive physical ‘pat-downs’.

Apparently my source of information had the right direction but the wrong ETA. Thanks Manrow. :ok:

[wiggy]

There are already FAMs in the main cabin.

If you believe that is always the case, worldwide, you have been misinformed.

Just remove cockpit doors altogether so that a terrorist (whoever that might be) cannot lock himself into the cockpit, and we are all set

Yep, Mr Bin Laden's mates would be all set...........


I think Flight training for FAMs should be no problem

I'd suggest firearms training for suitably screened flightcrew might be even less of a problem.

[boofhead]

A couple of interesting articles, showing that we have allies out there:

by Gene Healy
Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency.
This article appeared in the DC Examiner on November 23, 2010.
Last fall, flying out of Chicago O'Hare, I ran into that rarest of breeds: a Transportation Security Administration agent with a sense of humor. In her "Da Bears" accent, she moved the line along with a good-natured, "awright: who's my next victim?" At least they're allowed to joke about it. If a rubber-gloved fed cups your — er, I prefer the term "treasures" — just turn your head and cough politely. Don't dare try to ease the awkwardness with a wisecrack, lest you get arrested under the TSA's no-joking policy.
Sometimes, when I manage to pull my eyes away from my twinkly smartphone and look around, I think, "Wow, if you squint a little, this could be a sci-fi dystopia!" (It happened again just recently, as I was passing through the gates at my local Metro station, and Janet Napolitano's voice boomed ominously from the loudspeakers, ordering me to say something if I see something.)
Thankfully, the growing anti-TSA backlash shows that for many Americans, there isn't a Soma dose high enough to get them to grin and bear the bureaucratic feel-up.
Like it or not, we live in the world the alarmists have made.
In fact, even some of our most rabid terror-warriors, like former Sen. Rick Santorum and neocon stalwart Charles Krauthammer, now say they've had enough.
Santorum and Krauthammer blame a politically correct mentality that prevents profiling. But the Christmas bomber was Nigerian; the shoebomber, a Brit with a Jamaican father. Should we just give the "freedom fondle" to anyone vaguely swarthy?
I have a different explanation for how we got here.
For nearly a decade, Krauthammer, Santorum and too many others on the Right have relentlessly hyped and politicized the terrorist threat. But when every bungled attack — no matter how inept — gets the screeching siren treatment on Drudge, what do you expect that political dynamic to produce? Sober, sensible policy?
Conservatives could stand to think more clearly about ideas and consequences, cause and effect. Take last week's comments from Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., a congressional father of the agency: "When the TSA was established, it was never envisioned that it would become a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy."
Really, who could have known?
And when prominent conservatives brush off constitutional concerns with the bromide "the Constitution is not a suicide pact," (or, as Mitt Romney put it in 2007, "Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive") is it so surprising that liberty and dignity get sent to the back of the line?
Like it or not, we live in the world the alarmists have made.
Yet, in reality, we're remarkably safe. In 2009, terrorists caused just 25 U.S. noncombatant fatalities worldwide. That's 25 too many, but "existential," it's not.
My colleague Jim Harper points out that, since 9/11, "in 99 million domestic flights, transporting 7 billion people, precisely zero domestic travelers have snuck an underpants bomb onto a plane. (The one that we have seen — which did not work — came from overseas.)"
Surely the existence of the TSA — hapless and bureaucratic as they are — deters some potential bombers. Even so, the agency won't — likely can't — identify a single genuine terrorist they've caught, and it's not at all clear, according to the Government Accountability Office, that even the nude machine would have exposed the Christmas bomber.
We're safe — but not perfectly safe. Hyping and politicizing the terrorist threat won't deliver us perfect safety. Nothing can. But, as we're learning, it can put us on the path toward a society that no longer looks like America — one where you're endlessly prodded and poked — and ordered not to joke about the poking.
That's something worth being alarmed about.
Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency.

Body Scanners: The Naked Truth
by David Rittgers
David Rittgers is an attorney and legal policy analyst at the Cato Institute.
This article appeared in The New York Post on November 17, 2010.
The body scanners coming to your local airport provide marginal benefits — if any — in detecting weapons and explosives hidden on travelers. They aren't worth the cost in money — let alone in civil liberties.
The Transportation Security Administration has put these machines — X-ray and radio-wave booths that look beneath clothing to perform virtual strip searches — across the nation and around the world. Industry advocates claim the technology's needed to stop terrorists with explosives hidden under their clothes like Christmas bomber Farouk Abdulmutallab.
Yet the public is justifiably skeptical. Pilots and passengers are "opting out" and taking the alternative screening method — a run through a traditional metal detector and an all-too-intimate pat-down. Cell-phone videos of encounters with TSA screeners are going viral.
If the ineffectiveness of body scanners is not enough to give the public pause, the cost ought to be.
Air travelers now face a few bad choices: Submit to the body scanner, endure an invasive manual pat-down or accept an $11,000 civil fine. This is security theater at its finest. Congress needs to revisit these protocols completely — starting with a total halt to the obscenely expensive and jarringly ineffective full-body scanner.
Despite what their proponents would have us believe, body scanners are not some magical tool to find all weapons and explosives that can be hidden on the human body. Yes, the scanners work against high-density objects such as guns and knives — but so do traditional magnetometers.
And the scanners fare poorly against low-density materials such as thin plastics, gels and liquids. Care to guess what Abdulmutallab's bomb was made of? The Government Accountability Office reported in March that it's not clear that a scanner would've detected that device.
Even if the scanners did work against low-density materials, the same group linked to the Christmas bomb, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, has already found another way to defeat the technology: hiding bombs inside the human body: A would-be AQAP assassin tried to kill a senior Saudi counterterrorism official with a bomb hidden where only a proctologist would find it.
That bomb wound up killing only its carrier. But a more enterprising terrorist could go to the plane bathroom to remove bomb components hidden in a body cavity, then place them against the aircraft hull — and the results would be far different.
Terrorists already know how to beat body scanners with low-tech (really, no-tech) techniques, but the federal government still spends billions on this gadget.
If the ineffectiveness of body scanners is not enough to give the public pause, the cost ought to be.
An army of executives for scanner-producing corporations — mostly former high-ranking Homeland Security officials — successfully lobbied Congress into spending $300 million in stimulus money to buy the scanners. But running them will cost another $340 million each year. Operating them means 5,000 added TSA personnel, growing the screener workforce by 10 percent. This, when the federal debt commission is saying that we must cut federal employment rolls, including some FBI agents, just to keep spending sustainable.
Why cut funding for the people who actually catch terrorists to add more pointless hassles at the airport? (Going through a body scanner also takes longer — the process is slower than magnetometers.)
Scanners clearly fail an honest cost-benefit analysis. Yet it's privacy that has the traveling public up in arms. Understandably so — the message the TSA is sending us is: "Be seen naked or get groped."
We tell our children not to talk to strangers, but now a government functionary gets to fondle away just because he has a badge?
Thanks, but no. Policymakers should rethink this move toward ineffective, expensive and unnecessarily intrusive aviation security.
David Rittgers is an attorney and legal policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

Off for ... one day :ugh:

TSA turns off naked body scanners to avoid opt-out day protests (http://www.naturalnews.com/030509_TSA_opt_out_day.html)

[Earl]

Think the new TSA does no longer mean:
Transportation Security Administration.
Now TSA means: Touching Someone's Ass!

[TURIN]

Just read this thread all the way through.

Am I to believe that airside staff are NOT screened in the USA? Only pilots, cabin crew and passengers?

If that's true its' nuts and I can see why ya'll are getting hot under the collar.

For what it's worth, in UK at least, we're all screened. Random checks, boots off X-ray, the lot.

If we have to have this cr'p then it's all or nothing. No half measures. If I, with access to bits of the aeroplane that many pilots have never even heard of, bits of the aeroplane that can be 'encouraged' to fail in flight, have to be screened then i'm afraid so should everyone else.

[infrequentflyer789]

Think the new TSA does no longer mean:
Transportation Security Administration.
Now TSA means: Touching Someone's Ass!

Oh no, according to todays news (lost the link, probably easy to find though) it means:

Touching Someones Ass with the same gloves we just used to touch someone elses...

What kind of organisation doesn't employ anyone bright enough to see a problem with that ? :ugh:

God help these guys if they ever actually find a real terrorist - they'll never manage to prevent evidence contamination if they can't manage basic hygiene.

[PA-28-180]

First....let me say it's about D@MN time pilots were able to bypass this CR@P!!

However.....I would REALLY recommend that the various pilot/flight crew unions make D@MN sure you "spread the word" to the general public about all the background checks you all go through as part of your job. Otherwise, I CAN see another 'backlash' from you guys bypassing the 'security' screening the rest have to 'endure'. :ugh:

The entire process in the U.S. is a total crock as far as I'm concerned and simply gives the 'illusion' of security. The terrorists have already won in my opinion. :ugh: :mad: :ugh:

Operation 'hemorrhage' indeed!! :mad:

[boofhead]

If they ever caught one. Imagine a bad guy being caught. He would just put his hands up and say "Fair cop, Gov!"
Or the lone lawman, usually a fat, slow local cop (and I am not exaggerating) with a 9mm pistol would have to take him down.
If this guy was armed, guess who is in the crossfire?
You!!!
What will the TSA do then; have security set up for people to go through so that they could go through security?

[Red Top Comanche]

All the process takes to stop the rot is for people to start reporting pat downs as a sexual assault. Better Still if a child did so, then one conviction would bar the security gaurd from that type of work. Wouldnt take many before they got a lot more relaxed about it.

[cockpitvisit]

the various pilot/flight crew unions make D@MN sure you "spread the word" to the general public about all the background checks you all go through as part of your job.

OK, but shouldn't the same background checks then be available to the general public as well? Why can't a pax submit to the same background checks and get the same security privileges as a pilot?

And does the cabin crew submit to background checks too?

Right now at least my perception as part of the flying "general public" is that instead of opposing the new intrusive security policies, pilots actually support them and only want an exception for their own holy asses.

[Earl]

Understand the concerns.
In the medical field TSA should be changing these gloves after ever passenger they check, just as the medical pros do in the hospitals to prevent spreading of viruses and bacteria.
Yet they claim to be the experts and want to take operating cockpit crews shampoo and after shave if it over the amount.
I just would like to know here, why any TSA worker would not complain about his or her job when these new rules came out having to grope people such as this?
It has to be the most disgusting job on the planet, why no complaints from them?

[TacomaSailor]

Several prior postings have touched on one of the issues that, if carefully considered, would show the unreasonableness and ineffectiveness of the airport security process vis-à-vis the countrywide security process.

It is obvious that flight deck and cabin crew on commercial aircraft are a special case for TSA to consider. But, many of we SLF are regularly in a position of authority or responsibility to cause as much or more immediate physical, psychological, and social damage to the US than are aircraft crew. On a daily basis we are given unlimited, due to extensive screening similar to what you pilots experience, access to equipment that could cause grave injury to hundreds or thousands of persons. We are trusted every day of our working lives yet we must endure intrusive screening just to get on an airplane.

I used to fly as SLF many times a week and had done so for many years. During that time I held many high level US security clearances which gave me unlimited physical and logical access to computer and control systems at military, airport, and utility facilities all over the US – yet I had to be poked, prodded, and x-rayed every time I wanted to fly to work on those systems.

Now I am retired and am entrusted with yet more precious cargo. I regularly transport hundreds of school age children all over the western US, Canada, and Mexico as a charter bus/school bus operator. I am certified to operate large buses for any school district in my home state and regularly do so by showing only my ID and drivers license.

I just present myself at a school district transportation office, show my IDs and am given the keys to a bus and hundreds of children’s lives. I could cause far greater psychological and social damage to the US while driving my bus than I could by damaging an airplane as a passenger. Yet I am still poked, prodded, and x-rayed every time I want to fly.

I regularly drive heavy military trucks and buses around the US West. Those vehicles frequently contain weapons and often dozens of military personnel. Again, I present my credentials at a military motor pool, where no one knows me, and I am given full access to the vehicles, weapons, and military base. I am trusted on a daily basis by the US Army and Air Force yet I am still poked, prodded, and x-rayed every time I want to fly.

There is nothing unusual about my work situation; millions of Americans are trusted to do similar work with similar security clearances yet none of us are trusted to board an airplane as a passenger.

[infrequentflyer789]

I just would like to know here, why any TSA worker would not complain about his or her job when these new rules came out having to grope people such as this?
It has to be the most disgusting job on the planet, why no complaints from them?

They are complaining, and they've had some airplay, if not a lot of sympathy. e.g.

TSA workers face verbal abuse from travelers - Travel - News - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40318901/ns/travel-news/)

Now 'abused' TSA staff vent their anger at security patdown searches | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332307/Now-abused-TSA-staff-vent-anger-security-patdown-searches.html)

[protectthehornet]

what a load of crap!

cockpitvisit wants himself put through a background check so he doesn't have to go through the whole security thing...FINE.

at your expense, and you pay a fee to maintain the system...oh yeah, and the rigors of checking you out include retinal scan so that no one could impersonate you.

by the time you get to the cockpit as a pilot, you can ''smell'' if someone isn't who they say they are. And once you are on a trip, you are with the same pilot for 2,3,4, or more days.

The big thing about the issue of school bus versus airliners are this. If you killed all the kids on a school bus, that is a tragedy. but if you drive a school bus into the Sears Tower (willis tower or whatever)...you break a little glass.

If you fly a 747 into it...well, disaster on an epic proportion.

Me, I am for profiling...but until then...make the best of it.

[overun]

ln 2007 l passed though one of London`s satelite airports after parking an aircraft and positioning internationally to operate my last flight of the day.

l had a full paid ticket of course, and holding my boarding card in my uniformed hand was told in security to remove my I.D. from display.

3 channels were available, l noted that shoes, belts, etc., were not being removed in any of them.

Until my turn, wearing a known company`s captains` uniform.

You`ve probably guessed.

As l was getting dressed at the bench at the back, a business type - earlier at the back of me in the queue - came over too ask why they had done that.

" because they are a bunch of c**** "

l thought so, he said as he left.

Profiling ?

Common bl*eding sense would be a start.

[vapilot2004]

Common bl*eding sense would be a start.

Not anytime soon here in the land of the cousins.

[911slf]

Before 911 I think a sufficiently ruthless bunch of karate experts could have taken over an aircraft without any weapons at all. In those days people thought that their best chance of survival was to co-operate with hijackers - if the guy wants to go to Cuba OK we are going to Cuba.

But now even if someone gets an AK47 on board it is still worth fighting because if you don't you are going to die anyway - so why go over the top searching for weapons? What am I missing here?

As for suicide guys, as has been noted, anyone prepared to board with a device in his rectum is not going to be detected.

As has also been noted, the people gaining access to an aircraft without flying, including cleaners, loaders, engineers; are probably better placed to do damage at no risk to themselves.

So maybe we should say that to get anywhere near an aircraft for the first time - even as a passenger, you need to give six months notice and undergo a background check. If you fail it you don't get told why. Review cleared people as and when necessary. As Tacomasailor noted, some people are already security cleared, and credit should be given for this.

Of course it would not work every time, nothing would. And of course some people would still need to be checked on boarding. These people should be told it is a random check, but it would of course be anything but random.

[TURIN]

As has also been noted, the people gaining access to an aircraft without flying, including cleaners, loaders, engineers; are probably better placed to do damage at no risk to themselves.

In, at least one, UK airport the ground staff are all frisked by a private security team before allowed near or on any US registered a/c.

Doesn't stop tools etc being brought on board though. ;)

[Tay Cough]

If there are any BALPA members who have concerns over the issue of backscatter scanners, you want to get yourself to the General Members section of the BALPA Forum and dig in.:ok:

[Human Factor]

Now you may argue that pilots are essential to flying a plane - but so are paying passengers! So there is absolutely no reason why pilots should be trusted any more an ordinary pax, sorry.

Fine. You provide the fare paying passengers, we won't provide the pilots who some halfwit won't let through security. See how far you get. :rolleyes:

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Taking weapons through pax security is the stupidest way of breaching security, far too many down sides.

If you want to get stuff airside there's so many easier ways, which most of you can think of. Pilots families held hostage is ludicrous. I could put a weapon airside at just about any international airport with very little effort tomorrow if I so desired. X-ray machines aren't going to even feature in the attempt.

The amateurish attempts used recently are nothing more than scaremongering to spark over the top responses.

They've already won.

[boofhead]

When you go to the dentist and they do an xray, they put a lead apron on you, then both the dentist and the assistant go out of the room before remotely activating the xray, which usually takes a couple of seconds.
Meanwhile these new back scatter machines, which have not been properly assessed as to the risk (or else such a study would have been released already) are running in the open, with sheeple moving through them and the TSA agents standing alongside, well within the danger area since there is no lead shielding (or just a little in the glass).
If I was a TSO who could think (now that could be a problem) I would not like this at all. I should think there will be lots of compensation claims in the future, like there are now for asbestos, when these guys and gals come down with cancer, whether or not the back scatter machines were the cause.

[SKS777FLYER]

There has been plenty of X-ray exposure studies done over the decades. Here's one from the 1950's in Nevada.....
A-Bomb Blast Effects : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org/details/a-bomb_blast_effects)

[YorkshireTyke]

So there is absolutely no reason why pilots should be trusted any more an ordinary pax, sorry.


That's the dumbest statement so far in this farce !

It's the suspect, unknown factor, PASSENGERS that are causing the problem - when did a pilot ever need to find a devious way of by-passing security to then destroy an aeroplane ?

Yes, one has to be satisfied that the individual that flies like a pilot, quacks like a pilot, and waddles like a pilot - really is a pilot, but that's a damned sight easier to do than the present system, which isn't doing that anyway !

I know of 2 suicidal pilots - there may have been more - who succeeded in their aim without the aid of guns or bombs, they just stopped "Flying the Aeroplane" and no amount of perving at their naked x-rays, or large watches, ( we're talking pilots, right ? ) or squeezing of their b*lls would have prevented either of those events.

In the context of this thread, the operating crew ARE different, not superior, just different, and should be treated as such.

Live with it.

[teddybear44]

Boofhead....That's one heavy duty dentist you go to. Never been dressed in any apron at the dentist! Not at the hospital either.

[teddybear44]

HF,

I have generally agreed with most of your posts on this forum as appearing balanced but I respectfully disagree with you here. I'm just SLF but I subscribe to the theory that the system (with all its drawbacks) is as strong as it's weakest link and that whilst it does seem a lower degree of risk is present, it is not the case that it is 'No risk' at all can be the case. I believe this topic is covered in other forums such as FT (you may be familiar with that) and the consensus of those against giving aircrew a free pass is that in doing that (and that would be many thousands) the risk factor of being suborned or coerced is immediately increased. The hostage / impersonator scenarios are not inconceivable. As a logically minded person, I see such a concession if given to pilots eventually being demanded by other crew (yet more thousands) or if not given being a source of malcontent. What would you do with this issue. 'Background checks' (from which jurisdictions) as the 'fail-safe' don't cut it. They offer no guarantees. I am convinced through reading some of these posts here and elsewhere that ego plays a large part in some of these demands. I am a passenger. I don't enjoy the process myself but I submit to it in the knowledge that everyone is treated the same by the system and that provides for a minimum level of safety. There is no 'playing favourites' and 'I'm going to take you on trust old boy' because your in charge. That's my view of the world. I respect your view and it must seem annoying to you to have to endure the process as the rest of us mortals do but worse things happen at sea my friend!

Ted

[teddybear44]

I forgot, HF

I have nothing at all to do with those you refer to as 'some halfwit' but it seems to me that your tone lends weight to the theory that ego is a factor as you appear to see them as lower down the status scale than yourself. Referring to those you perceive as your antagonisers, as halfwits, in an intemperate manner, probably won't advance your cause much. I presume that cause (at least in part) is reliant on being seen as part of a respected profession unlikely to hold any malicious intent. However petty name calling of those you obviously see as lesser mortals and manifest irritation on your part only shows that you have the same weaknesses / emotions as the rest of the general population and by implication should not be granted too much in the way of concessions.

[teddybear44]

YORKSHIRE..........Agreed, they are different, but where is the sense in changing or amending a policy when the obvious consequence of doing that is adding another risk dimension. Can you guarantee that no member of operating crew worldwide would ever attempt to use such a concession for malicious ends either of their own volition or acting under duress. No of course you can't!

[Roger Greendeck]

Time to look for a new dentist Teddy. I can't remember the last time I did not have a lead apron for an x-ray and they definately left the room before pressing the button.

As long as anyone can go airside without screening, screening aircrew is an intrusive and now potentially dangerous practice. As many others have said the idea of holding the pilots family hostage will make a great B Grade movie but is hardly the best way to go. And if anyone thinks it is a likely scenario then why is it not possible to do so for one of the many people who do not get screened.

As to SLF, you should be worried if you are a very frequent flyer. If you are spending as much time in the air as the crew you have the same high exposure to radiation from flying and adding these new scans is not an improvement. We spend our fair share of time travelling as pax and a cleared frequent flyer scheme would be a huge improvement.

As to those who are saying no price it too big, did they introduce the same level of screening as airports to get on the tube in London?

[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

[boofta]

Teddy you and the entire system you so eloquently support
are all fools.
Pilots may be ego driven on these issues but elementary
logic must be accepted, don't treat pilots equally because
even taking our liquids, knives, scissors, nail clippers etc.
does not stop us getting control of the aircraft.
Even if our families are being held at gunpoint back home
we still have a huge fire axe beside us and full access to
the aircraft controls. You and the entire paranoid world
need to accept these FACTS and get over YOUR ego's.