PDA

View Full Version : Call your union/congressman about security checks


bluecrane
17th Jan 2002, 02:42
This nonsense has to stop. The same agency that issues me a licence to operate a 280 ton airliner over the cities and close to the landmarks of the United States also issues rules that make me a SELPX (selected passenger, high risk) when I fly deadhead on the way to my work.
I work for one of the largest cargo airlines in the world, and our crewmembers deadhead on other airlines hundreds of times each month. Almost on every US domestic deadhead sector, we get singled out as security risks, for the simple reason that we hold oneway tickets bought just 2 or 3 days before the flight by our company travel office. It does not make a difference wether we travel in uniform or not.
Three days ago I deadheaded from LGA to ATL on Delta in Firstclass. My boarding pass said SELPX, and I was not treated as a trusted employee but got the full security treatment twice by the airport screeners, whose qualifications have been discussed thoroughly on these pages. If I can not be trusted according to FAA rules and profiling, why would the same agency allow me operate my 280 ton airliner within US domestic airspace just 3 hours later without even looking at my licence? Again, this happens to all of us, all the time.

Nobody ever asked me for my pilots licence or company ID, or maybe for my itinerary. Easy and simple ways to verify that someone actually is a licensed pilot going about his scheduled work are not used. On purpose?

Does this really help to increase the flying public's trust in the airlines and the FAA? Doesn't it, on the contrary, show that they do not believe in their own licensing and background checking system? Look, they don't even have faith in their own captains.

We all need to contact our union and congressmen / senators about this. In the meantime, I tend to agree that the day that you get this extra security treatment for no apparent reason other than being a pilot, is probably not a good day to operate an airliner. Maybe you need to recover from the humiliation. And once there are delays, everybody will notice.

Yes, a regular security check is ok. For all of us. What I object to is the constant selection as a SELPX/security risk for traveling deadhead on my company's orders. This happens to a lot of US and international pilots right now. Rumour has it, that it even happened to military personnel on their way to deployments. What I know for sure is, that it happens to airline pilots who operate contracts for the US Military.

Why it is fully understandable that there was a rush to more security in the days after the terror attacks, we now need to make sure that the new rules make sense and actually increase airport security, instead of wasting precious resources on licensed individuals with thorough background checks.
<img src="mad.gif" border="0">

Tan
17th Jan 2002, 04:36
The sorry state of airport security is one of the big reasons that the major's are going to stay in financial trouble. The Government doesn't really get it. Aviation is the life blood of the new global economy and they impose ill thought out ideas to impede its very progress.

Airport security is a joke and the Governments feeble efforts to fix it just magnify their complete misunderstanding of the aviation industry.

On one flight I had to open my flight bag, remove my flashlight and show the batteries to security. It's all about POWER folks and the Government has given these people the power...

People traveling on the short hauls find it not worth the hassle to run the gauntlet of security and then have to pay all the fees. Why bother, take your car....

The Government doesn't get it, the tail of security is wagging the dog. Or perhaps it's a few misguided security chiefs who see spooks at every corner who control the tail that wags the dog.

Who ever said that politicians were smart? Boy did they ever get that wrong...

Tripower455
17th Jan 2002, 05:14
[quote]Yes, a regular security check is ok. <hr></blockquote>

Bluecrane, I am not flaming you, but it is this exact thinking that has led us to this idiotic situation! It is not OK, there is NO reason, for a part 121 pilot to be screened. What is needed is what ALPA has been asking for since the late '80's, REAL nationwide SIDA cards.

FWIW, when the screening of flight crews was mandated as a result of a ground ops guy downing an airliner, everyone complained, much like we are all complaining now. NOw thats OK.....

When (completely groundless) mandatory drug sampling came up, we all complained. Now we get sampled AFTER we've flown a trip and that's OK! And since the goobermint has been sampling, surprise, the number of pilots caught is not even measurable (However, the number of false positives is very measurable! ). The Feds say that their program is working, as a prevention.

In a few months, after we all get sick of complaining about this idiocy, even having morons groping your crotch and digging through your dirty laundry, in full view of your passengers will be OK!

FWIW, I've been typing my fingers off to everyone from my CP's, union guys, ceo of my co, senators, congressmen etc. etc. etc.

The Greatest Security Show on Earth will continue, and, like it or not, WE are the stars!

timmccall
17th Jan 2002, 08:57
Hey dood, lighten up. How in the heck does the computer know that 1. You are a pilot for the largest cargo carrier in the world, 2. who bought the tickets for you, 3. you are who you say you are and 4. that you are a deadheading crew?
If you fit the profile, then get someone to change the system by putting a code on the ticket to identify a crew member or ???
Dont blame the security guys for the inconvenience. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

penltbx2
17th Jan 2002, 09:07
Security checks are not OK. We are the ones flying these birds from A to B. We should not be subjected to this humiliation by the lowest common denominators hired off the unemployment line yesterday.

under_exposed
17th Jan 2002, 17:24
At least one of the terrorists had a pilots licence, does this mean he should not have been searched ?

I have a staff ID that does not carry a company name but has a site code BA, If I show this will they assume I am a BA pilot and not search me.

penltbx2, I would have thought anyone who believes that somebody who does not fly an aircraft is "the lowest common denominators hired off the unemployment line yesterday" is probably not somebody that should be allowed anywhere near an airport.

Tripower455
17th Jan 2002, 20:15
[quote]How in the heck does the computer know that 1. You are a pilot for the largest cargo carrier in the world, 2. who bought the tickets for you, 3. you are who you say you are and 4. that you are a deadheading crew?
<hr></blockquote>

Just remember the #1 rule when dealing with computers........garbage in, garbage out!

It would be VERY easy for Bluecrane's company (as well as any other airline that has it's crews deadhead on different carriers) to include some code denoting that he is a pilot for the company. Couple this with a positive ID card (using something like an ATM pin # system, voice scan, retina scane fingerprint etc. etc. etc. If I can buy goods all around the world with a credit card, then the powers that be can come up with a way to positively ID me!), then there would be no need for him to come up as a selectee, or even be subject to screening at all!

FWIW, on my company, when a company pilot jumpseats, he/she is not subject to the selectee crap......


[quote]At least one of the terrorists had a pilots licence, does this mean he should not have been searched ?<hr></blockquote>

Was he a UAL or AAL pilot?

[quote]I have a staff ID that does not carry a company name but has a site code BA, If I show this will they assume I am a BA pilot and not search me.<hr></blockquote>

The ID should positively ID you as a non threat. There are numerous ways to do this. ALPA's been trying for years to get this through. I would have though that in the wake of 9/11, that this issue, at least, would have been addressed. It hasn't. We got cute little stickers for our worthless SIDA badges (that only allow us to walk the 100 feet to and from our planes on the ramp....after we pass through security!) and I have to fill out an I-9 form, and have a secretary copy my passport to see if I am still eligible to work here (U.S. citizen, born and raised 121 ATP for 14 years!)!

[quote]penltbx2, I would have thought anyone who believes that somebody who does not fly an aircraft is "the lowest common denominators hired off the unemployment line yesterday" is probably not somebody that should be allowed anywhere near an airport. <hr></blockquote>

I'm not flaming you, but have you actually been screened in the US lately? I haven't been to the UK, so I can't comment on the IQ of your "security" screeners, but in the US, penltbx2's comment is the norm, rather than the exception. "Security" in the US seemes to attract the types that are otherwise unhirable. Speaking or understanding the english language is a sure way to NOT get hired! Surly and condescending attitude are a big plus!

penltbx2
18th Jan 2002, 09:45
Underexposed, there is a big difference
between going out to fly a Piper and going out to fly a Boeing. I do not mind going through security when I'm dressed in street attire and going to fly my Piper, but I do have a problem when I am in uniform with proper ID's going out to fly the Boeing. Instead of issuing ATP's they might as well give us all Private licences.

Check 6
18th Jan 2002, 10:48
I totally agree with Bluecrane et al. This reminds me of the "pre 9/11" incident where a security guard seized a miniature Swiss Army knife that a Captain was carrying. The Captain went to the cockpit of his assigned aircraft and returned with a fire axe to show the guard.

I believe the Airlines (employers) through the respective unions should put the pressure on the FAA to put a stop to this outrageous treatment of aircrews.

LAZYB
18th Jan 2002, 10:52
If pilots are such a risk, let's park airplanes nationwide for 24 hrs, or for however long it takes to bring pilots into the decision making loop in regards to security. Let's make it secure. Not a friggin dog and pony show.

fwd -

Reliance on "scarecrow" measures, intended to instill consumer confidence

Thursday January 17, 12:57 pm Eastern Time
Press Release
SOURCE: The Boyd Group/ASRC
BoydForbes Report: Airport Security Still Lacking; Explosive-Detection Efforts 'Window Dressing'
EVERGREEN, Colo., Jan. 17 /PRNewswire/ -- A new study finds that political game-playing and lack of cohesive security strategy has left U.S. airports unacceptably vulnerable to future terrorism.

Ground Stop: The Failure of Airport Security, is the first independent report on the nation's airport security progress. It concludes that airport security is going in the wrong direction, with weak, politicized direction from the DOT and Congress, and reliance on allegedly "heightened'' security measures that don't work. It is published jointly by BoydForbes, Inc., a new aviation security consortium, and The Boyd Group/ASRC, a leading aviation consulting firm.

The blunt, to-the-point 20,000-word report states the situation clearly: the DOT's inept direction has provided little improvement in security, proven irrefutably by continued security breaches at many airports since 9/11.

"Security is anticipating, identifying, deterring, and responding to threats,'' noted David Forbes, President of BoydForbes. "The DOT is reacting, circling the wagons, waiting for the next attack. The initiative is still with the terrorists.''

Ground Stop notes the DOT ignored basic security steps immediately after 9/11, implementing instead ridiculous measures that made the nation a laughingstock. One example: instead of National Guard troops securing airport perimeters, they were stationed like mannequins at screening points watching sloppy security companies allow breach after breach.

Ground Stop outlines what must happen to assure airport security and efficiency, including independent oversight of security performance, tough penalties for failure, professional screening staff with accountable supervision, use of new explosive detection technologies, national standards for airport law enforcement, national airport ID cards, and security event process-mapping at all airports.


The report outlines failures of the DOT, including:

-- Reliance on "scarecrow" measures, intended to instill consumer
confidence, at the expense of real security;
-- Losing public confidence with foolish "enhancements" such as
confiscating tweezers at screening points;
-- Reliance on explosive detection technologies with questionable
reliability;
-- Reliance on disparate, non-interactive airport security systems.
-- Failure to demand accountability from FAA officials in the wake of
9/11.


The Aviation Security Act was found to be "vapor, not substance,'' leaving the same DOT in charge, restating existing laws previously ignored, and making screeners federal employees without any substantive increase in qualifications. As for explosives screening, "The DOT and Congress are substituting PR for effective screening techniques,'' according to Michael Boyd, co-author of the study. The most egregious failure of the Act: no independent oversight of the Transportation Security Agency. "The TSA is merely shifting titles at the DOT. It was the DOT's FAA that failed repeatedly to meet security mandates. Without independent oversight, the TSA's effectiveness is fatally flawed.''

Mr. Forbes: "Some say that 'we need to do something.' But that's not license for politicians to do the wrong things.''

Reliance on "scarecrow" measures, intended to instill consumer confidence

Capn Lucky
18th Jan 2002, 20:49
One thing is certain. If people need to arrive at the airport 3 hours early for a one or two hour flight, the short haul carriers in the US are in deep, long term trouble. We need a national SIDA card now and we need to have rampers screened as well. I'm tired of seeing unguarded gates when we have guardsmen hanging around in the terminals. Other issues regarding stupid security workers have been beaten to death and we'll just have to deal with them

Steve
Former FO/Current CFI

Tan
18th Jan 2002, 23:06
If you watched the interview last night on PBS with the new security chief of the U.S. you will realize that there is no hope for the future. Answering questions from a prepared script, he did not know the process involved in trying to retrieve luggage when a match was not achieved. This is going to be the guy in charge of US security and he has not a clue how the system works. Any "ramp rat" would know the answer and the costly downstream effects. This guy was living in his own dream world, able to "talk the talk" to his political bosses, but unable to "walk the walk" when it really counts. These folks do not understand aviation, period.

Tripower455
19th Jan 2002, 01:39
[quote]This guy was living in his own dream world, able to "talk the talk" to his political bosses, but unable to "walk the walk" when it really counts. These folks do not understand aviation, period. <hr></blockquote>

Tan,

You've hit the nail right on the head......As usual, they are using political solutions to create the illusion that they are solving the problem, when in actuality, the problem is still there.

keepin it in trim
19th Jan 2002, 03:44
I have not flown within the US for some years and cannot comment on the security arrangements there. Here in the UK terrorism has, sadly, been a problem for many years. I routinely operate military helo's into civil airports. Every time I have gone, with my crew, into the terminal for a meal or whatever I have had to undergo the standard security checks (metal detector, and search when invariably it goes off) to get back to a gate for pick up to go back to my aircraft. I should add that we are all in blindingly obvious military flying kit and carrying military photo ID. This cuts no ice with the security people. However, we are treated politely, which has been my usual expeience with security in the UK whether operating or travelling as a "civilian".

Also, a high proportion of all pax are "frisked" as a matter of routine going through security here. I am not sure if this makes life any safer, it can't make it more risky and I don't get offended by it because everyone is treated the same way.

On the note of baggage matching to pax and screening of bags, I am afraid the Pan Am tragedy over Lockerbie taught us the hard way. I have seen bags offloaded here, causing missed slot times, because a pax had failed to show having checked their luggage. Which would you rather have, a late departure from the ramp, or an early arrival in the next world? I am sorry if this appears sharp but these are the unpleasant realities of the world we live in, there are some very bad people in the world who would murder hundreds without a second thought. I can live with a little inconvenience if it denies them that chance.

My only other comment would be that a good security system needs good people to make it work, rudeness by security staff does not enhance effectiveness. Proper selection and training, monitoring of performance and a decent salary would help a lot however.

Huck
19th Jan 2002, 05:08
Bluecrane- I have deadheaded 16 legs since 9/11, and have been a SELPX on every single one. I am not the most sensitive of men, but in KMIA I was reduced almost to tears as I removed my belt for the 22 year old Cuban who could not speak even basic English. I removed my shoes, and he felt the soles of my socks. He took my disposable razors, even though I knew they are allowed. I didn't even argue. Looking at the line behind me waiting to be searched, I saw two other deadheading pilots.

Oh, I felt the wrath from on high of our forefathers in aviation.... Imagine Ernie Gann or Dave Behnke or the guys that muscled DC-6's around bowing for this type of humiliation! They got respect - because they commanded it, and accepted no less.

Random searches - hey, I'll agree to that. But grabbing all the deadheading freight dogs - it is stupid, irrational, and insulting.

Ignition Override
19th Jan 2002, 05:38
How about the people who work on the ramp, baggage handlers, mechanics etc? They bypass this entire x-ray machine system! They go downstairs and swipe their card, while they punch on numbers. Nothing is x-rayed.


How does other pilots or flight attendants feel about this?

Tan
19th Jan 2002, 05:57
keepin it in trim

You missed the point, it was not about luggage match, no-one is against the concept. Its the fact that the new US security chief didn't understand the process of retrieving a bag or the costly downstream effects. When you're the Chief of Security and making the rules, you had better understand the process...

Unlike the military, costs are a big part of our daily lives.

Cheers

JetAgeHobo
19th Jan 2002, 06:40
Luggage match? I thought this had been going on for years, after the Lockerbie thing. Well now they are so confused, a flight today I think in or out of Denver, (I could be and am probably wrong about the city) was delayed 5 hours because of one passenger who had NO luggage. The system didn't quite know what to do, no luggage to match to the passenger.

I'll be running the gauntlet at LAX tonight as a pax on international. I can't freakin wait.

Tripower455
19th Jan 2002, 07:08
[quote]Oh, I felt the wrath from on high of our forefathers in aviation.... Imagine Ernie Gann or Dave Behnke or the guys that muscled DC-6's around bowing for this type of humiliation! They got respect - because they commanded it, and accepted no less.<hr></blockquote>

Old Ernie must be rolling over in his grave. My dad was a Pan Am guy, a new hire in the "Clipper Skipper" days, and when we discuss this crap, he always says that those old timers would have told the feds to flake off........

[quote]Random searches - hey, I'll agree to that. But grabbing all the deadheading freight dogs - it is stupid, irrational, and insulting.
<hr></blockquote>

Wait a minute, your a Dawg? I think all of you guys need to be strip/body cavity searched at every opportunity! I know all about you guys! <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> (Just kidding....I worked for DHL for a while prior to my current job!)


[quote]When you're the Chief of Security and making the rules, you had better understand the process... <hr></blockquote>

Why is that? We haven't had an FAA administrator that understands aviation since Hinson. Heck I think he was the only pilot in the bunch as well!

solotk
19th Jan 2002, 22:17
and then it gets worse........


<a href="http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020119-79003878.htm" target="_blank">http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020119-79003878.htm</a>

Tan
20th Jan 2002, 18:25
PongoPrivatePilot
Maybe the only way we will get meaningful change is to publish each and every one of these absurdities....Then the politicians will pay attention and rein in their Gestapo.

bluecrane
21st Jan 2002, 00:23
No. The only way to get attention is by refusing to board the airplane under these circumstances. If the deadhead crew does not travel, because the pilots are considered a security risk, everyone will notice fairly quickly. Because there won't be any pilots to operate the planned flight at the destination. No pilots, no flights.

There is no law that says you have to give up your human dignity while doing your job. And what about "unreasonable searches" ...?

BEagle
21st Jan 2002, 00:56
With the advent of deregulated airlines, folk who would once have flown their own Beechcraft from A to B decided to take the easier option of having someone else do the driving. But if that's going to mean waiting for hours before some barely trained idiot gives you a humiliating search in public, no-one is going to put up with 3hr check-ins for a 1 hr flight, followed by more harassment at destination. Perhaps they'll find easier ways - and the wealthier ones will re-discover the freedom of private flying? Certainly people will think twice before submitting their partners to public groping from some failed wheelclamper whose only reply to questions is "No hablo......"

LevelFive
21st Jan 2002, 03:33
Ehud Barak is not putting up with any nonsense. He refused to remove his shoes at a security checkpoint at Newark International Airport and was allowed to board a flight to Washington.

<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/barak_security020117.html" target="_blank">Barak Stays In Shoes</a>

411A
21st Jan 2002, 06:13
Hey guys....if you don't stand firm now....forget about any respect in the future, period.

boofhead
21st Jan 2002, 09:07
In the LA Times it was reported that airline security is to be beefed up more, and a couple of the areas they intend to focus on is airline crews and crew bags. So get used to it; the only changes you will see are for things to get worse.

Iron City
21st Jan 2002, 23:51
Yes, this nonsense has to stop.

In case you hadn't noticed the U S Depratment of Transportation is told what todo by the President and the Congress. The FAA , as a part of the Department of Transportation gets told what to do by the Department of Transportation and Congress and the President. And now to "solve" the security problem a transportation security agency has been created by act of Congress. The security problem that existed pre and on 9/11 was that anybody who really really wanted to could get anything (almost) they really really wanted to on an airplane. How has that changed? Not that much I don't think, even though it is now apparantly the provence of the Department of Justice and every other person with a badge to "secure" U.S. aviation. Every sworn officer of every law enforcement organization in the country wants to fly with a gun to help "protect" us. God help us.

Fact of the matter is the Congress doesn't want too much onerous responsibility put on airlines (big campaign donors, don't you know) so we must not hold them too liable. They want to just have a good whipping boy, the FAA! They're just a bunch of dumb civil servants that couldn't get a real job. Lets tell them what to do. And give them all kinds of "help" like Postal Inspectors and national guardsman. Lets see how many near midairs (excuse me, loss of separation incidents)there have been with all the Air Force guys that are using up their flight hours grinding around waiting for something to happen.

Air crew (including the cabin type) shouldbe investigated and security cleared and then maintain their crlearances and not be put upon with this BS&gt;

max_cont
22nd Jan 2002, 13:07
Sorry to keep on guys but you’ve got to get organised. It seems you all agree on this, so present a united front to the people who count.

I do understand about the downturn in passengers, but if you handle it right and make sure you get your concerns across to the public, then you may find yourselves with a bigger stick.

The only way things will change is if you force it. I think it’s always worth remembering that you are trying to secure a real security improvement instead of this window dressing. It will not need a big change to have a separate airside entry point for staff on duty.

In the UK all workers go through a checkpoint. In most airports it is a dedicated channel. We don’t get treated in the way that appears to be occurring in the US.

Off topic: What happened to the thread “Pilot arrested? It seems to have vanished.

radeng
22nd Jan 2002, 14:48
Security must be really good in US airports. My wife flew from San Francisco to Portland last Sunday. Gets into her hotel in Portland, and unpacks her hand luggage. Whoops! She'd accidentally left her pencil case in the hand luggage - with a pair of scissors in it.

And no-one picked it up...

[ 22 January 2002: Message edited by: radeng ]</p>

Iron City
22nd Jan 2002, 17:00
BEAGLE....It's "Habla" not "Hablo". In the U S of A got to learn the "Queen's Spanish" Ooops...Estados Unidos and I can't find that squiggly thing for the "n" on the keyboard.

[ 22 January 2002: Message edited by: Iron City ]</p>

Roobarb
22nd Jan 2002, 17:24
Every airport should have a staff channel away from the public gaze. I understand that as a British citizen I am obviously a leading Al Qaeda terrorist and public enemy number 1, but could I not be searched in private? I swear the other passengers look aghast and say ‘Hey look, the Feds suspect the Limeys’.

This is all about spin and little to do with security. Safer travel starts with detailed rigorous intelligence work, profiling, and pre-emptive action. Get rid of these bums before they even get to be a threat.

http://www.80scartoons.8k.com/roobarb3wee.gif

Budgie69
22nd Jan 2002, 17:53
Ladies and Gentlemen,. . . .I am afraid that several of you are missing the point. It does not matter who you are, what you are wearing or what ID you are carrying, you have to go through security just the same as anyone else. IDs can be forged - terrorists can take over your house and promise to kill your family slowly unless... etc etc. The only protection is a full and thorough security check for all staff and passengers who board an aircraft, or who work airside.

Inevitably there will be annoyances, inconveniences etc. Security personnel may not be of the highest calibre, and may not be chosen for IQ, tact and obsequiousness. After all would you like a job in airport security? However we have to be big enough to put up with the inconvenience and occasional indignities, and it is important that staff in uniform are seen by the travelling public to set an example of polite and helpful cooperation with security staff, whatever the provocation.

To those of you worried by the requirement for 100% baggage reconciliation - don't be. This has been the norm in Europe for some years, and a few simple procedures can minimise delays. With a little practice a "no-show" pax with hold baggage should not cause a delay in excess of 15 mins, whatever the a/c type.

max_cont
22nd Jan 2002, 19:55
Budgie 69. Please explain how a terrorist holding my family hostage would compel me to allow some hijacker to fly me into a building. I don’t want to rain on your parade but it is the simplest task in the World to get something airside. It does not require taking anything through security. Only morons and journalists try that.

You seem to have retired and do not suffer the indignity of being told to start stripping every time you go to work. I wonder if you would be so laid back about it if it happened to you.

All the crews accept the need for security and screening. Perhaps you could explain to me how removing my nail clippers and ignoring the 18-inch fire axe on the wall behind my seat, will make the flight safer. I am most certainly having difficulty with understanding that.

No one is suggesting that we should not be checked, but it should be conducted in a dedicated crew area. Just like the crew channels you went through and not in public. A security check does not have to border on abuse…come to think of it; doesn’t article 7 of the Human Rights Charter have something to say about degrading treatment?

[ 22 January 2002: Message edited by: max_cont ]</p>

Budgie69
23rd Jan 2002, 14:25
Max 69.

I don't want to get into a long discussion about proxy bombs - but I am sure you can imagine some viable scenarios.

Most of the security checks I went through were the same ones as were used by our passengers, and in full view of them.

I have no doubt that there are currently stupidities, indignities, over zealous "jobsworths" etc. etc. The point I was trying to make is that it is no good trying to buck the system - you just have to put up with it. In time security checks will settle down to a sensible level. The intervening period is unfortunately going to be somewhat tiresome.

max_cont
23rd Jan 2002, 15:49
Budgie69, that’s the point. We can change anything…if we really want to. Remember the poll tax.

The real problem is not only about the way in which crews are singled out for degrading treatment in the name of security, but while this is allowed to masquerade as an improvement, we and the travelling public are still at risk.

Everyone who has airside access should be screened, without exception. To do less leave’s holes in the security screen you could drive a bus through.

It will not settle down, because the new politically appointed heads of security, don’t understand the aviation business. The ethos that only appearances count is dangerous

The new security protocols are a complete culture shock to our US colleagues. We have had this kind of thing in place for the last 30 years, thanks to the IRA. We still get it wrong but we do not implement it in such a ham fisted way. I have always loved the openness of the US way of life, but now things have changed and so must security.

As an example, the crew channel at LGW is strict. You get searched if required and x-rayed, but it is conducted with dignity. I just don’t see why other airports can’t do the same…of course it would require an additional expense and that is probably the real reason.

Tripower455
24th Jan 2002, 05:21
[quote]No one is suggesting that we should not be checked, but it should be conducted in a dedicated crew area. <hr></blockquote>

Actually, I AM suggesting just that.........there is no reason at all, in this day and age, to screen working flight crew. It defies logic.

Gunner B12
24th Jan 2002, 08:36
Perhaps it's time to open a forum for the security people and invite them to have their say about this from their point of view. At the moment we only hear how they make it hard for the crew/staff, do we know what they have had by way of instruction. I know you shouldn't just use the "just doing my job" argument but as this stands it is a one sided discussion. I personally think things have gone too far with a bit of a knee jerk but rather that than risk more of the same. I truly believe that your best bet would be to ask the head of security to arrange a walkthrough of the aircraft for his people. Show them the fire axe ask them if they think you would use a pair of tweezers when that is available but above all start a dialogue with them. You have to instill the fact that you, just as they, are interested in security. But it would also help if you made them aware that you appreciate the fact that it is your security they are guarding.

411A
24th Jan 2002, 10:41
OK....security folks...now is the time to explain WHY flight crew must be looked at so carefully, considering that they hold the lives of so many in their collective hands.. .Hello?.....Hello??

Tripower455
24th Jan 2002, 17:59
You'd have to frequent the Professional Pilotgropers Rumor Network to get their opinion..... The problem is that since most are unable to speak, much less read and type in english, you have to be fluent in whatever language it is that they do speak! Do they even have computers? They were paid less than the folks working the "slow" food counters at the airports. Now that they are going to be paid more than the average ATR Captain, maybe they can afford english lessons, and a computer!

madge
24th Jan 2002, 19:08
Have any of you actually spoken to these people you delight in slagging off?They have the ultimate responsibility in ensuring that a terrorist does not board your aircraft carrying any offensive weapons that could endanger your aircraft.

I don't know what the situation is like in the USA and if it is as bad as you all say it is then I agree that something should be done. Basic qualifications are a must.

All people boarding an aircraft, and I include crew,should be subject to screening procedures. No pilot should take for granted the security procedures put in place, don't forget, they are for your protection too. Pilots and crew should take responsibility for setting a good example to their passengers. And how well do you know that new member of crew that started last week? Don't forget, the hijackers on those aircraft on Sept. 11th caried pilots licences.

Security staff do their best under very difficult circumstances. Regulations can change from day to day. It is the management of these security companies for not ensuring that their staff are fully trained to do their jobs.

Tripower455
25th Jan 2002, 00:36
[quote]All people boarding an aircraft, and I include crew,should be subject to screening procedures.<hr></blockquote>

The flight crew can walk through buck naked and STILL fly their aircraft into a building if they so choose. Either you trust us or you don't.

. . [quote] No pilot should take for granted the security procedures put in place, don't forget, they are for your protection too. <hr></blockquote>

It is hard not to take it for granted because we "take" it every time we show up for work.

All of the "security" crack downs that have occurred since 9/11 have not, in any way, made me safer, nor would they prevent 9/11 from happening again. The only thing we have going for us is the passengers. God help us if there are only 15-20 aboard, and 10 of them are hijackers. Then the only hope is the future new hire in the fighter. Is he there for MY safety as well? There is still no credible defense for the aircraft between the genius' working the "security" checkpoints and the guy in the F'Teen. The one thing that the powers that be could have done to definitively prevent this from reoccuring, would have been to arm airline pilots. Everything else is hoping for the best. If a terrorist gets past the gauntlet of "security" screening, and his buddy, the provisioner has hidden a weapon in the lav, the only hope, once again, is the future co-pilot in the F-Teen.

If I thought for one minute that my passengers and crew were any safer by me getting groped by a felon, then I'd have no problem with it.

The fact is that we are screened as eyewash, to project the PERCEPTION of safety (Gee, if even the pilots are screened we MUST be safe!).

If actual security was the real issue, then why are pilots and flight attendants the ONLY employee groups that MUST be screened? Tell me what's protecting me from the ramper with a bomb? This issue is as absurd as random drug/alcohol testing AFTER we've flown....If rampant drug/alcohol use was actually a problem, wouldn't it benefit safety to test us BEFORE we fly?

After being cavity searched and having all of my "weapons" removed from my bag, the fact remains that I can still fly the aircraft into a building.......

[quote]Pilots and crew should take responsibility for setting a good example to their passengers. <hr></blockquote>

And being party to perpetuating the security myth. Honestly, what is the purpose of screening flight crews in the first place? I was screened when I got hired. If I am a security risk, then why am I allowed to fly the aircraft?

. . [quote]And how well do you know that new member of crew that started last week? Don't forget, the hijackers on those aircraft on Sept. 11th caried pilots licences.<hr></blockquote>

How many of them were employees of the carriers involved or any carrier for that matter? The fact remains that NO US airline pilot has ever hijacked himself or another aircraft, despite the availability of weapons such as nail clipper files, tweezers and the crash axe! There is a big difference between having a pilot's license and being an airline pilot.

Captain Speeking
25th Jan 2002, 02:01
I have a security responsibilty within a UK airline and also I am a line pilot.

I have read all the postings and have,at last, been forced to respond. Luckily I know that the Neanderthal mind set of those above is not typical of the majority of US pilots. However the isolationist and arrogant "it will never happen to us" attitude of ALL in the US aviation industry allowed the US airport security to lapse to the state that it was in pre Sep 11.

Sadly the situation has barely improved despite lots of meaningless armed presence - nor will it whilst the people like those above refuse to comply "to get respect".

It is obvious they also have been some very selective recall of things in the past

-------------------------------------------. .How many of them were employees of the carriers involved or any carrier for that matter? . .----------------------------------------

They didn't have to be! They did it quite well as it was but some had clocked up enough trips within the US to become Frequent Fliers

Incidentally, how many Lufthansa uniforms were found discarded by the terrorists in Boston afterwards? They had certainly intended to imitate a crew.

-----------------------------------

The fact remains that NO US airline pilot has ever hijacked himself or another aircraft, despite the availability of weapons such as nail clipper files, tweezers and the crash axe! . .-----------------------------

Remember the FEDEX incident or the South West 146?

Remember that all the Sep 11 flights were internal domstic flights - chosen for the lax security applied to those flights. .---------------------------------------. .There is a big difference between having a pilot's license and being an airline pilot.. .--------------------------------------

Is there - security-wise? Do we rate the security status of a pilot on the quality of his licence?

If you object to being screened, do you think that there should be a separate check for 'foreign' aircrew? They too fly within close proximity of your buildings. You may not be aware that the British licence comes without a counter-terrorism check (CTC) - just like yours does! In fact no British aviation ID includes a CTC EXCEPT those worn by people who work in security and the very people that you slag off. THEY HAVE TO HAVE CTC CLEARANCE

We are all trying to ensure that there are no more incidents of any kind. The shoe bomber incident SHOULD have reminded people that the threat is still out there. I, for one, will happily be subjected to whatever screening may be required to acheive that!

Safe flying!

--------------------

Heads down! Incoming...... <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Tan
25th Jan 2002, 03:04
Captain Speaking

Actually I'm quite shocked by your very bias attitude. Are you sure that you work part time in security? Maybe it's time that you spend a little more time on the line to find out what's really happening... . . . .Quote

"Remember that all the Sep 11 flights were internal domestic flights - chosen for the lax security applied to those flights". . . .That's not the whole story and if you don't know any better, we had better pray for our collective future if that's the extend of your knowledge of aviation security.... . . .Tan

Tripower455
25th Jan 2002, 04:04
[quote]I have a security responsibilty within a UK airline and also I am a line pilot.<hr></blockquote>

Every pilot has a security responsibilities, but doesn't have the tools to carry them out.

. . [quote] Luckily I know that the Neanderthal mind set of those above is not typical of the majority of US pilots. <hr></blockquote>

Since I work with nothing but US pilots, I can say without hesitation, that the opinions echoed in the above posts are exactly how most of them feel. Your opinions are in the minority.

[quote]However the isolationist and arrogant "it will never happen to us" attitude of ALL in the US aviation industry allowed the US airport security to lapse to the state that it was in pre Sep 11. <hr></blockquote>

I guess that we are still "arrogant" and think that it can't happen again, because NOTHING has changed to prevent it!

[quote]Sadly the situation has barely improved despite lots of meaningless armed presence - nor will it whilst the people like those above refuse to comply "to get respect". <hr></blockquote>

You are correct in saying that the situation has barely improved. The only hope that we have right now is the intervention of the passengers.

[quote]It is obvious they also have been some very selective recall of things in the past<hr></blockquote>

Yes it is.

-------------------------------------------. .How many of them were employees of the carriers involved or any carrier for that matter? . .----------------------------------------

[quote]They didn't have to be! They did it quite well as it was but some had clocked up enough trips within the US to become Frequent Fliers<hr></blockquote>

EXACTLY!

[quote]Incidentally, how many Lufthansa uniforms were found discarded by the terrorists in Boston afterwards? They had certainly intended to imitate a crew.<hr></blockquote>

They were smart enough to realize that they could not pass themselves off as German AIRLINE pilots. Their plan was much simpler.

-----------------------------------

The fact remains that NO US airline pilot has ever hijacked himself or another aircraft, despite the availability of weapons such as nail clipper files, tweezers and the crash axe! . .-----------------------------

[quote]Remember the FEDEX incident or the South West 146?<hr></blockquote>

The Fed Ex guy used a hammer and a speargun (!) to perpetrate his takeover attempt. I'd venture to say that even if he didn't have these things, then the crash axe in the cockpit would have been just as, if not more effective than his choice of weaponry.

I am not familiar with any Southwest pilots attempting to hijack their own planes......

[quote]Remember that all the Sep 11 flights were internal domstic flights - chosen for the lax security applied to those flights<hr></blockquote>

Once again, they were P-A-S-S-E-N-G-E-R-S, not pilots.

---------------------------------------. .There is a big difference between having a pilot's license and being an airline pilot.. .--------------------------------------

[quote]Is there - security-wise? Do we rate the security status of a pilot on the quality of his licence?<hr></blockquote>

You don't just walk off the street and become an airline pilot (unlike the trusted ramp personel who are not subject to this nonsense). I am sure that, especially in the UK, that airline pilots are screened pretty seriously prior to being hired. They are in the states. THAT is the difference between a passenger that happens to have a pilot's license and an airline pilot.

[quote]If you object to being screened, do you think that there should be a separate check for 'foreign' aircrew? They too fly within close proximity of your buildings.<hr></blockquote>

My opinion is that in this day and age, there are ways to positively ID personel. As I said, you either trust me or you don't. If you trust ME with hundreds of lives, then there should be no question at the checkpoint. Whether or not I am carrying nothing or an MP-5 does not make any difference. I CAN STILL FLY THE AIRCRAFT INTO A BUILDING, making all of the harassment moot.

[quote]You may not be aware that the British licence comes without a counter-terrorism check (CTC) - just like yours does! In fact no British aviation ID includes a CTC EXCEPT those worn by people who work in security and the very people that you slag off. THEY HAVE TO HAVE CTC CLEARANCE <hr></blockquote>

Actually, when Mr. Terrorist interrupts your tea time, you have just gotten CTC by default! The Mc Donalds rejects that are employed as "security" in the states have NO counter terr. training, certification or anyting remotely resembling it whatsoever. They are taught to make it LOOK good........

[quote]We are all trying to ensure that there are no more incidents of any kind. The shoe bomber incident SHOULD have reminded people that the threat is still out there.<hr></blockquote>

Actually, when you refer to "we", do not include any of the US government aviation burocracies....They are not interested in actually increasing the level of security. Just the appearance of it!

[quote] I, for one, will happily be subjected to whatever screening may be required to acheive that!<hr></blockquote>

So will I....When it happens? Feeling up crewmembers will not achieve this.

[quote]Safe flying!<hr></blockquote>

Do we have a choice?

[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: Tripower455 ]</p>

Gunner B12
25th Jan 2002, 05:00
OK

So I don't have to put up with it the way you do but I do know there is only one solution and it is in your hands. I to a certain extent had to make a similar decision in my current employment. I was given a job to fix a problem on a local air force base and rocked up at the entry with my ID in hand. Now said ID, due to the fact that I work for a government owned company, carried a government security number. The guard on duty ignored the fact that I was effectively cleared by the same people as him and demanded my personal details eg home address, before he would let me in.

Now we get to the point because like me you can just refuse. I was denied entry, they didn't get the problem fixed, a number of phone calls were made and lo and behold I was invited to come back the next day to fix it without the need to present anything more than my ID.

Now please don't give us the I can't do that line as if it is important enough to you to go on about it here, then it should be important enough to make your own stand on. I suggested you should try to encourage a team spirit to get round the problem but obviously being a pilot makes you more important than the team. Even if this is only window dressing someone believes it has a beneficial effect and contributes to you keeping your job. You should either put up or shut up.

By the way the terrorists only trained these pilots enough to do the job. They were one step ahead of security because nobody believed anyone would do this. Whose to say they aren't still one step ahead and have some guys completing the training and applying for jobs? Oh yes counter terrorist clearance, but as posted above not all countries whose aircraft fly in american airspace do that so we'll kill that argument before it comes up

I'm sorry if you don't like the views above and yes you can just say I don't know what I'm talking about. But even if you discount it because it's an outsiders view remember it's still the kind of view the SLF have.

Tripower455
25th Jan 2002, 05:27
[quote]Whose to say they aren't still one step ahead and have some guys completing the training and applying for jobs? <hr></blockquote>

If they get jobs as airline pilots, the whole security issue is just as moot as it is now. Any type of screening will be completely ineffective if a terrorist is an airline pilot. . .They won't need to have smuggle a weapon past the "security" gauntlet to fly the aircraft into a building. Why try to commandeer someone elses aircraft when you have your own? As I have said countless times, you either trust us or you don't. Maybe this will make certain PC hiring policies a thing of the past. I doubt it. Some things (political correctness) are more important than security!

. .A REAL ID card, with some type of positive way of ID'ing REAL pilots is needed and would actually BE effective. It would also negate the perceived need to screen us. The eyewash value would be completely lost, so it will never happen.

As far as pilots making a stand. What,exactly do you suggest we do? Writing politicians is to no avail, the airlines just want the seats filled, regardless of anything else. The media won't listen. Arguing with or even pointing out simple facts to the brain surgeons manning the checkpoints is a losing proposition (ie: we get arrested). The only way that we, as pilots will ever be heard on this issue is a S.O.S., which will never happen.

We rolled over on the security issue when it was first forced down our throats in '88 (as a result of a ground ops person smuggling a .44 magnum on board an aircraft, shooting the pilots, with predictable results. It's funny, ground ops folks STILL don't go through security.).

We rolled on random drug and alcohol testing AFTER we fly.

We will roll over on this as well.

Nothing will change to make flying safer. Maybe our doors will help some.

Gunner B12
25th Jan 2002, 06:09
I thought I was fairly clear in what I suggested you do. Simply refuse to proceed to the aircraft if you have to go through this. By the way they don't entirely trust you, that's one of the reasons there are two of you up front. The security is to prevent one of you from taking out the other then flying it into a building. If the company sacks you for refusing to be subjected to the degrading security check you will at the very least have the publicity of the unfair dismissal case and you can allow the courts to decide if the security check was pointless and degrading, I think you might lose.

Tan
25th Jan 2002, 17:15
There is a very interesting article written by John Balzar of the Los Angeles Times titled "Life on the line"

<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-000005719jan23.story" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-000005719jan23.story</a>

It's all about how U.S. airports are treating passengers like sheep. Just maybe, the media are finally waking up to what's really going on with aviation security.

bluecrane
26th Jan 2002, 02:27
Tan, thanks for posting the LA times article.

The travelling public might put up with this treatment once, and maybe when they have to travel. But airlines can not survive on "must-travel" business alone. A large part of business has to come from people that have no other reason to go then to enjoy themselves.

The security has to improve, be reasonable and courteous. Can the FAA/TSA handle it?

Watching the FAA administrator, Mrs. Garvey, on TV, you do not get the feeling that she knows what she is talking about.

GrandPrix
26th Jan 2002, 23:56
Tripower,. .More power to you.. .Every statement you make is irrefutable.. .Bag matching is useless if the creep is on a suicide mission. God forbid we should profile the "innocent" laundry heads while the "guilty" 80 year old retiree is trying to smuggle some metamucil in her carry-on.. .Eyewash, pure eyewash.. .Maybe if a few children of some big shots got killed, things would be different.

As you stated before, it continues to be the "greatest security show on earth".

Captain Speeking
27th Jan 2002, 02:02
Tan

Sorry for the late reply but I've been down route.

-----------------------------------------------. ."Are you sure that you work part time in security? ". .------------------------------------------------

I don't work part time in Security - I work full time in Security for a major UK airline. Having a line pilot involved allows a pilot input to the processes and ensures practical feed-back. It is easier to affect things from inside than sitting outside moaning.

-------------------------------------------. ."Maybe it's time that you spend a little more time on the line to find out what's really happening...!

I do! Just back from a three day trip and when I am down route I inspect the security arrangements so that I KNOW what is really happening.

I suggest you get real - or remove the "semi" from your profile! Because one thing is for sure; if your FAA mandates half of what it has proposed for your 121 airlines (and even us 129 operators!)this new regime is going to be around for a long time to come.

CS

Tan
27th Jan 2002, 03:42
Captain Speaking

. ."if your FAA mandates half of what it has proposed for your 121 airlines (and even us 129 operators!)this new regime is going to be around for a long time to come."

Well this new regime may be around for a long time, but the major airlines won't be...They will have all filed for bankruptcy.

You get it now...

By the way, being on the 340 I see a lot of the world, so give it a rest on what you see on the 737. You're starting to believe your own rhetoric.

MPH
27th Jan 2002, 17:57
It's all very well said, and the points of view are valid. The question is, how efficient is the profiling system, if it can not distinguish a DHC from a suspect pax. I agree it's a dificult one, but, one would imagine that some sort of world wide data base could be used? Like some of the other collegues on this posting, that have been through the humiliation of being hand searched, and practicaly stripped. It's still a very embarassing situation. Especially when you just came off a flight as part of the operating crew and some of the pax, standing in line for the connecting flight, are the same ones you just flew across the Atlantic! They, now get to see the person who flew them been searched, and probably not once, but twice! It is a difficult situation, but it certainly does not inspire to much confidence? I just hope that with the expirience that the diffrent security organizations are gaining, a more efficient solution will be designed?

Tripower455
27th Jan 2002, 23:47
[quote]I thought I was fairly clear in what I suggested you do. Simply refuse to proceed to the aircraft if you have to go through this. <hr></blockquote>

What do you think will happen if a few of us do this? We will be (are) singled out as examples.

[quote]By the way they don't entirely trust you, that's one of the reasons there are two of you up front.<hr></blockquote>

Actually, I am certain that security was never a reason considered for having 2 pilots in the cockpit. It is entirely a workload/redundancy issue.

[quote]The security is to prevent one of you from taking out the other then flying it into a building. <hr></blockquote>

How will removing my shoes at security stop me from burying the 2 foot crash axe in my F.O's head or vice versa?

[quote]If the company sacks you for refusing to be subjected to the degrading security check you will at the very least have the publicity of the unfair dismissal case and you can allow the courts to decide if the security check was pointless and degrading, I think you might lose. <hr></blockquote>

You are correct that I will lose in the above scenario. See the post about US Air Capt Menear, who was arrested for stating fact. I personally know 6 pilots who have been disciplined for "making a scene" at "security". I have also personally witnessed many attractive flight attendants singled out for "random" pat downs.

The reason that these things are happening is because there is NO LOGIC BEING APPLIED TO THE "SECURITY" SITUATION. (that's period, dot, end.........)

The entire situation is surreal.

LevelFive
28th Jan 2002, 01:18
<a href="http://www.arizonarepublic.com/eastvalleyopinions/articles/1212weidemann1212.html" target="_blank">Do you really want an infuriated pilot flying your airliner?</a>

Tripower455
31st Jan 2002, 18:03
ttt

Gunner B12
1st Feb 2002, 11:26
Tripower455

You managed to ignore the original post I made which made the point.....

[quote]Now please don't give us the I can't do that line as if it is important enough to you to go on about it here, then it should be important enough to make your own stand on. I suggested you should try to encourage a team spirit to get round the problem but obviously being a pilot makes you more important than the team. Even if this is only window dressing someone believes it has a beneficial effect and contributes to you keeping your job. You should either put up or shut up. <hr></blockquote>

The point here is you don't know all of the big picture as, speaking just as SLF, I would find it reassuring to know that nobody is above a thorough security check.

You said

[quote]What do you think will happen if a few of us do this? We will be (are) singled out as examples. <hr></blockquote>

If there are only a few of you who would make this stand then the others don't see it as that important. I'm sure you go to your union when you want a pay rise, use them now. Or aren't they interested either

Don't get me wrong I personally wouldn't like to be subjected to this type of security. Although I have been at times as my job has taken me into some interesting places. Thing is the travelling public feel reassured by these measures so either get used to them or rally more support. I wish you the best of luck as in this instance I play devils advocate.

Huck
1st Feb 2002, 17:04
1. In the U.S., only ~10% of boarding passengers are extensively patted down/searched at the gate; and

2. these passengers are a combination of random selections and those who a)bought one way tickets and b)bought tickets that day; and

3. deadheading pilots always meet criterion a, above, and always are searched; THEREFORE:

4. Security spends time screening the very people least likely to commit violence, THEREBY NOT SCREENING a randomly selected passenger that may be a terrorist.

QED. Back to your meals.

Tripower455
2nd Feb 2002, 21:32
[quote]You managed to ignore the original post I made which made the point.....

. .quote:. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------. .Now please don't give us the I can't do that line as if it is important enough to you to go on about it here, then it should be important enough to make your own stand on. I suggested you should try to encourage a team spirit to get round the problem but obviously being a pilot makes you more important than the team. Even if this is only window dressing someone believes it has a beneficial effect and contributes to you keeping your job. You should either put up or shut up. . .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------{/quote]

So, if I read you correctly, I should either quietly submit to this idiocy, or become a martyr to attempt to expose the potemkin village that is "security" in the U.S..

I find it interesting that you, describing yourself as "SLF" aren't concerned that this eyewash harassment of flight crew does nothing to increase security. You defend the practice as beneficial to keeping our jobs, (ostensibly because the average person is too dull to know the difference between eyewash and security). Do you really feel better knowing that the Captain flying your aircraft is free of nail clippers and eyeglass screwdrivers? Do you think that it could prevent him from flying his aircraft into a building, if he wanted to?

As for the "put up or shut up" comment, let me ask you this. Would YOU risk a $180k a year job, several million $ worth of retirement etc, for making a stand? As it stands right now, airline pilots in general are fed up with this issue. There have been several arrested for stating fact (not making threats) at the "security" checkpoints. At least one respected captain has been "psychologically evaluated" (the company was "concerned" about his emotional well being) for writing a letter to a local paper (he made no mention of his employer) describing the idiocy of strip searching a deadheading pilot AFTER he's just FLOWN AN AIRPLANE!

This is what we are up against. ALL of the major pilot unions are working on the issue, but it is falling on deaf ears in DC. It appears, from my small picture perspective, that the government is (like you, it seems....) is more concerned with the PERCEPTION of security, rather than actually addressing the problems.

[quote]The point here is you don't know all of the big picture as, speaking just as SLF, I would find it reassuring to know that nobody is above a thorough security check.<hr></blockquote>

Well, it seems that my "picture" is a bit larger than yours is. Since I am actually subject to this stuff every day, I can see the ludicrousness of the measures. The fact that you find "reassurance" "knowing" that nobody is above a "thorough security check" tells me just how small your "picture" actually is.

In reality, the only airport employees that AREN'T above "thorough security checks" are pilots and flight attendants. It seems that EVERY other employee groups ARE above them. Why else would they have UNFETTERED access to the ramps/aircraft?

. .quote:. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------. .What do you think will happen if a few of us do this? We will be (are) singled out as examples. . .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there are only a few of you who would make this stand then the others don't see it as that important. I'm sure you go to your union when you want a pay rise, use them now. Or aren't they interested either. [quote]

Actually, the unions are working overtime on this issue. They are met with indifference in DC. Unfortunatly, the ONLY thing that will get their attention is a universal S.O.S. (suspension of service). I am not holding my breath on this one, but as this issue becomes even more surreal (federalisation of "security" employees), we will eventually get fed up.

[quote]Don't get me wrong I personally wouldn't like to be subjected to this type of security. <hr></blockquote>

Wel, we don't like it, and it is completely unneccesary. If I thought that removing my belt at security made my passengers, crew and myself 1 iota safer, I'd be all for it. The facts are different.

[quote]Thing is the travelling public feel reassured by these measures so either get used to them or rally more support.<hr></blockquote>

See the above comment about punitive "psych. evals. I would like nothing more than to have my airline ceo get on tv to expose this insanity. THAT would likely rally support for reasonable security easure, instead of eyewash.

[quote] I wish you the best of luck as in this instance I play devils advocate. <hr></blockquote>

Thanks....

Orca strait
3rd Feb 2002, 02:40
Tripower

Amen, and more power to ya…

Gunner B12
4th Feb 2002, 07:04
Tripower455

Perhaps I should explain why I play devils advocate on this one.

I have lived with terrorism in the past, if someone had not nicked the spot I was trying to park in I would have arrived at Harrods 2-3 mins earlier and I would not now be typing this. Having people run past you covered in blood sticks in your mind. Six months after that I finished a quote in Ireland quicker than I thought I would, meaning I could go to the pub and an hour later the bomb went off making the quote pointless as the building didn't exist anymore.

I now live in a much safer environment and welcome anything which keeps it that way. Best we seek flaws in the argument here than find out to our peril in real life. Your points seem well founded so good luck in your campaign and I will stop trying to find holes in your argument.

Tripower455
4th Feb 2002, 20:12
[quote]Tripower455. .Perhaps I should explain why I play devils advocate on this one.

I have lived with terrorism in the past, if someone had not nicked the spot I was trying to park in I would have arrived at Harrods 2-3 mins earlier and I would not now be typing this. Having people run past you covered in blood sticks in your mind. Six months after that I finished a quote in Ireland quicker than I thought I would, meaning I could go to the pub and an hour later the bomb went off making the quote pointless as the building didn't exist anymore. I now live in a much safer environment and welcome anything which keeps it that way.<hr></blockquote>

No offense, but that statement appears to me to say "There have been acts of terrorism inflicted on the US. We must do SOMETHING, even if what we do has absolutely NO EFFECT on situation that we want to prevent".

Since I spend approximately 80 hours a month in the left seat of an airliner, I have a vested interest in tighter security. I have a wife, 2 kids and a golden retriever that I love more than anything, and want to come home to. Since 9/11, I have seen very little substance, and lots of eyewash on the subject of security, and frankly, it concerns me.

Pilots have been cited and even arrested for improper display of ID (under their outermost garment). They've been arrested for making factual (although admittedly UNWISE) statements at center stage of the security show. Checked bags aren't being screened. We have "scare crows stationed at the checkpoints. We have 8 year olds and octagenarians being strip searched at the gates, yet, we aren't allowed to do it to anyone with skin darker than the color of fresh snow. We are no longer allowed to carry innocous items in our luggage. Flight attendants are being molested for no other reason than the screener had to "randomly select" someone to feel up, in the name of security. All other employee groups BUT pilots and flight attendants walk right throught the back door, and many have adopted the same "no pilot is above the "security" measures" attitude. I myself have been threatened with arrest by a fellow employee (ground ops guy AT MY BASE, WHO KNOWS ME), for "improper display of my ID", and I never left the jetway! (It's a long story, and I won't bore you with the details but I had just walked off a jet that I had flown for 5 legs, that he saw me park at the gate then handed ME the post flight paperwork!). Are we children?

Does any of this make ME and by extension, my passengers and crew, any safer?

[quote] Best we seek flaws in the argument here than find out to our peril in real life. <hr></blockquote>

I totally agree with that!

[quote]Your points seem well founded so good luck in your campaign and I will stop trying to find holes in your argument. <hr></blockquote>

Actually, honest debate is healthy, and your opinions are appreciated. I realize that, being a pilot, I am ALWAYS right, but you never know! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

I am tired of being treated like a criminal every time I go to work.