Qantas pilots refuse shoe security check
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
For once I am with the Qantas guys, I for one will always refuse to take off my shoes until they can prove to me how my shoes are a risk, or how they are setting off the metal detectors, fact is they can't. When buying shoes I always make sure I find shoes with absolutely NO METAL in them whatsoever, no metals in the sole, no tacks, no metal eyelets and no secret compartments for C4.
Where will it all end for crews? Metal detection? Nitrates screening? Plastic Explosive screening? Sniffer dogs? Body searches? Cavity searches? Breathalyzers? Drug tests? Profiling?
How many pilot initiated terrorist attacks will they stop?
NONE!!
Because we were never a threat in the first place! We are as much a threat as Nannas with knitting needles, it's just plain Wrong!!
PS: Don't even get me started on the mesh fences at regional airports, what or who is that stopping?
Where will it all end for crews? Metal detection? Nitrates screening? Plastic Explosive screening? Sniffer dogs? Body searches? Cavity searches? Breathalyzers? Drug tests? Profiling?
How many pilot initiated terrorist attacks will they stop?
NONE!!
Because we were never a threat in the first place! We are as much a threat as Nannas with knitting needles, it's just plain Wrong!!
PS: Don't even get me started on the mesh fences at regional airports, what or who is that stopping?
Last edited by Howard Hughes; 15th Sep 2006 at 01:51.
"If it is good enough for the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Qantas chief executive officer and me to take their shoes off at security check-points, it is good enough for our pilots,"
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why shouldn't pilots have to pass through the same security checks as the punters? Are they thought to be exempt because they wear white shirts, ties, gold bars and in some cases, scrambled egg on their hats? I would have thought that they should be setting the example to everyone else, and also realise that there are always impostors.
In the case under discussion, how does the security guy/s in Manila know that the two people concerned were in fact the genuine article? Is a copy of every ASIC card equivalent available to them for immediate validation? How do they know that the cards may have been stolen and doctored, or fraudulently produced? After all, scammers have access to the same equipment that's available to government and, God forbid, produce fake cards.
It's time to chill out a bit, be mature and professional and realise that security is there for all: as well as obtaining a benefit from strict security checks there are responsibilities that go to the contribution of the benefit. I'll ask the question again, why should crew be exempt from security checks, especially at airports outside the purview of the authority that has issued their security cards? Can't also help but wonder how 'smart' and arrogant and professional were the two Qantas blokes when stood up in Manila?
In the case under discussion, how does the security guy/s in Manila know that the two people concerned were in fact the genuine article? Is a copy of every ASIC card equivalent available to them for immediate validation? How do they know that the cards may have been stolen and doctored, or fraudulently produced? After all, scammers have access to the same equipment that's available to government and, God forbid, produce fake cards.
It's time to chill out a bit, be mature and professional and realise that security is there for all: as well as obtaining a benefit from strict security checks there are responsibilities that go to the contribution of the benefit. I'll ask the question again, why should crew be exempt from security checks, especially at airports outside the purview of the authority that has issued their security cards? Can't also help but wonder how 'smart' and arrogant and professional were the two Qantas blokes when stood up in Manila?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a burrow
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone bothered to chat to the security people while they are checking your shoes, or checking you out for explosive traces?
I have, several times. And guess what? They are doing what they are directed to by their employer. ie. They are just doing their jobs like anyone else!
I am getting sick of the high and mighty questioning there actions. If you have a problem with security, complain to DOTARS - the people who really dont have a clue about airport security!
Ask the catering guys about how they, and their trucks, are checked after coming airside from non-secure areas. They are not. They get waved through all the time. That is the biggest joke.
Rant over.
I have, several times. And guess what? They are doing what they are directed to by their employer. ie. They are just doing their jobs like anyone else!
I am getting sick of the high and mighty questioning there actions. If you have a problem with security, complain to DOTARS - the people who really dont have a clue about airport security!
Ask the catering guys about how they, and their trucks, are checked after coming airside from non-secure areas. They are not. They get waved through all the time. That is the biggest joke.
Rant over.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't you guys see it is not about whether the pilot has an intention of committing a terrorist act or has deliberately planted something that could be used for such an act?
As rmcdonal and BA Lert pointed out, something could have been planted by someone else, or the pilots could be imposters.
What an easy target flight crew become if they do not have the same security checks as everyone else?
Here's a scenario : Horny and drunk pilot takes hot girl back to hotel room thinking she wants him bad.
After some hot action he passes out, leaving said girl opportunity to substitute his shoes with a pair of Richard Reid's shoes (or turning his shoes into such a pair).
As rmcdonal and BA Lert pointed out, something could have been planted by someone else, or the pilots could be imposters.
What an easy target flight crew become if they do not have the same security checks as everyone else?
Here's a scenario : Horny and drunk pilot takes hot girl back to hotel room thinking she wants him bad.
After some hot action he passes out, leaving said girl opportunity to substitute his shoes with a pair of Richard Reid's shoes (or turning his shoes into such a pair).
Can't you guys see the stupidity here?
Remember a flight up near WSSS a couple of years back. Genuine pilot wearing the right uniform, ID goes through security and then some say proceeds to fly the aircraft supersonic into terra firma!
But he had the right shoes on!!!
Remember a flight up near WSSS a couple of years back. Genuine pilot wearing the right uniform, ID goes through security and then some say proceeds to fly the aircraft supersonic into terra firma!
But he had the right shoes on!!!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are doing what they are directed to by their employer. ie. They are just doing their jobs like anyone else!
I am getting sick of the high and mighty questioning there actions. If you have a problem with security, complain to DOTARS - the people who really dont have a clue about airport security!
I am getting sick of the high and mighty questioning there actions. If you have a problem with security, complain to DOTARS - the people who really dont have a clue about airport security!
Earlier this year my old man, aged 72 and on crutches, had just undergone a knee replacement and was going through Sydney security, escorted by his carer AND his referring doctor and surprise surprise, set the metal detector off. After stripping down to holding up his trousers, he still set the metal detector off. Unsurprisingly, the hand-wand went off only when waved over his new knee. Undaunted by the explanations from all and sundry, including the signed paperwork regarding his knee replacement, the security staff insisted that he stand without his crutches and walk over to where they could examine him even further. His doctor stated that he could not walk unassisted as the knee was not weight-bearing and making him walk without assistance could cause him to collapse. Do you think the security staff gave a toss? Do you think they offered to help him? Do you think they allowed the carer to assist him? No, ON ALL COUNTS. The 72 year old potential terrorist hobbling around on crutches with the suspect semtex and detonator packed inside his kneecap under the fresh scar was going to walk over there come hell or high water, without assistance. He eventually got so p***ed off that he stumbled a couple of steps & managed to make it before someone rushed over to prop him up (security staff still not allowing his carer through). Their response? 'Oh gee, it looks like you really have had knee surgery'.
Please don't tell me that they were just 'doing their jobs'. You are allowed to perform your job and use your brain at the same time, but this often does not appear to be encouraged in the airport security industry.
Twiggs,
These fanciful scenarios with pilot seductions and shoe substitutions belong in airport novels, not in planning airport security.
All these poeple who are outraged by so-called pilot arrogance just do not get the point.
First - Airport security is a joke. It is a let's pretend show. An illusion. Anyone who works airside knows this and knows ways that circumvent security when it gets to be more obnoxious than usual. Even now I imagine UK airport workers have developed sophisticated scams to get their currys airside.
Second - Pilots do not need a penknife, nail clippers or a bottle of water to miss-use an airplane. The can do it any time they damn well chose. They could do it nekkid if they had to.
Personally, I never give security a hard time, other than the odd muttering when having to remove my shoes again. However, I think the whole thing is expensive timewasting nonsense, and I avoid it whenever I can. Does this make me arrogant, or does it just show I am better informed and have a realistic view or the current situation.
These fanciful scenarios with pilot seductions and shoe substitutions belong in airport novels, not in planning airport security.
All these poeple who are outraged by so-called pilot arrogance just do not get the point.
First - Airport security is a joke. It is a let's pretend show. An illusion. Anyone who works airside knows this and knows ways that circumvent security when it gets to be more obnoxious than usual. Even now I imagine UK airport workers have developed sophisticated scams to get their currys airside.
Second - Pilots do not need a penknife, nail clippers or a bottle of water to miss-use an airplane. The can do it any time they damn well chose. They could do it nekkid if they had to.
Personally, I never give security a hard time, other than the odd muttering when having to remove my shoes again. However, I think the whole thing is expensive timewasting nonsense, and I avoid it whenever I can. Does this make me arrogant, or does it just show I am better informed and have a realistic view or the current situation.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lord Lucan,
Then we will have to agree to disagree and many more pilots will make life harder than it has to be for themselves and everyone else, and will get more grey hairs prematurely in the process.
Then we will have to agree to disagree and many more pilots will make life harder than it has to be for themselves and everyone else, and will get more grey hairs prematurely in the process.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the 'just doing their job' sentiment. There will always be some security chaps who prove the adage that 'rules are for the strict adherence of fools and the guidance of the wise'.
It's interesting to consider the $209,244 being spent to tighten up security in Birdsville in light of President Musharraf's speech before the European Parliament’s foreign affairs committee last Tuesday. Since this speech will not see the light of day in Western mainstream media here are a few bits;
"Whatever extremism or terrorism is in Pakistan is a direct fallout of the 26 years of warfare and militancy around us. It gets back to 1979 when the West, the United States and Pakistan waged a war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan,” Musharraf told EU lawmakers.
“We launched a jihad, brought in mujahideen from all over the Muslim world, the US and the West…We armed the Taliban and sent them in; we did it together. In 1989 everyone left Pakistan with 30,000 armed mujahideen who were there, and the Taliban who were there,” he said, adding that Pakistan had “paid a big price for being part of the coalition that fought the Soviet Union.”
It's interesting to consider the $209,244 being spent to tighten up security in Birdsville in light of President Musharraf's speech before the European Parliament’s foreign affairs committee last Tuesday. Since this speech will not see the light of day in Western mainstream media here are a few bits;
"Whatever extremism or terrorism is in Pakistan is a direct fallout of the 26 years of warfare and militancy around us. It gets back to 1979 when the West, the United States and Pakistan waged a war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan,” Musharraf told EU lawmakers.
“We launched a jihad, brought in mujahideen from all over the Muslim world, the US and the West…We armed the Taliban and sent them in; we did it together. In 1989 everyone left Pakistan with 30,000 armed mujahideen who were there, and the Taliban who were there,” he said, adding that Pakistan had “paid a big price for being part of the coalition that fought the Soviet Union.”
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A normal Northern Land, with Uncle Sam's anarchy to the south...
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if the report is correct, good for them.
The let's pretend *security* and the semi trained airport cops have got completely out of hand.
And, TAKEONME.
Funny how it is always the PPL wannabes who have the wisdom and experience to call the professionals *cockheads*, and to presume to tell them how to conduct themselves.
The let's pretend *security* and the semi trained airport cops have got completely out of hand.
And, TAKEONME.
Funny how it is always the PPL wannabes who have the wisdom and experience to call the professionals *cockheads*, and to presume to tell them how to conduct themselves.
Hmmmm.....
Earlier this year my old man, aged 72 and on crutches, had just undergone a knee replacement and was going through Sydney security, escorted by his carer AND his referring doctor and surprise surprise, set the metal detector off. After stripping down to holding up his trousers, he still set the metal detector off. Unsurprisingly, the hand-wand went off only when waved over his new knee. Undaunted by the explanations from all and sundry, including the signed paperwork regarding his knee replacement, the security staff insisted that he stand without his crutches and walk over to where they could examine him even further. His doctor stated that he could not walk unassisted as the knee was not weight-bearing and making him walk without assistance could cause him to collapse. Do you think the security staff gave a toss? Do you think they offered to help him? Do you think they allowed the carer to assist him? No, ON ALL COUNTS. The 72 year old potential terrorist hobbling around on crutches with the suspect semtex and detonator packed inside his kneecap under the fresh scar was going to walk over there come hell or high water, without assistance. He eventually got so p***ed off that he stumbled a couple of steps & managed to make it before someone rushed over to prop him up (security staff still not allowing his carer through). Their response? 'Oh gee, it looks like you really have had knee surgery'.
Please don't tell me that they were just 'doing their jobs'. You are allowed to perform your job and use your brain at the same time, but this often does not appear to be encouraged in the airport security industry.
Earlier this year my old man, aged 72 and on crutches, had just undergone a knee replacement and was going through Sydney security, escorted by his carer AND his referring doctor and surprise surprise, set the metal detector off. After stripping down to holding up his trousers, he still set the metal detector off. Unsurprisingly, the hand-wand went off only when waved over his new knee. Undaunted by the explanations from all and sundry, including the signed paperwork regarding his knee replacement, the security staff insisted that he stand without his crutches and walk over to where they could examine him even further. His doctor stated that he could not walk unassisted as the knee was not weight-bearing and making him walk without assistance could cause him to collapse. Do you think the security staff gave a toss? Do you think they offered to help him? Do you think they allowed the carer to assist him? No, ON ALL COUNTS. The 72 year old potential terrorist hobbling around on crutches with the suspect semtex and detonator packed inside his kneecap under the fresh scar was going to walk over there come hell or high water, without assistance. He eventually got so p***ed off that he stumbled a couple of steps & managed to make it before someone rushed over to prop him up (security staff still not allowing his carer through). Their response? 'Oh gee, it looks like you really have had knee surgery'.
Please don't tell me that they were just 'doing their jobs'. You are allowed to perform your job and use your brain at the same time, but this often does not appear to be encouraged in the airport security industry.
They should be fired on the spot for disgraceful behaviour like that.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Heard at a security checkpoint, from the North American pilot of a large Asian airline-operated widebody to the 'security' operative, after he'd had his nail clippers taken:
"Buddy, when I'm in the left-hand seat, it's my airplane. If I want it to go into the water, it's going into the water, no matter how long fingernails my fingernails are."
One suspects he could add "whether I'm wearing my shoes or not" to that.
I shall try to summarise both sides of the argument:
i. a pilot does not need other weaponry to down aircraft. That has been tragically proven.
ii. the security people are doing their jobs, and have probably been told that if they don't they'll be sacked (and hence won't be able to pay their mortgage). Blaming them is shooting the messenger.
Fair summary?
"Buddy, when I'm in the left-hand seat, it's my airplane. If I want it to go into the water, it's going into the water, no matter how long fingernails my fingernails are."
One suspects he could add "whether I'm wearing my shoes or not" to that.
I shall try to summarise both sides of the argument:
i. a pilot does not need other weaponry to down aircraft. That has been tragically proven.
ii. the security people are doing their jobs, and have probably been told that if they don't they'll be sacked (and hence won't be able to pay their mortgage). Blaming them is shooting the messenger.
Fair summary?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATEOTD, of what use is checking a pilot?
Also, did these pilots refuse to have their briefcases x-rayed as well? Because if the shoe part of security is not ok, why is the rest ok?
Last edited by LNAV VNAV; 14th Sep 2006 at 17:38. Reason: forgot a phrase
Heard at a security checkpoint, from the North American pilot of a large Asian airline-operated widebody to the 'security' operative, after he'd had his nail clippers taken:
"Buddy, when I'm in the left-hand seat, it's my airplane. If I want it to go into the water, it's going into the water, no matter how long fingernails my fingernails are."
One suspects he could add "whether I'm wearing my shoes or not" to that.
I shall try to summarise both sides of the argument:
i. a pilot does not need other weaponry to down aircraft. That has been tragically proven.
ii. the security people are doing their jobs, and have probably been told that if they don't they'll be sacked (and hence won't be able to pay their mortgage). Blaming them is shooting the messenger.
Fair summary?
"Buddy, when I'm in the left-hand seat, it's my airplane. If I want it to go into the water, it's going into the water, no matter how long fingernails my fingernails are."
One suspects he could add "whether I'm wearing my shoes or not" to that.
I shall try to summarise both sides of the argument:
i. a pilot does not need other weaponry to down aircraft. That has been tragically proven.
ii. the security people are doing their jobs, and have probably been told that if they don't they'll be sacked (and hence won't be able to pay their mortgage). Blaming them is shooting the messenger.
Fair summary?
There is absolutely no reason for the pilot to say: why search me, I have a crash axe.
Does the security man say: Why search me, I can let my Taleban friend through unsearched if I mean any harm.
Does the cleaner say: Why search me, I have complete unsupervised acces to the whole aircraft and no one searches my vacuum cleaner anyway.
Does the caterer say: Why search me, if I want to I can spoil the crew food.
Does the firefighter say: Why search me, I have a big red truck.
Does, does, does...
Use your imagination. Pilots are not that special a breed around the airport. We all must play the same game.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Wikipedia. I thought it was relevant to this thread. I wonder if the head of security mentioned below had to go through security at the airport.
Known as the Lockerbie bombing and the Lockerbie air disaster in the UK, it became the subject of Britain's largest criminal inquiry, led by its smallest police force, Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary. It was widely regarded as an assault on a symbol of the United States, and with 189 of the victims being Americans, it stood as the deadliest attack on American civilians until the attacks of September 11, 2001.
After a three year joint investigation by the Scottish Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, during which 15,000 witness statements were taken, indictments for murder were issued on November 13, 1991, against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence officer and the head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines (LAA), and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the LAA station manager in Luqa Airport, Malta.
After a three year joint investigation by the Scottish Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, during which 15,000 witness statements were taken, indictments for murder were issued on November 13, 1991, against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence officer and the head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines (LAA), and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the LAA station manager in Luqa Airport, Malta.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not much response when I posted this yesterday
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...238656&page=45
Qantas pilots refuse shoe screening in Manilla
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/qan...827007542.html
A Qantas Airways flight was delayed for more than one hour in Manila after its pilots refused to remove their shoes during security check, an airport official said today.
Seems like this could be the start of something. Eventually they did have to comply.
Qantas pilots refuse shoe screening in Manilla
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/qan...827007542.html
A Qantas Airways flight was delayed for more than one hour in Manila after its pilots refused to remove their shoes during security check, an airport official said today.
Seems like this could be the start of something. Eventually they did have to comply.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Heaven
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chief Pilot Stood Down?
Qantas pilot suspended after refusing shoePublished: September 14, 2006
MANILA, Philippines A Qantas Airways flight to Australia was delayed after two of its pilots refused to remove their shoes as part of Manila airport's anti-terrorism measures, prompting the airline to suspend one of them, officials said Thursday.
The pilots on the Manila-Sydney flight late Tuesday refused to comply with the security regulation, said Chief Superintendent Andres Caro, head of the police Aviation Security Group.
"They were arguing that they were the pilots of the plane and they are not a threat. But who knows the face of a terrorist?" Caro said. "We are implementing what is being implemented consistently for everybody."
He said the pilots later relented when security officers insisted on the check.
John Borghetti, Qantas executive general manager, said in a statement from Sydney that the chief pilot was disallowed from flying while an investigation is under way. An airline spokeswoman said the flight was delayed for 22 minutes.
"If it is good enough for the (Australian) prime minister (John Howard), the treasurer (Peter Costello), the Qantas chief executive officer (Geoff Dixon) and me to take off their shoes at security screening points, it is good enough for our pilots," Borghetti said.
"All security issues are taken very seriously at Qantas. This matter is the subject of a full investigation, and the chief pilot has been stood down while the investigation is under way," Borghetti said, adding that appropriate action will be taken once the probe is completed.
Caro said the mandatory removal of shoes for all passengers, airport workers and airline staff at the final pre-departure security check was among the new security measures, in addition to prohibiting liquids and gels as hand-carry items.
MANILA, Philippines A Qantas Airways flight to Australia was delayed after two of its pilots refused to remove their shoes as part of Manila airport's anti-terrorism measures, prompting the airline to suspend one of them, officials said Thursday.
The pilots on the Manila-Sydney flight late Tuesday refused to comply with the security regulation, said Chief Superintendent Andres Caro, head of the police Aviation Security Group.
"They were arguing that they were the pilots of the plane and they are not a threat. But who knows the face of a terrorist?" Caro said. "We are implementing what is being implemented consistently for everybody."
He said the pilots later relented when security officers insisted on the check.
John Borghetti, Qantas executive general manager, said in a statement from Sydney that the chief pilot was disallowed from flying while an investigation is under way. An airline spokeswoman said the flight was delayed for 22 minutes.
"If it is good enough for the (Australian) prime minister (John Howard), the treasurer (Peter Costello), the Qantas chief executive officer (Geoff Dixon) and me to take off their shoes at security screening points, it is good enough for our pilots," Borghetti said.
"All security issues are taken very seriously at Qantas. This matter is the subject of a full investigation, and the chief pilot has been stood down while the investigation is under way," Borghetti said, adding that appropriate action will be taken once the probe is completed.
Caro said the mandatory removal of shoes for all passengers, airport workers and airline staff at the final pre-departure security check was among the new security measures, in addition to prohibiting liquids and gels as hand-carry items.
Last edited by DEFCON4; 14th Sep 2006 at 19:50. Reason: dup;ication