Qantas pilots refuse shoe security check
Guys, I was there, so let me post a few facts. . .
1. Captain did not object to removing shoes, he questioned whether he was required to remove them in view of the passengers. This was taken by the airport authorities as being refusal to comply with security instructions. His objection had nothing to do with floor cleanliness.
2. He and F/O were thus taken into adjacent room. Airport Manager and QF security notified. Captain subsequently agreed to remove shoes at normal walk through screening point in view of passengers.
3. Flight departed 22 mins late, not 70 mins late as reported by media. 15 mins of the 22 min delay was due to late arrival of inbound service, so only 7 mins of the delay is attributable to the incident.
4. Best part of all . . . . the directive from NAIA Management for crew to remove shoes had been repealed the previous day. The crew were not required to remove their shoes in the first place.
Confirmed by Qantas Security.
And for Stiffwing, regardless of what any of us think of the Captain in question, I think that having to change hotel rooms 5 times due to construction noise prior to a 2 crew night sector would have made anyone "testy".
1. Captain did not object to removing shoes, he questioned whether he was required to remove them in view of the passengers. This was taken by the airport authorities as being refusal to comply with security instructions. His objection had nothing to do with floor cleanliness.
2. He and F/O were thus taken into adjacent room. Airport Manager and QF security notified. Captain subsequently agreed to remove shoes at normal walk through screening point in view of passengers.
3. Flight departed 22 mins late, not 70 mins late as reported by media. 15 mins of the 22 min delay was due to late arrival of inbound service, so only 7 mins of the delay is attributable to the incident.
4. Best part of all . . . . the directive from NAIA Management for crew to remove shoes had been repealed the previous day. The crew were not required to remove their shoes in the first place.
Confirmed by Qantas Security.And for Stiffwing, regardless of what any of us think of the Captain in question, I think that having to change hotel rooms 5 times due to construction noise prior to a 2 crew night sector would have made anyone "testy".
Last edited by Veruka Salt; 16th Sep 2006 at 09:22.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Captain did not object to removing shoes, he questioned whether he was required to remove them in view of the passengers. This was taken by the airport authorities as being refusal to comply with security instructions. His objection had nothing to do with floor cleanliness.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lowerlobe...personally mate ,I dont have an argument with with your comments...but to me its seems you paint all pilots as arrogant bartards... my issue with this whole security delemma revolves around the fact that airports are where we ply our trade....screen the bloody lot of us,but make it so we are separated from the cattle lots....give us our own lines,give us preference of entry....WHY YOU SAY...because this is our turf,this is where we work,we are the people who "also" make it safe,we participate in its function,we have been through more security screenings than a bull can ****e....are there a few out there who have "other" motives .....for sure,our job is also to weed out these individuals,but it is not our primary job....
A major problem with security,is the animosity we have(guilty as charged) between the ranks,the sooner that takes a hike the better we will be,but there are numerous accounts of plain and simple "herarsement" of flight crews.... I have been in "social" situations and listened to these morons boast of "screwing" crews......just love to hear that ****e mate...hey ,every 6 months my quack sticks his finger up my tailpipe.....I dont give a rats,because they reckon its good for me,and theres a reason...when these security rats stick their fingers up my tailpipe....now thats a whole different story.......... PB
my issue with this whole security delemma revolves around the fact that airports are where we ply our trade....screen the bloody lot of us,but make it so we are separated from the cattle lots....give us our own lines,give us preference of entry....WHY YOU SAY...because this is our turf,this is where we work,we are the people who "also" make it safe,we participate in its function,we have been through more security screenings than a bull can ****e....are there a few out there who have "other" motives .....for sure,our job is also to weed out these individuals,but it is not our primary job....A major problem with security,is the animosity we have(guilty as charged) between the ranks,the sooner that takes a hike the better we will be,but there are numerous accounts of plain and simple "herarsement" of flight crews.... I have been in "social" situations and listened to these morons boast of "screwing" crews......just love to hear that ****e mate...hey ,every 6 months my quack sticks his finger up my tailpipe.....I dont give a rats,because they reckon its good for me,and theres a reason...when these security rats stick their fingers up my tailpipe....now thats a whole different story.......... PB
Join Date: May 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Veruka
5 room changes in a 48 hour slip...???
I know I would have been "fatigued", not just testy, after that.
I mean , there is precedence for that isn't there ?(PHNL)
Or at least amongst the techies, there is.
5 room changes in a 48 hour slip...???
I know I would have been "fatigued", not just testy, after that.
I mean , there is precedence for that isn't there ?(PHNL)
Or at least amongst the techies, there is.
Yep, 5 room changes in one slip.
Best part is that the company was forced to change hotels recently due to crew complaints regarding construction noise. In fact, I'm pretty sure they've changed hotels several times recently, but as soon as the complaints from crew cease, the company cunningly returns crew to the original hotel.
Unreal, hey?
Best part is that the company was forced to change hotels recently due to crew complaints regarding construction noise. In fact, I'm pretty sure they've changed hotels several times recently, but as soon as the complaints from crew cease, the company cunningly returns crew to the original hotel.
Unreal, hey?
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu…. ok let’s look at your questions one at a time.
1:Why is passenger screening not being carried out on London trains.
The short answer is money and time but if there are more attacks then that will probably happen but if they were to be implemented then the train drivers would have to be checked as well just like everyone else. Though, I fail to see why asking that tech crew remove their shoes at security has any relevance to security at London underground stations.
2: if 99.99% of pilots are not a security issue why waste resources searching them when the .00001% who may be would not get past the type of security check that MA indicates above...a database screening for the correct crewmembers?
It would only take one tech crew to create a disaster just as it would only take one pax to do the same so unfortunately that is why we have security. As far as MA’s suggestion goes ,it does nothing to stop someone who has flown for years, is well known by a lot of crew but for whatever reason is converted to another religion and is convinced that he is doing the right thing by his new god to make an example of the attacks on his faith. You may or may not pick up his change of ideas but unless he starts attending a public place of worship that is known to attract terrorists or he associates with known terrorists you probably would not. This does not just apply to tech crew but cabin crew,pax and other airport employees as well .
3: You'll be happy to undergo a strip/body cavity search?
What has that to do with asking crew to remove their shoes????????????
There are security machines that are a lot more effective than the ones that are currently used in Australia. However because our airports are owned by a bank money is the main issue here and unless there is another attack they will probably not spend that money. If you look at airports in other less affluent countries then they will probably never spend the money on new technology or train people to use them.So removing shoes and similar is the alternative.
4: 99.9999999% of people would not transport explosives in such a way but by you logic we should still be searched.
At the risk of being repetitive it only takes one person to create havoc. Are you suggesting we only search one in ten people?
As I said are we going to have security or not?
5: It would be interesting to see how you would react if you were searched in this manner every time you enter your workspace.
This is the one question that amazes me…Chimbu; do you think tech crew are the only group of people that are checked when going to work? Instead of grumbling next time you are taking off your belt and shoes look around and see how many other people are doing exactly the same thing and that a lot of them are wearing uniforms as well.
I am in exactly the same boat as you as is everyone else that I work with. It is time consuming and repetitive but if you look at the basic purpose then I am happy to go along with it because I want to do my job, get home safely and enjoy the rest of my natural life and not have it end prematurely.
The problem with a lot of people is that they have short-term memories. If there were an attack last week, no one would be arguing.
PA Boy..No not at all.I don't group every pilot like that,although there are small numbers of people in everygroup within society that spend an inordinate amount of time in front of mirrors....
1:Why is passenger screening not being carried out on London trains.
The short answer is money and time but if there are more attacks then that will probably happen but if they were to be implemented then the train drivers would have to be checked as well just like everyone else. Though, I fail to see why asking that tech crew remove their shoes at security has any relevance to security at London underground stations.
2: if 99.99% of pilots are not a security issue why waste resources searching them when the .00001% who may be would not get past the type of security check that MA indicates above...a database screening for the correct crewmembers?
It would only take one tech crew to create a disaster just as it would only take one pax to do the same so unfortunately that is why we have security. As far as MA’s suggestion goes ,it does nothing to stop someone who has flown for years, is well known by a lot of crew but for whatever reason is converted to another religion and is convinced that he is doing the right thing by his new god to make an example of the attacks on his faith. You may or may not pick up his change of ideas but unless he starts attending a public place of worship that is known to attract terrorists or he associates with known terrorists you probably would not. This does not just apply to tech crew but cabin crew,pax and other airport employees as well .
3: You'll be happy to undergo a strip/body cavity search?
What has that to do with asking crew to remove their shoes????????????
There are security machines that are a lot more effective than the ones that are currently used in Australia. However because our airports are owned by a bank money is the main issue here and unless there is another attack they will probably not spend that money. If you look at airports in other less affluent countries then they will probably never spend the money on new technology or train people to use them.So removing shoes and similar is the alternative.
4: 99.9999999% of people would not transport explosives in such a way but by you logic we should still be searched.
At the risk of being repetitive it only takes one person to create havoc. Are you suggesting we only search one in ten people?
As I said are we going to have security or not?
5: It would be interesting to see how you would react if you were searched in this manner every time you enter your workspace.
This is the one question that amazes me…Chimbu; do you think tech crew are the only group of people that are checked when going to work? Instead of grumbling next time you are taking off your belt and shoes look around and see how many other people are doing exactly the same thing and that a lot of them are wearing uniforms as well.
I am in exactly the same boat as you as is everyone else that I work with. It is time consuming and repetitive but if you look at the basic purpose then I am happy to go along with it because I want to do my job, get home safely and enjoy the rest of my natural life and not have it end prematurely.
The problem with a lot of people is that they have short-term memories. If there were an attack last week, no one would be arguing.
PA Boy..No not at all.I don't group every pilot like that,although there are small numbers of people in everygroup within society that spend an inordinate amount of time in front of mirrors....
Last edited by lowerlobe; 16th Sep 2006 at 23:38.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lowerlobe...great reading,well said and point taken....now.. if you will ,address my issue pertaining to the "fraternaty" of induviduals at airports who are never screened????..the problem does not exist at the "front gates" it exists at the "back gates"....... please dont tell me it doesnt exist.......the floor is yours...PB
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA Boy,
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean and with someplaces it is like fort knox at the front with the back gate wide open.
I agree totally that there are openings so big you could drive a mack truck through and it is not acceptable.If it is good enough for one person to be screened then it is not only good enough but just as critical for everyone to be screened.
I think there should be a security team watching the loading and sealing of catering trucks before they leave the catering centers and the drivers go through a process not only before they enter the catering center but when they enter the sterile area of an airport as well.This should apply to engineers as well as cargo personel and to people bringing newspapers to the papershop.
As you mentioned no one should be able to enter (or leave for that matter if you are concerned about other matters such as drugs and theft) a sterile area without screening.The main problem is I believe Money and that is what is behind Max's suggestion to relax screening of frequent flyers.Fixing the problem in Australia is one thing but ensuring it is done in other countries will be a nightmare
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean and with someplaces it is like fort knox at the front with the back gate wide open.
I agree totally that there are openings so big you could drive a mack truck through and it is not acceptable.If it is good enough for one person to be screened then it is not only good enough but just as critical for everyone to be screened.
I think there should be a security team watching the loading and sealing of catering trucks before they leave the catering centers and the drivers go through a process not only before they enter the catering center but when they enter the sterile area of an airport as well.This should apply to engineers as well as cargo personel and to people bringing newspapers to the papershop.
As you mentioned no one should be able to enter (or leave for that matter if you are concerned about other matters such as drugs and theft) a sterile area without screening.The main problem is I believe Money and that is what is behind Max's suggestion to relax screening of frequent flyers.Fixing the problem in Australia is one thing but ensuring it is done in other countries will be a nightmare
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah mate!..in the "perfect "world that would most certainly be the avenue to take.....problem is we are far from the "perfect" world.....and so the reality of the situaton is that we spend huge amounts of money and time in the wrong areas.
I take exception to the fact that frequent fliers should have priortiy over airline staff,the argument stands that they pay our wages...for sure,but if we are not there to do the job,it now becomes a moot point....
I compare airline security to airline crashes,we look for zero tolerance but the odds of acheiveing that are unrealistic.....so ...spend the money ,time and resources in areas where you are "most likely" to find and have your problems.....not at aviation personal who have been checked checked and rechecked,(that is not to say they shouldnt be screened)
We are running a fine line,and if I were a betting man
....I,d put money on it that the "next" aviation drama will not come from "at the roots" aviation personal.....but from sources far outside the industry. .....PB
I take exception to the fact that frequent fliers should have priortiy over airline staff,the argument stands that they pay our wages...for sure,but if we are not there to do the job,it now becomes a moot point....
I compare airline security to airline crashes,we look for zero tolerance but the odds of acheiveing that are unrealistic.....so ...spend the money ,time and resources in areas where you are "most likely" to find and have your problems.....not at aviation personal who have been checked checked and rechecked,(that is not to say they shouldnt be screened)
We are running a fine line,and if I were a betting man
....I,d put money on it that the "next" aviation drama will not come from "at the roots" aviation personal.....but from sources far outside the industry. .....PB
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Asia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course none of it makes sense due to the fact that the beurocrats are making the decisions.
It s^*#s me to death, the whole fiasco.
We are made to take our shoes of in Japan if the dinger goes off. No use complaining as you just get blank stares.
As I have had my bags broken into twice on my way to Japan via Sydney (QF 21) I would like to see Qantas get real about the thieving of personal belongings. The job is done I am sure during the transport of the checked through baggage from Domestic to International. Well away from the cameras in the back of a van no doubt.
Qantas management say, "All security issues are taken very seriously at Qantas." a quote from an article re the shoe affair in Manila.
If this is the case then management should take the the thieving issue way more seriously.
If those thieving sons of you know what's can get into your bags and steal stuff then they are equally able to plant what ever they want in return.
THIS, is a big security issue which has been ignored by airlines and government for far too long.
I remember back in the 80's when they had a bunch of thieves red handed at TAA, invisible powder on the fingers and all, the snatchers ( no pun intended) were protected by the union and nothing happened.
What a crock.
It s^*#s me to death, the whole fiasco.
We are made to take our shoes of in Japan if the dinger goes off. No use complaining as you just get blank stares.
As I have had my bags broken into twice on my way to Japan via Sydney (QF 21) I would like to see Qantas get real about the thieving of personal belongings. The job is done I am sure during the transport of the checked through baggage from Domestic to International. Well away from the cameras in the back of a van no doubt.
Qantas management say, "All security issues are taken very seriously at Qantas." a quote from an article re the shoe affair in Manila.
If this is the case then management should take the the thieving issue way more seriously.
If those thieving sons of you know what's can get into your bags and steal stuff then they are equally able to plant what ever they want in return.
THIS, is a big security issue which has been ignored by airlines and government for far too long.
I remember back in the 80's when they had a bunch of thieves red handed at TAA, invisible powder on the fingers and all, the snatchers ( no pun intended) were protected by the union and nothing happened.
What a crock.
Grandpa Aerotart
I never grumble at security...I have it down to a fine art...and my shoes are of the non laces variety for that reason...however how can the current security screening, that you think is so wonderfull, have ANY impact on.
The answer is it cannot...NO airport screening can. So as mentioned above aircrew screening as it is currently practiced is a waste of resources.
Resources that could be better spent on the type of security lapses being perpetrated by baggage handlers....remind me again how many individuals in this area have been found to have connections with terrorist organisations?
I can think of one at Sydney and one at Heathrow just in the last 6 mths. 2 in 6 mths as opposed to how many tech/cabin crew members ever? ZERO!
But now we are seeing the Yanks and MMW suggesting that frequent fliers can get the equivalent of an ASIC card and be fast tracked past all the BS.
But aircrew who already have an ASIC card must be subjected to what is patently ineffective screening.
How many frequent fliers are already connected to terrorist groups but have no record and have yet to be called to action...how long would it take one to qualify for the pax 'ASIC'?
And even if a handfull of these nutters makes it on board with evil intent what are they going to do to defeat several hundred passengers fighting for their lives and the cockpit security door?
If all they want to do is blow something up they can do so with a stinger missile from outside the airfield boundary...clean and easy.
As far as MA’s suggestion goes ,it does nothing to stop someone who has flown for years, is well known by a lot of crew but for whatever reason is converted to another religion and is convinced that he is doing the right thing by his new god to make an example of the attacks on his faith.
Resources that could be better spent on the type of security lapses being perpetrated by baggage handlers....remind me again how many individuals in this area have been found to have connections with terrorist organisations?
I can think of one at Sydney and one at Heathrow just in the last 6 mths. 2 in 6 mths as opposed to how many tech/cabin crew members ever? ZERO!
But now we are seeing the Yanks and MMW suggesting that frequent fliers can get the equivalent of an ASIC card and be fast tracked past all the BS.
But aircrew who already have an ASIC card must be subjected to what is patently ineffective screening.
How many frequent fliers are already connected to terrorist groups but have no record and have yet to be called to action...how long would it take one to qualify for the pax 'ASIC'?
And even if a handfull of these nutters makes it on board with evil intent what are they going to do to defeat several hundred passengers fighting for their lives and the cockpit security door?
If all they want to do is blow something up they can do so with a stinger missile from outside the airfield boundary...clean and easy.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAX ASIC's
Chimbu,
I usually relate to your down to earth and well thought out comments, and you have just raised a point which I always argue amongst friends.
I paid my $200 and have an ASIC, never been nabbed for anything more than a speeding ticket, and because of this I am clean, 100% safe.......or am I???? What stops me now taking on a sympathetic view to some terrorist group, joining up, and then finding some alternate uses for my $200 piece of red plastic with my face on it. (the pic makes me look like one tho
).
The problem is even the bad people were once good. Sure its going to stop know individuals, but it leaves a big hole for the new recruits to slip through.
We should all think of this, because, an ASIC wearing exempt person could one day try to sneek something through, or give it to the real terrorist after he made it through the checks at the gate.
I dont know there is a perfect solution
Another question........who checks the security guys??
Cheers J
I usually relate to your down to earth and well thought out comments, and you have just raised a point which I always argue amongst friends.
I paid my $200 and have an ASIC, never been nabbed for anything more than a speeding ticket, and because of this I am clean, 100% safe.......or am I???? What stops me now taking on a sympathetic view to some terrorist group, joining up, and then finding some alternate uses for my $200 piece of red plastic with my face on it. (the pic makes me look like one tho
).The problem is even the bad people were once good. Sure its going to stop know individuals, but it leaves a big hole for the new recruits to slip through.
We should all think of this, because, an ASIC wearing exempt person could one day try to sneek something through, or give it to the real terrorist after he made it through the checks at the gate.
I dont know there is a perfect solution
Another question........who checks the security guys??
Cheers J
Grandpa Aerotart
The inescapable point is that the 'turned' pilot does not need to secret anything on board with him...he has no need to convince anyone to open the door to gain access to the cockpit by slashing throats...he has no need to secret bomb making materials on board...why would he bother secreting similar items to another individual?
I don't accept the 'pilots family held hostage' theory either...if they are nasty enough to hijack an aircraft and kill several hundred or thousand innocents does anyone seriously think they would release your family to identify them after you have helped them?
Baggage being broken into and items stolen is common...how hard would it be to put an explosive device into someones baggage set to a timer?
I have sat in the crew bus at the gate of the crew/airside workers screening points at LHR watching vehicles not being checked thoroughly...lets face it how do you thoroughly check a truck full of catering/aircraft spares or sundry 100s of other items that are needed daily airside to keep the aircraft flying?
It is rather hillarious though to watch the security staff walk around the truck rather like we do when doing a walk around and then pour the drivers coffee on the ground and confiscate his lunch while he is sending his shoes through the xray before allowing him to continue on his way.
Gives me a warm feeling knowing how much safer I am as a result of that. How much semtex can be hidden inside a spare tyre?
The threat is not the pax so much and it definately isn't the aircrew...but I can accept that a layered defence necesitates pax screening...aircrew screening at the airport cannot achieve what is desired better than background checks done by Intelligence/Aviation authorities and employers contributing to a workplace database system.
The biggest security threat is that an airport like Sydney or Heathrow is INDEFENSEABLE. The only way to guarantee nothing will be secreted on board an aircraft is to close the facility down and build a housing estate on it.
Airport authorities/owners, Catering companies, SECURITY companies etc all use min wage workers who more often than not come from the very ethnic/religous backgrounds that are giving us our current drama....individuals that one would suspect have far more exposure to being programed with the desire to do 'the west' harm...and a few have already been caught.
Spend the money where it will have a chance of making a difference. As it stands airport departure terminal security is mostly poiltical smoke and mirrors.
I don't accept the 'pilots family held hostage' theory either...if they are nasty enough to hijack an aircraft and kill several hundred or thousand innocents does anyone seriously think they would release your family to identify them after you have helped them?
Baggage being broken into and items stolen is common...how hard would it be to put an explosive device into someones baggage set to a timer?
I have sat in the crew bus at the gate of the crew/airside workers screening points at LHR watching vehicles not being checked thoroughly...lets face it how do you thoroughly check a truck full of catering/aircraft spares or sundry 100s of other items that are needed daily airside to keep the aircraft flying?
It is rather hillarious though to watch the security staff walk around the truck rather like we do when doing a walk around and then pour the drivers coffee on the ground and confiscate his lunch while he is sending his shoes through the xray before allowing him to continue on his way.
Gives me a warm feeling knowing how much safer I am as a result of that. How much semtex can be hidden inside a spare tyre?
The threat is not the pax so much and it definately isn't the aircrew...but I can accept that a layered defence necesitates pax screening...aircrew screening at the airport cannot achieve what is desired better than background checks done by Intelligence/Aviation authorities and employers contributing to a workplace database system.
The biggest security threat is that an airport like Sydney or Heathrow is INDEFENSEABLE. The only way to guarantee nothing will be secreted on board an aircraft is to close the facility down and build a housing estate on it.
Airport authorities/owners, Catering companies, SECURITY companies etc all use min wage workers who more often than not come from the very ethnic/religous backgrounds that are giving us our current drama....individuals that one would suspect have far more exposure to being programed with the desire to do 'the west' harm...and a few have already been caught.
Spend the money where it will have a chance of making a difference. As it stands airport departure terminal security is mostly poiltical smoke and mirrors.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 17th Sep 2006 at 04:47.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Asia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, as we know it's all window dressing to make the public feel all warm and cozy inside. Also, of course, the decision makers have made a decision, jobs right.
I was in a bus at Narita going through the check point and saw a car beside me having it's boot checked. Inside was a fully covered set of golf sticks which were promptly ignored and the thumbs up given without even a cursory inspection.
No time of course, got to keep the traffic movin on.
Looks like Narita is safe and that's all that matters, appearances.
Go to KIX and drive straight through, no security there.
The other big joke of course is our ID cards. We all know how hard it is to get one of those and they don't even look carefully at them anyway. God help you if you lose one though....
The photo on mine is dark and really not acceptable. Just another example that it's all a matter of being seen to be security conscious.
Proper security is way too costly and inconvenient, as so may have said.
Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, not. It's all about wrong place wrong time, good luck..
I was in a bus at Narita going through the check point and saw a car beside me having it's boot checked. Inside was a fully covered set of golf sticks which were promptly ignored and the thumbs up given without even a cursory inspection.
No time of course, got to keep the traffic movin on.
Looks like Narita is safe and that's all that matters, appearances.
Go to KIX and drive straight through, no security there.
The other big joke of course is our ID cards. We all know how hard it is to get one of those and they don't even look carefully at them anyway. God help you if you lose one though....
The photo on mine is dark and really not acceptable. Just another example that it's all a matter of being seen to be security conscious.
Proper security is way too costly and inconvenient, as so may have said.
Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, not. It's all about wrong place wrong time, good luck..
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Originally Posted by Kanga767
OK, So what is the point of obtaining an ASIC then?"
Well,it provides employment and it also provides ..mmmm employment and oh yeah it makes our politicians and public servants look as though they are doing something .
Also there are a lot of people who work in the game who like to wear one when they going to work and when they have a drink in the bar at the Holiday Inn opposite QCC after work before heading home ...sort of a club I suppose
OK, So what is the point of obtaining an ASIC then?"
Well,it provides employment and it also provides ..mmmm employment and oh yeah it makes our politicians and public servants look as though they are doing something .
Also there are a lot of people who work in the game who like to wear one when they going to work and when they have a drink in the bar at the Holiday Inn opposite QCC after work before heading home ...sort of a club I suppose
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Footlights College, Oxbridge
Age: 47
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all know (or we should know) that they have to security-check the pilots in case they're under duress and/or being coerced into carrying prohibited items through security for the terrorist. The intended target aircraft does not necessarily have to be the same flight the pilot is planning to operate. No one really suspects the pilot is going to freak out and go jihadi..... Why is that simple fact so hard for some people to grasp?
As for the realities of kidnapping, the average person would, I believe, take the hyjacker at his word rather than watch him slice his kid's throat and move onto the next candidate but that's just my opinion.
This out-weighs any concerns about the uninspiring image of the professional pilot who is about to fly Joe Sixpack, his wife and their 3 brats across the Pacific or wherever, being subjected to the same suspicions and indignities as the punters.
Sorry but ranting on about ASICs or crash-axes is just plain ignorant.
The issue of the cleaners, baggage-snatchers and camel-suit-wearers getting airside without going through security (if, indeed, it happens) is the real issue.
The best way to deal with the security Police Academy rejects is to be nice if they're nice or ignore them if they're not. Or just hold up the queue as much as you can.
PS Buster, I'd hate to see them slip-ons flying off ya feet in an accident/incident particularly if you end up having to run away bravely across the tarmac as she burns to the ground behind you...!!
You should wear DMs like I do. With cargo pockets on the pant legs...
As for the realities of kidnapping, the average person would, I believe, take the hyjacker at his word rather than watch him slice his kid's throat and move onto the next candidate but that's just my opinion.
This out-weighs any concerns about the uninspiring image of the professional pilot who is about to fly Joe Sixpack, his wife and their 3 brats across the Pacific or wherever, being subjected to the same suspicions and indignities as the punters.
Sorry but ranting on about ASICs or crash-axes is just plain ignorant.
The issue of the cleaners, baggage-snatchers and camel-suit-wearers getting airside without going through security (if, indeed, it happens) is the real issue.
The best way to deal with the security Police Academy rejects is to be nice if they're nice or ignore them if they're not. Or just hold up the queue as much as you can.
PS Buster, I'd hate to see them slip-ons flying off ya feet in an accident/incident particularly if you end up having to run away bravely across the tarmac as she burns to the ground behind you...!!
You should wear DMs like I do. With cargo pockets on the pant legs...
Last edited by Lord Snot; 17th Sep 2006 at 12:37.