Qantas pilots refuse shoe security check
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, but the more I read & hear about this 'incident', the more I believe this has been a complete and utter beat-up by the Manila authorities playing some oneupmanship games and telling some little fibs, and the media who were short of real news at the time.
And the way that Qantas management have apparently run from the other end of the field to sink the boot in is disgraceful, but not unexpected. And they expect us to put in extra effort to save on fuel costs.
And the way that Qantas management have apparently run from the other end of the field to sink the boot in is disgraceful, but not unexpected. And they expect us to put in extra effort to save on fuel costs.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Footlights College, Oxbridge
Age: 47
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe this has been a complete and utter beat-up by the Manila authorities
Weee would not everrr do that, Sirrrrrrrrrr...... Very sorry, Sirrrrrr... Ma'am.... Sirrrrrrr......
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WRT Manila, as Veruka has already pointed out, perhaps language difficulties, misunderstandings, and the media inflated the incident into something it wasn't. Stiffwing's implication that the Capt's reputation had anything to do with it is just baseless, ignorant speculation.
Regardless, clearly some of us are wearing thin with airport security. Exactly what prevents the SNP police academy dropout from being coerced into overlooking Terry Wrist's 'extra special laptop' in the first place? Why does Terry Wrist need prohibited items anyway? How about those metal forks? Wine bottles? Wooden stakes? Ceramic knives? Pens? Hands?
It's just about where the line is drawn really, and including ourselves within that line sometimes feels ridiculous.
PS - how many of you have ever been 'randomly selected' for the bomb residue search? Even when its not in view of passengers.
onya security!
Regardless, clearly some of us are wearing thin with airport security. Exactly what prevents the SNP police academy dropout from being coerced into overlooking Terry Wrist's 'extra special laptop' in the first place? Why does Terry Wrist need prohibited items anyway? How about those metal forks? Wine bottles? Wooden stakes? Ceramic knives? Pens? Hands?
It's just about where the line is drawn really, and including ourselves within that line sometimes feels ridiculous.
PS - how many of you have ever been 'randomly selected' for the bomb residue search? Even when its not in view of passengers.
onya security!
Last edited by *Lancer*; 19th Sep 2006 at 13:29.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats right Chimbu,Lord Snot.Lancer and all other tech crew that believe they are above the rest of society and that no tech crew might or would ever do anything wrong...
"PS - how many of you have ever been 'randomly selected' for the bomb residue search? Even when its not in view of passengers. onya security!"
Our intelligence network ( now there is a contradiction in terms ) will pick up any threat and there will be no need for any crew to go through security.
The whole idea is to remove the number of holes in our swiss cheese concept not drill more of them.But heck you guys are above all that and are pillars of society and there is no tech crew from any airline that has not done something wrong even unintentionally.
While you are up there ordering weak black tea with lemon ..maybe,just maybe one of your other crew might have an idea to do something that you would not consider.When the investigative authorities picking up the pieces have decided it was an IED ,they would never believe that it was a tech crew that did it because you guys are perfect and beyond suspicion
"PS - how many of you have ever been 'randomly selected' for the bomb residue search? Even when its not in view of passengers. onya security!"
Our intelligence network ( now there is a contradiction in terms ) will pick up any threat and there will be no need for any crew to go through security.
The whole idea is to remove the number of holes in our swiss cheese concept not drill more of them.But heck you guys are above all that and are pillars of society and there is no tech crew from any airline that has not done something wrong even unintentionally.
While you are up there ordering weak black tea with lemon ..maybe,just maybe one of your other crew might have an idea to do something that you would not consider.When the investigative authorities picking up the pieces have decided it was an IED ,they would never believe that it was a tech crew that did it because you guys are perfect and beyond suspicion
You're missing the point Lowerlobe
As one of your much loathed "techies" (just call me a Pilot, okay?), I can do a lot of damage by virtue of having an aeroplane in my hands. Once the aircraft is under power, it is completely at my disposal, regardless of how many security tests I've been through on the day. And neither you nor security can stop me.
Xray screening and explosive residue tests of "techies" is all about public posturing and nothing to do with mitigating risk to aircraft and passengers. That's what we "techies" are objecting to.
Your statements are irrelevant to the Manila case because the "techies" did not refuse to remove their shoes, they simply questioned the manner in which it was to be undertaken.
That is a small but subtle difference which was lost on the airport staff. Typical of the "face saving" commonly seen in certain cultures.
Xray screening and explosive residue tests of "techies" is all about public posturing and nothing to do with mitigating risk to aircraft and passengers. That's what we "techies" are objecting to.
Your statements are irrelevant to the Manila case because the "techies" did not refuse to remove their shoes, they simply questioned the manner in which it was to be undertaken.
That is a small but subtle difference which was lost on the airport staff. Typical of the "face saving" commonly seen in certain cultures.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they simply questioned the manner in which it was to be undertaken.
While pilots think they can do what they like when operating an aircraft, so too can cabin crew or even the average passenger. Decompression, and the catastrophe that would follow such, comes to mind.
BA,
It's called CAR 224;
(3) The pilot in command shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while
he or she is in command and for the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board.
It's the lawwwwwwwww!
It's called CAR 224;
(3) The pilot in command shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while
he or she is in command and for the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board.
It's the lawwwwwwwww!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Spar! You've taken me outta context. I know about authority etc but I wasn't raising that, nor were others on this thread. Read all before and you'll understand what I am saying.
B A Lert,
Thanks for the capital 'P'. The word is a proper noun after all.
Anyway . . .
Who said Pilots should be exempt from security checks? The crew in question didn't. . .
There was no suggestion that egos were threatened by having to remove shoes in front of passengers. The Captain was well within his rights to suggest he have his shoes removed elsewhere if he felt that his responsibilities under the CARs would be best fulfilled by doing so. Whether you or I agree with that is irrelevant! The law empowers and obliges him to make such calls!
Thanks for the capital 'P'. The word is a proper noun after all.
Anyway . . . Who said Pilots should be exempt from security checks? The crew in question didn't. . .
There was no suggestion that egos were threatened by having to remove shoes in front of passengers. The Captain was well within his rights to suggest he have his shoes removed elsewhere if he felt that his responsibilities under the CARs would be best fulfilled by doing so. Whether you or I agree with that is irrelevant! The law empowers and obliges him to make such calls!
BA,
Sorry if I did.
This is a point of contention that some may feel justified in taking further.
Many of the functions that the PIC is legally responsible for is delegated to others, ie loading, security etc. Nonetheless the PIC is still held responsible. This point is not well known and is the basis for many problems encountered in day to day ops.
I for one could not give a brass razoo about the checks but I can understand if others don't agree.
I'm speaking generally and not with reference to the Manila case.
Sorry if I did.
This is a point of contention that some may feel justified in taking further.
Many of the functions that the PIC is legally responsible for is delegated to others, ie loading, security etc. Nonetheless the PIC is still held responsible. This point is not well known and is the basis for many problems encountered in day to day ops.
I for one could not give a brass razoo about the checks but I can understand if others don't agree.
I'm speaking generally and not with reference to the Manila case.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Veruka,
2 points.
Firstly, I don’t loathe Techies or pilots .I just don’t understand the ego’s that cause these debates. In 30 years of flying I have met and know a lot of techies and like cabin crew and every other cross section of society there are people within those groups who’s ego prevents them from a rational debate.
Secondly, I think you are missing the point that I made. No one is arguing that you are in control of an aircraft, that is your job. However as I have tried to make clear pilots are not immune to factors that affect every other human being on the planet. If it is possible for any person to have a moment in their life that makes them change perspective and religious beliefs then that can happen to pilots.
I don’t particularly want to describe specific possibilities in regard s to improvised weapons on the aircraft because this is a public forum. However, if one pilot on a 3 or more crew operation wants to cause the sort of disaster that we have witnessed before then the chance of surprising 2 other crew totally is problematic at best and unlikely. He/she will not be able to physically bring the aircraft down without the other 2 noticing unless they are in on the deal, which again would be possible but unlikely.
However, if they can bring an IED onto the aircraft because there are no security checks carried out on tech crew or even a weapon that would enable them to disable or remove the threat from the other pilots then that fixes the problem for them. To say they could do that with a crash axe is because first they would have to gain access to it without the other pilots noticing it and then have you ever used a heavy blunt instrument such as the crash axe in a confined small area and as I said surprising one pilot is possible but 2 or more…I doubt it.
If there is a possibility of a situation arising then we should not relax the current situation but look at and fix the other problems that exist that we all know about. That reality is a political and financial one but to create another opening for any terrorist is wrong.
2 points.
Firstly, I don’t loathe Techies or pilots .I just don’t understand the ego’s that cause these debates. In 30 years of flying I have met and know a lot of techies and like cabin crew and every other cross section of society there are people within those groups who’s ego prevents them from a rational debate.
Secondly, I think you are missing the point that I made. No one is arguing that you are in control of an aircraft, that is your job. However as I have tried to make clear pilots are not immune to factors that affect every other human being on the planet. If it is possible for any person to have a moment in their life that makes them change perspective and religious beliefs then that can happen to pilots.
I don’t particularly want to describe specific possibilities in regard s to improvised weapons on the aircraft because this is a public forum. However, if one pilot on a 3 or more crew operation wants to cause the sort of disaster that we have witnessed before then the chance of surprising 2 other crew totally is problematic at best and unlikely. He/she will not be able to physically bring the aircraft down without the other 2 noticing unless they are in on the deal, which again would be possible but unlikely.
However, if they can bring an IED onto the aircraft because there are no security checks carried out on tech crew or even a weapon that would enable them to disable or remove the threat from the other pilots then that fixes the problem for them. To say they could do that with a crash axe is because first they would have to gain access to it without the other pilots noticing it and then have you ever used a heavy blunt instrument such as the crash axe in a confined small area and as I said surprising one pilot is possible but 2 or more…I doubt it.
If there is a possibility of a situation arising then we should not relax the current situation but look at and fix the other problems that exist that we all know about. That reality is a political and financial one but to create another opening for any terrorist is wrong.
