Qantas pilots refuse shoe security check
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Qantas pilots refuse shoe security check
Haven't seen this on the boards yet, so here goes...
Qantas pilots refuse shoe security check
SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/qan...827007542.html
September 13, 2006 - 5:05PM
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.
The two pilots complained when they were asked to remove their shoes at the final inspection area at Manila's Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) late yesterday.
Octavio Lina, NAIA's operations manager, said the procedure was part of tight security measures being implemented at the airport to thwart terrorist attacks.
Lina said the pilots, both Australians, argued with NAIA security officials at the inspection area, claiming that they were being mistreated.
The two later yielded to authorities, allowing the flight which was carrying 200 passengers to take off 70 minutes later than its schedule.
Security at Philippine airports has been stepped up since last month following the discovery of a plot to bomb planes travelling from Britain to the United States.
Last week, a local newspaper reported that a security consultant was able to smuggle C-4 explosives attached to the sole of his shoes into a plane bound for a southern city.
The security consultant also claimed he built a bomb inside the plane's comfort room.
Philippine officials have denied the reported security lapse, saying the report was a hoax. They, however, implemented additional security measures to prevent such a breach.
Security experts have warned the Philippines is a key target of Islamic terrorists due to the country's staunch support for the US-led anti-terror campaign.
Al-Qaeda-linked Muslim rebels also operate and train in the country's south, including two Jemaah Islamiah militants wanted for the 2002 Bali bombings that killed more than 200 people, including 88 Australians.
DPA
"Comfort room"?!
Qantas pilots refuse shoe security check
SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/qan...827007542.html
September 13, 2006 - 5:05PM
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.
The two pilots complained when they were asked to remove their shoes at the final inspection area at Manila's Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) late yesterday.
Octavio Lina, NAIA's operations manager, said the procedure was part of tight security measures being implemented at the airport to thwart terrorist attacks.
Lina said the pilots, both Australians, argued with NAIA security officials at the inspection area, claiming that they were being mistreated.
The two later yielded to authorities, allowing the flight which was carrying 200 passengers to take off 70 minutes later than its schedule.
Security at Philippine airports has been stepped up since last month following the discovery of a plot to bomb planes travelling from Britain to the United States.
Last week, a local newspaper reported that a security consultant was able to smuggle C-4 explosives attached to the sole of his shoes into a plane bound for a southern city.
The security consultant also claimed he built a bomb inside the plane's comfort room.
Philippine officials have denied the reported security lapse, saying the report was a hoax. They, however, implemented additional security measures to prevent such a breach.
Security experts have warned the Philippines is a key target of Islamic terrorists due to the country's staunch support for the US-led anti-terror campaign.
Al-Qaeda-linked Muslim rebels also operate and train in the country's south, including two Jemaah Islamiah militants wanted for the 2002 Bali bombings that killed more than 200 people, including 88 Australians.
DPA
"Comfort room"?!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Arrivals/Departues data on qantas.com.au -
QF 20 ex MNL Monday, 11 September departed 8 minutes late. The QF20 Tuesday, 12 September departed 22 minutes late.
So, which date is this article referring to?
QF 20 ex MNL Monday, 11 September departed 8 minutes late. The QF20 Tuesday, 12 September departed 22 minutes late.
So, which date is this article referring to?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
One doesn't have to stretch one's mind too far to think up several innocuous items in your standard flight deck which a rogue could use for nefarious purposes. Are pilots going to be told not to wear ties (at least the real variety... ) in case a rogue decides to... well, I'm not going to actually suggest it here, but you get my drift; FedEx 705.
Last edited by Taildragger67; 13th Sep 2006 at 15:07.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frankly I am surprised it has taken so long.
How many pollies do you imagine get their shoes x-rayed at Canberra airport?
They are the ones who will usually make statemtents like:
"I make no apologies for our protective services ensuring the safety of the travelling public".
When they can explain how the pilots are a threat to the aircraft by what they take on the aircraft, I might consider their statements more than rhetorical populist fear-mongering non-sense.
Until then I would side with the actions of organisations like the BALPA and their criticisms of the ludicrous targetting of pilots in more and more ridiculous security screening. See this thread
This type of harassment is exactly the types of civil liberites that those tree hugging lefties (and the judiciary for good measure) were talking about when they vehemently protested such things as the US Patriot act and our Australian equivalents - all roller coasted through in a time of fear - as all good fascists do of course. And just to help it along we will eliminate what is left of alternative views in journalism in Australia by abandoning our media diversity laws.
How many pollies do you imagine get their shoes x-rayed at Canberra airport?
They are the ones who will usually make statemtents like:
"I make no apologies for our protective services ensuring the safety of the travelling public".
When they can explain how the pilots are a threat to the aircraft by what they take on the aircraft, I might consider their statements more than rhetorical populist fear-mongering non-sense.
Until then I would side with the actions of organisations like the BALPA and their criticisms of the ludicrous targetting of pilots in more and more ridiculous security screening. See this thread
This type of harassment is exactly the types of civil liberites that those tree hugging lefties (and the judiciary for good measure) were talking about when they vehemently protested such things as the US Patriot act and our Australian equivalents - all roller coasted through in a time of fear - as all good fascists do of course. And just to help it along we will eliminate what is left of alternative views in journalism in Australia by abandoning our media diversity laws.
Last edited by Shitsu_Tonka; 13th Sep 2006 at 21:58.
Hazard Alert
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ...second left, past the lights.
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I tend to agree ****su.
Ayers Rock and Brisbane International are two security check points that stand out, in my own experiences.
A little bit of power in the hands of some of these idiots off the street, is damaging and interuptive. Many are often suspect in there own security clearances ie. Sydney is a perfect case in point, although Max M-W will not admit.
Many of the Terminal checks on Aircrew are rediculous, given all the Security checks and clearances we go through to issue/renew our Airside Pass. Logic has gone out the window!
They should be concentrating more on who and what's going on, on the Tarmacs!
Happy Landings
Ayers Rock and Brisbane International are two security check points that stand out, in my own experiences.
A little bit of power in the hands of some of these idiots off the street, is damaging and interuptive. Many are often suspect in there own security clearances ie. Sydney is a perfect case in point, although Max M-W will not admit.
Many of the Terminal checks on Aircrew are rediculous, given all the Security checks and clearances we go through to issue/renew our Airside Pass. Logic has gone out the window!
They should be concentrating more on who and what's going on, on the Tarmacs!
Happy Landings
The idea with screening every one is that nothing should get into the secure area. I know it sounds stupid to screen a pilot (who if they really wanted to wouldn’t need a bomb to kill everyone onboard) but what if something explosive is planted on a pilot?
I’m not to sure how well a 747 flies when the Captains legs are blown off and sprayed around inside of the cockpit.
Or even something small hidden in your flight bag, tear gas in the cockpit that would be fun, unless you get the smoke mask on really early in the piece the damage is already done.
Did you leave your bag outside your hotel door for a few minutes this morning? How do you know no one was in your room while you where out for dinner?
Or maybe I have been sucked in by the anti-terrorist propaganda?
All the above said, I still think telling pilots to remove their wings because of the sharp bits is going just a little too far.
I’m not to sure how well a 747 flies when the Captains legs are blown off and sprayed around inside of the cockpit.
Or even something small hidden in your flight bag, tear gas in the cockpit that would be fun, unless you get the smoke mask on really early in the piece the damage is already done.
Did you leave your bag outside your hotel door for a few minutes this morning? How do you know no one was in your room while you where out for dinner?
Or maybe I have been sucked in by the anti-terrorist propaganda?
All the above said, I still think telling pilots to remove their wings because of the sharp bits is going just a little too far.
Ronald
There is some substance to what you say, and maybe if we never left the ground there wouldn't be a problem either.
All this security is rediculous until camel wearing drug smoking/pushing criminally convicted groundstaff are being checked.
I can proceed to an aircraft WITHOUT proceeding through security, as long as I do proceed through security prior to aircraft departure.
It does not make sense and does not work.
There is some substance to what you say, and maybe if we never left the ground there wouldn't be a problem either.
All this security is rediculous until camel wearing drug smoking/pushing criminally convicted groundstaff are being checked.
I can proceed to an aircraft WITHOUT proceeding through security, as long as I do proceed through security prior to aircraft departure.
It does not make sense and does not work.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be really surprised if there wasn't more to this than is being reported. In hundreds of security checks ranging from benign to utterly insane and moronic, I've seen rolling eyes, muttering under the breath, and irritated looks but have NEVER seen a stubborn refusal by QF pilots to 'play the game'. If it came down to a choice of believing that both pilots were being completely ridiculous and obnoxious, or Manila airport security staff were being completely ridiculous and obnoxious, well.........
There's no doubt however that in the current climate QF management will want to put a certain spin on this.
There's no doubt however that in the current climate QF management will want to put a certain spin on this.
Spot on Dutchy!
I can understand how some might find it offensive though to be subject to these checks especially when the pilot in command has the legal and final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft and all those on it.
Are these security people claiming the Captain is carrying DG's or forbidden items which would mean the Captain is breaking the law? And not to mention risking their employment and super?
They might as well charge him/her with a federal offence there and then!
A little respect might be in order!
I can understand how some might find it offensive though to be subject to these checks especially when the pilot in command has the legal and final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft and all those on it.
Are these security people claiming the Captain is carrying DG's or forbidden items which would mean the Captain is breaking the law? And not to mention risking their employment and super?
They might as well charge him/her with a federal offence there and then!
A little respect might be in order!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: S/E Australia
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And now the pilots have been stood down pending investigation!
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/qan...827076064.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/qan...827076064.html