Congrats to the Pilots Who Stood Up For Reason
[B]pakeha-boy[B] , all strength to your arms over there. Lobby wisely as gaunty et al advocate, and back it up with irrefutable evidence. (Whether or not the meek will inherit the earth, it's crazy to kick against the pricks. . . as the devout atheist said, who once excelled in divinity.)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
express checks
And what about the selective security treatment that people can buy ?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...m_this_summer/
Ok, it's not a total exemption from checks, but it is less restrictive if you are prepared to pay for it.
Bah... Most of this 'security' is a farce and intended to keep the sheep terrified.
I'm still p****off that the *#(%@*&#@ Oz pollies have even contemplated exempting the ASEC delegates from the 100ml liquids restrictions. I wonder if the *%&#(Q@ pollies get background checked when they decide to run for political office ?
Hey.. a random though just occured to me.. Do the pollies go through the security checks when they travel on RPT ??????
http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...m_this_summer/
Ok, it's not a total exemption from checks, but it is less restrictive if you are prepared to pay for it.
Bah... Most of this 'security' is a farce and intended to keep the sheep terrified.
I'm still p****off that the *#(%@*&#@ Oz pollies have even contemplated exempting the ASEC delegates from the 100ml liquids restrictions. I wonder if the *%&#(Q@ pollies get background checked when they decide to run for political office ?
Hey.. a random though just occured to me.. Do the pollies go through the security checks when they travel on RPT ??????
Wow, Ive never been mentioned in despatches so much before!
Oz in Biggles, ask Micheal Somare, the PNG PM.
Dear Keg. Thankyou for my award. I'm hoping the moderaters will issue me a gong underneath my name.
And for the other guy....no,no,no there are two## in $**^%##$!
Ok if I confused Keg, I musn't have made my ponit very clear, Ill take the hit for that. My point was these guys were pilots training for evil purposes, they had been issued a licence to train as the bad guys saw this as a way to attack. Who is to say there aren't more disgruntled pilots out there who know if they complain enough they won't be screened, flying bigger aircraft. If people don't believe this I have one word
FEDEX.
Until last week who would have thought a Doctor/s would be involved in a ploy to burn people to death in car bombs and splatter them with nails.
In summary somewhere more than likely there is a pilot with an axe to grind(bad FEDEX pun). ALL pilots should set an example, not belong to the minority who are sooks because they have to take their shoes off.
Now as for all the name calling of the security screening people, just imagine if just ONE of them had seen the packing knifes and asked a few questions. it MAY have been enough to undo the whole 9/11 plot. If that had been prevented by one of them, there would probably not have been wars in the Ghan and IRAQ
That is why we as proffessional Pilots should SET the example. Not go running off the the unions and ministers
PS - I hate taking my shoes off too....so much so I bought a pair that don't go ping, that is the way to deal with it
Oz in Biggles, ask Micheal Somare, the PNG PM.
Dear Keg. Thankyou for my award. I'm hoping the moderaters will issue me a gong underneath my name.
And for the other guy....no,no,no there are two## in $**^%##$!
Ok if I confused Keg, I musn't have made my ponit very clear, Ill take the hit for that. My point was these guys were pilots training for evil purposes, they had been issued a licence to train as the bad guys saw this as a way to attack. Who is to say there aren't more disgruntled pilots out there who know if they complain enough they won't be screened, flying bigger aircraft. If people don't believe this I have one word
FEDEX.
Until last week who would have thought a Doctor/s would be involved in a ploy to burn people to death in car bombs and splatter them with nails.
In summary somewhere more than likely there is a pilot with an axe to grind(bad FEDEX pun). ALL pilots should set an example, not belong to the minority who are sooks because they have to take their shoes off.
Now as for all the name calling of the security screening people, just imagine if just ONE of them had seen the packing knifes and asked a few questions. it MAY have been enough to undo the whole 9/11 plot. If that had been prevented by one of them, there would probably not have been wars in the Ghan and IRAQ
That is why we as proffessional Pilots should SET the example. Not go running off the the unions and ministers
PS - I hate taking my shoes off too....so much so I bought a pair that don't go ping, that is the way to deal with it
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Ozbiggles,
I had a beautifully-crafted, very soothing post prepared, then hit the 'Submit' button and lost the lot
. SO please forgive this shorter version but I'm buggered if I'm going to retype the previous essay I wrote.
Right...
Mate I think you've missed the point. I suggest that most (if not all) aircrew see the need for security screening and, with varying degrees of co-operation, are prepared to put up with it.
What they object to - and this is what I think you missed early on - is a perceived lack of consistency in its application. That is, if other airside workers - who may or may not have direct access to aircraft - get screened away from passengers' gaze, then why are aircrew treated differently (in that aircrew get screened in passengers' view)? Further, there is a view that, at least at some airports, aircrew get screened whilst other airside workers do not (or at least not to the same extent).
We all see the need for security - that is not in issue here. What is in issue, is the effectiveness of the security and how it is carried out.
Further, I don't think anyone is saying that pilots as a particular class should be exempt from screening (as you seemed on page 2, to think other posters were arguing); hence a pilot showing up as a passenger should not be exempt from screening just because they flash an ATPL (or even go through a separate lane). Rather, they are saying that operating crew (or perhaps also positioning crew in uniform) should be screened separately from passengers - as are other airside workers.
It follows in this argument that, where no provision to screen separately exists, then all airside workers should go through the same process as passengers.
I had a beautifully-crafted, very soothing post prepared, then hit the 'Submit' button and lost the lot
. SO please forgive this shorter version but I'm buggered if I'm going to retype the previous essay I wrote.Right...
Mate I think you've missed the point. I suggest that most (if not all) aircrew see the need for security screening and, with varying degrees of co-operation, are prepared to put up with it.
What they object to - and this is what I think you missed early on - is a perceived lack of consistency in its application. That is, if other airside workers - who may or may not have direct access to aircraft - get screened away from passengers' gaze, then why are aircrew treated differently (in that aircrew get screened in passengers' view)? Further, there is a view that, at least at some airports, aircrew get screened whilst other airside workers do not (or at least not to the same extent).
We all see the need for security - that is not in issue here. What is in issue, is the effectiveness of the security and how it is carried out.
Further, I don't think anyone is saying that pilots as a particular class should be exempt from screening (as you seemed on page 2, to think other posters were arguing); hence a pilot showing up as a passenger should not be exempt from screening just because they flash an ATPL (or even go through a separate lane). Rather, they are saying that operating crew (or perhaps also positioning crew in uniform) should be screened separately from passengers - as are other airside workers.
It follows in this argument that, where no provision to screen separately exists, then all airside workers should go through the same process as passengers.
Then we are in strong agreement with the fact that everyone should be screened. Thats not as much fun!
Let me re read the earlier posts to see if we agree on the fact that there aren't a few posters who didn't like being screened, we may agree to disagree there. I would like to point out I used the word minority to describe how many pilots get the sooks over being checked.
I thought your email was very well executed too, particularly this late at night.
now for some light reading of previous posts!
Is it possible to be banned for polite conversation?
edit - yep, we have to disagree on the last point some for screening, some advocate to no screening/back door/winks and nods. But if KEG can explain the Qantas EBA in simple language but misunderstand my post then I must have made a bad!
Let me re read the earlier posts to see if we agree on the fact that there aren't a few posters who didn't like being screened, we may agree to disagree there. I would like to point out I used the word minority to describe how many pilots get the sooks over being checked.
I thought your email was very well executed too, particularly this late at night.
now for some light reading of previous posts!
Is it possible to be banned for polite conversation?
edit - yep, we have to disagree on the last point some for screening, some advocate to no screening/back door/winks and nods. But if KEG can explain the Qantas EBA in simple language but misunderstand my post then I must have made a bad!
Last edited by ozbiggles; 5th Jul 2007 at 12:21.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If every person, item, liquid, gas or solid that finds itself airside is not screened then what is the point of screening operating crew?
There is no point. The situation is farcical, ludicrous and highly irritating.
What pills are you on?
There is no point. The situation is farcical, ludicrous and highly irritating.
What pills are you on?
Bottums Up
To believe that security screening of tech and cabin crew is really for security, rather than for the perceived propaganda value to DOTARS (Jo/Jill public can be assuaged by telling them, "even the pilots get screened"), is as naive as believing in the tooth fairy.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Claret..........would agree,but this latest sagarso with Doctors....certified doctors linked to terror acts(presumed) have not helped the cause ethier....the fact that professionals within the industry are linked to doing exactly what they not suppposed to do....puts you and I(as pilots) in an even greater spotlight.....obviously unwanted for sure,....but guilt by association is sometimes a stigma that is very hard to remove....
You,like I have seen the pathetic side of "percieved security".....but these situations only add more fuel to the fire....really dont have the answer,but as Ive posted before(whether we like it or not) a pro-active agenda can be the only learning course....if we knew what the bloody answer was,this subject would be a moot point...maybe
....PB
PB
You,like I have seen the pathetic side of "percieved security".....but these situations only add more fuel to the fire....really dont have the answer,but as Ive posted before(whether we like it or not) a pro-active agenda can be the only learning course....if we knew what the bloody answer was,this subject would be a moot point...maybe
....PBPB
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is but one of the articles on the US attempt to run parallel security lines for "trusted travellers".
OK we might say ASIC holder = trusted traveller but the costs and accomodation issues remain, this article may put some context on it for you..........................read on.
OK we might say ASIC holder = trusted traveller but the costs and accomodation issues remain, this article may put some context on it for you..........................read on.
By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In another blow to what has been touted as a revolutionary way to speed up checkpoint security lines, two of the nation's leading aviation associations are warning airports that the effort could backfire and cause longer waits for most passengers.
The Airports Council International said in a letter this week to airport directors that many checkpoint areas don't have room to set up exclusive Registered Traveler lanes. And the Air Transport Association, which represents U.S. airlines, said in a letter this month that the program will drain limited resources "and ultimately may disadvantage passengers."
The letters come at a crucial time for the long-delayed Registered Traveler program, which Congress conceived after 9/11 as a way to speed up security lines for fee-paying, pre-screened "trusted travelers." Passengers would pay roughly $80 to $100 a year for an ID card that would enable them to pass quickly through special checkpoints where they may not have to remove their coat or shoes.
Thirteen airports have applied to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to start Registered Traveler, and a dozen or so others have decided against it. Hundreds are undecided and waiting to see how the program fares in coming months, after it is launched at scattered airports.
Boston's Logan International is among the airports dropping the idea. "We don't see how it meets any customers' needs," spokesman Phil Orlandella said.
Airports that start Registered Traveler would hire companies to market the program, enroll members, produce ID cards and collect membership fees. Those companies say they're reeling from the TSA's recent disclosure that it plans to charge $140 to $300 an hour? tens of thousands of dollars a month? for each Registered Traveler checkpoint lane. The money would pay salaries of screeners at the lanes.
"With some of the airports already saying they're on the fence, this is one thing we don't need," said Luke Thomas, head of Registered Traveler for Saflink, a company seeking to participate in the program.
The charges could increase fees for registered travelers, said Larry Zmuda, head of Registered Traveler for Unisys, which also wants to administer the program.
"When they throw in new things like this that have not been previously discussed, you have to constantly check your business model to make sure it's a viable business," Zmuda said.
The Airports Council International, which represents airport directors, says airports with smaller checkpoints will find Registered Traveler difficult. "If you have three or four lanes at a checkpoint and you have to take one lane out of service to dedicate to Registered Traveler, it can be very problematic," said Dick Marchi, the council's senior policy adviser.
The TSA says it will not allow Registered Traveler programs that make non-participants wait longer.
Steven Brill, CEO of Verified Identity Pass, which also seeks to administer the program, predicted enough passengers will join to keep one security lane filled at all times. He also envisions "dual-use" lanes that ordinary passengers would use when no Registered Traveler members are at a checkpoint.
WASHINGTON — In another blow to what has been touted as a revolutionary way to speed up checkpoint security lines, two of the nation's leading aviation associations are warning airports that the effort could backfire and cause longer waits for most passengers.
The Airports Council International said in a letter this week to airport directors that many checkpoint areas don't have room to set up exclusive Registered Traveler lanes. And the Air Transport Association, which represents U.S. airlines, said in a letter this month that the program will drain limited resources "and ultimately may disadvantage passengers."
The letters come at a crucial time for the long-delayed Registered Traveler program, which Congress conceived after 9/11 as a way to speed up security lines for fee-paying, pre-screened "trusted travelers." Passengers would pay roughly $80 to $100 a year for an ID card that would enable them to pass quickly through special checkpoints where they may not have to remove their coat or shoes.
Thirteen airports have applied to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to start Registered Traveler, and a dozen or so others have decided against it. Hundreds are undecided and waiting to see how the program fares in coming months, after it is launched at scattered airports.
Boston's Logan International is among the airports dropping the idea. "We don't see how it meets any customers' needs," spokesman Phil Orlandella said.
Airports that start Registered Traveler would hire companies to market the program, enroll members, produce ID cards and collect membership fees. Those companies say they're reeling from the TSA's recent disclosure that it plans to charge $140 to $300 an hour? tens of thousands of dollars a month? for each Registered Traveler checkpoint lane. The money would pay salaries of screeners at the lanes.
"With some of the airports already saying they're on the fence, this is one thing we don't need," said Luke Thomas, head of Registered Traveler for Saflink, a company seeking to participate in the program.
The charges could increase fees for registered travelers, said Larry Zmuda, head of Registered Traveler for Unisys, which also wants to administer the program.
"When they throw in new things like this that have not been previously discussed, you have to constantly check your business model to make sure it's a viable business," Zmuda said.
The Airports Council International, which represents airport directors, says airports with smaller checkpoints will find Registered Traveler difficult. "If you have three or four lanes at a checkpoint and you have to take one lane out of service to dedicate to Registered Traveler, it can be very problematic," said Dick Marchi, the council's senior policy adviser.
The TSA says it will not allow Registered Traveler programs that make non-participants wait longer.
Steven Brill, CEO of Verified Identity Pass, which also seeks to administer the program, predicted enough passengers will join to keep one security lane filled at all times. He also envisions "dual-use" lanes that ordinary passengers would use when no Registered Traveler members are at a checkpoint.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
To suggest that because some muslim doctors decided to become jihadis is now a reason why operating crews MUST be screened does not follow.
We all know many ways (which I won't go into here) how a pilot who wanted to could carry out a terrorist act without the need for any weapons.
Unfortunately, it can't be totally guarded against. Making people strip down because some machine is improperly calibrated isn't going to solve the problem either.
We all know many ways (which I won't go into here) how a pilot who wanted to could carry out a terrorist act without the need for any weapons.
Unfortunately, it can't be totally guarded against. Making people strip down because some machine is improperly calibrated isn't going to solve the problem either.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A point that many people seem to miss (and is part of what peeves me off as an airline pilot) is this:
Current airport security screening is designed wholely and soley to prevent people getting through the security checkpoint with the means to gain access to the cockpit, and thus control of the plane, or with other means to bring the plane down.
When I'm operating crew, you can confiscate whatever the hell you like from me - right down to my undies if it pleases you - but don't then allow me to simply swagger into the cockpit anyway! You have, in one foul swoop, just unravelled virtually the entire point of going through the security screening!
When was the last time my ID was thoroughly and closely checked?
Answer: Never!
When was the last time I was refused access to the cockpit because of some contraband item they found at security?
Answer: Never! Though I, like many others, have been pulled up for inadvertent and minor contraband.
When was the last time they checked I was even the pilot who was supposed to be operating the flight?
Answer: In Australia, never! ONLY in the US (and often even then with a precursory glance at the ID).
There is pretty much only one way to ensure that an operating pilot is not going to put in a bootfull of left rudder and full backstick in flight, or thump the other bloke with the (.....insert cockpit weapon-of-choice here.....), or just trick him into getting locked out and then do whatever the hell he likes: Make sure he's done the appropriate clearances, checks, profiling, psych tests, etc, BEFORE he gets up the front.
This means TAILORING the security procedures according to what you're trying to achieve and who you are targeting. Confiscating a freakin' goddamn umbrella from an operating pilot because its point is too sharp is NOT repeat NOT going to save you!! (sorry for the increasingly hysterical nature of this post, but I find it REALLY frustrating that many lay-people and transport officials live in magical fairyland).
Current airport security screening is designed wholely and soley to prevent people getting through the security checkpoint with the means to gain access to the cockpit, and thus control of the plane, or with other means to bring the plane down.
When I'm operating crew, you can confiscate whatever the hell you like from me - right down to my undies if it pleases you - but don't then allow me to simply swagger into the cockpit anyway! You have, in one foul swoop, just unravelled virtually the entire point of going through the security screening!
When was the last time my ID was thoroughly and closely checked?
Answer: Never!
When was the last time I was refused access to the cockpit because of some contraband item they found at security?
Answer: Never! Though I, like many others, have been pulled up for inadvertent and minor contraband.
When was the last time they checked I was even the pilot who was supposed to be operating the flight?
Answer: In Australia, never! ONLY in the US (and often even then with a precursory glance at the ID).
There is pretty much only one way to ensure that an operating pilot is not going to put in a bootfull of left rudder and full backstick in flight, or thump the other bloke with the (.....insert cockpit weapon-of-choice here.....), or just trick him into getting locked out and then do whatever the hell he likes: Make sure he's done the appropriate clearances, checks, profiling, psych tests, etc, BEFORE he gets up the front.
This means TAILORING the security procedures according to what you're trying to achieve and who you are targeting. Confiscating a freakin' goddamn umbrella from an operating pilot because its point is too sharp is NOT repeat NOT going to save you!! (sorry for the increasingly hysterical nature of this post, but I find it REALLY frustrating that many lay-people and transport officials live in magical fairyland).
Dutch Roll hits the problem squarely.
As far as crew are concerned, ID checking is a far more appropriate procedure. Is this guy who he says he is and does he have a legitimate reason to be here TODAY? Companies are going to have to be involved with supply of names of those who should be there "TODAY" if you are not on TODAY's list, go away.
Those of us who go through the US regularly, are used to electronic fingerprinting, on entry. What is wrong with doing the same on exit. Scan the print, data base throws up the corresponding photo and immigration data, walk through.
No amount of checking and confiscation has or ever will, stop the few cases of deliberate "aircraft destruction by pilot", Egyptair, ATR Algeria (?), Silk Air, to name a few. Ergo it is a waste of time and energy to be knocking off the Capt's underarm deodorant.
What needs to be done is to ensure that ALL those with access to the aircraft have an appropriate level of scrutiny. This can only be done in segregated facilities.
All personnel with unlimited access need to be background checked, in addition to the "Daily Access check".
All those without background checking (including passengers) need to be restricted and subject to rigorous screening. Segregation of facilities is necessary to allow the effective identification of the "Daily Authorisised Personnel List" and to eliminate arguments as to percieved differing levls of scrutiny.
In the meantime, as has been said, it is pointless antagonising the Goon's, get active with people who can make a difference.
Maui
As far as crew are concerned, ID checking is a far more appropriate procedure. Is this guy who he says he is and does he have a legitimate reason to be here TODAY? Companies are going to have to be involved with supply of names of those who should be there "TODAY" if you are not on TODAY's list, go away.
Those of us who go through the US regularly, are used to electronic fingerprinting, on entry. What is wrong with doing the same on exit. Scan the print, data base throws up the corresponding photo and immigration data, walk through.
No amount of checking and confiscation has or ever will, stop the few cases of deliberate "aircraft destruction by pilot", Egyptair, ATR Algeria (?), Silk Air, to name a few. Ergo it is a waste of time and energy to be knocking off the Capt's underarm deodorant.
What needs to be done is to ensure that ALL those with access to the aircraft have an appropriate level of scrutiny. This can only be done in segregated facilities.
All personnel with unlimited access need to be background checked, in addition to the "Daily Access check".
All those without background checking (including passengers) need to be restricted and subject to rigorous screening. Segregation of facilities is necessary to allow the effective identification of the "Daily Authorisised Personnel List" and to eliminate arguments as to percieved differing levls of scrutiny.
In the meantime, as has been said, it is pointless antagonising the Goon's, get active with people who can make a difference.
Maui
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....security wise they 'think' they have the place (airports) locked up tight.........what surrounds most major airports in OZ?................soft metalled chainlink wire fences................often partially hidden by bushes & remoteness...............security is only as strong as it's weakest link !
...............sadly we need to be ever vigilant but it's not a level playing field when it comes to airport security. Sure check everyone if that's what it's going to take for us to live/fly free of tyranny, but make sure it's EVERYONE, the same way!
Capt Wally
...............sadly we need to be ever vigilant but it's not a level playing field when it comes to airport security. Sure check everyone if that's what it's going to take for us to live/fly free of tyranny, but make sure it's EVERYONE, the same way!
Capt Wally
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confiscating a freakin' goddamn umbrella from an operating pilot because its point is too sharp is NOT repeat NOT going to save you!!
The Committee accepts that the security outcomes in screening aircraft
crew are limited, given their access to weapons in airside areas and,
indeed, the fact that they are in control of aircraft.
crew are limited, given their access to weapons in airside areas and,
indeed, the fact that they are in control of aircraft.
But they still support the screening of aircrew. Although I think their reasons are a bit dubious.
The suggestion of tailored screening is an answer to most of the concerns I think have been raised here. However it's much cheaper to have a one size fits all approach and just shove the flight crew through with the passengers.
Working in airport security I know that there are huge holes and inconsistencies in what is done. But I'm not convinced that refusing to take your shoes off is the right way to go about making things better.
Wynsook....sorry couldn't resist...So your point is that because there can't be a 100% check of everything, pilots should be above going through a SIMPLE process? Its designed to DETER people.
In the end you, like me, are required to undergo the checks.
And if you must know its a 3 day course of prednisone and phenergan.
Osama is probably thinking to himself, all I need is a pilot sympathetic to my cause to smuggle something through and pass it on to my evil doers inside the terminal.
Now maybe some people here should google FEDEX hijack, look for the wekpedia entry and have a read of what a pilot who has been through all the possible physc testing there is can do. Now in may be a 1 in a millon...but it happened.
Should aircrew be exempt from customs checks as well? There is one slightly large breasted flight attendant (her words) that would have liked that to have been the case in the news today
In the end you, like me, are required to undergo the checks.
And if you must know its a 3 day course of prednisone and phenergan.
Osama is probably thinking to himself, all I need is a pilot sympathetic to my cause to smuggle something through and pass it on to my evil doers inside the terminal.
Now maybe some people here should google FEDEX hijack, look for the wekpedia entry and have a read of what a pilot who has been through all the possible physc testing there is can do. Now in may be a 1 in a millon...but it happened.
Should aircrew be exempt from customs checks as well? There is one slightly large breasted flight attendant (her words) that would have liked that to have been the case in the news today
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Out There
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit of a laugh