Innocent 747 Pilot Dubbed 'Security risk' sues BA
Here's the link to earlier article in the Daily Mail, in case you've missed it before the first thread about occurrence went missing:
Pilot with terror links deemed a security risk accuses airline of racism after losing his job
Pilot with terror links deemed a security risk accuses airline of racism after losing his job
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may be hard to believe a fellow professional may choose his own religious future over the lives of a few hundred Kuffar. This infiltration is aided and abetted by diversity. When doctors are willing to bomb Nightclubs and Airports why not Pilots? And do not think he is the only Pilot either.
Islam is on a charge at the moment. The insistence this faith is peacful would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous.
HuT is not proscribed because it suits other purposes, otherwise it would be.
This empoyment curtailment is called disruption. Better to help an employee you fear is going to kill your staff and customers to the door than the alternative.
Just because you have not been told what is known by the Service does not make them wrong.
Islam is on a charge at the moment. The insistence this faith is peacful would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous.
HuT is not proscribed because it suits other purposes, otherwise it would be.
This empoyment curtailment is called disruption. Better to help an employee you fear is going to kill your staff and customers to the door than the alternative.
Just because you have not been told what is known by the Service does not make them wrong.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Germany (SLF)
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the biggest potential terrorist threats to aircraft is from the crew.
You'd have to be a very brave manager to gloss over security concerns related to pilots.
You'd have to be a very brave manager to gloss over security concerns related to pilots.
How many more similar Samir Jamaluddins are out there? Guys, who are probably innocent but still cannot be 100% trusted?
Since there is finally some recognition that crews in the cockpit are a potential terrorist threat, it is time to do something about it, for example by stationing an armed security officer in the cockpit. It is just ridiculous that paying passengers have to endure all sorts of humuliation, having their possessions confiscated, sometimes unable to queue for toilets, while the biggest security threat is already in the front of the plane, having airplane controls, the fire axe and the airplane with lots of fuel at their disposal. You don't even need two terrorists in the cockpit to destroy a skyscraper, just one terrorist without any special items brought aboard would suffice. A single point of failure
The solution shouldn't be to ban this one randomly caught guy from flying. Rather, it should be impossible for this guy (or any single guy) to bring down a plane even if he keeps flying. Just like planes are engineered in a way that they don't go down when a single engine fails.
Sadly, pilot unions who usually pretend to care about the safety of air travel turn a blind eye on this issue, preferring their own little comfort to the safety of passengers paying their wages.
As for this guy, I hope he gets full reinstatement, and since BA considers allowing him to fly too risky for them, they should put him on paid leave till the end of his career.
for example by stationing an armed security officer in the cockpit.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Happyplace
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They look, sound, appear and behave as a dangerous, anti-semitic, anti-Western group of hate filled people. Nothing to worry about? Google is your friend, they were rightly banned in the UK, not something we say often.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of bull**** being spread here
This is not about human rights, minority rights, religious rights, racism or even very much about the law. The latter only in the sense that BA has to be prepared to pay up. It's about running a company and minimising the threat to that company's existence.
Even if there's zero hard evidence against this pilot which would stand up in court, BA top management has to judge the risk and act accordingly. If they suspect there's a one in a hundred chance that this guy is a threat, that creates a level of probability of disaster that would never be permitted in an aircraft component. He had to go.
Even if there's zero hard evidence against this pilot which would stand up in court, BA top management has to judge the risk and act accordingly. If they suspect there's a one in a hundred chance that this guy is a threat, that creates a level of probability of disaster that would never be permitted in an aircraft component. He had to go.
if the court finds in his favour then he won't ever need to work again anyway, if this 'multi million pound compensation' is correct. and good for him. his life was 'ed up by the government and BA, so they should pay up accordingly.
'ed up by the government and BA, so they should pay up accordingly.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Coast
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting views to which I would like to add mine.
The biggest issue here is the action of HMG. If it is as reported and quoted in the tribunal, BA had little choice. Told by the Home secretary that there was a risk and Government did not want him flying but would not order it. BA then could ignore it and the duty of care they have for passengers, other crew and people on the ground or act on it and be accused of poor judgement, procedure etc.
I am no fan of WW but I think he acted in the best way in the circumstances and took the responsibility.
Mrs Smith however, showed the streak of self serving fear by sloping shoulders knowing that BA would be in a difficult position.
For those arguing about prosecution, there are a number of reasons why sensitive cases do not get prosecuted and not all due to the state of the criminal justice system. Many cases are not prosecuted in order to protect information sources or there is a bigger picture being viewed.
British Airways will take the hit either way in this case unfairly in my view. As for the Pilot, I have a great deal of sympathy for him however I do not see what else the company could have done.
The biggest issue here is the action of HMG. If it is as reported and quoted in the tribunal, BA had little choice. Told by the Home secretary that there was a risk and Government did not want him flying but would not order it. BA then could ignore it and the duty of care they have for passengers, other crew and people on the ground or act on it and be accused of poor judgement, procedure etc.
I am no fan of WW but I think he acted in the best way in the circumstances and took the responsibility.
Mrs Smith however, showed the streak of self serving fear by sloping shoulders knowing that BA would be in a difficult position.
For those arguing about prosecution, there are a number of reasons why sensitive cases do not get prosecuted and not all due to the state of the criminal justice system. Many cases are not prosecuted in order to protect information sources or there is a bigger picture being viewed.
British Airways will take the hit either way in this case unfairly in my view. As for the Pilot, I have a great deal of sympathy for him however I do not see what else the company could have done.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said OldChina, so much libertarian tosh has been spouted here.
If I was head of security for an airline and I was advised that I had a pilot working in the airline who had a brother and a friend in an extremist Muslim organisation that had two members, known to the pilot, who were seeking to learn to fly at the rate of four lessons a day I would smell a rat. Imagine, one already on the flight deck as legitimate crew, (negating cockpit door security), with two accomplices in the cabin ready to pounce on a given signal and all three hell bent on suicide.
It is possible that insurance underwriters came to learn of this situation and they may have discussed withholding insurance cover, who knows?
Pay the man off, the circumstantial evidence seems to suggest he was an unacceptable risk.
If I was head of security for an airline and I was advised that I had a pilot working in the airline who had a brother and a friend in an extremist Muslim organisation that had two members, known to the pilot, who were seeking to learn to fly at the rate of four lessons a day I would smell a rat. Imagine, one already on the flight deck as legitimate crew, (negating cockpit door security), with two accomplices in the cabin ready to pounce on a given signal and all three hell bent on suicide.
It is possible that insurance underwriters came to learn of this situation and they may have discussed withholding insurance cover, who knows?
Pay the man off, the circumstantial evidence seems to suggest he was an unacceptable risk.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a simple case of clumsy burocracy at BA.
A sensible management would have explained their dilema to him in private and in a sympathetic manner then promoted him sideways into a non-flying job. A nice little 9 to 5 position driving a desk with an impressive job title and better salary would have solved the problem with minimal fuss.
A sensible management would have explained their dilema to him in private and in a sympathetic manner then promoted him sideways into a non-flying job. A nice little 9 to 5 position driving a desk with an impressive job title and better salary would have solved the problem with minimal fuss.
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Censorship on pprune.org
The issue of censorship of a number of contributions on this thread, mine included, seem worthy of debate too. Who is the censor, and to what "rules" are they operating.
I'm not offended if someone finds my contribution, or indeed conflicting ones unsavoury. Its part of the process here. But on what basis are they being deleted? And by who? Big Brother is alive and well on pprune, it seems.
Moderator, your answer please.
And is my financial contribution to the website refundable? I didn't pay to be silenced without warning and without feedback.
I'm not offended if someone finds my contribution, or indeed conflicting ones unsavoury. Its part of the process here. But on what basis are they being deleted? And by who? Big Brother is alive and well on pprune, it seems.
Moderator, your answer please.
And is my financial contribution to the website refundable? I didn't pay to be silenced without warning and without feedback.
oldchina
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 111
Lots of bull**** being spread here
This is not about human rights, minority rights, religious rights, racism or even very much about the law. The latter only in the sense that BA has to be prepared to pay up. It's about running a company and minimising the threat to that company's existence.
Even if there's zero hard evidence against this pilot which would stand up in court, BA top management has to judge the risk and act accordingly. If they suspect there's a one in a hundred chance that this guy is a threat, that creates a level of probability of disaster that would never be permitted in an aircraft component. He had to go.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 111
Lots of bull**** being spread here
This is not about human rights, minority rights, religious rights, racism or even very much about the law. The latter only in the sense that BA has to be prepared to pay up. It's about running a company and minimising the threat to that company's existence.
Even if there's zero hard evidence against this pilot which would stand up in court, BA top management has to judge the risk and act accordingly. If they suspect there's a one in a hundred chance that this guy is a threat, that creates a level of probability of disaster that would never be permitted in an aircraft component. He had to go.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're absolutely right! We have on the one hand the rights of one pilot (with an uncomfortable close terrorist connection, and stated sympathetic views to 911) and some suspiciously bizarre connections to people as stated versus the rights of a 747 load of innocent passengers and crew and their rights to as much safety and security as this PC-ridden world will allow. The several commentators here who harp on about the rights of the individual appear to believe they trump the rights of complete safety for the airline and its passengers.
The nutters are still out there. They come from branches of one religion, and they set fire to their shoes and underpants inflight, have an unholy fascination with death, murder, destruction of non-believers. We've seen they can come from any background at any time, but with one thing in common.
I, for one, am proud that my former employer has put complete safety of our passengers and crew and the general public, who may become a target, when sufficient doubt exists ahead of considerations for this one individual's 'rights' such that it may be punished for doing so. The many, many potential victims rights are paramount, not this man's. That's not BA being beastly- that's BA responding to a severe and current threat-action had to be taken, and well done!
The nutters are still out there. They come from branches of one religion, and they set fire to their shoes and underpants inflight, have an unholy fascination with death, murder, destruction of non-believers. We've seen they can come from any background at any time, but with one thing in common.
I, for one, am proud that my former employer has put complete safety of our passengers and crew and the general public, who may become a target, when sufficient doubt exists ahead of considerations for this one individual's 'rights' such that it may be punished for doing so. The many, many potential victims rights are paramount, not this man's. That's not BA being beastly- that's BA responding to a severe and current threat-action had to be taken, and well done!
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to an earlier post they did more or less that, offered him a job within the company but not flying.
This could have been handled sensitively AT THE BEGINNING instead of throwing him to the wolves of the press and the security circus.
"We like you and we trust you but the paranoid security service guys are giving us a hard time so we are moving you to a nice non-flying job with a pay rise for a few years until the fuss dies down"
Problem solved.
Any company that treats its staff so badly deserves to the sued for every penny until the pips squeek.
I'm not impressed in this debate by anyone who has total clarity about what was done and what should have been done.
This stuff is not, and never will be, black and white.
Some years ago, a mate of mine was approached by one of his mates who must have had some contacts in the security service. He was shown a photo of my mate and I with someone who the security bods thought was undesireable. (Neither of us knew about the undesireable person's status as undesireable).
The message was simple.............continue hanging around with undesireables, and we'll take an interest in you.
I'd have been extremely pissed off if a single or small series of meetings with undesireables lead me to lose my job.
However, I made very sure that I followed the advice,even though it was delivered in such a roundabout way.............so I did not lose my job.
I would completely defend my then employer's rights however, to fire me if I had continued hanging around with undesireables.
That's just my point of view. Someone else might take a different point of view.
We are not, and we cannot be, overly principled about this stuff. The nutters who blow people and things up are not principled in the slightest.
And - pleas - stop referring to Islam?moslems as any sort of enemy. They aren't. it is those that use religion as an excuse for politics that are the problem.
This stuff is not, and never will be, black and white.
Some years ago, a mate of mine was approached by one of his mates who must have had some contacts in the security service. He was shown a photo of my mate and I with someone who the security bods thought was undesireable. (Neither of us knew about the undesireable person's status as undesireable).
The message was simple.............continue hanging around with undesireables, and we'll take an interest in you.
I'd have been extremely pissed off if a single or small series of meetings with undesireables lead me to lose my job.
However, I made very sure that I followed the advice,even though it was delivered in such a roundabout way.............so I did not lose my job.
I would completely defend my then employer's rights however, to fire me if I had continued hanging around with undesireables.
That's just my point of view. Someone else might take a different point of view.
We are not, and we cannot be, overly principled about this stuff. The nutters who blow people and things up are not principled in the slightest.
And - pleas - stop referring to Islam?moslems as any sort of enemy. They aren't. it is those that use religion as an excuse for politics that are the problem.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Well
If he has been awarded a multi million compensation package, he won't need to fly or do anything else for a living anymore will he?
Lucky him!
As I see it, we are currently in a total mess regarding security clearance and basic competence of flight crews.
How can the situation be improved?
Lucky him!
As I see it, we are currently in a total mess regarding security clearance and basic competence of flight crews.
How can the situation be improved?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Back to the fold in the map
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Stuff (and nonsense)
Chaps - I normally linger on the military thread, but couldn't resist reading this thread because it involves all of us, and it ties in with my line of business. I have a question and a couple of points. Does anyone know what exactly what the "damages" that this guy was awarded are? If it was a couple of million then that is, if invested, an income of some 50K per year. He has also received a public apology and, whilst I acknowledge that many will believe that there is "no smoke without fire", such an apology is enough for him to sue a future potential employer who refuses him employment without concrete grounds (if indeed he wants'needs to work again) and to enable him to show his face in public. The reverse side of the coin is that the "authorities" have shown, publicly, that they are vigilant (they may also have publicly demonstrated their "clumsiness - but that's a subjective call) and sent a clear message to potential terrorists that "we are watching". Whilst I do not want to get into the Human Rights debate - especially in terms of Individual Rights v Individual Responsibilities I would point out that it is a 2-way street. There are jobs out there (Armed Forces springs immediately to mind for some reason!) where some things that people would see as my "Human Rights" have been curtailed because of the requirements of my employment - that's OK, I knew that when I signed up and, to be honest, I could have worked it out for myself without being told. There are simply some activities that are not compatible with some jobs. Finally, the big question - the "What If". Just say that this guy had crashed his aircraft into Canary Wharf and subsequent investigations revealed what we all know know after reading this thread - what would the Human Rights supporters be saying now? So, for what it's worth, my take on this is that in the overall scheme of things everyone involved in this is a loser - the individual, BA, the security services and HMG - OR, just perhaps everyone is a winner. The captain has his cash and a public apology and perhaps dopesn't ever need to work again, the security services have sent their message - etc etc. Just a thought............back off where I belong now!
Controversial, moi?
The captain has his cash and a public apology and perhaps doesn't ever need to work again...
The trouble, Gentlemen, is that we are fast approaching a state where even contributing to this thread could be deemed "evidence of terrorist sympathies". A simple check of your IP address follows, then a quiet word to your employer, the cancellation of your passport for "security reasons" and there you are, washed up. Thoughtcrime.
The problem is - who will watch the watchers? Once a security service reaches the stage where peoples careers depend on a continuing caseload of threats to the State, they will be tempted to manufacture them if their supply declines. Since much of their work can, and must, remain secret, it is easy to claim the existence of "secret evidence" of intent when fitting someone up. It takes very bright, hard working and hard nosed Judges and Civil servants to keep the security services in the fetters our forfathers applied to them.
Unfortunately it appears that those fetters are now broken. Security is now an "Industry" that will not retreat. The threat is now "Islam" and if we can't find a few terrorists to keep the public scared, we will poke and prod the Muslims till they react.
So what have we had? A shoe bomber? An underwear bomber? A lot of low IQ idiots in Britian, America and Australia whose efforts at terrorism are almost comical? Has a professional airline pilot ever committed a terrorist act? I don't think so. The only exception in the West is the backpack attack on Londons tube system.
To put that another way; does anyone remember the IRA? The bombing outside Harrods? The hotel in Brighton? The mortar attack on Ten Downing Street? Now THAT was a terrorist organisation! those were a terrorists terrorists! Yet compare our response to IRA terrorism to Islamic terrorism. Did we get our panties in knots and suspend ancient freedoms over the IRA? Did we run around denying jobs to anyone with an Irish name who was a Catholic?
Folks there are at least Two groups who profit from this paranoia; the security industry and various countries who want to demonise Muslims of various varieties for political purposes.
The cause of freedom is not helped by unquestioning believers like are friend Notso Fantastic:
And of course Pinkaroo who tries to overturn the presumption of innocence:
The problem is - who will watch the watchers? Once a security service reaches the stage where peoples careers depend on a continuing caseload of threats to the State, they will be tempted to manufacture them if their supply declines. Since much of their work can, and must, remain secret, it is easy to claim the existence of "secret evidence" of intent when fitting someone up. It takes very bright, hard working and hard nosed Judges and Civil servants to keep the security services in the fetters our forfathers applied to them.
Unfortunately it appears that those fetters are now broken. Security is now an "Industry" that will not retreat. The threat is now "Islam" and if we can't find a few terrorists to keep the public scared, we will poke and prod the Muslims till they react.
So what have we had? A shoe bomber? An underwear bomber? A lot of low IQ idiots in Britian, America and Australia whose efforts at terrorism are almost comical? Has a professional airline pilot ever committed a terrorist act? I don't think so. The only exception in the West is the backpack attack on Londons tube system.
To put that another way; does anyone remember the IRA? The bombing outside Harrods? The hotel in Brighton? The mortar attack on Ten Downing Street? Now THAT was a terrorist organisation! those were a terrorists terrorists! Yet compare our response to IRA terrorism to Islamic terrorism. Did we get our panties in knots and suspend ancient freedoms over the IRA? Did we run around denying jobs to anyone with an Irish name who was a Catholic?
Folks there are at least Two groups who profit from this paranoia; the security industry and various countries who want to demonise Muslims of various varieties for political purposes.
The cause of freedom is not helped by unquestioning believers like are friend Notso Fantastic:
The nutters are still out there. They come from branches of one religion, and they set fire to their shoes and underpants inflight, have an unholy fascination with death, murder, destruction of non-believers. We've seen they can come from any background at any time, but with one thing in common.
Just because you have not been told what is known by the Service does not make them wrong.