Virgin Pilot held on Drink allegations
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
I don't understand what you can possibly think is wrong with with what Newark said.
All he said is if the Captain's guilty he'll pay a very high price. He didn't say the price was too high and he didn't say he shouldn't have to pay it if he did what they allege.
Then he said that if the Captain's innocent and has been put through all this for nothing then he should get some compensation for what he's been put through.
How can you disagree with any of that?
And how do you get from what Newark said to "I thought this side of it had finished now...go on then explain why it is that the Security man has done something wrong...???
I don't understand how you make the jump.
Newark probably knows as much about how you go about getting compensation for this sort of thing as I do which is not a lot. I'd call in Flying Lawyer if it happened to me. But if the Captain's innocent I'd be very surprised if many people except you and the likes of Airbubba would think he shouldn't get some compensation for the humiliation, stress, distress, being locked up in prison, having his photo splashed all over the papers and some asshole of a prosecutor making it worse by talking to the papers. Wino explained that's how they do things in the States. The prosecutor tries to sway public opinion against the person accused ahead of the trial. That's dirty tricks in my book.
"whatever you think of him or who he works for the security guard has got EVERY right to call in the Police."
Sure. Has anyone said he hasn't? But what people think of him doing it is another thing and people have got different opinions. Some people have condemned the secutity man. Do you genuinely find that as hard to understand as you make out? Are you pretending you don't know most people don't like sneaks? Even if what the sneak says is true? Maybe it isn't logical, but God gave us hearts as well as heads and most people don't like seeing one man getting another man in the sh1t EVEN IF he's done something wrong. Andplease spare me all the media hype about '383 people narrowly escaping death over the Atlantic.' What a load of bollox.
Once a copper always a copper, eh bjcc?
This is mainly a pilots forum so we're bound to feel compassion for a fellow pilot in trouble even if he's brought the sh1t on himself. That's not the same as saying he doesn't deserve to pay a high price if he's done wrong and been caught.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have drink laws and I'm not saying people shouldn't done if they break them but I don't like the press whipping it up out of all proportion.
Forgot to say Happy Christmas. You people lucky enough to be at home today are probably about to start tucking in to your turkeys about now.
HAPPY CHRISTMAS to you all, especially to fellow pilots logging in from hotel rooms.
I don't understand what you can possibly think is wrong with with what Newark said.
All he said is if the Captain's guilty he'll pay a very high price. He didn't say the price was too high and he didn't say he shouldn't have to pay it if he did what they allege.
Then he said that if the Captain's innocent and has been put through all this for nothing then he should get some compensation for what he's been put through.
How can you disagree with any of that?
And how do you get from what Newark said to "I thought this side of it had finished now...go on then explain why it is that the Security man has done something wrong...???
I don't understand how you make the jump.
Newark probably knows as much about how you go about getting compensation for this sort of thing as I do which is not a lot. I'd call in Flying Lawyer if it happened to me. But if the Captain's innocent I'd be very surprised if many people except you and the likes of Airbubba would think he shouldn't get some compensation for the humiliation, stress, distress, being locked up in prison, having his photo splashed all over the papers and some asshole of a prosecutor making it worse by talking to the papers. Wino explained that's how they do things in the States. The prosecutor tries to sway public opinion against the person accused ahead of the trial. That's dirty tricks in my book.
"whatever you think of him or who he works for the security guard has got EVERY right to call in the Police."
Sure. Has anyone said he hasn't? But what people think of him doing it is another thing and people have got different opinions. Some people have condemned the secutity man. Do you genuinely find that as hard to understand as you make out? Are you pretending you don't know most people don't like sneaks? Even if what the sneak says is true? Maybe it isn't logical, but God gave us hearts as well as heads and most people don't like seeing one man getting another man in the sh1t EVEN IF he's done something wrong. Andplease spare me all the media hype about '383 people narrowly escaping death over the Atlantic.' What a load of bollox.
Once a copper always a copper, eh bjcc?
This is mainly a pilots forum so we're bound to feel compassion for a fellow pilot in trouble even if he's brought the sh1t on himself. That's not the same as saying he doesn't deserve to pay a high price if he's done wrong and been caught.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have drink laws and I'm not saying people shouldn't done if they break them but I don't like the press whipping it up out of all proportion.
Forgot to say Happy Christmas. You people lucky enough to be at home today are probably about to start tucking in to your turkeys about now.
HAPPY CHRISTMAS to you all, especially to fellow pilots logging in from hotel rooms.
Last edited by virgin; 25th Dec 2003 at 21:37.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin
Yes once a copper always a copper.
Your points all seem to be based round the premise that if this guy is aquitted, then everyone else must be a fault. Thats not the case. The arrest is a result of information received, but that information was not the sole reason for the guy getting arrested. An allagations been made, Police attend and investigate that allagation, if there is then suffiecent evidence and or reason to exercise a power of arrest then thats the Police Officers decision. In this particular case the reason for arrest is to secure evidence, that evidence being a breath/blood/urine (whichever applies) test. The result of those tests seem to have provided sufficent evidence to charge him. So how is the US Goverment at fault? How is the TSA at fault?
You may well not like snitches, grasses or any other similar expression, but then again you probably wouldn't want to live in a society where Police didn't get information from the public either.
I have no objection to supporting the guy, especialy when he's being treated in a way which seems harsh to you and me. But thats the US Judicial system and I doubt you raised an eyebrow when Micheal Jackson's photo was shown or when he was given strict bail conditions. But that support should not extend to the slating of others who can't or haven't defended themselves.
All comes down to treating people fairly, so yes I will repeat it, once a copper always.....
Yes once a copper always a copper.
Your points all seem to be based round the premise that if this guy is aquitted, then everyone else must be a fault. Thats not the case. The arrest is a result of information received, but that information was not the sole reason for the guy getting arrested. An allagations been made, Police attend and investigate that allagation, if there is then suffiecent evidence and or reason to exercise a power of arrest then thats the Police Officers decision. In this particular case the reason for arrest is to secure evidence, that evidence being a breath/blood/urine (whichever applies) test. The result of those tests seem to have provided sufficent evidence to charge him. So how is the US Goverment at fault? How is the TSA at fault?
You may well not like snitches, grasses or any other similar expression, but then again you probably wouldn't want to live in a society where Police didn't get information from the public either.
I have no objection to supporting the guy, especialy when he's being treated in a way which seems harsh to you and me. But thats the US Judicial system and I doubt you raised an eyebrow when Micheal Jackson's photo was shown or when he was given strict bail conditions. But that support should not extend to the slating of others who can't or haven't defended themselves.
All comes down to treating people fairly, so yes I will repeat it, once a copper always.....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The reality in the U.S. is that security screeners will report a smell of alcoholic beverages on your breath. I'll leave it to the other geniuses here to discuss whether it is legal, appropriate or ethical. Coming back to work after a pint or two may be still be acceptable or even traditional in the UK in some jobs but for pilots reporting for duty in the U.S. it is definitely bad news.
Sometimes the screener's suspicion is proved correct, sometimes not but, like random alcohol testing, it does make you think twice about drinking in the hours before a duty period. Remember, we've had breath alcohol testing for pilots in the U.S. for about a decade now.
Here are a few recent examples of U.S. security screeners reporting the smell of alcohol on pilots' breath:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=58299
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=104007
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=79661
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=76410
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=66110
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=63157
Sometimes the screener's suspicion is proved correct, sometimes not but, like random alcohol testing, it does make you think twice about drinking in the hours before a duty period. Remember, we've had breath alcohol testing for pilots in the U.S. for about a decade now.
Here are a few recent examples of U.S. security screeners reporting the smell of alcohol on pilots' breath:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=58299
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=104007
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=79661
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=76410
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=66110
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=63157
Last edited by Airbubba; 26th Dec 2003 at 02:23.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: samoa
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it somewhat staggering that so much publicity is being given to this event, when (allmost five years ago to the day) a senior pilot at ROYAL BRUNEI was arrested at LHR in full veiw of hundreds of xmas travellers for possession of illicit drugs. Amazingly, apart from PPRUNE , there was zero publicity of ANY kind on the planet. How did they manage it? more to the point, what did the SULTAN ask tony blair to do to cover it up? was this done as a result of this pilots subsequent report to the then DFO implicating up to SEVEN fellow captains for similar irresponsible behavior? I would love to know the answer but guess its not going to happen.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two things:-
I thought we were all to believe that there is a "Special Relationship" between the US & the UK; Tony told us so. So why can't a senior member of an International Airline leave the US - even when his employer has publicly agreed to facilitate his return. Is this person such a hardened criminal or so untrustworthy? Couldn't a "special arrangement" have been made in this case?
Secondly: Reporting transgressers of the law. Yes, of course we should report people who break the law. Presumably now that includes people who use mobile phones while driving in the UK. Do you feel as strongly about that as reporting "breath" on a pilot? Let's hear it .....
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One cannot help but conclude that at the moment in the USA you are guilty until proven innocent, but you are still guilty anyway.
I know Rawle Joseph, and he is a genuine "church man" who never curses or raises his voice. He goes about his job quietly and unobtrusively. It would be hard to imagine a more un-terrorist person, yet he is being put through the grinder.
It therefore does not surprise me that the poor Virgin skipper is under heavy manners, whether innocent or guilty matters not.
From Trinidad and Tobago Newsday
FBI tells stunned BWIA pilot
‘We’ve got you!’
By HORACE MONSEGUE in NEW YORK
BWIA pilot Rawle Joseph was surrounded by five armed FBI agents at JFK International Airport, New York, last week, one of whom shouted, “We’ve got you!”
Joseph, 50, a father of three, of Pinto Road, Arima, a national scholarship winner, who joined BWIA in June 1980, was stunned when the agents pulled him aside and began two and a half hours of questioning, claiming that he was a terrorist, whose name and age, matched someone on a ‘no-fly list’ issued by the Transport Security Agency. Joseph denied being a terrorist and showed the agents that he always carried a bible in his flight bag. The agents then proceeded to go through the bible — page by page.
Joseph who was detained at JFK, was last night at the Holiday Inn, Manhattan, where he has been ordered to stay “and not leave the US.” He told colleagues that his situation has him frustrated because he does not know how long he will have to stay in the United States while FBI agents continue their investigations. BWIA, Sunday Newsday understands, is also conducting its own investigation. Joseph along with fellow Trinidadian pilot Captain Anthony Wight, who was detained in Miami the same week, was yesterday still in the dark about their future, although they had been receiving calls from family, friends, and Trinidad government officials. Minister of National Security Martin Joseph has already briefed Prime Minister Patrick Manning on the episode and Trinidad embassy officials have been in touch with Joseph. The USA is on heightened alert risk status, following re-newed terrorist threats. Joseph and Wight feel they have been caught in a sinister web spun by persons who stole their identity. Talking to colleagues yesterday, Joseph, who is First Officer on the BWIA plane to New York said that what has happened to him has left him distressed and when he is allowed to leave he will not be at the controls of the BWIA aircraft. “I want to be a passenger like everyone else,” he told colleagues.
Joseph’s nightmare began on Tuesday night last when he and other crew members were about to disembark the aircraft. On reaching a departure gate, they were accosted by the FBI who demanded their passports, but singled out Joseph. They put his passport in an orange bag and then searched his flight bag thoroughly, including his other travel bag. One of the agents then shouted “We’ve got him!” “They then went through my bible page by page,” Joseph told colleagues. Joseph told crew members, “One fellow said they were looking for a wanted terrorist, but they didn’t really think it was me.” He was grilled for two and a half hours, before he was allowed to leave.
On Christmas Day when Joseph was about to board the 7 am flight back to Trinidad, he was again confronted by FBI agents and told that he would not be given clearance to leave the US. Joseph was again interrogated, and the mild-mannered pilot, according to sources kept his cool, even though he was being repeatedly asked the same questions, like how he spelt his name, if he ever changed his name, etc. “I am a virtual prisoner at the hotel,” said Joseph, who was yesterday short on money. His colleagues have rallied around him, telephoned him, and invited him out for meals. Still, Joseph’s situation is far from comfortable. He believes that every step he makes, he is being monitored. He feels that his room at the Holiday Inn is bugged, and the FBI is not telling him anything about how long he will have to stay in the US. The FBI agents have given Joseph back his passport, but he dares not leave the “Big Apple.”
I know Rawle Joseph, and he is a genuine "church man" who never curses or raises his voice. He goes about his job quietly and unobtrusively. It would be hard to imagine a more un-terrorist person, yet he is being put through the grinder.
It therefore does not surprise me that the poor Virgin skipper is under heavy manners, whether innocent or guilty matters not.
From Trinidad and Tobago Newsday
FBI tells stunned BWIA pilot
‘We’ve got you!’
By HORACE MONSEGUE in NEW YORK
BWIA pilot Rawle Joseph was surrounded by five armed FBI agents at JFK International Airport, New York, last week, one of whom shouted, “We’ve got you!”
Joseph, 50, a father of three, of Pinto Road, Arima, a national scholarship winner, who joined BWIA in June 1980, was stunned when the agents pulled him aside and began two and a half hours of questioning, claiming that he was a terrorist, whose name and age, matched someone on a ‘no-fly list’ issued by the Transport Security Agency. Joseph denied being a terrorist and showed the agents that he always carried a bible in his flight bag. The agents then proceeded to go through the bible — page by page.
Joseph who was detained at JFK, was last night at the Holiday Inn, Manhattan, where he has been ordered to stay “and not leave the US.” He told colleagues that his situation has him frustrated because he does not know how long he will have to stay in the United States while FBI agents continue their investigations. BWIA, Sunday Newsday understands, is also conducting its own investigation. Joseph along with fellow Trinidadian pilot Captain Anthony Wight, who was detained in Miami the same week, was yesterday still in the dark about their future, although they had been receiving calls from family, friends, and Trinidad government officials. Minister of National Security Martin Joseph has already briefed Prime Minister Patrick Manning on the episode and Trinidad embassy officials have been in touch with Joseph. The USA is on heightened alert risk status, following re-newed terrorist threats. Joseph and Wight feel they have been caught in a sinister web spun by persons who stole their identity. Talking to colleagues yesterday, Joseph, who is First Officer on the BWIA plane to New York said that what has happened to him has left him distressed and when he is allowed to leave he will not be at the controls of the BWIA aircraft. “I want to be a passenger like everyone else,” he told colleagues.
Joseph’s nightmare began on Tuesday night last when he and other crew members were about to disembark the aircraft. On reaching a departure gate, they were accosted by the FBI who demanded their passports, but singled out Joseph. They put his passport in an orange bag and then searched his flight bag thoroughly, including his other travel bag. One of the agents then shouted “We’ve got him!” “They then went through my bible page by page,” Joseph told colleagues. Joseph told crew members, “One fellow said they were looking for a wanted terrorist, but they didn’t really think it was me.” He was grilled for two and a half hours, before he was allowed to leave.
On Christmas Day when Joseph was about to board the 7 am flight back to Trinidad, he was again confronted by FBI agents and told that he would not be given clearance to leave the US. Joseph was again interrogated, and the mild-mannered pilot, according to sources kept his cool, even though he was being repeatedly asked the same questions, like how he spelt his name, if he ever changed his name, etc. “I am a virtual prisoner at the hotel,” said Joseph, who was yesterday short on money. His colleagues have rallied around him, telephoned him, and invited him out for meals. Still, Joseph’s situation is far from comfortable. He believes that every step he makes, he is being monitored. He feels that his room at the Holiday Inn is bugged, and the FBI is not telling him anything about how long he will have to stay in the US. The FBI agents have given Joseph back his passport, but he dares not leave the “Big Apple.”
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to AIRBUBBA for posting the section of the Virginia code that it appears CAPT redacted was arrested on. What , typical of Virginia, poorly drafted cr*& of a statute. His counsel should be able to drive trucks through it and then you get to the federal preemption because aviation is regulated by federal law and drunken flying (if one is convicted) is regulated by federal authority. If I recall properly none of the state statutes have been successfully used to prosecute anyone for drunken flying...the place where they did get them was operating the aircraft on the ground (a motor vehicle). And if this is considered a motor vehicle in Virgina there is a doctrine of implied consent for search and sobriety testing by just getting into the vehicle.
The court in question is a general district court of a Virginia county, Loudoun. I believe the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority (a creature chartered by the federal government and run by a board representing Virginia, Maryland, District of Columbia, and the legislative and executive branches of the federal government) has their police, the Dept of Homeland Security has their security. The WMAA police have powers on the airports and the access road to IAD but have to operate under Virginia laws (both DCA and IAD are in Virginia).
A general district court is the court where everything criminal and civil for adults ( except family and domestic relations issues) are handled. The time from hearing to trial is different in different courts from the so called "rocket docket" in Fairfax County where you can be arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced in a week to some far less speedy proceedings. A February trial date for a criminal matter in Loudoun does not seem unusual. The avenues for appeal would be to the state supreme court (and good luck to you) or to the federal court on the federal preemption ( guess it would be Eastern district of Virgina where all the alleged terrorists get tried because it has a reputation for quick convictions and harsh sentences) or a U.S. court of appeals.
Court proceedings in adult cases in Virginia are generally open and if one wants one can spend the day seeing this form of "theatre".
That's it for the local color.
The court in question is a general district court of a Virginia county, Loudoun. I believe the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority (a creature chartered by the federal government and run by a board representing Virginia, Maryland, District of Columbia, and the legislative and executive branches of the federal government) has their police, the Dept of Homeland Security has their security. The WMAA police have powers on the airports and the access road to IAD but have to operate under Virginia laws (both DCA and IAD are in Virginia).
A general district court is the court where everything criminal and civil for adults ( except family and domestic relations issues) are handled. The time from hearing to trial is different in different courts from the so called "rocket docket" in Fairfax County where you can be arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced in a week to some far less speedy proceedings. A February trial date for a criminal matter in Loudoun does not seem unusual. The avenues for appeal would be to the state supreme court (and good luck to you) or to the federal court on the federal preemption ( guess it would be Eastern district of Virgina where all the alleged terrorists get tried because it has a reputation for quick convictions and harsh sentences) or a U.S. court of appeals.
Court proceedings in adult cases in Virginia are generally open and if one wants one can spend the day seeing this form of "theatre".
That's it for the local color.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: newark
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BJCC
As you posted, once a cop always a cop...and then you posted:
"I thought this side of it had finished now...go on then explain why it is that the Security man has done something wrong...???"
I never said any such words.
But then again, the first sentance says it all. Namely, if in doubt, force words down the supspect's throat and make them confess.
You wonder why people have so little trust in authority after seeing you spout your flase accusations and venom??
Newark
"I thought this side of it had finished now...go on then explain why it is that the Security man has done something wrong...???"
I never said any such words.
But then again, the first sentance says it all. Namely, if in doubt, force words down the supspect's throat and make them confess.
You wonder why people have so little trust in authority after seeing you spout your flase accusations and venom??
Newark
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY-USA
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About to get flamed.....
Let me start off by saying that I am not a pilot. Unfortunately, some of you might stop reading at this point, and that is a shame, cause it is exactly those people that this is aimed for.
Anyways, eventhough I am not a pilot I have the utmost respect for this profession. Yes, aviation is just a hobby to me, or rather a sickness, an addiction, but I try to keep informed, have gone fully through FAR/AIMs alone a few times, even got myself registered and have posted 1 (2?) posts in here. Now it is several threads in the past month that make me post this reply.
What troubles me in this conversation is the fact that some of the pilots posting seem to be taking the pilot's side even if he is guilty.
OK, STOP, rewind. I am NOT saying he is guilty. The fact that he needs to be proven guilty first in a court of law is given. Yes, the fact that this individual is being treated as guilty already, and that everything seems to have leaked to the press is regretable, however, it is not different than any other high-profile news-story.
However, it does appear that some of you think that even if he is guilty and he gets away on a technicality, then it is ok. Good for him, good for all of us. Now I know all about supporting your fellow brothers in arms, but as I see it, that should go only if they are right.
I fail to see that from some of you. I might be referred to as Self-Loading-Freight
by some of you, however even I know that flying any type of aircraft (even a user friendly Airbus 
) requires immense skill and concetration, something that does not mix well with alcohol. Anything less, and not only that aircraft and its passengers are in jeopardy, but the whole environment around them.
Yes, he might be a senior captain with no errors so far in his career. Yes, if this is proven to be a mistake he should be restored to flight-status immediately, and even be paid for lost wages. However if it turns out that he was under the influence, he has commited a crime and he was caught, whether he has been perfect so far or not. By even trying to operate an aircraft while intoxicated he was putting hundreds of lives in jeopardy.
Some of you might say "what about the Christmas he has lost with his family and the trouble he has gone through ?". Well I must say that I do not expect the process to have reached this point without any special circumstances within this case. It would not make sense, no matter what. There must be other factors that we are either not aware off, or are to be proven. Only if there is no hint of improperness should the state be asked to pay for any sort of further "psychological" damages.
Yes, it does suck that this profession requires a higher degree of discipline concerning such matters, but that is the job. You knew that when you started. I could even understand it, if it turns out he had been drinking, if he would have decided to call in sick. There are times when all of us have needed a drink, maybe it would have been one of those times for him. However, if he had been drinking and tried to have a go at it, then he did the crime and he should do the time, no matter what his past record.
Now regarding the support-him-no-matter-what people:
I do understand that this profession, and the decisions that need to be taken from a commander in general require a strong personality, a certain arrogance (for the lack of a better word) of sorts. However it appears that a lot of pilots have taken the mentality of "we are perfect, so it must be them" and that it is "us against them".
I have 3-4 friends that are commercial airline pilots. All of them have my respect for what they do, as I do have an appreciation of part of what it takes, however the ones that have earned it even more are the ones that know that they still have things to learn, that they are not the "ultimate beings"
.
When you do not question the ways of other aviators ever, it is even more likely that you will not question your own ways. I find this very dangerous, especially when lives are at stake, and maybe a moment of thought on it is in order.
The mentality of "5-dollar-an-hour rent-a-cops should not be allowed to question pilots or their sobriety" is beyond me. When you are going to be in-charge of the safety of 300 or so passengers and crew for the next 10 hours, at 35000 feet, anyone should have the right to question you.
Should you be chastised before you are found guilty ??? No. However precaution does validate that you do take some sort of test. If you are in the right, there should be no fear. You will be proven innocent (Yes, I have more faith in courts acquiting the guilty than wrongfully convicting the innocent).
Most of you will run to the recent case of the crew in Norway and say "they weren't drunk and look where that ended up". Well, the fact that they were chastised before proven guilty was the problem, not the fact that their sobriety was questioned. Again, regretable but not uncommon, as a society we seem to think the worst of people even before they are proven guilty, and yes, pilots are guilty of this too (or have you not ever thought of a politician being corrupt for example as soon as any sort of improperness is alleged???).
So to summarize:
1) He should be restored to flight status and lost wages should be awarded (nothing more, nothing less) if he is found innocent (and I do not mean on a technicality).
2) He should be punished if he is found guilty. There is no excuse for flying while intoxicated.
3) Anyone should have the right to question the sobriety of anyone in charge of the safety of 300 people.
4) There should be a better process in place where the pilot is protected until the allegation is examined thoroughly with evidence.
5) Until this (4) happens, there will be pressure on all pilots accused. This is something that happens everyday, with dozens of other high-profile professions (doctors, lawyers, politicians for example) and whether it should happen or not, pilots cannot expect special treatment in regards to it.
My more than 2 cents.....
P.S: Actually, I think that if it was me running the show, I would probably make breathaliser tests a pre-requisite before someone is allowed to enter an aircraft as a crewmember. Rather have a few positives which are later proved to be false rather than having someone intoxicated commanding 200 tons of metal, with 100 tons of fuel and 350 people on board.
Anyways, eventhough I am not a pilot I have the utmost respect for this profession. Yes, aviation is just a hobby to me, or rather a sickness, an addiction, but I try to keep informed, have gone fully through FAR/AIMs alone a few times, even got myself registered and have posted 1 (2?) posts in here. Now it is several threads in the past month that make me post this reply.
What troubles me in this conversation is the fact that some of the pilots posting seem to be taking the pilot's side even if he is guilty.
OK, STOP, rewind. I am NOT saying he is guilty. The fact that he needs to be proven guilty first in a court of law is given. Yes, the fact that this individual is being treated as guilty already, and that everything seems to have leaked to the press is regretable, however, it is not different than any other high-profile news-story.
However, it does appear that some of you think that even if he is guilty and he gets away on a technicality, then it is ok. Good for him, good for all of us. Now I know all about supporting your fellow brothers in arms, but as I see it, that should go only if they are right.
I fail to see that from some of you. I might be referred to as Self-Loading-Freight
by some of you, however even I know that flying any type of aircraft (even a user friendly Airbus ) requires immense skill and concetration, something that does not mix well with alcohol. Anything less, and not only that aircraft and its passengers are in jeopardy, but the whole environment around them.Yes, he might be a senior captain with no errors so far in his career. Yes, if this is proven to be a mistake he should be restored to flight-status immediately, and even be paid for lost wages. However if it turns out that he was under the influence, he has commited a crime and he was caught, whether he has been perfect so far or not. By even trying to operate an aircraft while intoxicated he was putting hundreds of lives in jeopardy.
Some of you might say "what about the Christmas he has lost with his family and the trouble he has gone through ?". Well I must say that I do not expect the process to have reached this point without any special circumstances within this case. It would not make sense, no matter what. There must be other factors that we are either not aware off, or are to be proven. Only if there is no hint of improperness should the state be asked to pay for any sort of further "psychological" damages.
Yes, it does suck that this profession requires a higher degree of discipline concerning such matters, but that is the job. You knew that when you started. I could even understand it, if it turns out he had been drinking, if he would have decided to call in sick. There are times when all of us have needed a drink, maybe it would have been one of those times for him. However, if he had been drinking and tried to have a go at it, then he did the crime and he should do the time, no matter what his past record.
Now regarding the support-him-no-matter-what people:
I do understand that this profession, and the decisions that need to be taken from a commander in general require a strong personality, a certain arrogance (for the lack of a better word) of sorts. However it appears that a lot of pilots have taken the mentality of "we are perfect, so it must be them" and that it is "us against them"
.I have 3-4 friends that are commercial airline pilots. All of them have my respect for what they do, as I do have an appreciation of part of what it takes, however the ones that have earned it even more are the ones that know that they still have things to learn, that they are not the "ultimate beings"
.When you do not question the ways of other aviators ever, it is even more likely that you will not question your own ways. I find this very dangerous, especially when lives are at stake, and maybe a moment of thought on it is in order.
The mentality of "5-dollar-an-hour rent-a-cops should not be allowed to question pilots or their sobriety" is beyond me. When you are going to be in-charge of the safety of 300 or so passengers and crew for the next 10 hours, at 35000 feet, anyone should have the right to question you.
Should you be chastised before you are found guilty ??? No. However precaution does validate that you do take some sort of test. If you are in the right, there should be no fear. You will be proven innocent (Yes, I have more faith in courts acquiting the guilty than wrongfully convicting the innocent).
Most of you will run to the recent case of the crew in Norway and say "they weren't drunk and look where that ended up". Well, the fact that they were chastised before proven guilty was the problem, not the fact that their sobriety was questioned. Again, regretable but not uncommon, as a society we seem to think the worst of people even before they are proven guilty, and yes, pilots are guilty of this too (or have you not ever thought of a politician being corrupt for example as soon as any sort of improperness is alleged???).
So to summarize:
1) He should be restored to flight status and lost wages should be awarded (nothing more, nothing less) if he is found innocent (and I do not mean on a technicality).
2) He should be punished if he is found guilty. There is no excuse for flying while intoxicated.
3) Anyone should have the right to question the sobriety of anyone in charge of the safety of 300 people.
4) There should be a better process in place where the pilot is protected until the allegation is examined thoroughly with evidence.
5) Until this (4) happens, there will be pressure on all pilots accused. This is something that happens everyday, with dozens of other high-profile professions (doctors, lawyers, politicians for example) and whether it should happen or not, pilots cannot expect special treatment in regards to it.
My more than 2 cents.....
P.S: Actually, I think that if it was me running the show, I would probably make breathaliser tests a pre-requisite before someone is allowed to enter an aircraft as a crewmember. Rather have a few positives which are later proved to be false rather than having someone intoxicated commanding 200 tons of metal, with 100 tons of fuel and 350 people on board.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HercBird: Not familiar with U.K. rules, but in the USA air carrier pilots already are subject to random drug & alcohol tests under CFR Title 14 Part 121.
Any media coverage of this subject is magnified, as if it were a major industry wide problem. Actually less than .5% of the 50,000+ major air carrier flight deck crewmembers have been found to have an alcohol problem since the testing started many years ago.
Any media coverage of this subject is magnified, as if it were a major industry wide problem. Actually less than .5% of the 50,000+ major air carrier flight deck crewmembers have been found to have an alcohol problem since the testing started many years ago.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Newark
As you said....
"IF he didn't do anything to merit this arrest, I hope he will be found innocent and sue the a*s off the US Government. You just can't pick somebody's life up and throw it in the toilet which is what the TSA are doing IF he is innocent"
the relevent bit being...'what the TSA are doing'.
The presumption being that the TSA in the shape of this Security Guard went to the Police...if thats what you mean fine, all I want is for you to provide an alternative answer what do you suggest he did? If thats not what you mean, whats the TSA got to do with it?
Thanks for your comments on my past profession, which I note with amusment.
As you said....
"IF he didn't do anything to merit this arrest, I hope he will be found innocent and sue the a*s off the US Government. You just can't pick somebody's life up and throw it in the toilet which is what the TSA are doing IF he is innocent"
the relevent bit being...'what the TSA are doing'.
The presumption being that the TSA in the shape of this Security Guard went to the Police...if thats what you mean fine, all I want is for you to provide an alternative answer what do you suggest he did? If thats not what you mean, whats the TSA got to do with it?
Thanks for your comments on my past profession, which I note with amusment.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with any aviation or airport personnel reporting genuinely held suspicions regarding any other aviation or airport personnel, and if those suspicions are determined to be reasonably justified by those appointed to make that judgement, then the individuals concerned should face the investigation and further legal action that the law allows. That, of course, includes all the defences that the accused individual may bring to bear.
HercBird, that said, this is a pilot's board and it's hardly surprising that there is both suspicion of the motives of the accuser (the TSA has been seen to be overly keen to 'trap' pilots in the past), and some encouragement for the accused to use the technical legal arguments that may be available to him. They are a legitimate and, while not necessarily to your taste, a perfectly reasonable way of conducting a defence. Whatever the result is, I don't doubt for a minute that the legal process will be fairly conducted under Virginia and Federal law.
There is, however, a greater issue of trust here, and I don't believe that the way it is going will reflect well on either the flying profession or those who feel that it's their mission to undermine it at any and every opportunity.
Rather like the medical profession, pilots rely on the trust of those placed in their care. If that trust is shaken, then the foundations of the entire industry are under threat. There will always be a few pilots (as there are doctors) who are themselves untrustworthy, and each of those does immeasurable harm to the industry - but a reasonable observer will understand that human nature does not make possible a perfect workforce in any field. Take the Christian clergy as perhaps a good example of a body that can't possibly live up to the standards expected of it at all times. Should aviation be expected to be less vulnerable to human nature than the Church? I think that would be unreasonable - and I'm quite sure that the general public would agree. Therefore, it must be expected that occasionally an individual will fall short of the standards expected of the industry as a whole. We should accept that, do our best to plug whatever loopholes are revealed by each case, and move on. There is no need for sensationalism - for or against those involved.
This case will be revealed in its entirety in court. The Judge will have, by then, all the available information in front of him. If there is reasonable doubt of guilt (or if the technical procedures have not been carried out correctly), this pilot will walk free as an innocent man, there having been no case proven against him. If the evidence convinces the Judge that this pilot is guilty, then such sanctions as the State of Virginia allows will be available to be used against this man. Until then - when all the evidence has been presented - we should all refrain from prejudging the case.
Meanwhile, whatever the eventual findings of the court, the plight of this man is worthy of the empathy of those fellow professionals who can understand the pressures that he is undergoing now, and who can find it in themselves to give him support should it be found that he has transgressed. If he has, he will deserve punishment. Condemnation, however, requires a deeper understanding of the facts of his case - and I doubt that anyone here commenting has that knowledge.
Please, let's wait and hear what the court has to say.
HercBird, that said, this is a pilot's board and it's hardly surprising that there is both suspicion of the motives of the accuser (the TSA has been seen to be overly keen to 'trap' pilots in the past), and some encouragement for the accused to use the technical legal arguments that may be available to him. They are a legitimate and, while not necessarily to your taste, a perfectly reasonable way of conducting a defence. Whatever the result is, I don't doubt for a minute that the legal process will be fairly conducted under Virginia and Federal law.
There is, however, a greater issue of trust here, and I don't believe that the way it is going will reflect well on either the flying profession or those who feel that it's their mission to undermine it at any and every opportunity.
Rather like the medical profession, pilots rely on the trust of those placed in their care. If that trust is shaken, then the foundations of the entire industry are under threat. There will always be a few pilots (as there are doctors) who are themselves untrustworthy, and each of those does immeasurable harm to the industry - but a reasonable observer will understand that human nature does not make possible a perfect workforce in any field. Take the Christian clergy as perhaps a good example of a body that can't possibly live up to the standards expected of it at all times. Should aviation be expected to be less vulnerable to human nature than the Church? I think that would be unreasonable - and I'm quite sure that the general public would agree. Therefore, it must be expected that occasionally an individual will fall short of the standards expected of the industry as a whole. We should accept that, do our best to plug whatever loopholes are revealed by each case, and move on. There is no need for sensationalism - for or against those involved.
This case will be revealed in its entirety in court. The Judge will have, by then, all the available information in front of him. If there is reasonable doubt of guilt (or if the technical procedures have not been carried out correctly), this pilot will walk free as an innocent man, there having been no case proven against him. If the evidence convinces the Judge that this pilot is guilty, then such sanctions as the State of Virginia allows will be available to be used against this man. Until then - when all the evidence has been presented - we should all refrain from prejudging the case.
Meanwhile, whatever the eventual findings of the court, the plight of this man is worthy of the empathy of those fellow professionals who can understand the pressures that he is undergoing now, and who can find it in themselves to give him support should it be found that he has transgressed. If he has, he will deserve punishment. Condemnation, however, requires a deeper understanding of the facts of his case - and I doubt that anyone here commenting has that knowledge.
Please, let's wait and hear what the court has to say.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY-USA
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did not mean to imply that the Aviator workforce should be perfect. There is going to be "bad apples" everywhere, and by this I do not mean that this is one here.
Quite to the contrary, what I did mean is that I see some hesitation to admit there are loopholes (as scroggs said) and "bad apples".
Now, having said that, if we do allow people to get away with technicalities, even among ourselves, we encourage the behavior. Technicalities might get someone acquited in court, but it should not allow them to get away with breaking our (and by our, I mean the community's in general) trust in them.
"Bad apples" should be identified and isolated from within. It makes everything safer for both us passengers, but even more so for you aviators, who afterall spend much more time out there and are more likely to find yourselves in a situation with them.
Yes, noone is perfect and even the holiest of saints will make a mistake one day. What I am trying to say is that if you do see that a coworker is making one, or even suspect it, don't ignore it. Make them realize that it is a mistake and that they should avoid a bigger one by continuing.
A pilot walking out/calling in sick when incapable of fully operating an aircraft will cause less harm to themselves than them being caught violating the law, and will be no risk of turning every person's day around them into a very dangerous one.
By encouraging self-review of the ranks, you will not have to worry about the TSA trying to discredit any profession. They will never have a chance to find something substancial to use.
Closing the ranks and just defending everyone, no matter what, just because they are "another one of US" will only help in the aggrevation of the "us against them" and the lack of trust from all.
As for the specific case, I agree, let's see what we have yet to see...
Blue Skies....
P.S: Yes, I know this is a pilot's forum, and I am a guest here. Whether it is apparent or not at this time, I am trying to protect the true nature of this noble profession, just because of the respect I have for it....
Quite to the contrary, what I did mean is that I see some hesitation to admit there are loopholes (as scroggs said) and "bad apples".
Now, having said that, if we do allow people to get away with technicalities, even among ourselves, we encourage the behavior. Technicalities might get someone acquited in court, but it should not allow them to get away with breaking our (and by our, I mean the community's in general) trust in them.
"Bad apples" should be identified and isolated from within. It makes everything safer for both us passengers, but even more so for you aviators, who afterall spend much more time out there and are more likely to find yourselves in a situation with them.
Yes, noone is perfect and even the holiest of saints will make a mistake one day. What I am trying to say is that if you do see that a coworker is making one, or even suspect it, don't ignore it. Make them realize that it is a mistake and that they should avoid a bigger one by continuing.
A pilot walking out/calling in sick when incapable of fully operating an aircraft will cause less harm to themselves than them being caught violating the law, and will be no risk of turning every person's day around them into a very dangerous one.
By encouraging self-review of the ranks, you will not have to worry about the TSA trying to discredit any profession. They will never have a chance to find something substancial to use.
Closing the ranks and just defending everyone, no matter what, just because they are "another one of US" will only help in the aggrevation of the "us against them" and the lack of trust from all.
As for the specific case, I agree, let's see what we have yet to see...
Blue Skies....
P.S: Yes, I know this is a pilot's forum, and I am a guest here. Whether it is apparent or not at this time, I am trying to protect the true nature of this noble profession, just because of the respect I have for it....
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GlueBall
Surely that is an argument in favour of random testing - In the UK all we get at the moment is regular expose` on TV showing flightcrew drinking before flying and hysterical headlines in the press. BALPA then trot out a spokesman saying 'there is no problem, trust us' - which of course nobody does and the whole argument continues.
If random testing were introduced, as it has been on the railways (don't get many stories about drunken train drivers?) then there would be definitive statistics to show whether there were a problem or not.
The days of any profession 'policing' itself are coming to an end - whether they be Doctors, Lawyers or Pilots.
Actually less than .5% of the 50,000+ major air carrier flight deck crewmembers have been found to have an alcohol problem since the testing started many years ago.
If random testing were introduced, as it has been on the railways (don't get many stories about drunken train drivers?) then there would be definitive statistics to show whether there were a problem or not.
The days of any profession 'policing' itself are coming to an end - whether they be Doctors, Lawyers or Pilots.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(I posted similar in another thread):
It will be very interesting to see what effects the new UK legislation will have.
The legislation makes it an absolute offence to have drugs or alcohol in your body and sets specific limits for alcohol.
If you are tested positive, then you are guilty of a criminal offence and there is no defence (which is why a zero-tolerance level of 0.2% has been set). It seems unlikely that anyone found guilty would be returned to work......... and any airline that did not report "unfit" flight crew could be considered guilty of conspiracy - which reduces the scope for in-house rehabilitation.
What I find interesting in this thread (and others) is the lack of mention of "drugs". These are not effectively defined in the legislation and no "cutoff" levels are set. The term embraces a wide variety of illicit drugs as well as legally obtainable drugs that may impair your "function" - for example, anti-depressants, beta-blockers, heart drugs etc. Drugs are in widespread use (overtaking alcohol in traffic offences) and it seems niaive to ignore their use.
The body metabolises alcohol quickly (and even manufactures it, which is why the .02% cutoff level is set). However, the body metabolises other drugs much less efficiently and if "zero tolerance" levels are set (as with alcohol) as seems likely, this could mean that an individual may test positive several days after imbibing.
The police will test if they are reliably informed (by workmates etc) that an offence may have been committed.
The industry really does need to take this issue seriously and not pretend that cabin and flightdeck staff don't take "drugs". Pro-active random testing seems unavoidable.
It will be very interesting to see what effects the new UK legislation will have.
The legislation makes it an absolute offence to have drugs or alcohol in your body and sets specific limits for alcohol.
If you are tested positive, then you are guilty of a criminal offence and there is no defence (which is why a zero-tolerance level of 0.2% has been set). It seems unlikely that anyone found guilty would be returned to work......... and any airline that did not report "unfit" flight crew could be considered guilty of conspiracy - which reduces the scope for in-house rehabilitation.
What I find interesting in this thread (and others) is the lack of mention of "drugs". These are not effectively defined in the legislation and no "cutoff" levels are set. The term embraces a wide variety of illicit drugs as well as legally obtainable drugs that may impair your "function" - for example, anti-depressants, beta-blockers, heart drugs etc. Drugs are in widespread use (overtaking alcohol in traffic offences) and it seems niaive to ignore their use.
The body metabolises alcohol quickly (and even manufactures it, which is why the .02% cutoff level is set). However, the body metabolises other drugs much less efficiently and if "zero tolerance" levels are set (as with alcohol) as seems likely, this could mean that an individual may test positive several days after imbibing.
The police will test if they are reliably informed (by workmates etc) that an offence may have been committed.
The industry really does need to take this issue seriously and not pretend that cabin and flightdeck staff don't take "drugs". Pro-active random testing seems unavoidable.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
TSA Chief At Dulles Is Charged With DWI
Agency Says Official Had Code Orange Duty
By Steven Ginsberg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 2, 2004; Page B01
The chief of the Transportation Security Administration at Dulles International Airport was placed on administrative leave yesterday after being charged with drunk driving while he was on duty for a New Year's Eve Code Orange alert, officials said.
Acting federal security director Charles Brady was pulled over about 1 a.m. by a Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority police officer who saw him driving erratically on Route 28 near Dulles, airport spokeswoman Tara Hamilton said.
Brady, 49, was taken to the Fairfax County jail, where was booked at 3 a.m. He was released at 1 p.m. yesterday after being charged with driving while intoxicated, said spokesman Lt. Tyler Corey, who described Brady as "extremely cooperative" during his stay.
On a night considered at particular risk of terrorism, with extraordinary security actions in place across the country, Brady was supposed to be at his airport post until 2 a.m. TSA spokeswoman Jennifer Marty said that Brady should have been participating in a security exercise to ensure the safety of air travelers at that hour.
"Obviously it was New Year's, and obviously it was not only a chance to practice but to be on site during the holiday to make sure everything goes smoothly," Marty said. Asked who at the airport had indeed made sure everything went smoothly at that hour, Marty replied, "I couldn't tell you."
Reached at his home in Oak Hill last night, Brady maintained that he was stopped at 2:30 a.m., a half-hour after his shift had ended. He said he had spent his final work hours monitoring flights and declined to discuss his whereabouts after that.
"I'm just waiting for the results of [the TSA] investigation," he said.
Brady was arrested not long after the final passengers from a British Airways plane detained for hours because of security concerns were released from interviews at Dulles by TSA officials and FBI agents.
Flight 223, en route from London Heathrow Airport with 247 passengers, had been escorted to Dulles by U.S. fighter jets. It landed just after 7 p.m. Wednesday and was directed to a remote area, several hundred feet from a terminal gate, where baggage was searched and the plane inspected.
The nation was put under a Code Orange alert -- the second-highest level -- on Dec. 21 because of heightened fears of terrorism over the holiday season. That immediately triggered stepped-up security procedures across the country to protect government buildings, critical infrastructure such as nuclear plants and railroads, harbors, shopping malls and other locations where people congregate.
Security officials cited a particular risk from terrorists commandeering a plane heading to the United States from a foreign country and using it as a weapon as they did in Washington and New York City in 2001. Six Air France flights heading to Los Angeles were canceled before Christmas, and two London-to-Dulles flights were canceled yesterday because of security concerns.
U.S. officials said yesterday that an Aeromexico flight from Mexico City to Los Angeles also was canceled Wednesday evening for the same reasons.
Marty said the agency had named Adm. James Shear as acting federal security director at Dulles pending its internal investigation into Brady's arrest.
Brady said he came to Dulles in April 2002 as deputy federal security director. He became acting director in July when Scott McHugh resigned shortly after raising concerns internally about being shorthanded and unable to screen all luggage for explosives.
Agency Says Official Had Code Orange Duty
By Steven Ginsberg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 2, 2004; Page B01
The chief of the Transportation Security Administration at Dulles International Airport was placed on administrative leave yesterday after being charged with drunk driving while he was on duty for a New Year's Eve Code Orange alert, officials said.
Acting federal security director Charles Brady was pulled over about 1 a.m. by a Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority police officer who saw him driving erratically on Route 28 near Dulles, airport spokeswoman Tara Hamilton said.
Brady, 49, was taken to the Fairfax County jail, where was booked at 3 a.m. He was released at 1 p.m. yesterday after being charged with driving while intoxicated, said spokesman Lt. Tyler Corey, who described Brady as "extremely cooperative" during his stay.
On a night considered at particular risk of terrorism, with extraordinary security actions in place across the country, Brady was supposed to be at his airport post until 2 a.m. TSA spokeswoman Jennifer Marty said that Brady should have been participating in a security exercise to ensure the safety of air travelers at that hour.
"Obviously it was New Year's, and obviously it was not only a chance to practice but to be on site during the holiday to make sure everything goes smoothly," Marty said. Asked who at the airport had indeed made sure everything went smoothly at that hour, Marty replied, "I couldn't tell you."
Reached at his home in Oak Hill last night, Brady maintained that he was stopped at 2:30 a.m., a half-hour after his shift had ended. He said he had spent his final work hours monitoring flights and declined to discuss his whereabouts after that.
"I'm just waiting for the results of [the TSA] investigation," he said.
Brady was arrested not long after the final passengers from a British Airways plane detained for hours because of security concerns were released from interviews at Dulles by TSA officials and FBI agents.
Flight 223, en route from London Heathrow Airport with 247 passengers, had been escorted to Dulles by U.S. fighter jets. It landed just after 7 p.m. Wednesday and was directed to a remote area, several hundred feet from a terminal gate, where baggage was searched and the plane inspected.
The nation was put under a Code Orange alert -- the second-highest level -- on Dec. 21 because of heightened fears of terrorism over the holiday season. That immediately triggered stepped-up security procedures across the country to protect government buildings, critical infrastructure such as nuclear plants and railroads, harbors, shopping malls and other locations where people congregate.
Security officials cited a particular risk from terrorists commandeering a plane heading to the United States from a foreign country and using it as a weapon as they did in Washington and New York City in 2001. Six Air France flights heading to Los Angeles were canceled before Christmas, and two London-to-Dulles flights were canceled yesterday because of security concerns.
U.S. officials said yesterday that an Aeromexico flight from Mexico City to Los Angeles also was canceled Wednesday evening for the same reasons.
Marty said the agency had named Adm. James Shear as acting federal security director at Dulles pending its internal investigation into Brady's arrest.
Brady said he came to Dulles in April 2002 as deputy federal security director. He became acting director in July when Scott McHugh resigned shortly after raising concerns internally about being shorthanded and unable to screen all luggage for explosives.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: lapbandland
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many security staff I have encountered around the world take great delight in giving pilots an extra strong screening compared to passengers.
The stupidity of their actions is lost on them.
A pilot can kill all on board with the flick of a button or the smallest shove on the controls... why is it necessary to remove our shoes, belts, pens, glasses etc. to comply with idiotic rules that apply to passengers.
Pilots should have access to weapons on the flight deck to protect the aircraft from the type of morons that occupy security jobs, not the other way around.
While I'm at it.
Why in heavens name do we allow duty free bottles on board, they could contain liquid explosive and be use as weapons if smashed off against our heads.
I know what will fix it all, you security MORONS, lets have the crew tell the passengers not to congregate around the aircraft.
There is only one way to achieve security, give control back to
the controllers of the aircraft you FOOLS.
The stupidity of their actions is lost on them.
A pilot can kill all on board with the flick of a button or the smallest shove on the controls... why is it necessary to remove our shoes, belts, pens, glasses etc. to comply with idiotic rules that apply to passengers.
Pilots should have access to weapons on the flight deck to protect the aircraft from the type of morons that occupy security jobs, not the other way around.
While I'm at it.
Why in heavens name do we allow duty free bottles on board, they could contain liquid explosive and be use as weapons if smashed off against our heads.
I know what will fix it all, you security MORONS, lets have the crew tell the passengers not to congregate around the aircraft.
There is only one way to achieve security, give control back to
the controllers of the aircraft you FOOLS.
boofta, I think you are so right.
It is up to the INTERNATIONAL body of pilots to take action to stop these inane and puerile activities that you have enumerated.
It is time to put the authority and responsibility for flight safety back with the aircraft commander where it rightly belongs.
I am all for sensible measures but we know find that vast empires are being built on the back of the excuse of "security".
As a body pilots must take concerted action to halt this ridiculous trend, ideally via IFALPA. How about world wide action such as everyone wearing an arm band/vest which some suitable inscription or even taken some other action which says that we will not put up with this dilution of our authority,
It is up to the INTERNATIONAL body of pilots to take action to stop these inane and puerile activities that you have enumerated.
It is time to put the authority and responsibility for flight safety back with the aircraft commander where it rightly belongs.
I am all for sensible measures but we know find that vast empires are being built on the back of the excuse of "security".
As a body pilots must take concerted action to halt this ridiculous trend, ideally via IFALPA. How about world wide action such as everyone wearing an arm band/vest which some suitable inscription or even taken some other action which says that we will not put up with this dilution of our authority,