BA Washington flights and security threats (merged)
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry techman,
But the only country with experience fighting Suicide Bombers is Israel. That's a whole different ballgame when you get up in the morning PLANNING to die. We have had our share your kind of terrorists as well, you just never heard of them, but think Black Panthers, Weather Underground, abortion clinic bombings etc... We defeated them. But the suicide bomber is a whole different league playing at a new level.
Not all agree with me, but if you get a chance find a Navy vet from WWII who survived a kamakazi raid and ask him what he thought at that moment when he realized that the Kamakazi pilot woke up PLANNING to die...
That's the part of the problem here in the disconnect between the two sides. What worked for the IRA won't be sufficient here.
Cheers
Wino
But the only country with experience fighting Suicide Bombers is Israel. That's a whole different ballgame when you get up in the morning PLANNING to die. We have had our share your kind of terrorists as well, you just never heard of them, but think Black Panthers, Weather Underground, abortion clinic bombings etc... We defeated them. But the suicide bomber is a whole different league playing at a new level.
Not all agree with me, but if you get a chance find a Navy vet from WWII who survived a kamakazi raid and ask him what he thought at that moment when he realized that the Kamakazi pilot woke up PLANNING to die...
That's the part of the problem here in the disconnect between the two sides. What worked for the IRA won't be sufficient here.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: California, USA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And here is a (satirical) American comment:
From the Boyd group... even though he thrives on "amplifying" the issues, there is some truth in this one.
Just Gotta Love This Code Orange Fiasco
Scaring Terrorists Off With High Theater.
And Sloshed FSDs.
It's been quite a holiday season.
The TSA's been in full metal jacket mode, out hunting for terrorists. Just before Christmas, acting on what they say was credible information, the Department of Homeland Security and their ever-eager B-Team, the TSA, announced that terrorists might again use airliners to attack America. (Wow! Gee! Duh!) The target could be LA. Or Las Vegas. Or Washington. The Feds had several Air France flights cancelled, to reduce the threat of terror (over and above that represented by the in-flight service, we assume.) A flight or two from Mexico got cancelled, too. Still, the elusive terrorists apparently got away.
Then on New Year's eve, they hit pay dirt. The TSA determined that Washington Dulles might be a target, and British Airways would be the modality used by the terrorists. The TSA laid in quiet wait at IAD as the BA airliner taxied in after its long flight from London. Then they sprung - diverting the aircraft to a remote site. For the next several hours the TSA conducted a re-screening of all passengers, bags, cargo, and crew. Everyone was questioned by the crack TSA team.
Finally, after completing the SWAT-team like re-screening of the BA flight, the Washington Airport Police took into custody a key player in the war on terror. It was only one arrest, but they got a big fish.
Unfortunately, it was Federal Security Director at IAD.
It seems that while his staff were out on the ramp pawing down hapless passengers, the FSD was apparently discussing the finer points of aviation security with a bottle of Jack Daniels. At 1 AM - when he was supposed to still be on duty, (per instructions from the Department of Homeland Security) the Airport police nailed him on a DUI as he attempted to drive home. He then celebrated the New Year in a jail cell.
With this level of security, no doubt al-Qaeda is celebrating, too.
Meanwhile, In Philadelphia...
The Federal Security Director at Philadelphia International Airport has been removed from his job after nearly a year of shenanigans. Last spring, a news crew (note, not the TSA) discovered that at least one portal to the airport was left unguarded completely, with free access to all. Another report indicated funky hiring practices, including possible nepotism and hiring a former exotic dancer as a screening supervisor.
Meanwhile, In Mexico...
The TSA has confirmed that they have sent agents to Mexico to train local personnel in the finer points of airport security. "The TSA officials check that all security norms are applied," a TSA spokesman declared. Judging by the TSA's "norms" at two of our largest airports (IAD & PHL) - with booze and strippers involved - it may just be party time South of the Border.
From the Boyd group... even though he thrives on "amplifying" the issues, there is some truth in this one.
Just Gotta Love This Code Orange Fiasco
Scaring Terrorists Off With High Theater.
And Sloshed FSDs.
It's been quite a holiday season.
The TSA's been in full metal jacket mode, out hunting for terrorists. Just before Christmas, acting on what they say was credible information, the Department of Homeland Security and their ever-eager B-Team, the TSA, announced that terrorists might again use airliners to attack America. (Wow! Gee! Duh!) The target could be LA. Or Las Vegas. Or Washington. The Feds had several Air France flights cancelled, to reduce the threat of terror (over and above that represented by the in-flight service, we assume.) A flight or two from Mexico got cancelled, too. Still, the elusive terrorists apparently got away.
Then on New Year's eve, they hit pay dirt. The TSA determined that Washington Dulles might be a target, and British Airways would be the modality used by the terrorists. The TSA laid in quiet wait at IAD as the BA airliner taxied in after its long flight from London. Then they sprung - diverting the aircraft to a remote site. For the next several hours the TSA conducted a re-screening of all passengers, bags, cargo, and crew. Everyone was questioned by the crack TSA team.
Finally, after completing the SWAT-team like re-screening of the BA flight, the Washington Airport Police took into custody a key player in the war on terror. It was only one arrest, but they got a big fish.
Unfortunately, it was Federal Security Director at IAD.
It seems that while his staff were out on the ramp pawing down hapless passengers, the FSD was apparently discussing the finer points of aviation security with a bottle of Jack Daniels. At 1 AM - when he was supposed to still be on duty, (per instructions from the Department of Homeland Security) the Airport police nailed him on a DUI as he attempted to drive home. He then celebrated the New Year in a jail cell.
With this level of security, no doubt al-Qaeda is celebrating, too.
Meanwhile, In Philadelphia...
The Federal Security Director at Philadelphia International Airport has been removed from his job after nearly a year of shenanigans. Last spring, a news crew (note, not the TSA) discovered that at least one portal to the airport was left unguarded completely, with free access to all. Another report indicated funky hiring practices, including possible nepotism and hiring a former exotic dancer as a screening supervisor.
Meanwhile, In Mexico...
The TSA has confirmed that they have sent agents to Mexico to train local personnel in the finer points of airport security. "The TSA officials check that all security norms are applied," a TSA spokesman declared. Judging by the TSA's "norms" at two of our largest airports (IAD & PHL) - with booze and strippers involved - it may just be party time South of the Border.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WARNING
In an attempt to prevent this debate becoming 'circular' with the very obvious differences between the UK/EU and US cultures, I will again ask posters to refrain from their usual 'willy waving' techniques. Stating the obvious, we have the US government and a cross section of their pilots on here advocating and supporting the edicts that are making our ministers over here 'jump' to their tune of "let's put guns everywhere and solve potential problems". On the other hand we have the reluctance by the UK pilots to what is seen as an ill thought through, knee-jerk reaction that does little to prevent the problem and an extremely limited chance to stop it if it should occur.
The difference in attitudes to guns is very evident in both cultures. However, we have had over a generation to deal with aviation security issues. There are still flaws but, without belittling the tradgedy that happened on 9/11, it was the US reluctance to heed advice on security issues that allowed that tragic event to occur. What we have now is the massive overreaction that some believe is the solution to potential suicide hijacking.
What is happening over here in the UK, and no doubt in other countries too, is a reaction to being told that on flights that are deemed to be at specific risk we are to carry armed sky marshals. There has been no consultation on how all this is to be implemented and how any legal formalities that will affect us are to be handled. BALPA has been asking for over a year for a meeting with the government to discuss this and they have been ignored. Now we have an edict from the US, the UK government make an announcement about the carriage of armed sky marshalls on flights that are at specific risk and some of our US cousins are unable to understand why we are refusing to fly on those flights.
I have no doubt, that if this had been handled properly by this governement, in consultation with the pilots and without all the hype and huge appetite for 'sound bites' from our esteemed ministers this issue wouldn't even be in the news today. We all know that real security is not the cosmetic farce that the travelling public see at the airport but the intelligence agencies in conjunction with the security services getting on with their jobs, out of the limelight. When they have done their jobs properly there is no news and no public thanks. When they haven't, as in 9/11, they again get no thanks.
So, the US pilots believe that an armed pilot and an armed sky marshall is the solution to making pax feel safe and is a last resort to any breach of security. We believe that there is a long way to go before the need for armed sky marshals are needed. Introducing a gun into what is supposedly a gun sterile environment is just a step backward. There are enough opportunities for anyone to introduce a 'weapon' after passing through the current system of induction loops and an x-ray machine. Let's deal with that problem first and there will be even less need to have armed sky marshalls on board.
The first we pilots over here heard about the introduction of armed sky marshals on our flights was an announcement on a radio programme. That's how well thought through this decision was implemented. We were told that they would only be introduced on specific flights at high risk. Do they think we are muppets and are incapable of realising what that means? Does your life insurance policy pay out to your family if anything happens to you because you knowingly operated on a flight with a specific risk known about before departure? There are many similar issues to be dealt with and without consultation why shouldn't we refuse to operate specific flights?
In an attempt to prevent this debate becoming 'circular' with the very obvious differences between the UK/EU and US cultures, I will again ask posters to refrain from their usual 'willy waving' techniques. Stating the obvious, we have the US government and a cross section of their pilots on here advocating and supporting the edicts that are making our ministers over here 'jump' to their tune of "let's put guns everywhere and solve potential problems". On the other hand we have the reluctance by the UK pilots to what is seen as an ill thought through, knee-jerk reaction that does little to prevent the problem and an extremely limited chance to stop it if it should occur.
The difference in attitudes to guns is very evident in both cultures. However, we have had over a generation to deal with aviation security issues. There are still flaws but, without belittling the tradgedy that happened on 9/11, it was the US reluctance to heed advice on security issues that allowed that tragic event to occur. What we have now is the massive overreaction that some believe is the solution to potential suicide hijacking.
What is happening over here in the UK, and no doubt in other countries too, is a reaction to being told that on flights that are deemed to be at specific risk we are to carry armed sky marshals. There has been no consultation on how all this is to be implemented and how any legal formalities that will affect us are to be handled. BALPA has been asking for over a year for a meeting with the government to discuss this and they have been ignored. Now we have an edict from the US, the UK government make an announcement about the carriage of armed sky marshalls on flights that are at specific risk and some of our US cousins are unable to understand why we are refusing to fly on those flights.
I have no doubt, that if this had been handled properly by this governement, in consultation with the pilots and without all the hype and huge appetite for 'sound bites' from our esteemed ministers this issue wouldn't even be in the news today. We all know that real security is not the cosmetic farce that the travelling public see at the airport but the intelligence agencies in conjunction with the security services getting on with their jobs, out of the limelight. When they have done their jobs properly there is no news and no public thanks. When they haven't, as in 9/11, they again get no thanks.
So, the US pilots believe that an armed pilot and an armed sky marshall is the solution to making pax feel safe and is a last resort to any breach of security. We believe that there is a long way to go before the need for armed sky marshals are needed. Introducing a gun into what is supposedly a gun sterile environment is just a step backward. There are enough opportunities for anyone to introduce a 'weapon' after passing through the current system of induction loops and an x-ray machine. Let's deal with that problem first and there will be even less need to have armed sky marshalls on board.
The first we pilots over here heard about the introduction of armed sky marshals on our flights was an announcement on a radio programme. That's how well thought through this decision was implemented. We were told that they would only be introduced on specific flights at high risk. Do they think we are muppets and are incapable of realising what that means? Does your life insurance policy pay out to your family if anything happens to you because you knowingly operated on a flight with a specific risk known about before departure? There are many similar issues to be dealt with and without consultation why shouldn't we refuse to operate specific flights?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Retford, UK
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We saved BA from a WOMB Bomber"
If you were a "womb-bomber" and your flight had been cancelled, would you really bang your fist on the table and curse the efficiency of the intelligence services?
Instead, you might consider getting on another of the considerable number of flights to the USA. Why would you care which particular aircraft you blew up?
So far, the only reason for flight 223 cancellations that makes any sense is the one that says the US are making trouble until an agreement is reached on sky marshals.
- Michael
If you were a "womb-bomber" and your flight had been cancelled, would you really bang your fist on the table and curse the efficiency of the intelligence services?
Instead, you might consider getting on another of the considerable number of flights to the USA. Why would you care which particular aircraft you blew up?
So far, the only reason for flight 223 cancellations that makes any sense is the one that says the US are making trouble until an agreement is reached on sky marshals.
- Michael
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: europe
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very important question (someone from USA)
hi i am a pilot from europe, a few years ago i lived in USA when i left i did not pay my credit cards etc...
woudl i have a problem going back to the US if i need training?
my concent is about the PRIA Check / DOT check and / TSA check
Thanksss
Some who regrets his past
woudl i have a problem going back to the US if i need training?
my concent is about the PRIA Check / DOT check and / TSA check
Thanksss
Some who regrets his past
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I don't believe that credit card debt is part of the search, but I could be wrong about that, So why don't you just pay your bill? I am sure you can contact the creditor and arrange a reduced charge off or something just to clear the account... Then you won't have to worry.
Michael,
Quite possibly true, unless there is something else about the flight that makes it a political statement...
Many countries have opted out of the skymarshal program by just agreeing to cancel flights should there be a known threat against them.
I have a suspicion now that the problem was that Tony Blair didn't want to be seen as caving to the terrorists so he wouldn't want to cancel and flights, so in his haste implemented a bad or incomplete program.
This is also a problem with BALPA and their loss of influence. If this has been going on for a year and they have been getting blown off by the ministers, then EVERY pilot in the UK needs to look in the mirror and stop dickin around with the IPA and get on board with BALPA and present ONE UNIFIED LOUD VOICE.
This has been an ongoing process for over a year since skymarshals were first discussed and I am astounded at how little influence BALPA has if what Danny just posted is true and now I see the problem.
Seams to remind me of what I used to tell you guys back on 99-00 about stop messing around with IPA and get on board with BALPA if you wanted to protect your jobs from the likes of me... You must speak with one loud voice, little splinter unions do you know good (and yes I know the irony of that as an APA member and I have been working to bring APA back to ALPA, so far unsuccessfully unfortuneately)
Does this count as an official "I told you so!" (and how's that for willy waving Danny
)
Cheers
Wino
Michael,
Quite possibly true, unless there is something else about the flight that makes it a political statement...
Many countries have opted out of the skymarshal program by just agreeing to cancel flights should there be a known threat against them.
I have a suspicion now that the problem was that Tony Blair didn't want to be seen as caving to the terrorists so he wouldn't want to cancel and flights, so in his haste implemented a bad or incomplete program.
This is also a problem with BALPA and their loss of influence. If this has been going on for a year and they have been getting blown off by the ministers, then EVERY pilot in the UK needs to look in the mirror and stop dickin around with the IPA and get on board with BALPA and present ONE UNIFIED LOUD VOICE.
This has been an ongoing process for over a year since skymarshals were first discussed and I am astounded at how little influence BALPA has if what Danny just posted is true and now I see the problem.
Seams to remind me of what I used to tell you guys back on 99-00 about stop messing around with IPA and get on board with BALPA if you wanted to protect your jobs from the likes of me... You must speak with one loud voice, little splinter unions do you know good (and yes I know the irony of that as an APA member and I have been working to bring APA back to ALPA, so far unsuccessfully unfortuneately)
Does this count as an official "I told you so!" (and how's that for willy waving Danny
)Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't help thinking that BALPA and BA are going to shoot themselves in the foot over this.
For the punter sitting down the back in a 777 all the major carriers are the same - the IFE, food, service, comfort, is all much of a muchness now - If BA go down the route of cancelling flights everytime there is a warning the SLF are going to vote with their feet and change to a US (or other countries) carrier who have Air Marshalls and can ensure a reliable, on-time, service.
BA is on its knees now - the last thing it needs is a reputation for unreliability.
For the punter sitting down the back in a 777 all the major carriers are the same - the IFE, food, service, comfort, is all much of a muchness now - If BA go down the route of cancelling flights everytime there is a warning the SLF are going to vote with their feet and change to a US (or other countries) carrier who have Air Marshalls and can ensure a reliable, on-time, service.
BA is on its knees now - the last thing it needs is a reputation for unreliability.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: England
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have followed this debate with interest, even to the point of following up every tangent that seemed to spring out of nowhere and apparently had nothing to do with the main topic.
However, there is one thing that we must all remember here. We are being told of a 'specific' threat against a non-skymarshal carrying airline by two different governments (yes, I know the leader of one government is so far up the arse of the leader of the other one, but that's irrelevant).
These are the same two governments that went to war, invaded another sovereign state, and killed many people based upon 'evidence' of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Evidence which is, apparently, non-existant.
So why should we now believe that the Intellegence organisations of both countries have now got it right when they have (so far) failed miserably over Iraq?
Just my thoughts.
However, there is one thing that we must all remember here. We are being told of a 'specific' threat against a non-skymarshal carrying airline by two different governments (yes, I know the leader of one government is so far up the arse of the leader of the other one, but that's irrelevant).
These are the same two governments that went to war, invaded another sovereign state, and killed many people based upon 'evidence' of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Evidence which is, apparently, non-existant.
So why should we now believe that the Intellegence organisations of both countries have now got it right when they have (so far) failed miserably over Iraq?
Just my thoughts.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that other BA flights ,apart from 223 ,and other carriers flights to IAD seem to be going more or less on time. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pompano Beach,FL- USA
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I posted a message about the BA/Other country security on another thread. I will find out what response (good or bad) it got.
But I have to say that Danny did put things in a different perspective after reading his post. At least he explained why there are many view points on this subject.
But I still don't think the solution for someone else to decide IF they will operate from their country to the US with air mashalls is to scream/piut and cancel the flight. DIfferent countries view things sifferent and even throughout Europe there are different view points.
Around the world differnt countries require differnet things that I can either accept or don't enter that country or get fired.
Some of these countries (I've been to 6 continents) go nuts over RSVM or non RSVM airplace whether there are 1 or 2 airplanes for 1,000 miles. Many countries and many controllers are more purists than others just like pilots.
South America has many one way airways and many restrictive altitudes that test the airplane you are flying. I can't remember exactly where it is other than the middle of South America,but somewhere you have to either get FL310 or FL390. NOTHING IN THE MIDDLE IS ACCEPTABLE. Do I think this is right?
I remember in CDG where everybody taxis counterclockwise. Why? It's their way.
LHR only clears one to land almost in the flare. Why? That's what works for them.
Some countries tell you to line up behind landing aircraft. They let the pilot make his own call as to when that is. SOme people feel this is dangerous. Well, other countries have controllers tell YOU when to get on the runway. Better?
Some countries X-ray bags inbound. I can think of Snatiago and Seoul in the old airport. India sometimes also. Do I think this is stupid for flight crews and do I resist? Yes. Can I do anything about it.
The US is simply saying, you'll do it our way or you won't come here. Your choice. Do I think every bright idea is that? Bright?
The truth is that there are countries more safe than others. Perhaps terrorist have no grudges against XXX country. But I hope that some are not so naive to believe that if a terrorist groups is going to find the path of least resistance. They will.
I also find it quite amusing of those that say, "we live with terroism and we are experienced at it,so its no big deal". It is if you or your country is the site of the terrorism.
Anyway, thank you Danny for at least 'splaining another view point.
But I have to say that Danny did put things in a different perspective after reading his post. At least he explained why there are many view points on this subject.
But I still don't think the solution for someone else to decide IF they will operate from their country to the US with air mashalls is to scream/piut and cancel the flight. DIfferent countries view things sifferent and even throughout Europe there are different view points.
Around the world differnt countries require differnet things that I can either accept or don't enter that country or get fired.
Some of these countries (I've been to 6 continents) go nuts over RSVM or non RSVM airplace whether there are 1 or 2 airplanes for 1,000 miles. Many countries and many controllers are more purists than others just like pilots.
South America has many one way airways and many restrictive altitudes that test the airplane you are flying. I can't remember exactly where it is other than the middle of South America,but somewhere you have to either get FL310 or FL390. NOTHING IN THE MIDDLE IS ACCEPTABLE. Do I think this is right?
I remember in CDG where everybody taxis counterclockwise. Why? It's their way.
LHR only clears one to land almost in the flare. Why? That's what works for them.
Some countries tell you to line up behind landing aircraft. They let the pilot make his own call as to when that is. SOme people feel this is dangerous. Well, other countries have controllers tell YOU when to get on the runway. Better?
Some countries X-ray bags inbound. I can think of Snatiago and Seoul in the old airport. India sometimes also. Do I think this is stupid for flight crews and do I resist? Yes. Can I do anything about it.
The US is simply saying, you'll do it our way or you won't come here. Your choice. Do I think every bright idea is that? Bright?
The truth is that there are countries more safe than others. Perhaps terrorist have no grudges against XXX country. But I hope that some are not so naive to believe that if a terrorist groups is going to find the path of least resistance. They will.
I also find it quite amusing of those that say, "we live with terroism and we are experienced at it,so its no big deal". It is if you or your country is the site of the terrorism.
Anyway, thank you Danny for at least 'splaining another view point.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not usually one to stoop to this level, but im going to anyway!
The only two direct attacks on American soil have been Pearl Harbour and 9-11. Both of the attacks were caused by American arrogance and their belief that they are indestructable.
Britain (and the rest of Europe) has been dealing with terrorism for a very long time, and our security sevices are much better prepared to deal with this threat. Security at LHR (although there have been some publicised lapses) is generally of a very high standard, much better than that of the security of most US airports even now. In the past month I have flown in and out of JFK, IAD and SFO, and I can tell you that security at LHR is a hell of a lot better than at these US airports.
What really annoys me is the way the US are now trying to dictate security matters to us, when in comparison Britain and Europe are experts compared to them in this matter.
Britain and London especially has been dealing with terrorism for a long time, most notably with IRA. The Americans sent funding to the IRA, and now they want us to turn round and take orders from them on security issues?!
I am a strong believer that prevention is better than cure, and therefore I believe the best way to stop an attack is to stop the terrorists or whoever getting near the aircraft in the first place. If a terroist manages to get on board an aircraft, we have failed.
Ben
p.s. I'm not a great lover of our prime minister, but I do not think he is the lap dog that the yanks like us to think! I think he has a hell of a lot of control over bush, and actually restrains him quite a bit!
The only two direct attacks on American soil have been Pearl Harbour and 9-11. Both of the attacks were caused by American arrogance and their belief that they are indestructable.
Britain (and the rest of Europe) has been dealing with terrorism for a very long time, and our security sevices are much better prepared to deal with this threat. Security at LHR (although there have been some publicised lapses) is generally of a very high standard, much better than that of the security of most US airports even now. In the past month I have flown in and out of JFK, IAD and SFO, and I can tell you that security at LHR is a hell of a lot better than at these US airports.
What really annoys me is the way the US are now trying to dictate security matters to us, when in comparison Britain and Europe are experts compared to them in this matter.
Britain and London especially has been dealing with terrorism for a long time, most notably with IRA. The Americans sent funding to the IRA, and now they want us to turn round and take orders from them on security issues?!
I am a strong believer that prevention is better than cure, and therefore I believe the best way to stop an attack is to stop the terrorists or whoever getting near the aircraft in the first place. If a terroist manages to get on board an aircraft, we have failed.
Ben
p.s. I'm not a great lover of our prime minister, but I do not think he is the lap dog that the yanks like us to think! I think he has a hell of a lot of control over bush, and actually restrains him quite a bit!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Attempt to buy "flight simulator software" causes alarm
Sort of (sadly) sums up the current level of percieved threat in the US right now.
Basically an enquiry at a branch of Staples about an instrument based flight sim caused a visit by a state trooper.
Excerpt below:
Question about flight simulator brings visit from police
By VIRGINIA RAY
Recorder Staff
[Excerpt]
COLRAIN -- An innocent inquiry to a Staples store clerk about a computer
software program that teaches how to fly an airplane by instrumentation
brought a surprise visit this holiday season to a local family from the
state police.
"At first, I felt a little angry and violated" about someone telling
authorities about her inquiry, said Julie Olearcek, a 15-year Air Force
Reserve pilot. "But now that time has gone by, I realize it may take
someone like that, who's a little nervous, who may save the day."
Olearcek's husband, Henry, is also a flier, currently on active duty,
and frequently away from home these days.
About a week before Christmas, Olearcek said the couple's 10-year-old
son, who has flight simulation software and is keenly interested in
learning to fly like his parents, commented that he'd have to wait until
his dad retired to learn to fly by instruments. She went to Staples soon
after and took her son to the office supply store, where he looked
through the available software.
"He was disappointed because there was military stuff, but it was all
fighting stuff, so I asked the clerk, and he was alarmed by us asking
how to fly airplanes and said that was against the law," Olearcek said.
"I said I couldn't imagine that, but, because (the clerk) was a little
on edge ... I left." But "what saves us, is people are paying
attention," she said.
Basically an enquiry at a branch of Staples about an instrument based flight sim caused a visit by a state trooper.
Excerpt below:
Question about flight simulator brings visit from police
By VIRGINIA RAY
Recorder Staff
[Excerpt]
COLRAIN -- An innocent inquiry to a Staples store clerk about a computer
software program that teaches how to fly an airplane by instrumentation
brought a surprise visit this holiday season to a local family from the
state police.
"At first, I felt a little angry and violated" about someone telling
authorities about her inquiry, said Julie Olearcek, a 15-year Air Force
Reserve pilot. "But now that time has gone by, I realize it may take
someone like that, who's a little nervous, who may save the day."
Olearcek's husband, Henry, is also a flier, currently on active duty,
and frequently away from home these days.
About a week before Christmas, Olearcek said the couple's 10-year-old
son, who has flight simulation software and is keenly interested in
learning to fly like his parents, commented that he'd have to wait until
his dad retired to learn to fly by instruments. She went to Staples soon
after and took her son to the office supply store, where he looked
through the available software.
"He was disappointed because there was military stuff, but it was all
fighting stuff, so I asked the clerk, and he was alarmed by us asking
how to fly airplanes and said that was against the law," Olearcek said.
"I said I couldn't imagine that, but, because (the clerk) was a little
on edge ... I left." But "what saves us, is people are paying
attention," she said.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too mean to buy a long personal title
I reckon the terrorists are deliberately providing misleading info on the aviation front whilst all the time they're planning something spectacular totally unconnected to aviation!!!
