Wideroe Pilot Quits due to security checkpoint hassles
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right in the middle of the flight line was a nice shiny new Pilatus PC-12 on display - owned by the West Australian Police no less - and it had a clamp lock on the nosewheel
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They're following SOPs rigidly
What is allowed one day is not the next, ALL crew made to remove shoes/belts etc. when it should be one in three.
As crew we are aware of the DfT/Transec requirements, we know when they are not being applied consistently, yet when we question or (god forbid) object to haphazard, non-standard checking we're told it's for "Security" and we just have to accept it.
This is a service industry. If the crews are getting this p!ssed of, what must the pax be like? People will simply want to stop flying and that's not good for any of us.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UAE
Age: 62
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
United 93 and our now rediculous cockpit doors
Just watched a film about United 93 and it has spurred me to make a post regarding something I have felt for some time now.
With our rediculous cockpit doors how now would the pax overcome the hijackers. Answere. No chance.Once they gain access to the cockpit the pax would have absolutely no chance of overpowering them.
Lets face it.We all have to go out and take a leak and that would be the time for would be hijackers to storm the flightdeck.
It seems to me that our bullet proof,terrorist proof cockpit doors are of no use unless we have a further door or shutter protecting the cockpit any time we take a leak,This further door or shutter would not have to be bullet proof but just a delaying tactic so the crew member could return to the flight deck.
I'm just a normal Joe Soap captain flying the line in a small airline. Of course I'm sure my opinion doesn't count for anything despite the fact I have 12000 hours logged and am flying 27 years.
Better ask some security moron for his opinion, who specialises in hastling me everytime I go to work, rather than ask me my opinion.
After all. I am anly a pilot!
With our rediculous cockpit doors how now would the pax overcome the hijackers. Answere. No chance.Once they gain access to the cockpit the pax would have absolutely no chance of overpowering them.
Lets face it.We all have to go out and take a leak and that would be the time for would be hijackers to storm the flightdeck.
It seems to me that our bullet proof,terrorist proof cockpit doors are of no use unless we have a further door or shutter protecting the cockpit any time we take a leak,This further door or shutter would not have to be bullet proof but just a delaying tactic so the crew member could return to the flight deck.
I'm just a normal Joe Soap captain flying the line in a small airline. Of course I'm sure my opinion doesn't count for anything despite the fact I have 12000 hours logged and am flying 27 years.
Better ask some security moron for his opinion, who specialises in hastling me everytime I go to work, rather than ask me my opinion.
After all. I am anly a pilot!
Last edited by Captain Greaser; 20th Mar 2007 at 23:43. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in the wild blue yonder
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long list of security stupidities
No doubt they would take a set of nail clippers and a bottle of water off you as you pass the 'security' control.....
then a few minutes later you take control of a large aluminim can full of jet fuel, oxygen and other combustibles............and also a few large axes...and other assorted cutting instruments.
Lunatic...waste of time........
Only a politician could believe this is worthwhile
then a few minutes later you take control of a large aluminim can full of jet fuel, oxygen and other combustibles............and also a few large axes...and other assorted cutting instruments.
Lunatic...waste of time........
Only a politician could believe this is worthwhile
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: west of LTN
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having had searches more suited to being put in a cell, on occasions, and security checks at places where the ground staff actually recognise me and refrain from intimidation, l have to conclude that something important is missing.
bear 11`s "considered response" is good and l think VH-Cheer UP hit the "nail on the head" - no pun intended.
Same industry, same operation, same objective.
Same clearance airside.
As long as private enterprise works alongside government agencies with varying degrees of paranoia about litigation when things turn belly up (commercial losses as well) then we are stuffed.
Bone fide staff must have direct access but it will take big balls from the government to do it.
l won`t be holding my breath.
bear 11`s "considered response" is good and l think VH-Cheer UP hit the "nail on the head" - no pun intended.
Same industry, same operation, same objective.
Same clearance airside.
As long as private enterprise works alongside government agencies with varying degrees of paranoia about litigation when things turn belly up (commercial losses as well) then we are stuffed.
Bone fide staff must have direct access but it will take big balls from the government to do it.
l won`t be holding my breath.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez! How many times has it got to be said? Until profiling by trained profilers is adopted then you are going to see the farce continue.
The point should be to find intent in a person who want's to commit an act of violence rather than trying to spot the liquid or sharp object. There is an unlimited amount of sharp objects available once airside so what is the point?
You stop the individual with the intent. The current fashion amongst the DfT and the airports is to screen for sharps and liquids. It's dumb but you try getting those responsible for the decisions to own up?
Oh, and before the righteous fluffy brigade throw their "oh so predictable but ill informed" accusations that it's racist, perhaps you should understand that no one is advocating "racial profiling" but "psychological profiling". I won't go into the details on here so you can go and do your own research. It's proven to work and is is much more likely to prevent an attack than the current moronic searching for the ultimate nail clippers.
The point should be to find intent in a person who want's to commit an act of violence rather than trying to spot the liquid or sharp object. There is an unlimited amount of sharp objects available once airside so what is the point?
You stop the individual with the intent. The current fashion amongst the DfT and the airports is to screen for sharps and liquids. It's dumb but you try getting those responsible for the decisions to own up?
Oh, and before the righteous fluffy brigade throw their "oh so predictable but ill informed" accusations that it's racist, perhaps you should understand that no one is advocating "racial profiling" but "psychological profiling". I won't go into the details on here so you can go and do your own research. It's proven to work and is is much more likely to prevent an attack than the current moronic searching for the ultimate nail clippers.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: west of LTN
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, we know that the retired C of E vicar taking his grandchildren on holiday is no threat. l was stunned to be patted down by a dreadlocked cretin on my front and a full bearded (cut off square) prat feeling my arse. But l can`t say that.
Your irritation doesn`t help.
Best shut up and get on with it, l suppose.
Your irritation doesn`t help.
Best shut up and get on with it, l suppose.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read all the posts I think it is rather useless though justified in some cases to blame the screeners. They do their job and are paid for doing what they told to do rather than to use common sense. The latter would even intimidate their jobs.
However, the politicians who are responsible for these procedures are to blame. Their "no-exception-for anybody" decisions have created all the unpleasant situations many of us have encountered.
Why are there so many differences in security procedures in different areas? Of course Far East is the area which is most comfortable for pilots in terms of being respected while North America, Central America in particular and Europe are less pleasant. However, there are the different rules in these countries which make the difference.
In my judgement the solution could be a world wide standardization only, e.g. a world wide database with biometrical data such as eye scanning which identifies a crew member undoubtedly. Having properly identified there would be no need for crew members to undergo a screening at all which would be justified in my eyes due to the nature of our job.
To blame the screeners is useless as they are working like robots and hiding behind the rules.
However, the politicians who are responsible for these procedures are to blame. Their "no-exception-for anybody" decisions have created all the unpleasant situations many of us have encountered.
Why are there so many differences in security procedures in different areas? Of course Far East is the area which is most comfortable for pilots in terms of being respected while North America, Central America in particular and Europe are less pleasant. However, there are the different rules in these countries which make the difference.
In my judgement the solution could be a world wide standardization only, e.g. a world wide database with biometrical data such as eye scanning which identifies a crew member undoubtedly. Having properly identified there would be no need for crew members to undergo a screening at all which would be justified in my eyes due to the nature of our job.
To blame the screeners is useless as they are working like robots and hiding behind the rules.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny aka Capt Prune said:
Hear hear!
A friend has a daughter who is a very gifted classical violinist and frequent flyer. Every time she goes through security the violin (worth untold megabucks) sets off some alarm and gets rescreened for explosives. Probably 300 year-old varnish fumes, who knows?
Point is, she is not now, never has been, and never will be a threat to anyone. The time they spend on her they are missing the potential imposters among the cleaning crew taking a trolley of assorted who knows what out to an aircraft to conceal whatever in bins and pockets for accomplices to pick up later. Maybe.
What next, stripped naked and forced to "shower" before boarding? We all know how that one ends.
The situation has to change so instead of the "1984" version of security, where we are made to feel something horrible is happening to us just for our own welfare, we have targeted, insightful, sensible security. Profiling is just one key aspect of that. The business traveller routinely commuting between capital cities isn't going to suddenly go feral and sign up with a terrorist group. Like the aircrew, once the system "knows" that person, all that needs to be done is to check they really are who they say they are. All over, move on, catch some real crooks and leave the fare-paying punters with their Y-class misery.
Trouble is, the pollies have no idea how to address the situation. So instead we have to put up with this pathetic window-dressing approach. What we really need is genuine security, targeted at screening out those who are considerably more likely to be harmful or toxic to their fellow travellers.
Profiling. Bring it on. Now. Who cares if it's PC or not?
Until profiling by trained profilers is adopted then you are going to see the farce continue.
A friend has a daughter who is a very gifted classical violinist and frequent flyer. Every time she goes through security the violin (worth untold megabucks) sets off some alarm and gets rescreened for explosives. Probably 300 year-old varnish fumes, who knows?
Point is, she is not now, never has been, and never will be a threat to anyone. The time they spend on her they are missing the potential imposters among the cleaning crew taking a trolley of assorted who knows what out to an aircraft to conceal whatever in bins and pockets for accomplices to pick up later. Maybe.
What next, stripped naked and forced to "shower" before boarding? We all know how that one ends.
The situation has to change so instead of the "1984" version of security, where we are made to feel something horrible is happening to us just for our own welfare, we have targeted, insightful, sensible security. Profiling is just one key aspect of that. The business traveller routinely commuting between capital cities isn't going to suddenly go feral and sign up with a terrorist group. Like the aircrew, once the system "knows" that person, all that needs to be done is to check they really are who they say they are. All over, move on, catch some real crooks and leave the fare-paying punters with their Y-class misery.
Trouble is, the pollies have no idea how to address the situation. So instead we have to put up with this pathetic window-dressing approach. What we really need is genuine security, targeted at screening out those who are considerably more likely to be harmful or toxic to their fellow travellers.
Profiling. Bring it on. Now. Who cares if it's PC or not?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This article is from a couple of years ago courtesy of the Times. I kept it because it sums up the stupidity of random searches. Danny is right.
Martin Samuel, writing in today's Times, supports HRH: (edited)
Terrorists travel unmolested, while airport busybodies decide they must do security checks on harmless royalty
A NICE, EASY target, Prince Andrew. Come on, the man is a joke. So when he throws a regal tantrum at Melbourne airport after being asked to undergo a security check before departing for New Zealand, the press take aim faster than a Balmoral shooting party.
“Prince Pompous,” announced the Mail. “Very Idiotic Prince,” sneered the Mirror. You can imagine what is being said in Australia, a country that managed to turn a rugby match into class war two years ago. “Who does he think he is?”, exclaimed an affronted security worker. “The law is the law, no matter who you are,” intoned the spokesman for the Australian Republican Movement.
And three days after this silly spat, Bali went up again. Andrew, you see, was right; he was just right for the wrong reasons.
His security check, we are told, only took ten seconds. Yet multiply that by every other stupid, unnecessary, diversionary security check undertaken throughout the world and how many hours, days, weeks and months do you think are lost each year looking for completely the wrong people in completely the wrong place? Others subjected to well-targeted Australian security searches of late: Helen Clark, Prime Minister of New Zealand, and Sir Michael Somare, Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, who was made to remove his shoes. Still at large? Azahari Husin, also known as the Demolition Man, architect of four big terrorist atrocities in Asia, each aimed at least in part at Australian targets.
Prince Andrew is not too important to be searched; he is too unimportant. What are we doing giving princes the once-over, when active terrorists walk unmolested? Adhering to nothing more than a preposterous, half-baked, fake egalitarianism that in this case actually works against the common good. Please do not insult our intelligence by pretending that a man who spends every waking hour flanked by MI5 and Special Branch heavies could ever present a tangible terrorist threat.
“What makes him think he should be treated differently?” asked the dingbat from the Republican movement. Perhaps because, unlike just about everybody else passing through international borders each day, we know for a fact, 100 per cent, that he presents no danger whatsoever to society, unless he shanks one from the first tee.
There is something else about Andrew that is largely ignored. He has been in a war. This gives him the jump on 99.9 per cent of people who currently believe themselves to be in the advance party of the War on Terror, including glorified draft dodgers in suits in the White House and security staff at Melbourne airport. Andrew saw action aboard HMS Invincible in the Falklands in 1982 as a Sea King helicopter pilot in 820 Naval Air Squadron. He was part of the task force that sailed to the south Atlantic and directly engaged in anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare and Exocet missile decoy.
This appears to have placed him more at the sharp end of life and death conflict than the chap currently rifling through your wife’s vanity case in terminal one, looking for nail clippers.
And while minor royalty might take some beating in this field, there are, in my experience, few more pompous individuals than those engaged in the increasingly spurious business of airport security. Not one pinprick of doubt is allowed to permeate that elephantine hide of misplaced certainty.
The news that assorted al-Qaeda nut-bags, masterminds, suicide bombers and support networks have moved through airports from training camp to inner-city mosque without harassment does not faze them; the muffled explosions from Tube carriages and tourist spots raises not one question.
If the computer selects Diana Ross or Andrew Windsor at random, then Diana Ross or Andrew Windsor must be scrutinised. As if. As if this presents even a remote chance of an investigative breakthrough, as if this pointless pedantry can ever succeed in making the world safer.
“Everyone has to go through security screening,” said a Group 4 spokesman. Well, everyone should not have to, you dolt. Can’t you see that is the problem? This is far too serious to be weighed down with small-minded bureaucracy. Each second shaking down Prince Andrew in Melbourne was a second wasted. The same second it would take to send another nightclub or commuter train to kingdom come. Random searches shed random light on a subject far too significant to be treated this haphazardly.
The most spurious claim is that Prince Andrew is meant to set an example. Of what? Meek acceptance of a system that is so badly flawed it puts lives in danger? There are two possibilities. The first is that the Prince truly believes his royal bearing sets him apart, in which case he is twit, and an expensive one; the alternative is that, in a rare moment of golden insight, Air Miles Andy looked up from his tee-shot and saw the complete sham that is the front-line of the War on Terror. It could happen: on a golf course, you see, you get quite a lot of time to think.
Martin Samuel, writing in today's Times, supports HRH: (edited)
Terrorists travel unmolested, while airport busybodies decide they must do security checks on harmless royalty
A NICE, EASY target, Prince Andrew. Come on, the man is a joke. So when he throws a regal tantrum at Melbourne airport after being asked to undergo a security check before departing for New Zealand, the press take aim faster than a Balmoral shooting party.
“Prince Pompous,” announced the Mail. “Very Idiotic Prince,” sneered the Mirror. You can imagine what is being said in Australia, a country that managed to turn a rugby match into class war two years ago. “Who does he think he is?”, exclaimed an affronted security worker. “The law is the law, no matter who you are,” intoned the spokesman for the Australian Republican Movement.
And three days after this silly spat, Bali went up again. Andrew, you see, was right; he was just right for the wrong reasons.
His security check, we are told, only took ten seconds. Yet multiply that by every other stupid, unnecessary, diversionary security check undertaken throughout the world and how many hours, days, weeks and months do you think are lost each year looking for completely the wrong people in completely the wrong place? Others subjected to well-targeted Australian security searches of late: Helen Clark, Prime Minister of New Zealand, and Sir Michael Somare, Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, who was made to remove his shoes. Still at large? Azahari Husin, also known as the Demolition Man, architect of four big terrorist atrocities in Asia, each aimed at least in part at Australian targets.
Prince Andrew is not too important to be searched; he is too unimportant. What are we doing giving princes the once-over, when active terrorists walk unmolested? Adhering to nothing more than a preposterous, half-baked, fake egalitarianism that in this case actually works against the common good. Please do not insult our intelligence by pretending that a man who spends every waking hour flanked by MI5 and Special Branch heavies could ever present a tangible terrorist threat.
“What makes him think he should be treated differently?” asked the dingbat from the Republican movement. Perhaps because, unlike just about everybody else passing through international borders each day, we know for a fact, 100 per cent, that he presents no danger whatsoever to society, unless he shanks one from the first tee.
There is something else about Andrew that is largely ignored. He has been in a war. This gives him the jump on 99.9 per cent of people who currently believe themselves to be in the advance party of the War on Terror, including glorified draft dodgers in suits in the White House and security staff at Melbourne airport. Andrew saw action aboard HMS Invincible in the Falklands in 1982 as a Sea King helicopter pilot in 820 Naval Air Squadron. He was part of the task force that sailed to the south Atlantic and directly engaged in anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare and Exocet missile decoy.
This appears to have placed him more at the sharp end of life and death conflict than the chap currently rifling through your wife’s vanity case in terminal one, looking for nail clippers.
And while minor royalty might take some beating in this field, there are, in my experience, few more pompous individuals than those engaged in the increasingly spurious business of airport security. Not one pinprick of doubt is allowed to permeate that elephantine hide of misplaced certainty.
The news that assorted al-Qaeda nut-bags, masterminds, suicide bombers and support networks have moved through airports from training camp to inner-city mosque without harassment does not faze them; the muffled explosions from Tube carriages and tourist spots raises not one question.
If the computer selects Diana Ross or Andrew Windsor at random, then Diana Ross or Andrew Windsor must be scrutinised. As if. As if this presents even a remote chance of an investigative breakthrough, as if this pointless pedantry can ever succeed in making the world safer.
“Everyone has to go through security screening,” said a Group 4 spokesman. Well, everyone should not have to, you dolt. Can’t you see that is the problem? This is far too serious to be weighed down with small-minded bureaucracy. Each second shaking down Prince Andrew in Melbourne was a second wasted. The same second it would take to send another nightclub or commuter train to kingdom come. Random searches shed random light on a subject far too significant to be treated this haphazardly.
The most spurious claim is that Prince Andrew is meant to set an example. Of what? Meek acceptance of a system that is so badly flawed it puts lives in danger? There are two possibilities. The first is that the Prince truly believes his royal bearing sets him apart, in which case he is twit, and an expensive one; the alternative is that, in a rare moment of golden insight, Air Miles Andy looked up from his tee-shot and saw the complete sham that is the front-line of the War on Terror. It could happen: on a golf course, you see, you get quite a lot of time to think.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to pour another little cup of petrol on the fire.... Seems like you light have an ally in John Murphy MP in Australia. From the ABC this morning in Australia.
Grenade gets past airport security screening
It has been revealed an airport security failure allowed a man to fly from Los Angeles to Sydney with a grenade in his checked luggage.
After questioning from the Opposition, the Justice Minister has confirmed the incident took place last April and came to light when the passenger declared the grenade upon arrival in Sydney.
The grenade was found to be inert and had been purchased by the passenger as a souvenir.
American authorities have since been notified of the screening failure, but Labor MP John Murphy wants an explanation.
"Somehow or other a grenade has gone through undetected when every day around the world security agencies are picking up passengers for having scissors and nail clippers in their luggage," he said.
"I'm absolutely amazed and I'd like to know what the American authorities are doing about that."
It has been revealed an airport security failure allowed a man to fly from Los Angeles to Sydney with a grenade in his checked luggage.
After questioning from the Opposition, the Justice Minister has confirmed the incident took place last April and came to light when the passenger declared the grenade upon arrival in Sydney.
The grenade was found to be inert and had been purchased by the passenger as a souvenir.
American authorities have since been notified of the screening failure, but Labor MP John Murphy wants an explanation.
"Somehow or other a grenade has gone through undetected when every day around the world security agencies are picking up passengers for having scissors and nail clippers in their luggage," he said.
"I'm absolutely amazed and I'd like to know what the American authorities are doing about that."
The current (well, this week's) DfT ruling is that "half" of all screened pax have to remove their shoes. So how is this implemented ?
UK domestic round trip yesterday. Outward sector, one screening channel was taking shoes off, the other was not. Quite apparent when choosing which queue to join, if you looked for it.
Return flight, I asked shoes on or off. Screener looked down at my shoes and said "off". I asked why, I was told "it's because they are slip-ons and therefore easy". And this was true, colleague behing with laced shoes was not troubled.
DfT, you are absolute plonkers.
UK domestic round trip yesterday. Outward sector, one screening channel was taking shoes off, the other was not. Quite apparent when choosing which queue to join, if you looked for it.
Return flight, I asked shoes on or off. Screener looked down at my shoes and said "off". I asked why, I was told "it's because they are slip-ons and therefore easy". And this was true, colleague behing with laced shoes was not troubled.
DfT, you are absolute plonkers.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bordeaux, France
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a service industry. If the crews are getting this p!ssed of, what must the pax be like? People will simply want to stop flying and that's not good for any of us.
1) I avoid transiting the UK whenever possible now due to the more stringent hand luggage requirements.
2) We, as a Family no longer travel by air when visiting family in the UK - we will be driving and ferrying (or taking the club Robin if I can persuede Mrs SD..
) - Its just too much hassle to fly with a young child under todays security rules.3) The TGV is pretty good here.
Regards, SD..
Wrongstuff, thanks for posting that piece by Martin Samuel, it is so accurate. A quick search on him (Samuel) came up with this as well,
"The Met Police, in emergency situations, has a Gold Control and a Gold Commander. Beneath him is a Silver Commander. I’m not making this up. Maybe it goes all the way down to tin, like anniversaries. What do they think this is: Captain Scarlet? So what say we take Cobra, Gold Commanders, stupid slogans on the sides of police cars, random searches of people who could not possibly be terrorists, graded terror threats, coppers making self-serving speeches on Today and consign them all to the rubbish bin inside a black bag labelled: Stuff That Did Not Work (2001-05). Then we take all that manpower, brainpower, extravagance and effort and use it to put a sniffer dog at every station entrance. Then we scrap each bogus PR initiative and bonding exercise and put another dog on the platform. And take the ring-fenced money from motor offences to put Fido on each train, too. Then we can begin to find out what is and isn’t inevitable."
He really does have a grip on the farcical daily show that goes on around the world in the name of security, doesn't he.
"The Met Police, in emergency situations, has a Gold Control and a Gold Commander. Beneath him is a Silver Commander. I’m not making this up. Maybe it goes all the way down to tin, like anniversaries. What do they think this is: Captain Scarlet? So what say we take Cobra, Gold Commanders, stupid slogans on the sides of police cars, random searches of people who could not possibly be terrorists, graded terror threats, coppers making self-serving speeches on Today and consign them all to the rubbish bin inside a black bag labelled: Stuff That Did Not Work (2001-05). Then we take all that manpower, brainpower, extravagance and effort and use it to put a sniffer dog at every station entrance. Then we scrap each bogus PR initiative and bonding exercise and put another dog on the platform. And take the ring-fenced money from motor offences to put Fido on each train, too. Then we can begin to find out what is and isn’t inevitable."
He really does have a grip on the farcical daily show that goes on around the world in the name of security, doesn't he.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was early in the morning in Canada a few years after 9/11 and we were going thru security, with no one around I asked the screener why I should be checked. I pointed out that my security tag allows me to be on the restricted side of the airport, and that I had been checked by the RCMP, and CSIS and who knows how many others. Her repy was that they were pilots that crashed the planes. I told her no, it was terrorists that had hijacked the planes and flew them into the buildings. She thought about it for a few seconds, and with a surprised look exclaimed REALLY????.
My First Officer, was amazed at my self control he thought I should have yelled at her. I just replied, how do you argue with stupidity.
I see nothing has changed over the years.
Flyer
My First Officer, was amazed at my self control he thought I should have yelled at her. I just replied, how do you argue with stupidity.
I see nothing has changed over the years.
Flyer
The One Your Mother Warned You About
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Wherever they pay me
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to earlier posts about the intimacy of the searches carried out: I regularly fly with a lady P2 who is one of the funniest people it has ever been my pleasure to meet. Normally she passes on some humerous quip to me as we leave the nightmare of security behind. Two weeks ago we left security and dashed for the aircraft because the hold up had been longer than normal. Sitting in the cockpit awaiting pax she was quiet and subdued. It wasn't until we got to our hotel that night that she finally admitted she felt she had been sexually abused as she was searched that morning. She described the search and I agree with her it went way too far.
A formal complaint has been filed by our company with the airport involved. The searcher is still working (apparently not suspended during an investigation) Whenever our pilot flies now her colleagues make sure they can see her at all times during the search process. I have no reason to doubt this lady. She has been a great workmate for some time. The way her whole demenour changed that day makes me believe her even more. I may have my scissors/bottle of Evian/dignity removed daily but to use this ridiculous situation as a gropers charter makes it even worse.
FF
A formal complaint has been filed by our company with the airport involved. The searcher is still working (apparently not suspended during an investigation) Whenever our pilot flies now her colleagues make sure they can see her at all times during the search process. I have no reason to doubt this lady. She has been a great workmate for some time. The way her whole demenour changed that day makes me believe her even more. I may have my scissors/bottle of Evian/dignity removed daily but to use this ridiculous situation as a gropers charter makes it even worse.
FF
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stopped flying passenger aircraft recently and I'm now hauling cargo. I can't tell you how relieved I am that at least freight dogs are treated with more respect ( as far as my experience goes) as I can bring my toiletries etc. with me.
A European-wide 24h action-day might put the spotlight on our situation. Invite press and tell them our story.
We should all refuse to operate if not treated with the respect that officers require.
A European-wide 24h action-day might put the spotlight on our situation. Invite press and tell them our story.
We should all refuse to operate if not treated with the respect that officers require.
Folks,
RE. the WA Police at the Avalon Airshow, glad to see the WA Police, at least, were complying with DOTARS security rules for securing aircraft.
Now the massive non-compliance of some many aircraft owners, operators and exhibitors has been publicly revealed, I trust the DOTARS inspectors will crack down on such bare-faced public displays of contempt for those "rules" that are intended to keep us "alarmed but no alert" ( that's what the only fridge magnet I have says).
Seriously, during a recent stop in Alice Springs, in a small twin, I wandered off for a tinkles and a bottle of cold water, about 10 minutes. Needless to say, I had not bothered to fit the control lock, lock up the aircraft (OAT about 36C) and fit the wheel lock.
What a performance, and I was told I will be receiving a penalty notice. On that basis, the potential fine revenue at the Airshow could help pay off the national debt.
Tootle pip!!
RE. the WA Police at the Avalon Airshow, glad to see the WA Police, at least, were complying with DOTARS security rules for securing aircraft.
Now the massive non-compliance of some many aircraft owners, operators and exhibitors has been publicly revealed, I trust the DOTARS inspectors will crack down on such bare-faced public displays of contempt for those "rules" that are intended to keep us "alarmed but no alert" ( that's what the only fridge magnet I have says).
Seriously, during a recent stop in Alice Springs, in a small twin, I wandered off for a tinkles and a bottle of cold water, about 10 minutes. Needless to say, I had not bothered to fit the control lock, lock up the aircraft (OAT about 36C) and fit the wheel lock.
What a performance, and I was told I will be receiving a penalty notice. On that basis, the potential fine revenue at the Airshow could help pay off the national debt.
Tootle pip!!
From todays SUN (not my normal read I hasten to add).
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007130861,00.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007130861,00.html