The "Crew Security" Thread (merged)
The notice on entry to the security zone says something on the lines that security staff have the right to work without being verbally or physically abused
The notice really means:
Having paid an exhorbitant sum for the service you expect from us, you are now going to be delayed, harassed and shoved around by a bunch of cretins obeying our incompetent and invisible management's directives to the letter, which have been read very slowly to them because they have between them the IQ of a bar of soap.
If you react in any way other than subservient acquiescence to this appalling treatment, the cretins have been told to accuse you of being disruptive and summon the police to arrest you. DO NOT ARGUE OR RESIST.
The focus should be on sensible profiling of anyone who's operating crew on any commercial aircraft, be it flight deck or cabin crew - we are the people who have open access to the flight deck and no amount of security checking just prior to a flight is going to reduce the risk of a 'sleeper' having that access to the flight deck - hence the overriding importance of thorough profiling!
ClearfinalsNo1:
Don't be concerned.
1. The time to look at the screen is doubtless taking longer because the IT systems are running slower and slower as time passes.
2. In the "good old days" we wish to return you always got stamps in your passport each time in/out, and the officer could see a complete record of where you had been. Nobody got worried then.
Don't be concerned.
1. The time to look at the screen is doubtless taking longer because the IT systems are running slower and slower as time passes.
2. In the "good old days" we wish to return you always got stamps in your passport each time in/out, and the officer could see a complete record of where you had been. Nobody got worried then.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The amount of 'security' that pax should be subjected to will plainly fluctuate as does the 'threat level.
For aircrew, however, the sole purpose of contact with 'security' is to give the crew member whose family are being held hostage, a chance to express their concerns unobtrusively to someone who is in a position to help.
I can see no other reason to detain aircrew, who will soon have total control of the aircraft and all the pax anyway.
For aircrew, however, the sole purpose of contact with 'security' is to give the crew member whose family are being held hostage, a chance to express their concerns unobtrusively to someone who is in a position to help.
I can see no other reason to detain aircrew, who will soon have total control of the aircraft and all the pax anyway.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Essex
Age: 54
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brain Fade
For aircrew, however, the sole purpose of contact with 'security' is to give the crew member whose family are being held hostage, a chance to express their concerns unobtrusively to someone who is in a position to help.
firstly these minimum wage muppets in 'security' are in no postion to 'help' if anything real actually happened. For that you need the police, specifically the anti-terrorist mob or special branch.
Secondly this thin excuse is often wheeled out to justify the treatment that aircrew get. even the terrorist planners know that kidnapping a pilots family is a non starter. These are not rational 'sensible' bank robbers, these are murderous fanatical people, and cannot be trusted to keep their word.
Plus coercing someone to kill 200 people is a tad different to coercing them to steal a couple of million quid of their employers dosh that is insured and traceable anyway.
Anyway If that ever happened to me (i don't consider it even a slim threat, as I KNOW it will never happen) I would phone the police the minute I was out the front door.
next stupid excuse for this treatment?
anyone?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread drift..... years ago (20+ years ago) my father found himself consistently receiving more attention from customs/immigration when flying into Aus. Went on for a number of flights until he finally inquired as to what the bl@@dy hell was going on.
Transpired he'd SAT NEXT to a suspect of some sort on an earlier flight! So he'd been tagged for scrutiny until they were satisfied he was clean and not associated with the other chap.
So who knows what they have on you these days. Better declare that excess booze, eh?
Oh and brain fade - your username is unfortunately apt. That simply isn't the reason crew are forced through security. If it was actually the reason I think they would have told us by now. Clearly you are not a pilot...
Transpired he'd SAT NEXT to a suspect of some sort on an earlier flight! So he'd been tagged for scrutiny until they were satisfied he was clean and not associated with the other chap.
So who knows what they have on you these days. Better declare that excess booze, eh?
Oh and brain fade - your username is unfortunately apt. That simply isn't the reason crew are forced through security. If it was actually the reason I think they would have told us by now. Clearly you are not a pilot...
Last edited by Ron & Edna Johns; 5th May 2007 at 16:12. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good one today at LHR. Staff search has a sign up saying random shoe search. But the guy at the scanner gets very ar5ey when everyone is not taking their shoes off. He then shouts at someone "the sign says everyone should take off shoes" to which a few of us tell him it doesn't. Does the sign get changed? Does it hell! So I started my day a little annoyed that someone had shown me a bit of attitude for following what their sign said which was not what they wanted me to do??????
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sth. Pacific
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For aircrew however a solution needs to be found as suggested in the link above.
Just freeze all your liquids and gels before you come to work. They are now no longer liquids.
Keep 'em in one of those cooler-bags.
Good luck.... tell us how it went!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This nonsense has to stop.............
Passengers....yes, fine screen and security check them all you like but crew....No
In order to get an airside pass we have criminal background checks and all the correct ID and documentation. I have heard of no security threat that involves a pilot or crew.
I work for a cargo airline, 2 pilots on board, me and my captain, that's it. We have spent 12 hr nights before now with no drinking water on board, catering is not always available at freight aprons. This is absolutely unacceptable.
It is a violation of human rights if nothing else!
A one day strike for some point in the next six months is the only answer to make the DofT listen, I have written 2 letters and made 3 phone calls to no avail, the respone is always 'they are the rules, you must abide by them'. I'm all for the safest possible operations but common sense has flown out the window here.
ONE DAY INDUSTRY WIDE AIRCREW STRIKE.......maybe a pprune thread, all sign if in favour?
Passengers....yes, fine screen and security check them all you like but crew....No
In order to get an airside pass we have criminal background checks and all the correct ID and documentation. I have heard of no security threat that involves a pilot or crew.
I work for a cargo airline, 2 pilots on board, me and my captain, that's it. We have spent 12 hr nights before now with no drinking water on board, catering is not always available at freight aprons. This is absolutely unacceptable.
It is a violation of human rights if nothing else!
A one day strike for some point in the next six months is the only answer to make the DofT listen, I have written 2 letters and made 3 phone calls to no avail, the respone is always 'they are the rules, you must abide by them'. I'm all for the safest possible operations but common sense has flown out the window here.
ONE DAY INDUSTRY WIDE AIRCREW STRIKE.......maybe a pprune thread, all sign if in favour?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alex
I'm not defending 'security'.
Rather simply pointing out a simple truth.
"Always stop legitimate peeps entering a secure area, so that if they are a proxy bomb victim they can unobtrusively speak out"
Is that hard to follow?
Ron and edna
In a previous life I was in the (British) Army. We stopped EVERYONE so that if they were a proxy they could at least state the fact.
Several guys got a gong for driving said vehs away.
Take my point?
ps 7500 mostly jet. Flying since I was 15
I'm not defending 'security'.
Rather simply pointing out a simple truth.
"Always stop legitimate peeps entering a secure area, so that if they are a proxy bomb victim they can unobtrusively speak out"
Is that hard to follow?
Ron and edna
In a previous life I was in the (British) Army. We stopped EVERYONE so that if they were a proxy they could at least state the fact.
Several guys got a gong for driving said vehs away.
Take my point?
ps 7500 mostly jet. Flying since I was 15
Last edited by brain fade; 6th May 2007 at 01:46.
stellair,
Flying 12 hours without adequate hydration is
So either you fly 3 hour legs or you take on board sufficient fluids to maintain adequate hydration which is required to sustain mental alertness.
Flying 12 hours without adequate hydration is
- unsafe
- unhealthy
So either you fly 3 hour legs or you take on board sufficient fluids to maintain adequate hydration which is required to sustain mental alertness.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh brain fade,
The reason all crew go through security is because "they" are terrified that terrorists are going to grab some uniforms and mascarade as pilots. That's because there is no universal identification system, and currently no way to check the 'pilot' presenting is, in fact, bona fide. So rather than implement such a system the easiest way is just screen all pilots. Many of us have been arguing for years that there should be such a universal system to confirm this to be a legitimate pilot and the authorised pilot of flight XYZ.
And if a Capt's wife and kids really are being held hostage whilst Capt tries taking something through, WHY do you think he's more likely to "express his concerns" to security goons vs making a mobile phone call to the cops? If he hasn't made such a phone call then he's hardly likely to 'fess up to security - he'll probably just stay silent and hope to get through!
But mate, this is a tired, tired old conspiracy theory - usually dreamed up by clones in dark rooms who, frankly, seem to be 50% ex-military types who've lived in a different world! It is so improbable! This is not how these guys work - there is too big a risk of being foiled. Far more likely scenarios are exactly what those fellows in England are going to jail for, and the 7/7 chaps. CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS?
We are wasting untold manhours confiscating Captains' nail clippers, shaving cream and bottles or water when the resources should be focused elsewhere. In Australia airside workers (engineers, caterers, cleaners, etc) are still, yes STILL, going airside with just a cursory look at by security. They don't confiscate their water or any other liquids or even their weapons - because they are not metal screened! They go in the side gates still and it's "too expensive" to set up proper screening points at each gate.... Well, these people are arguably just as susceptible to your hostage conspiracy. So why isn't being addressed there?
So brain fade, where do you see the biggest threat? A freighter Captain wanting to take a bottle of water on a 12 hr flight? An airside worker going to play with an aircraft unscreened? Or perhaps some disgruntled radical youths building a fertiliser bomb and driving a van - unscreened - into a shopping centre carpark?
Where's the biggest threat, mate?!
My argument as presented here is disjointed and circular, because frankly, I'm too frustrated with insane attitudes like yours to spend anymore time re-writing it! Virtually all professional pilots agree with me and have had a gutful of insulting, ineffectual "security" measures being imposed on us. Not one single pilot has been caught. Meanwhile our side gates, our shopping centres, our train stations, our beaches, our main streets continue to be wide open because of narrow minded thinking, such as yours.
You're welcome to the last word, mate, because frankly you are not the bloke I need be arguing with to change things!
The reason all crew go through security is because "they" are terrified that terrorists are going to grab some uniforms and mascarade as pilots. That's because there is no universal identification system, and currently no way to check the 'pilot' presenting is, in fact, bona fide. So rather than implement such a system the easiest way is just screen all pilots. Many of us have been arguing for years that there should be such a universal system to confirm this to be a legitimate pilot and the authorised pilot of flight XYZ.
And if a Capt's wife and kids really are being held hostage whilst Capt tries taking something through, WHY do you think he's more likely to "express his concerns" to security goons vs making a mobile phone call to the cops? If he hasn't made such a phone call then he's hardly likely to 'fess up to security - he'll probably just stay silent and hope to get through!
But mate, this is a tired, tired old conspiracy theory - usually dreamed up by clones in dark rooms who, frankly, seem to be 50% ex-military types who've lived in a different world! It is so improbable! This is not how these guys work - there is too big a risk of being foiled. Far more likely scenarios are exactly what those fellows in England are going to jail for, and the 7/7 chaps. CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS?
We are wasting untold manhours confiscating Captains' nail clippers, shaving cream and bottles or water when the resources should be focused elsewhere. In Australia airside workers (engineers, caterers, cleaners, etc) are still, yes STILL, going airside with just a cursory look at by security. They don't confiscate their water or any other liquids or even their weapons - because they are not metal screened! They go in the side gates still and it's "too expensive" to set up proper screening points at each gate.... Well, these people are arguably just as susceptible to your hostage conspiracy. So why isn't being addressed there?
So brain fade, where do you see the biggest threat? A freighter Captain wanting to take a bottle of water on a 12 hr flight? An airside worker going to play with an aircraft unscreened? Or perhaps some disgruntled radical youths building a fertiliser bomb and driving a van - unscreened - into a shopping centre carpark?
Where's the biggest threat, mate?!
My argument as presented here is disjointed and circular, because frankly, I'm too frustrated with insane attitudes like yours to spend anymore time re-writing it! Virtually all professional pilots agree with me and have had a gutful of insulting, ineffectual "security" measures being imposed on us. Not one single pilot has been caught. Meanwhile our side gates, our shopping centres, our train stations, our beaches, our main streets continue to be wide open because of narrow minded thinking, such as yours.
You're welcome to the last word, mate, because frankly you are not the bloke I need be arguing with to change things!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: dorset
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brain fade
assuming the idea of 'proxy bomb victim' isn't a joke why in god's name would the current situation make any difference to that particular plot? if the idea is to force aircrew to destroy their own aircraft then you wouldn't need to arm them would you?
Infiltrating any of the relatively low paid ground crew or security jobs would be the easiest way of getting at an aircraft, a situation being made easier by the large numbers of people being recruited to man staff the 'security' system.
Anyway, my personal experience; I am a uk air traffic controller, arrive at work for shift recently,not allowed to bring in any drink, nor any liquids,butter etc to cook my meals with. As it turns out my first two hour radar stint is very busy. After this i have only tap water to drink in the tower building. Company provides no alternative. in my half hour break i just have time to walk , airside, to the terminal restaurant where i can buy a limited selection of pricey drinks and make it back to the tower before controlling again.I have been made aware that the drinks supplied to the airside restaurant are usually not checked, only some random scans take place.I feel incensed by this, i am trusted to make many decisions whilst controlling that have a direct effect on aircraft safety yet i can't be trusted with liquid. Further , the restrictions are useless anyway if not everythiung is checked.
I just hope that the first aircraft in an incident caused by a stressed pilot or controller or both has dft staff has passengers.
At the moment i feel like refusing to work as if i can not be trusted with liquids to drink or cook with then why shoul i be trusted in front of a radar screen?
assuming the idea of 'proxy bomb victim' isn't a joke why in god's name would the current situation make any difference to that particular plot? if the idea is to force aircrew to destroy their own aircraft then you wouldn't need to arm them would you?
Infiltrating any of the relatively low paid ground crew or security jobs would be the easiest way of getting at an aircraft, a situation being made easier by the large numbers of people being recruited to man staff the 'security' system.
Anyway, my personal experience; I am a uk air traffic controller, arrive at work for shift recently,not allowed to bring in any drink, nor any liquids,butter etc to cook my meals with. As it turns out my first two hour radar stint is very busy. After this i have only tap water to drink in the tower building. Company provides no alternative. in my half hour break i just have time to walk , airside, to the terminal restaurant where i can buy a limited selection of pricey drinks and make it back to the tower before controlling again.I have been made aware that the drinks supplied to the airside restaurant are usually not checked, only some random scans take place.I feel incensed by this, i am trusted to make many decisions whilst controlling that have a direct effect on aircraft safety yet i can't be trusted with liquid. Further , the restrictions are useless anyway if not everythiung is checked.
I just hope that the first aircraft in an incident caused by a stressed pilot or controller or both has dft staff has passengers.
At the moment i feel like refusing to work as if i can not be trusted with liquids to drink or cook with then why shoul i be trusted in front of a radar screen?
Psychophysiological entity
Much of what is happening is your fault. Sorry, that's the way I feel. I went out on a limb years ago fighting this bullsh1t, and got little but the sucking of teeth from my colleagues.
It grieves me to see the amount of stress and plain suffering...yes, suffering, that this madness is causing some crews, engineers and ATC workers.
Why do you let it happen?
I think that it's the quasi-military nature of the industry that has caused this situation to persist. A long history of taking orders. I have always been against militant unions, but this madness would never happen in a factory.
Professionalism is just a word...crews are not treated as professionals. You had your chance...and blew it. It's easy to see why. In the late 60s, crews were asked if they thought they should carry their ‘status' to the outside world. i.e. be called Captain instead of Mr. Etc. It got a resounding NO. One of my captains said. "I think it's a trade, not a profession." Okay, that was his vote, but the man that said pilots would one day be equal to carriage drivers, wasn't far wrong. Carriage drivers is a clue to how long ago that was said. (From the Log c 1968)
Some time ago I suggested that radical action would only hurt the airline and its investors, and that the main trust should be against the people that are making these bizarrely wrong policies.
Now I'm not sure.
An airline that lets its crews fly without fresh water and basic food should be prosecuted. It is counter to flight safety. Therefor, to take action that may hurt them is no longer out of bounds. They need to do far, far more to defeat this madness than they are doing. They pay huge amounts to the airports...surely they have some say it how things should be done.
I am totally convinced that much of what is happening is caused by these ‘security' staff members gaining some kind of perverse pleasure by making professionals jump through ever more ridiculous hoops. You may think that this is too far fetched, but I'm all too aware of the extremes of behavior some people will go to if their lives have not met their expectations. Human nature is consistently inconsistent.
If a professional aircrew member has to disrobe / de-shoe, fine, but then there should be a full account of the reasoning behind the search, in writing to the company involved. The norm should be pre-vetted clear passage with everything packed into their flight bags that God intended.
It grieves me to see the amount of stress and plain suffering...yes, suffering, that this madness is causing some crews, engineers and ATC workers.
Why do you let it happen?
I think that it's the quasi-military nature of the industry that has caused this situation to persist. A long history of taking orders. I have always been against militant unions, but this madness would never happen in a factory.
Professionalism is just a word...crews are not treated as professionals. You had your chance...and blew it. It's easy to see why. In the late 60s, crews were asked if they thought they should carry their ‘status' to the outside world. i.e. be called Captain instead of Mr. Etc. It got a resounding NO. One of my captains said. "I think it's a trade, not a profession." Okay, that was his vote, but the man that said pilots would one day be equal to carriage drivers, wasn't far wrong. Carriage drivers is a clue to how long ago that was said. (From the Log c 1968)
Some time ago I suggested that radical action would only hurt the airline and its investors, and that the main trust should be against the people that are making these bizarrely wrong policies.
Now I'm not sure.
An airline that lets its crews fly without fresh water and basic food should be prosecuted. It is counter to flight safety. Therefor, to take action that may hurt them is no longer out of bounds. They need to do far, far more to defeat this madness than they are doing. They pay huge amounts to the airports...surely they have some say it how things should be done.
I am totally convinced that much of what is happening is caused by these ‘security' staff members gaining some kind of perverse pleasure by making professionals jump through ever more ridiculous hoops. You may think that this is too far fetched, but I'm all too aware of the extremes of behavior some people will go to if their lives have not met their expectations. Human nature is consistently inconsistent.
If a professional aircrew member has to disrobe / de-shoe, fine, but then there should be a full account of the reasoning behind the search, in writing to the company involved. The norm should be pre-vetted clear passage with everything packed into their flight bags that God intended.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
qUOTE.
Anyway, my personal experience; I am a uk air traffic controller, arrive at work for shift recently,not allowed to bring in any drink, nor any liquids,butter etc to cook my meals with. As it turns out my first two hour radar stint is very busy. After this i have only tap water to drink in the tower building. Company provides no alternative. in my half hour break i just have time to walk , airside, to the terminal restaurant where i can buy a limited selection of pricey drinks and make it back to the tower before controlling again.I have been made aware that the drinks supplied to the airside restaurant are usually not checked, only some random scans take place.I feel incensed by this, i am trusted to make many decisions whilst controlling that have a direct effect on aircraft safety yet i can't be trusted with liquid. Further , the restrictions are useless anyway if not everythiung is checked.
It is just getting out of control, I just hope that you guys or the airline guys go on strike over it I would definetely support it. (I´m in Exec-aviation, 4 guy ops and a strike would put me out of work most likely)
I just wonder what any member of parliament would say if denied to have their own drinks for a whole shift? (what work do they anyhow?)
As one that has an airside pass also for my car, I bring in "Liquids" almost by the ton - our catering. BUT when I pass the security checkpoint - got to get out of the car and walk to a screening point about 5 meters from said car - I´m not allowed to have more than a litre...
I´m german and my licence is with the german authority. This means that I have to ask to get a socalled "ZÜP", a screening by all secret and criminal services in Germany, every 2 years. Then, if there is a record, a bloke at the "competent" authority can deny the renewal just because he feels like it. You are not told what the problem is apparently (wasn´t revoked yet - luckily). There is a way of fighting it, buts its a legal battle that can take years.
Now, if you are from, say, Luxembourg, and you did an ATP in germany, you are NOT asked to have that sort of screening.
This hole scheme was introduced by the former minister of internal affairs, Mr.Otto Schily, who just happened to be on of the lawyers for the RAF, the terrorist group that acted in germany mainly in the 70´s and 80´s, killed several people by bombing and shooting.
When I think about the morons that do things like that to me, albeit by law they are sworn in to protect me and my freedom, I´m getting...
Anyway, my personal experience; I am a uk air traffic controller, arrive at work for shift recently,not allowed to bring in any drink, nor any liquids,butter etc to cook my meals with. As it turns out my first two hour radar stint is very busy. After this i have only tap water to drink in the tower building. Company provides no alternative. in my half hour break i just have time to walk , airside, to the terminal restaurant where i can buy a limited selection of pricey drinks and make it back to the tower before controlling again.I have been made aware that the drinks supplied to the airside restaurant are usually not checked, only some random scans take place.I feel incensed by this, i am trusted to make many decisions whilst controlling that have a direct effect on aircraft safety yet i can't be trusted with liquid. Further , the restrictions are useless anyway if not everythiung is checked.
It is just getting out of control, I just hope that you guys or the airline guys go on strike over it I would definetely support it. (I´m in Exec-aviation, 4 guy ops and a strike would put me out of work most likely)
I just wonder what any member of parliament would say if denied to have their own drinks for a whole shift? (what work do they anyhow?)
As one that has an airside pass also for my car, I bring in "Liquids" almost by the ton - our catering. BUT when I pass the security checkpoint - got to get out of the car and walk to a screening point about 5 meters from said car - I´m not allowed to have more than a litre...
I´m german and my licence is with the german authority. This means that I have to ask to get a socalled "ZÜP", a screening by all secret and criminal services in Germany, every 2 years. Then, if there is a record, a bloke at the "competent" authority can deny the renewal just because he feels like it. You are not told what the problem is apparently (wasn´t revoked yet - luckily). There is a way of fighting it, buts its a legal battle that can take years.
Now, if you are from, say, Luxembourg, and you did an ATP in germany, you are NOT asked to have that sort of screening.
This hole scheme was introduced by the former minister of internal affairs, Mr.Otto Schily, who just happened to be on of the lawyers for the RAF, the terrorist group that acted in germany mainly in the 70´s and 80´s, killed several people by bombing and shooting.
When I think about the morons that do things like that to me, albeit by law they are sworn in to protect me and my freedom, I´m getting...
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Water Pistols?
Dunno if the Insecurity Staff would see the funny side, tho'.
I'm all for a strike this summer....and I think the crews will comply.
I'm all for a strike this summer....and I think the crews will comply.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: England
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loose Rivet one of the most lucid threads I have seen on this subject to date. Chaps take heed to what he is saying moaning about it will not achieve anything!
I find it most satisfying when one of these plongers has a go i.e. their rude I call for the supervisor and file a complaint. I have one individual now that won’t come anywhere near me which suits me fine as she is an utterly unpleasant individual. If the nature of my experience even slightly raises my blood pressure I also file a CHIRPS report. They are very interested in this subject and you will not be wasting their time. The more reports they get the more they can do for us at a level we as individuals could never achieve.
THIS IS A FLIGHT SAFETY ISSUE that is the point we should be pushing before we have another Staines!
I find it most satisfying when one of these plongers has a go i.e. their rude I call for the supervisor and file a complaint. I have one individual now that won’t come anywhere near me which suits me fine as she is an utterly unpleasant individual. If the nature of my experience even slightly raises my blood pressure I also file a CHIRPS report. They are very interested in this subject and you will not be wasting their time. The more reports they get the more they can do for us at a level we as individuals could never achieve.
THIS IS A FLIGHT SAFETY ISSUE that is the point we should be pushing before we have another Staines!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Niknak
How about this: Every male muslim between the ages of 16 - 60 gets screened and stopped while the rest of us get left in peace?
Too non PC or just too sensible?
Ron & Edna Johns are speaking alot of sense
The most striking thing about the vast majority of posts here, all posted by the oh so knowlegable "experts" , is that none of you have produced a solution to the problem of preventing terrorism incidents.
The one thing I can guarantee is that, without exception, you'd all be squealing like stuck pigs and running to your ambulance chasing lawyers if the rules were relaxed and your flight was caught up in any type of incident.
The one thing I can guarantee is that, without exception, you'd all be squealing like stuck pigs and running to your ambulance chasing lawyers if the rules were relaxed and your flight was caught up in any type of incident.
Too non PC or just too sensible?
Ron & Edna Johns are speaking alot of sense